Don’t Surrender To Do-Somethingism On Guns

Law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions.

Before we even knew how the killer of 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, had obtained his guns, Chris Murphy was engaging in his customary performative emotionalism on the Senate floor, literally begging Republicans to “compromise.”

Compromise on what exactly? Murphy has never once offered a single proposal that would have deterred any of these mass shooters. Literally minutes after his routine, Murphy was asked about the obvious mental illness prevalent among most of these shooters. “Spare me the bullsh-t about mental illness,” the Connecticut senator responded, “ripping” the GOP. “We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world.” That’s how serious he is about compromise.

Whether America is more prone to mental illness or not, these incidents are almost exclusively perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious anti-social behavior. All of them break a slew of existing laws. All of them have either obtained guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others or written insane, violent manifestos. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person – most often a peer – knew about their plan.”

Rather than focusing on these tangible entry points for potentially useful legislation, instead of proposing ideas on better identifying shooters before they act, instead of thinking about how schools could be structurally safer, instead of debating the efficacy of putting more cops in schools — and none of these are panaceas, mind you — Senate Democrats were busy dunking on Republicans for failing to support bills that have absolutely zero to do with mass shootings.

Chuck Schumer planned to introduce H.R. 8, an expanded background check bill, and H.R. 1446, a bill that would close the alleged “Charleston Loophole” (before he realized it wouldn’t be politically expedient.) “Alleged” because Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015, got a clean background check, not because of any “loophole,” but because local prosecutors had failed to respond to the FBI’s request for information. It was a case of human error, or negligence. So maybe Democrats should be promoting a “law-enforcement-should-do-its-job” bill. Because all “universal” background checks do is stop friends and families from gifting guns. Straw purchases are already illegal, as Schumer, Pelosi, and Murphy already know. And passing expanded background checks after a school shooting is tantamount to demanding stricter drivers tests after a hit and run.

Democrats, obsessed with largely irrelevant issues like AR-15s and “universal background checks,” are largely living in the early 1990s. Joe Biden’s address to the nation consisted of a litany of hackneyed talking points he’s been regurgitating for decades now — including that transcendently stupid joke about deer in Kevlar. “As a nation, we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden said — again.

Democrats love to hammer the strawman “gun lobby” because they don’t want to openly attack tens of millions of gun owners. The NRA, whose power has significantly diminished over the past decades, could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t alter gun policy one bit. Either another organization would emerge — probably a more rigid one — or gun owners and Second Amendment advocates (we’re in the midst of the largest expansion of gun ownership in American history) would continue voting for politicians who oppose restrictions aimed at peaceful gun ownership.

Meanwhile, Republicans will have to deal with a barrage of preposterous smears. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

This was indicative of the sort of demented accusation thrown around these days. One suspects liberals who take to the internet to accuse Republicans of abetting infanticide aren’t really interested in compromise. Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who champions laws that empower people to terminate the lives of the viable unborn, I don’t know of a single Republican who supports the gunning down of elementary school children.

Indeed, law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions. Nor is there any reason for them to surrender their right to self-defense so that Chris Murphy, who, evidenced in many of his comments, is only interested in incrementally limiting gun ownership. That’s his right, of course. He should try and repeal the Second Amendment. Until then, however, Democrats interested in genuine compromise may want to offer realistic, productive, and germane ideas, rather than using another horrific tragedy to dunk on their political opponents.

We need gun rights because men aren’t angels

Being an advocate for individual rights and civil liberties can be difficult. When terrorists attack, when the economy fails, when a pandemic strikes, and yes, when evil visits schools , the natural instinct is to demand security above all else.

So, after each tragedy, I easily understand the reaction that soon fills my social media feeds: “We have to do something. There should be laws restricting guns so they don’t get in the hands of these deranged murderers.”

The logical impulse for those of us who defend private gun ownership is to avoid such discussions altogether, to let the passions settle. But on the contrary, it’s more important than ever to present our position with clear-eyed resolve.

Even against the backdrop of each latest tragedy, I still support the fundamental right to armed self-defense. Especially in an imperfect world where madness abounds, I oppose policies that would restrict legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

I say this despite having grown up in Canada and never owned a gun. I’ve shot handguns and rifles about a dozen times at friends’ invitations but have never gone hunting. For about a decade before moving to the Virginia suburbs, I lived in Washington, D.C., where, despite the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller, it’s still hard to obtain a firearm and near impossible to carry one legally. So I hope you can accept that I’m not a “gun nut.”

But you don’t have to be crazy about guns to recognize that no law could make the 400 million firearms in America disappear. Even making it illegal to own a gun wouldn’t prevent a criminal or madman from carrying out the malevolent deed to which he has committed himself. Robust policies to prevent legal gun ownership only translate to guns being overwhelmingly possessed by those willing to break the law — that is, criminals.

Continue reading “”

Written after the Parkland School shooting, but still applicable today

Israel Has Only Had 2 School Attacks in 44 Years, Here’s How They Make Sure Their Kids Are Safe

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting that claimed 17 lives last week, there has been a renewed debate surrounding gun control and children’s safety, leading some to make a comparison to the changes Israel made in response to a terror attack more than four decades ago.

In 1974, Palestinian terrorists took over the Netiv Meir Elementary School in what has been called the “Ma’alot Massacre,” which left 22 children dead and many others injured.

The attack forced Israel to come up with a solution in order to prevent such a situation from ever happening again. The nation requires its schools to have a security system, and that policy is still going strong after 40 years.

The results are clearly evident, as there have only been two successful attacks at Israeli schools since 1974, according to Dr. Ted Noel, writing in American Thinker. Noel wrote that “in both cases, the bad guys were killed by armed teachers.”

According to Red State, Israel’s Ministry of Education funds school security, which ranges from shelters and fences to armed and trained guards at every gate.

To take it a step further, Israel also prepares its students and teachers for the slight chance a gunman does get through security by teaching them to be proactive in times of terror by barricading a door or sensing the ripe opportunity to get away safely.

The guards on the doorsteps of Israel’s schools are also trained to look for any suspicious activity, which usually deters anyone with ill intent from entering in the first place.

That added layer of protection, argues Noel, is a proactive step in shielding children from the gunman. Once the shooters are past school gates, the damage is irreversible and quick to happen since any and all faculty and students immediately become targets.

“The Israelis saw this and got busy,” Noel wrote. “They knew that the vast majority of terror attacks are stopped not by police, but by armed civilians.”

“So they started training teachers in firearms use,” he added. “Those teachers took out the bad guys in the two incidents since the Ma’alot Massacre.”

Noel wrote that once a shooter is no longer in a “free fire zone,” the situation — and the possible outcome — is likely to change, as he becomes a potential target.

“On top of that, he doesn’t know which of the staff might be ready to shoot, or where they might be coming from,” Noel said. “In short, only an idiot would try to shoot up a school with a trained staff of shooters.”

This sentiment was echoed by CNN‘s Steve Cortes, who suggested that guns may not be the problem in the U.S. as much as America’s lack of security when it comes to its children. Cortes compared Wednesday’s shooting not just with Israel, but a disaster that didn’t involve any bullets whatsoever.

“Since the awful Our Lady of the Angels elementary school fire of 1958, which killed 92 students and 3 nuns, there has not been a large casualty school fire in America,” Cortes wrote. “Why? Because we took myriad precautions since then: better fire exits, more extinguishers and sprinklers, routine fire drills, etc.”

“Water squelches a fire,” he added. “And only a gunman, I would argue, can stop another gunman.”

The recent conversation around gun control suggests that an added layer of protection would not only improve school security but also prevent the government from infringing on the Second Amendment, as well as prove that guns aren’t necessarily the problem — people are.

Cortes added to this idea when he argued that stricter gun control laws have failed the world, as seen in the 2015 Paris Bataclan nightclub attack and numerous other incidents, as those who wish harm upon others will always find a way to do so.

“Evildoers, by definition, do not respect our rules and will find ways to skirt them,” Cortes added, suggesting the only sure-fire way to combat these horrific acts is to improve school security and put America’s children first.

“Let’s value our children like the treasure they are and guard them accordingly,” he said. “How? Let’s start with key cards, fences, entry checks, biometric scanners, and — yes — armed guards, and a lot of them.”

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —St George Tucker

Firearm Stocks Soar Over Fears Of New Gun-Control Laws

Shares of gun and ammunition companies jumped Wednesday over speculation of new gun control laws in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific mass shooting that killed at least 19 children and two teachers at a Texas elementary school. Investors anticipate increased sales ahead of calls for stricter gun laws by Democrats.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Smith & Wesson Inc. and Vista Outdoors Inc. were both up around 10%, American Outdoor Brands Inc. +6.5%, Sturm Ruger & Co. +5.5%, and Ammo Inc. +5%.


Gun makers’ shares typically rise when Democrats call for stricter gun control measures after mass shootings because people buy on the fear that more rules could make owning a gun harder or costlier. This was the case in 2012 when gun sales soared after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, at Sandy Hook school.

Search trends for “buy a gun” immediately erupted Tuesday evening after the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Even though Democrats and President Biden have vowed to get tough on guns, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) was out Wednesday, indicating new gun control measures would be hard to pass because there isn’t enough Republican support. Still, some fear the Biden administration will get tough on guns via executive fiat.

Flashback 30 Years: Guns Were in Schools… and Nothing Happened

This article was originally published in 2018.

The millennial generation might be surprised to learn that theirs is the first without guns in school. Just 30 years ago, high school kids rode the bus with rifles and shot their guns at high school rifle ranges.

After another school shooting, it’s time to ask: what changed?

Cross guns off the list of things that changed in thirty years. In 1985, semi-automatic rifles existed, and a semi-automatic rifle was used in Florida. Guns didn’t suddenly decide to visit mayhem on schools. Guns can’t decide.

We can also cross the Second Amendment off the list. It existed for over 200 years before this wickedness unfolded. Nothing changed in the Constitution.

That leaves us with some uncomfortable possibilities remaining. What has changed from thirty years ago when kids could take firearms into school responsibly and today might involve some difficult truths.

Let’s inventory the possibilities.

What changed? The mainstreaming of nihilism. Cultural decay. Chemicals. The deliberate destruction of moral backstops in the culture. A lost commonality of shared societal pressures to enforce right and wrong. And above all, simple, pure, evil.

Before you retort that we can’t account for the mentally ill, they existed forever.

Paranoid schizophrenics existed in 1888 and 2018. Mentally ill students weren’t showing up in schools with guns even three decades ago.

So it must be something else.

Those who have been so busy destroying the moral backstops in our culture won’t want to have this conversation. They’ll do what they do — mock the truth.

There was a time in America, before the Snowflakes, when any adult on the block could reprimand a neighborhood kid who was out of line without fear.

Continue reading “”

They learned the hard way from the 1994-2004 ban that resulted in guns that didn’t have the ‘dread features­™’ being made. They hated that and, despite Feinstein’s continued submission of her pet ban, realize that their best gambit is some vague statutory definition that will let a bunch of unelected bureaucraps write regulations to fit whatever the ‘eee-vil feature’ of the day is.

Biden ATF Nominee Says He Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban But Offers No Definition for Term

Steve Dettelbach says he does want to ban “assault weapons” even though he does not have a working definition of which guns would fall under such a ban.

The ATF director nominee told Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) he could not explain which guns he believed should be banned. In an exchange during his Wednesday confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dettelbach said he hasn’t attempted to define the category of guns he hoped to ban. Instead, he said Congress should decide on the definition.

“When I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons,” Dettelbach said. “I did not define that term. And I haven’t gone through the process of defining that term. That would only be for the Congress if it chose to take that up to do.”

Dettelbach’s hearing comes just a day after the horrific massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman murdered 19 children and two teachers. President Joe Biden (D.) has argued he needs a permanent ATF director to help institute his plan to reduce gun violence. The President has also called on Congress to institute a new assault weapons ban in the wake of the shooting.

Continue reading “”

Victim shoots Hammond teen after robbery and altercation; suspect’s mother also arrested

HAMMOND, La. (WVUE) – A 17-year-old was shot in the chest after getting into a struggle with a resident in what the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office is saying was an armed robbery.

District Attorney Scott Perrilloux’s office says that Ermonee “Money” Bell, 17, of Hammond, will be charged as an adult due to the severity of the crimes. Bell faces armed robbery, attempted first-degree murder, and one count of illegal carrying of a weapon.

TPSO Chief Jimmy Travis also said that Bell’s mother, Prince Felder Bell, 42, has been arrested and faces a charge of one count of improper supervision of a minor.

Travis says that the incident occurred on Sat., May 14 on Klein Road where they found Bell suffering from a gunshot wound on the scene. He was later sent to North Oaks Medical Center for care.

Deputies determined that during a robbery, the victim fought back and shot Bell.

Bell was booked into the Tangipahoa Parish Jail on Mon., May 23.

I’m coming to the conclusion that the shooter very possibly did not have shooting up the school on his ‘master plan’ but wrecking his pick-up and still trying to evade the police, ran across the School SRO and after wounding him -and with the Border Patrol and other officers now in foot pursuit – decided to hole up, ran into the school and barricaded himself in a classroom, shooting everyone up the classroom  (all those kids and teachers killed and wounded were in that one classroom).
More than once, I’ve run across those with the same questions I have. Where did he come up with the money to buy two ARs, the armor the mags and several hundred rounds of ammo? Supposedly one of the ARs is a Daniels Defense product and those are not cheap. So, we’re looking at a several thousand bucks worth of gear.
Did he shoot grandma because she discovered he had either stolen the cash or a credit card to buy the stuff and that set him off? He’s dead, but as granny survived and is recovering, we may get some answers

Well, blow me down

NEW: Texas DPS tells me there was in fact a school police officer on campus at Robb Elementary who exchanged gunfire with the shooter and the officer was shot & injured. That is when the shooter ran inside the school, barricaded himself in a class, & began killing.

Adding to this, TX DPS tells me three local officers were injured in the shooting, and as a result of the shootout with the school officer, the gunman dropped a bag of ammo he couldn’t bring inside. A responding Zavala County deputy engaged & had a weapon malfunction.

Guess What………….

Texas Shooter Was Known to Police

The 18-year-old man who murdered 19 children, two teachers and injured 17 others at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas Tuesday was known to the police for violent incidents with his family members. From The Washington Post:

Two months ago, he posted an Instagram story in which he screamed at his mother, who he said was trying to kick him out of their home, said Nadia Reyes, a high school classmate.

“He posted videos on his Instagram where the cops were there and he’d call his mom a b—- and say she wanted to kick him out,” Reyes said. “He’d be screaming and talking to his mom really aggressively.”

Ruben Flores, 41, said he lived next door to the family on Hood Street and tried to be a kind of father figure to Ramos, who had “a pretty rough life with his mom.”

As he grew older, problems at home became more acute and more apparent to neighbors, Flores said. He described seeing police at the house and witnessing blowups between Ramos and his mother.

Multiple people familiar with the family, including Flores, said Ramos’s mother used drugs, which contributed to the upheaval in the home. Ramos’s mother could not be reached for comment.

Before entering the school, the killer shot his grandmother in the face. She is being treated at a local hospital and remains in stable but critical condition. The killer was also known for cutting his face, shooting at people with a BB gun and being a loner. He is from North Dakota where he reportedly had a number of family issues.

Dana Loesch asks six questions that every politician should be asking after the Uvalde massacre

Dana Loesch Profile picture

Not a single politician is asking:
1) How did this murderer get into the school?
2) What security did this school have and how can we protect schools like we protect our concerts, banks, museums?
3) WHERE WERE HIS PARENTS AND THE ADULTS IN HIS LIFE?
4) How did he buy a handgun?
5) Did he pass a background check?
6) No one in his house saw what was going on?

These are the questions asked by people who not only want answers, but solutions.
The “gun lobby” didn’t head his household, the “gun lobby” didn’t neglect to monitor his behavior, the “gun lobby” didn’t neglect to secure the school, the “gun lobby” didn’t leave any doors unlocked, and the “gun lobby” didn’t tell him to murder anyone.

If you’re going to insanely blame someone for the actions of an 18 year-old criminal who lived at home and dropped out of school, START IN THE HOME and not the millions of law abiding people who carry every single day without issue.

This annual meeting at Davos is such fertile ground to display the hypocrisy of the elite

Actual Science™

Another School Shooting in a Place where teachers and staff were banned from carrying guns

A shooting at a Texas elementary school left [18] children and [2] teacher[s] murdered. While about 30% of school districts in Texas 2020 had armed teachers and staff, unfortunately, the Robb Elementary School in the Uvalde, Texas CISD doesn’t appear to be one of them. Their firearm regulations are detailed here. There are no provisions in their regulations for teachers or staff to carry.

The attack in Buffalo, New York illustrates once again how these murderers are attracted to places where the victims are not armed. In his manifesto, he wrote: “areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

Unfortunately, as we found in our 2019 study, despite 20 states allowing teachers or staff to carry guns, all the school shootings have occurred in schools that don’t allow them to carry. From the abstract of our study.

Continue reading “”

The ‘Mary Poppins of Disinformation’ Inadvertently Spills the Truth About What the Board Was Going to Do

Nina Jankowicz, the self-proclaimed “Mary Poppins of Disinformation” who was up until recently supposed to become the chief of Joe Biden’s Orwellian and ominous Disinformation Governance Board, can’t seem to stop herself from stepping on rakes. She has complained, now that the Board has been “paused,” that the Board itself was a victim of “disinformation,” which casts into question how effective it could possibly have ever been, if Jankowicz couldn’t even manage to counter false statements about what it was supposed to be doing. On Monday, she made matters even worse by remarking off-handedly that the Board was meant to do something that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had said it would not be doing: countering “disinformation” not just from foreign sources, but from Americans.

All right. So on Monday, Jankowicz would have us believe that she had hoped to spend her time as chief of the Disinformation Governance Board, which was part of the Department of Homeland Security, countering alleged disinformation that had “become entrenched in domestic politics.” Now, wait a minute. On May 1, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mayorkas, “Will American citizens be monitored?” Mayorkas’ answer was unequivocal and reassuring: “No. The board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries from the cartels and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.”

Jankowicz fired back with a claim that Bier and Blum were — you guessed it — spreading disinformation: “The thread you’re citing—which you’ve removed the initial context to—is in reference to a paper about *hostile state disinfo.* You can disagree w/ my assessment that it affects domestic politics/discourse, but the strategy described in the paper is the work I’m referring to.” Blum, however, was having none of it, responding, “I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘context’ means. Speaking of something being entrenched in domestic politics necessarily means combating domestic sources of disinformation, which is not what you were hired to do. Not to mention that by disabling replies to your tweets, you are preventing people from introducing any context that might show you are wrong or otherwise refute your claims, so please don’t lecture me on the best practices of informational discourse, Nina.”

To that, Jankowicz replied, “Nope, it doesn’t- Take a look at the recent work to prebunk [apparently she means pre-debunk] Russian narratives about Ukraine. It focused on raising awareness of the falsities coming out of the Kremlin so Americans wouldn’t buy into them. It worked. No ‘combating’ domestic sources anywhere in the mix.” But what if “domestic sources” had repeated these allegedly false narratives? What then?

Certainly the Disinformation Governance Board was going to spend all its time countering the lies of the evil Putin, and never, ever interfering with Americans or the freedom of speech at all. Or maybe Jankowicz offhandedly let slip that what Mayorkas had said about the Board’s scope wasn’t the whole story, and then hastily had to cover for what she had revealed. How can we ever know for sure? If only we had a Disinformation Governance Board to sort it all out for us! But in the meantime, Jankowicz’s longstanding taste for repeating genuine disinformation should lead us to regard her words with more than a little skepticism.

Crap-for-brains SloJoe’s brain has started skipping like a scratched record again, and he’s stuck on the belief that ‘deer guns’ can’t shoot through ballistic armor, when we know that all but a very few rifle rounds will go through kevlar like a hot knife through butter, and most plates as well. But that’s senile dementia for you.

Biden Talks of Deer in Kevlar Vests (Again), Floats ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

President Joe Biden addressed the shooting at Uvalde, Texas, Robb Elementary School, talking again about deer in Kevlar vests and suggesting an “assault weapons” ban.

Biden began his comments with a soft tone, talking about loss, then he erupted with, “As a nation, we have to ask when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby. When in God’s name are we going to do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?”

He went on to claim that there have been “900 incidents of gunfire reported on school grounds” since the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary school. He talked of shootings in theaters, churches, and grocery stores.

Biden said, “And don’t tell me we can’t have an impact on this carnage … When we passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

He criticized being able to walk into a gun store and buy more than one “assault weapon,” never mentioning that purchases from gun stores require background checks.

Biden said, “What in God’s name do you need an ‘assault weapon’ for except to kill someone? Deer aren’t running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God’s sake.”

He then criticized the firearm industry, claiming “gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively ‘assault weapons,’ which make them the most and largest profit.”

He called for Americans to stand up to the firearm industry.

On March 1, 2022, Breitbart News reported that Biden brought up deer in Kevlar vests during the State of the Union Address.

He called for a ban on “assault weapons” with “high-capacity magazines that hold up to 100 rounds,” and asked, “Do you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”