What We Didn’t Learn About Mass Murder

For every problem there is a quick, cheap, and simple solution.. that doesn’t work. A mentally ill person attacked a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We’ve been there before. Why are we attracted to solutions that fail time after time?

We love our children. Let’s put up a plastic sign that tells honest people to keep their guns outside our schools. It turns out that murderers are attracted by plastic signs that advertise disarmed victims. We would rather put up another sign than admit that criminals ignore our regulations.

We love to concentrate on our spiritual life at church. It is a rare moment to escape from the pressing cares of the world. Let’s pass a regulation so that honest citizens won’t bring their guns to church. It turns out that our honest neighbors were never a violent problem. Narcissistic mass-murderers look for disarmed victims. These murderers almost always attack “gun-free” zones. Why do we want to make it easier for violent murderers to find their victims?

We hate the idea that our laws don’t work. That is why we require mandatory background checks before someone may buy or own a firearm. Background checks don’t work on criminals because criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops any more than they buy their drugs at the drug store. Background checks look backwards, and mass-murder is a one-and-done carrier choice.

In hindsight, mass murderers look crazy. Unfortunately, we seldom see mental health professionals diagnose and report a violent patient. We have seen several mass-murderers who were receiving mental health counselling. Experience taught us that mental health treatment isn’t aways a cure. We shouldn’t count on talk-therapy to protect the people we love.

Maybe you once wanted to hurt your neighbors. I’ll bet that feeling left as quickly as it came. Since sober reflection works to stops most of us, we passed mandatory waiting periods in the hope that gun-control regulations would stop violent murderers. It turns out that violent murderers are not like us. They are persistent. They spend years pleasantly planning their violent revenge. Waiting periods don’t stop mass-murderers, but they do disarm honest people who have an urgent need for armed defense. I don’t want our laws to disarm people who flee domestic abuse.

Politicians sold us ammunition capacity restrictions in the hope that less capable murderers would lead to fewer victims. That doesn’t really work in practice. Our honest neighbors defend themselves with a firearm about 2.8-million times a year. The victims are usually the first responders who stop violence. Making the victim less capable doesn’t make us safer when a crazy man attacks a church. We’ve seen what honest defenders can do time after time.

We are wiser as we grow older. That was why we passed age restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership. It also turns out that young people are frequent victims of crime. Disarming the co-ed as she walks home from her job at the convenience store doesn’t make us safer. It does make her an easier victim, and that is what criminals look for.

We know what works. The mass-murderers told us what they wanted. Also, we conducted the experiment with armed defenders a few million times. We’ve never had a mass murderer attack a school that publicly posted a policy of armed school staff. If we want to stop the attack before it happens, then we take down the no-guns signs that attract mass murderers. In public spaces where our neighbors are allowed to defend themselves, we see them save the next dozen victims who would die if we waited for the police to defend us. Unfortunately, defending your school, your church, or your home is harder than passing a law and putting up a plastic sign.

We know how to save lives. Our doctor tells us to eat moderately and exercise regularly. Armed defense isn’t hard, and it works. Like following our doctor’s advice, the difficult news is that we have to do it every day.

September 1, 2025

History of Labor Day

ILGWU Local 62 marches in a Labor Day parade. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kheelcenter/5278801929/in/photolist-7iEKir-93teUn-93wkss-93v4aV-93wxPL-21eteK3-93wxK1-93wkjy-93tf1z-93wiWj-93wiSJ-93teFx-93wUPj-93teXv-93wYkh

 

Observed the first Monday in September, Labor Day is an annual celebration of the social and economic achievements of American workers. The holiday is rooted in the late nineteenth century, when labor activists pushed for a federal holiday to recognize the many contributions workers have made to America’s strength, prosperity, and well-being.

Early Adopters

A postcard shows a horse-drawn float. The caption reads: Labour Day Float, 1916.

Before it was a federal holiday, Labor Day was recognized by labor activists and individual states. After municipal ordinances were passed in 1885 and 1886, a movement developed to secure state legislation. New York was the first state to introduce a bill, but Oregon was the first to pass a law recognizing Labor Day, on February 21, 1887. During 1887, four more states – Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York – passed laws creating a Labor Day holiday. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 more states had adopted the holiday, and on June 28, 1894, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday.

McGuire v. Maguire: Who Founded Labor Day?

Black and white portraits of machinist Matthew Maguire and carpenter Peter McGuire.

Who first proposed the holiday for workers? It’s not entirely clear, but two workers can make a solid claim to the Founder of Labor Day title.

Some records show that in 1882, Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, suggested setting aside a day for a “general holiday for the laboring classes” to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.”

But Peter McGuire’s place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many believe that machinist Matthew Maguire, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday.

Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, New Jersey, proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York.

According to the New Jersey Historical Society, after President Cleveland signed the law creating a national Labor Day, the Paterson Morning Call published an opinion piece stating that “the souvenir pen should go to Alderman Matthew Maguire of this city, who is the undisputed author of Labor Day as a holiday.” Both Maguire and McGuire attended the country’s first Labor Day parade in New York City that year.

The First Labor Day

A sketch shows a large crowd gathered to watch a parade. The image is labeled September 5, 1882, New York City. The First Labor Day Parade.

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, 1883.

By 1894, 23 more states had adopted the holiday, and on June 28, 1894, President Grover Cleveland signed a law making the first Monday in September of each year a national holiday.

A Nationwide Holiday

Women's Auxiliary Typographical Union

Many Americans celebrate Labor Day with parades and parties – festivities very similar to those outlined by the first proposal for a holiday, which suggested that the day should be observed with – a street parade to exhibit “the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations” of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families. This became the pattern for the celebrations of Labor Day.

Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the economic and civic significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.

American labor has raised the nation’s standard of living and contributed to the greatest production the world has ever known and the labor movement has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pays tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation’s strength, freedom, and leadership – the American worker.

 

Yep. Took lessons from the Nashville idjit.
“Gun Free Zones” aren’t, as the murderous minded have them there.

Minneapolis Shooter Sought Out ‘Gun-Free Zone’ as Location for Attack

The 23-year-old who opened fire on kids at a mass in Minneapolis this week may have chosen his target because he believed the Catholic school would have little security, including armed school staff who could shoot back when he launched his attack.

NY Post reporter Diana Nerozzi has shared portions of the shooter’s manifesto on X, including his thoughts on whether he’d face armed resistance if he picked his former middle school as the scene for his killing spree.

By all accounts, the killer was correct, but the same is likely true of the vast majority of schools in Minnesota. The state, does, however, allow educators to carry on the job with written permission from the school’s principal or “other person having general control and supervision of the school.”

Retired Professor Joe Olson, a former NRA board member, wrote the provision as part of Minnesota’s 2003 permit to carry law.

“Basically what it says is you can have dangerous weapons, firearms, knives, BB guns, replica firearms in a school as long as you have permission of the principal,” he said.

Olson says he personally knows of at least two Minnesota teachers who have the written permission and are currently carrying guns in schools, but would not give us their names.

WCCO asked, “Could there be a lot more?”

“Yes there could be more,” Olson said.

Olson made those comments in 2018, after the shooting in Parkland, Florida, but the law hasn’t changed since then. Because permission is obtained from the school principal and not the school district itself, it’s difficult to know how many educators are carrying on the job. This this isn’t really a policy that schools would want to advertise either, but my guess is that it’s an uncommon practice across the state, at least at the moment. In fact, in that 2018 report by WCCO, the head of Minnesota’s largest teacher’s union was completely unaware of the law’s existence, so many school staffers and administrators might not even know that’s an option.

In the wake of the shooting at the Church of the Annunciation, though, that will hopefully change. As Dr. John Lott pointed out in a post at Crime Prevention Research Center’s website, the killer specifically said he wanted to target a gun-free zone since there would be less likelihood of an armed response, chillingly writing “That’s why I and many others like schools so much.”

Lott has provided strong evidence that the monsters who engage in these types of attacks often seek out places where their victims are unlikely to be armed, and research from Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute suggests that the fastest way to stop an active assailant attack at a school is to have both a school resource office on hand who can seek out and engage the attacker, along with armed teachers who can shelter in place with their students and defend them in case the killer breaches the classroom door.

SROs aren’t an option for every school district or private school, though, given the cost of hiring full-time security, and having armed school staff in place is better than nothing. In fact, I’d say that schools with armed staff on campus should advertise that fact (without divulging who, specifically, is carrying on the clock). That alone would likely deter some of these twisted individuals from carrying out their murderous plans, and I hope that more Minnesota schools will take let the public know they’re taking advantage of the fact that state law does allow for staffers to serve as a first line of defense against these cowardly killers.

It’s nice when they plainly state what they want and sign their names, providing positive identification, unlike some cowardly newspaper ‘editorial staff’. This is merely another of the supercilious domestic enemies of the Constitution that believe they should have the power to tell others how to live their lives and exercise their inherent rights.
They aren’t ‘good men’™. They’re wanna-be tyrants.

We Must End the Insanity of Firearms Policies in This Land of the Terrified and Home of the Fearful.


Warren J. Blumenfeld

So, after suffering the effects of yet another mass shooting in our country, this time at a Catholic school in Minnesota where a gunman shot 17 people, mostly children, killing some, I ask again, “Why is the United States the only place among our peer nations to allow virtually unrestricted sales and ownership of firearms.”

In fact, there are more firearms in the United States than there are residents: with an estimated 120.5 firearms per every 100 people. In a distant second place is the Falkland Islands with 62.1, and in third place is Yemen with 52.8 per every 100 residents.

After each incident of individual and mass shootings, we hear the obligatory “We send my thoughts and prayers to the survivors and to the loved ones of those who have died” coming from politicians and other officials. Well, I hate to break it to you, but “thoughts and prayers” simply aren’t cutting it! They aren’t helping to reduce the chances of another incident tomorrow or next week or next year.

Each time I hear of another incident of gun violence in a long and tragic chain, I think back to the very first thing that caught my eye as I entered the grounds of the Ames, Iowa Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll in the summer of 2011. Three young children, I would guess between the ages of 4 -7, sporting day-glow orange baseball caps with “NRA” imprinted atop, and round stickers on their small T-shirts announcing, “GUNS SAVE LIVES.”

But, really, do these “guns save lives”? Do laws expanding gun possession, concealed or not, actually “save lives”?

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun-related deaths have reached epidemic proportions in our country by snuffing out the lives of upwards of 47,000 people and wounding many more in 2023 alone. Based on an analysis of the CDC data, the firearms reform organization, Brady United, reported an average of 117 deaths per day in 2023.

Each year, gun violence affects over 100,000 people in some way. Many of the guns used in these killings reach military level weapons power, guns which currently remain legal.

Of the increasing number of individual and mass murders in the United States since 1982, most of the shooters obtained their weapons legally. Demographically, the shooters in all but a very few cases involved males, usually white, with an average age of 35 years.

Should any limits be placed on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

We seem somehow only to spout the second clause in that sentence while forgetting the first, especially the term “well-regulated”!

I propose that we reevaluate the political Right’s obsession with the so-called “freedom” to bear arms because it is not only “criminals who kill people” as Second Amendment advocates claim. Therefore,

  • We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons!
  • We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!
  • We must pass “Red Flag” laws in every state and, more importantly, on the federal level!
  • We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet because some people are still doing this legally!
  • We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!
  • We must raise the age for gun ownership!
  • We must pass laws to ensure safe gun storage requirements!
  • We must pass stronger laws to address gun trafficking!
  • We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!
  • We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!
  • We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!
  • We must address gun violence as a public health issue!
  • We must address the serious mental health concerns of all people with sufficient resources and treatment!
  • We must provide “active shooter” training in all business, schools, and other social institutions!
  • We must make the abolition of gun silencers permanent!
  • We must eliminate the manufacture and sales of all “rapid-fire” devices!
  • We must repeal “shoot first” or “stand your ground” laws!
  • We must close the “Charleston loophole” in which, under federal law, a gun purchase can proceed by default after a three-day background check period even if that check has not been completed!
  • We must mandate that local law enforcement be alerted after any loss or theft of a firearm!
  • We must criminalize the production of 3-D manufactured firearms of all varieties!
  • We must repeal the immunity granted to firearms manufacturers!
  • We must mandate the compensation of innocent victims of gun violence!
  • We must alert local law enforcement whenever any person fails a background check!
  • We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons and “open carry” especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars, restaurants, and political rallies!
  • We must interface all databases monitoring firearm ownership to assess the firearm-owning population more accurately and effectively!

To be perfectly honest, however, I want the Second Amendment repealed! It is an Amendment for goodness sake. It is not some sort of divinely-inspired mandate from a superior being well beyond our comprehension. It was created, rather, by our intelligent but flawed “founding fathers” who probably did not want totally unlimited and unrestricted rights to bear arms.

While wise men most who crafted what many consider today as a brilliant and enduring blueprint for a new nation, they were products of their times with their individual human shortcomings and biases.

Just coming off a war of independence against one of the world’s great colonial powers, it was reasonable to expect leaders to ensure people the capability of defending themselves against any potentially tyrannical government. In this regard, they established the Second Amendment in its Bill of Rights granting people “the right to bear arms.”

Since then, firearms, and the culture supporting it, has been encoded into the very DNA of U.S.-American identity and what it means to be “an American.” But what may have been “reasonable” in the 18th century, without substantial reform, ranks as unreasonable today.

Even if they did advocate for unrestricted firearms ownership, these are the same men who enslaved other human beings, committed genocide against and expelled native peoples, withheld enfranchisement from women, engaged in and killed one another in duels, and so on.

Actually, I’m really surprised that the gun-toting political right hasn’t advocated for the return of lethal dueling matches. Maybe that’s next on their agenda. (Go see the Broadway show “Hamilton” to see how that turned out!)

But what was the actual, often hidden or forgotten reason for the founders to include the Second Amendment as they conceived it in the Bill of Rights?

In her book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, author Carol Anderson discovered the overarching racial discrepancies in the handling of gun ownership in the U.S. dating to the founding of the country and to the Second Amendment.

The language of the amendment, Anderson argues, was shaped to ensure that owners of those they enslaved would be able rapidly to repel acts of resistance and rebellious uprisings. She says the right to bear arms, presumably guaranteed to all citizens but not to enslaved Africans, has been repeatedly denied to Black people.

As we all know, in the current political climate, the chances for comprehensive common sense gun reform measures in the United States is only a pipe dream as long as the political Right controls Congress and state legislatures. If the lobbyists for firearms manufacturers had not bought and paid for our legislators and members of the Executive branch, we would have seen effective laws passed years ago resulting in countless lives saved.

Nevertheless, this utter insanity in our system of firearms laws must end. Enough is enough is enough is enough already! Actually, it is far past that time.

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article (THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Why Does a Pro-2A Lawmaker Want Tennessee to Appeal Ruling Striking Down Gun Control Laws?

Earlier this week we reported on a significant win for gun owners in Tennessee, where a three-judge panel ruled that two of the state’s gun laws violate the Second Amendment as well as the state’s constitution. So why is a lawmaker who boasts of being a Second Amendment supporter now asking the state’s attorney general and governor to keep defending the law by appealing the decision?
The challenge, brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and three members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, was successfully litigated by Tennessee Firearms Association head John Harris, who persuaded the panel in Gibson County Chancery Court that the the state’s “intent to go armed” statute and ban on concealed carry in parks do not fit within the national tradition of gun ownership.
Both of these laws blatantly infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but the “intent to go armed” statute is particularly egregious, since it allows police to have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed if they see a person carrying a firearm, even on the premises of their own home.
That reasonable cause justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.
Republican Rep. Chris Todd praised the panel’s ruling, calling it “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written opinions I’ve seen.” Yet Todd is also calling on Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to appeal the Chancery Court decision and continue defending the statutes.
In a statement, Todd argues that an an appellate court would affirm the decision, which in turn “would give the outcome even greater weight by making it a binding precedent in Tennessee and serving as a reference point for similar cases nationwide.”
Todd’s statement brought a rebuke by state Senator Brent Taylor, who urged Lee and Skrmetti to not appeal the panel’s decision, and the Tennessee Firearms Association took a similar dim view of the representative’s request, arguing that an appeal could delay the effectiveness of the ruling “perhaps by years”, as well as “risking that the court might reverse the ruling on technical grounds that avoided the constitutional challenge.”
One must wonder whether Rep. Todd was being “coached” perhaps by other Legislators or advocates who actually oppose the ruling since the law is quite clear that if litigation can be resolved on technical issues that completely avoid a constitutional challenge to a statute (e.g., standing, mootness, etc.) that the court is required to dispose of the case whenever possible without striking down a blatantly unconstitutional statute. See, for example, Tennessee Supreme Court ruling Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995).
Todd’s position is essentially to let the courts throw out these laws, while Taylor’s argument is that by dropping any appeal the state legislature can take action to repeal the laws.

Todd is correct that a Chancery Court ruling aren’t generally binding precedent that’s applicable throughout the entire state, but I think Taylor has the stronger argument here. The state mustered no real evidence to support the idea that either statute fits within the national (or state) tradition of keeping and bearing arms, and continuing to defend them in court would be a waste of time and taxpayer money in addition to risking the panel’s decision being reversed on some kind of technical grounds.

The legislature is tasked with making laws, as well as repealing them, and full repeal would be the quickest and easiest way to remove these infringements from the books. I’d like to see both Lee and Skrmetti announce that no appeal will be made and publicly ask lawmakers to address the issue by repealing the statutes in accordance with the court’s decision.

I know nothing about Rep. Todd, so I’ll take his stated support for the Second Amendment at face value. Even if he has the best of intentions with his proposal, though, it still sounds like a bad strategy to me, and he should be working to convince his colleagues to back repeal bills instead of trying to convince the governor and AG to continue defending the indefensible.

Ilhan Omar Loses the Plot with Anti-Gun Fear Mongering

As I’ve said a fair bit throughout the day, I know that the aftermath of mass shootings results in calls for gun control. What happened in Minneapolis doesn’t even really rise to the typical standard of a mass shooting, but two kids are dead and 17 other people were wounded, which means it’s bad enough that I won’t get into semantics right now.

But it would be nice for there to be something approaching sensibility in the calls for gun control. There’s no such thing as “common sense” gun-grabbing, as I noted earlier today, but there should be at least some attempt that looks like addressing the shooting.

Or, you could be Ilhan Omar and go in a completely different direction.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar cited today’s school shooting— committed by a Minnesota resident — and used it to demand federal gun control, even though the facts contradict her warning about outsiders bringing guns into the state.

A shooter opened fire during morning Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Wednesday while kindergarten through eighth-grade students attended, officials and news reports said. During an appearance on ” The Weeknight,” Omar used the tragedy to argue that Minnesota’s strict gun laws mean little without federal action, warning that residents from neighboring states could bring firearms across state lines and endanger her constituents.

“In Minnesota, we have strong gun laws, but Indiana is not that far away from us. And so we have to recognize as, you know, people who live in the United States, you know, a community like Minneapolis or just the state of Minnesota taking action does not prevent our neighbor from coming and harming one of our community members,” Omar said.

That’s right. It doesn’t really matter what Minnesota does because Indiana won’t do what Minnesota wants it to do.

These are the same people who tend to claim that the issue with preemption is that it doesn’t let local governments decide what works for them, yet here they are saying that every state needs to conform, regardless of what works for them.

Yeah, my days of taking Omar seriously are…well, they’re not even close to reaching a middle, actually.

The killer in this case didn’t come from out of state. He lived there. His mother worked for that school, for crying out loud. He was raised right there in Minnesota, from what we can tell as of this writing.

To make the claim that we need federal legislation because of something that happened exclusively within the borders of Minnesota, which showed that Minnesota’s current gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting, is especially stupid of her.

And that’s saying something.

Even if you did somehow pass national gun control laws, the truth is that criminals will bypass them because they’re criminals. Luigi Mangione is accused of building a gun and a suppressor and killing a guy. He could have bought a gun legally before his arrest, but he didn’t, because criminals don’t.

Plus, there are tons of massacres that have happened over the years that didn’t involve firearms at all, and that always gets missed or willfully ignored. With Omar, it could go either way.

This is the dumbest argument I’ve seen from an anti-gunner, and we’ll see it again. That’s the truly stupid thing here.