BLUF:
If the information contained in this article becomes widely known to physicians and other healthcare providers, not to mention the general public, it could very well change our attitude toward mass vaccination and lead to the more targeted approach Malone and others advocate. How likely that is to happen, I suppose, depends on how many read the article, draw similar conclusions, and have the courage to act on them.

This New Peer-Reviewed Article Could Be a Game-Changer

Every now and then, right in the middle of the ongoing politicization of our universities and public health institutions, some actual science breaks out, almost spontaneously, as if it simply can’t be contained. Science, after all, is the pursuit of truth, and in Shakespeare’s immortal phrase, fromThe Merchant of Venice, “Truth will out.”

Such is the case with a recent article published in Toxicology Reports by Ronald N. Kostoff, et al., titled “Why are we vaccinating children against Covid-19?”According to Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used to produce the current Covid “vaccines,” the article is peer-reviewed and appears in a reputable journal. It is not a new “study” but rather an in-depth analysis of existing data from various government sources. And it isn’t just about children. It basically confirms everything Team Reality has been saying since the push for mass vaccination began.

In early August, in an op-ed for The Washington Times, Malone and former Trump advisor Peter Navarro (one of the driving forces behind Operation Warp Speed) called for a halt to the Biden administration’s mass vaccination program, which they argued will do more harm than good. Instead, they said, we should target the most vulnerable while allowing those at lower risk to make their own cost-benefit analysis. They likened over-vaccination to overuse of antibiotics and warned that it could produce vaccine-resistant strains or “variants.”

Continue reading “”

Biden Apparently Thinks That There Are Trillionaires in America

Joe Biden has appropriated Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric of “millionaires and billionaires” with one slight modification, the addition of the non-existent trillionaire.

“I’m running to change the dynamic of how the economy grows,” Biden said. “I’m tired of trickle-down. Trillionaires and billionaires are doing very, very well. You all report it.”

Watch below:

This gaffe isn’t a new one either. During a 25-minute stump speech in Des Moines, Iowa during his presidential campaign last October, Biden claimed his tax plan that he wouldn’t be raising income on those making under $400k, and added “But I tell you what, it’s about time, the wealthiest people in America, the billionaires and trillionaires – um, the multi-billionaires” pay more.

Whenever Biden makes a statement like these it’s always amusing to ponder what Jen Psaki will inevitably come up with to defend it. Perhaps she’ll argue that we have plenty of trillionaires in this country, as long as you quote their wealth in pesos.

Steve Kirsch speaks at FDA hearing;   Jump to 4:20:17 for Kirsch

FDA Panel Member on COVID Vaccines: ‘Heart Attacks Happen 71 Times More Often….’

“I had a heart attack….”

A bit more than a month ago I wrote about “My troubling COVID vaccine story experiences.” Aside from citing a friend who developed heart inflammation after taking a coronavirus genetic-therapy agent (GTA, a.k.a. a “vaccine”; more on this later), I mentioned that I’d had some unusual experiences: I encountered two men within a relatively short period of time, at the same recreational facility, who told me they’d had heart attacks — after taking SARS-CoV-2 GTAs.

One man suspected the GTA induced his coronary; the other fellow was oblivious, though his attack occurred the month after his shot.

At the time, I mentioned that though I’d been reporting on GTA-coincident complications for a while, I aimed to be objective and thus had to consider that my experiences *could* have been mere coincidences. All the men in question are over 60, at ages where heart issues are more common, after all. On the other hand, I pointed out that I wasn’t looking for these stories or asking related questions, and I’m not a social butterfly who regularly interacts with large numbers of people.

But then it happened again. At the same recreational facility approximately two weeks ago, I saw a man I’d met there previously. After extending mutual greetings, one of the first things he said was, “I had a heart attack.”

Sure enough, I learned that he’d taken a GTA.

He didn’t connect the two occurrences; in fact, when I mentioned I’d met other men suffering the same fate, he suggested it was a coincidence.

But this thesis appears to have gone out the window.

Consider the testimonial of Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund and also identified as a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel member. In an eight-hour virtual discussion of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee released Friday by the FDA, Kirsch said there “are four times as many heart attacks [as is normal] in the treatment group in the Pfizer six-month trial report — that wasn’t bad luck.”

What’s more, “The VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine,” he continued (video below. It should automatically start at 4:20:17; if it doesn’t, you’ll have to fast-forward to that point).

Among other things, Kirsch presents the following table:

Kirsch is, of course, not the only informed person warning about or wary of the GTAs. Though the shot-hesitant are portrayed as knuckle-dragging, medieval scientific obscurantists, a study found that the education-level-defined group least likely to be vaccinated is Ph.D. holders. Even more strikingly, it emerged in May that at least 40 percent (this figure may be different now) of FDA employees and those at Anthony Fauci’s NIAID hadn’t yet been vaccinated. Did they know something Fauci wasn’t telling?
Continue reading “”

Remember this?:
Blinken Admits Most Afghans Were Not Vetted Before Boarding US Evacuation Planes

Assault on female US service member by male Afghan refugees at Fort Bliss under FBI investigation

An investigation is underway into an alleged attack of a female U.S. military service member by several male Afghan evacuees being housed at Fort Bliss.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed to Fox News it is investigating a referral from a Fort Bliss Afghan refugee housing complex in New Mexico alleging that a woman, whose name and age are unknown at this time, was assaulted on Sept. 19 by a “small group of male evacuees.”

“We received the referral from Fort Bliss and our office is investigating the allegation,” FBI Public Affairs Officer Special Agent Jeanette Harper told Fox News.

Officials at Fort Bliss confirmed the report of the assault to Fox News.

“We can confirm a female service member supporting Operation Allies Welcome reported being assaulted on Sept. 19 by a small group of male evacuees at the Doña Ana Complex in New Mexico,” the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss Public Affairs said in an emailed statement. “We take the allegation seriously and appropriately referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The safety and well-being of our service members, as well as all of those on our installations, is paramount.”

The statement added that counseling and support has been provided to the service member.

“Task Force-Bliss is also implementing additional security measures to include increased health and safety patrols, additional lighting, and enforcement of the buddy system at the Dona Ana Complex,” the statement continued. “We will cooperate fully with the FBI and will continue to ensure the service member reporting this assault is fully supported.”

Rep. Yvette Herrell, a Republican congresswoman who represents New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district, called the news a “vetting failure.”

“My prayers are with the courageous soldier and her family. This is yet another tragic failure in the vetting process for Afghan nationals,” Herrell tweeted. “The American people deserve answers.”

The alleged attack comes on the heels of two Afghan refugees housed at Wisconsin’s Fort McCoy being indicted for federal crimes including sexual assault on a minor and domestic assault.

Bahrullah Noori, a 20-year-old Afghan evacuee, is being charged with attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor using force against that person, along with three other counts of engaging in a sex act with a minor, according to a statement from the Department of Justice. Additionally, 32-year-old Mohammad Haroon Imaad is being charged with assaulting his wife by choking and suffocating her on September 17.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have reacted to the news of violence carried out by Afghan refugees being housed in the United States with demands for answers from the Biden administration.

On Thursday night, Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford and four other Republican senators sent a letter to the Biden administration seeking more details on the way Afghan refugees are being vetted.

“How many Afghan nationals are waiting on background checks at a transit site? How many Afghan nationals have been paroled into the United States?” the Republican senators asked. “What specific categories, classes, or criteria constitute the Administration’s definition of ‘vulnerable Afghans’? How many individuals who have been paroled into the United States fall under each category, class, or criteria?”

Earlier this month, an official with the Biden administration categorically denied anyone “of concern” had made it into the country, saying there is a “second layer” of screening once a refugee gets to a U.S. entry point.

“No one has gotten into the United States or entered that is of concern,” the official said. “The administration is working with urgency and with care to enhance the screening and vetting operations to make them more efficient without compromising U.S. national security.”

Biden Promises Border Patrol Agents ‘Will Pay’ for Doing Something They Didn’t Do

Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, President Joe Biden vowed to punished Border Patrol agents in Del Rio who used horses to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country earlier this week.

“It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay,” he said.

President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki have all continued to lie about Border Patrol agents “whipping” illegal Haitians. It never happened and yet, they’re tripling down.

The photojournalist who took the photos of Border Patrol agents earlier this week, which cynical political operatives and media have used to smear them, has debunked the narrative illegal immigrants were whipped. 

The photographer behind images depicting Border Patrol agents on horseback told KTSM things are not exactly what they seem when it comes to the photos.

The photographs, which were taken Sunday, appear to show agents on horses with a whip in hand. The photos caused outrage because from certain angles, it appears to show Border Patrol whipping migrants, but photographer Paul Ratje said he and his colleagues never saw agents whipping anyone.

“Some of the Haitian men started running, trying to go around the horses,” Ratje said.

Ratje is a photographer based in Las Cruces and has been in Del Rio since Friday. He said took the photographs from the Mexican side.

“I’ve never seen them whip anyone,” Ratje said.

Continue reading “”

DeSantis Announces Acquisition of Antibody Doses Following Biden Admin Decision to Control Distribution

On Thursday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced he had secured additional doses of the lifesaving monoclonal antibody treatments the Biden administration significantly cut to his state. DeSantis said in a press conference he acquired 3,000 doses of Sotrovimad, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

“It got emergency use approval just a few months ago. The clinical data that they had was really, really strong. In fact, that was even stronger than Regeneron,” said DeSantis. “And we know Regeneron has been very, very effective and in the real world.”

“So we’re going to be able to use that Sotrovimad to bridge some of the gaps that are going to be developing as a result of the Biden administration cutting — dramatically cutting medications to the state of Florida,” DeSantis continued.

Earlier in his speech, DeSantis slammed the Biden administration for drastically cutting the number of doses his state received after the administration took over control of distributing the treatment from the states.

“Cutting the medication to Florida and other states is wrong. It’s not consistent with the promise that was made just a couple of weeks ago. And we are going to continue to fight against that,” added DeSantis.
“And so yes, we have much lower hospital numbers, much lower cases, everything like that is much better than it was a month ago,” he continued but noted “COVID doesn’t go away.” The rate vaccinated people are testing positive is increasing in pace from six months ago.
“And so we know there’s going to be a continuing need to make this early treatment available for folks,” said DeSantis.
DeSantis’ action comes after expressing his displeasure last week with the Biden administration for withholding the treatment from the state.
“Just last week on September 9th, President Joe Biden said that his administration would be increasing shipments of monoclonal antibodies in September by 50%, and yet on September 13th, HHS announced that it was seizing control of the monoclonal antibody supply and that it would control distribution. Then on September 14th, the announcement was more than 50% of the monoclonal antibodies that had been used in Florida were going to be reduced,” he said.
“What the HHS and the Biden administration is now doing is they’re saying that all of the reduced amounts will go to the state, and we’re responsible not only for sourcing our sites, which we’re happy to do but any infusion center,” he continued.

“Any provider, any hospital will have to come through the state, and to spring this on us starting next week, we’re going to have to do that. There’s going to be a huge disruption, and patients are going to suffer as a result of this,” DeSantis added.

Comment O’ The Day:
If “those who don’t get vaccinated will immunize themselves naturally,” WHY DO WE NEED THE VACCINES!?

CEO of Moderna Says Even Young Will Need to Take Vaccine Booster Shots Indefinitely

The CEO of pharmaceutical giant Moderna says that even younger people will have to get vaccine booster shots at least once every three years, meaning that a two-tier society which punishes the unvaccinated could remain in place indefinitely.

According to Stephane Bancel, the pandemic will continue for at least another year, at which point there will be enough vaccine doses “so that everyone on this Earth can be vaccinated.”

This includes jabs for infants and booster shots for those who require them.

“Those who don’t get vaccinated will immunize themselves naturally because the Delta variant is so contagious,” said Bancel, although he went on to assert that such people would still get ill.

“You can either get vaccinated and have a good winter. Or you don’t do it and risk getting sick and possibly even ending up in hospital,” said the Moderna CEO.

Bancel says life will return to normal “in a year,” but that this will be dependent on people continuing to receive regular COVID-19 booster jabs.

The CEO said older and vulnerable people would “undoubtedly” need refresher shots at least once a year, while even younger people who face an infinitesimal chance of dying from the virus will need booster shots every three years.

Israel has already signaled that vaccine passports will incorporate mandatory proof of an individual having received booster shots.

This means that those hoping to ride out the pandemic while remaining unvaccinated, with all freedoms returned next year, may actually face a permanent bio-security police state which keeps them under de facto lockdown forever.

Those who for whatever reason refuse to take their booster jabs will also face discrimination when it comes to travel and basic lifestyle activities in many countries.

Despite Bancel’s insistence that the entire planet will have been offered a vaccine within a year, according to Amnesty International, “Moderna has not yet delivered a single vaccine dose to a low-income country.”

Just 3 Percent of Afghan Evacuees in U.S. Are Special Immigrant Visa Holders.

During contentious testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed that only “approximately three percent” of the 60,000 Afghan evacuees already brought to the United States are individuals who possess special immigrant visas (SIVs).

The majority of Afghans who qualified for SIVs are people who worked with our military as interpreters and therefore placed themselves in grave danger if and when the Taliban returned to power.

As additional background, the U.S. military recruited Afghans to assist U.S. forces, and “part of that pitch when asking Afghans to trust us and put their lives on the line for us was that if this day ever came, we would do right by them and bring them out,” Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), a combat veteran, explained earlier this month. “That was part of that promise — that we will not leave you behind. That was implicit in the legislation establishing Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan allies, and that was conveyed by folks on the ground to those who chose to work with us.”

As of May, 90 percent of the 20,000 Afghans who worked with U.S. troops and diplomats had applied for SIVs, according to government figures reported by NBC.

“When their family members are included, the pool of Afghans in the SIV program was at least 70,000 and probably higher, according to refugee advocacy groups,” NBC added.

Mayorkas’s full statement yesterday about these appallingly low numbers reads:

Of the over 60,000 individuals who have been brought into the United States [from Afghanistan]—and I will give you approximate figures and I will verify them, approximately 7 percent have been United States citizens. Approximately 6 percent have been lawful permanent residents. Approximately 3 percent have been individuals who are in receipt of the special immigrant visas. The balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the united states government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera.

Between incoherent, haphazard border policies, and this dereliction of duty, Mayorkas seems more inept each day.

I’ve written multiple times on this troubling situation. It is yet another betrayal of America’s allies by the Biden administration.

Yes, while ‘getting out of Dodge’ is a pretty good idea, personally, I also think shooting the ‘active shooter’ stands a good chance of solving the problem too. To do that, you need a gun.

FBI agent: How to survive an active shooter situation

The fatal shooting at a Kroger in Memphis, Tennessee on Thursday left at least a dozen people injured, one dead and a nation worried as the threat of active shootings in America lingers.

Former FBI deputy assistant director Daniel Coulson joined “Your World” following the tragedy to share advice on how best to protect oneself if found in an active shooter situation. Step one: recognize when you’re in danger.

“The police are minutes away when seconds matter,” he said. “It’s up to you and your family and your friends to take action, to protect yourself in a situation like this. If you’re in the grocery store and you hear firecrackers going off, that’s not firecrackers. That’s somebody killing people.”

Coulson suggested for shoppers to prepare themselves for a shooting incident without being paranoid by locating the exits and planning to take all belongings and run.

“Do I put my child in a basket and run out the door? Yeah, you do,” he said. “And get space between you and whatever’s going on.”

While customers should identify their exits in all departments of the store, Coulson explained that employees should already be aware of an active shooter plan and have designated areas to lock down and buy time. The former FBI official stressed that shooters who are normally in a hurry will not spend time fiddling with a locked door.

“They want to get this thing over with as quickly as possible,” he said. “If they get delayed by a locked door, they move on… Time is on your side here. Buy time, get yourself out of there but more importantly, try to get out the door. Just leave.”

“It’s up to us to protect ourselves,” he repeated. “Get out. Find a place to defend yourself. If you happen to be armed with a pistol, like I am, then maybe you can do some good there. But your best bet is to leave. Get the heck out.”

Coulson said the investigation into the Memphis shooting will attempt to dig up the now-deceased shooter’s motive and run an analysis on Kroger’s response in adherence to the shooter policy.

New Work on Who the Second Amendment Protects

Abstract:

Once mentally ill does not mean always mentally ill. This underlying premise is not only scientifically accepted, but has been long recognized in the history and tradition of our common law. However, rather enigmatically, two circuit courts have deviated from this long understanding to find that once an individual has been classified as mentally ill, that classification is permanent. This flawed understanding has not only created a rupture in our Second Amendment jurisprudence, but it has also produced a significant circuit split between three circuits, in which neither the conclusions nor analyses are uniform. Notwithstanding the judicial disarray, federal law historically—and currently— poorly addresses this issue as well.

Federal law categorically prohibits the possession of a firearm from an individual who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” The United States deems this class of individuals worthy of a lifetime Second Amendment ban with only two avenues for relief: one that is nullified; and the other that is non-uniform and arbitrary. While this statute is imposing, it certainly does not lack justification. There is without a question a governmental interest and objective in protecting the citizens through crime reduction and suicide prevention. This objective, however, cannot be reached by categorically denying a constitutional right to a classification of individuals without due process.

This article uses an originalist approach to demonstrate that the classification of “mentally ill” is not a permanent and static one; rather that it is fluid and subject to transformation and development. With this main premise in mind, this article critiques the insufficient statutory response to this issue and offers an originalist judicial approach to resolving the circuit split. In the end, this article analyzes recent circuit court decisions on this issue from the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits and offers a solution that safeguards the constitutional rights of an individual, ensures that due process rights are feasible, and preserves the governmental interest of reducing crime and preventing suicides.

Abstract:

To say that the moral stain of racism pervades American history would be an understatement. One does not have to look hard to find examples where people of color were treated disparagingly or disparately. Thus, it should come as no surprise that throughout much of American history there are examples where race played a role in lawmakers deciding who may and may not acquire, own, and use firearms for lawful purposes, or where race was the principal factor in orchestrating state and non-state sponsored armed violence against people of color. The painful and often tragic historical intersection between race and firearms is indeed a complex and multi-faceted narrative worthy of examination and reflection, including in the area of history-in-law —that is the study of how the law has evolved in a particular area, what events and factors caused the law to evolve, and how, if at all, this history is important when adjudicating legal questions.

Yet in the ongoing discourse over the purpose, meaning, and protective scope of the Second Amendment, the historical narrative of race and firearms is becoming increasingly misappropriated and hyperbolized. There are indeed numerous examples, but two are particularly concerning and exist at the extreme opposites of the Second Amendment political spectrum. The first—often stated by gun rights proponents—is history shows that gun control is inherently racist. The second—sometimes stated by gun control proponents—is that the Second Amendment itself is inherently racist, with some going so far to claim the right to “keep and bear arms” is on historically on par with the Constitution’s morally “indefensible” three-fifths clause—the clause that provided slaves would account for three-fifths a person for the purpose of congressional apportionment.

This article seeks to examine and unpack these extreme historical opposites and explain why their ‘racist’ claims ultimately do more societal harm than good. This article is broken into three parts. Part I critically examines how and why the ‘gun control is racist’ narrative came to be. Part II then critically examines how (and the elusive why) the ‘Second Amendment is racist’ narrative came to be. Lastly, Part III outlines why accepting either of these ‘racist’ narratives do more harm than good, particularly in the confines of history-in-law.

Abstract:

Gun control in the United States has a racist history. Nevertheless, federal courts and academics have invoked Southern gun restrictions enacted after the Civil War to suggest that history supports stringent regulation of the right to bear arms. We argue that courts’ reliance on these restrictions is illegitimate. Drawing on original research, we reveal how the post-war South restricted gun-ownership for racist reasons, deployed its new laws to disarm free Blacks, yet allowed whites to bear arms with near impunity. We then show how modern reliance on these laws contravenes the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, which deemed similarly tainted statutes unconstitutional. Since the Court will soon consider the validity of modern limits on concealed carry, placing Southern gun restrictions in their proper historical context matters today more than ever. While Southern gun control after the Civil War might tell us something about how the South sought to preserve white supremacy, it tells us almost nothing about the true scope of the Second Amendment.

Image

Purported ‘intellectuals‘ like this are the main reason we have the problems in this country we have. They’re over educated, intrusive, leftist, busybodies who happen to live in a time where society has become ‘civilized’ to the point that they’re not tarred, feathered and ridden on a rail out to the edge of town and told not to come back.

BLUF:
The First and Second Amendments peacefully co-exist as equal rights in the vast majority of states, which is as it should be. The ACLU’s insistence that the Second Amendment take a back seat to our freedom of speech and our right to peaceably assemble flies in the face of the Constitution, and it’s truly shameful than an organization ostensibly created to protect our civil rights would argue for the demise of one of them, to the point of giving the thumbs up to mandatory prison sentences and felony convictions for those New Yorkers caught carrying a gun without a state-issued permission slip.

ACLU: Restrict The Second Amendment To Protect The First

The American Civil Liberties Union has always had a blind spot in defense of Americans’ individual rights; our right to keep and bear arms. The group has defended the First Amendment rights of even the most controversial of groups and individuals, including neo-Nazis and the Ku Kluk Klan, but they won’t support the right of the average citizen to bear arms in self-defense. The organization has long viewed the Second Amendment as a collective right instead of an individual right, and I don’t know why the ACLU website states that they are reviewing their position in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, given the fact that they’ve had 13 years to change their mind and have yet to do so.

It would be one thing if the ACLU simply remained neutral and silent on the issue, but instead the groups is actively pushing to keep New York’s restrictive carry permitting laws in place. In a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the group argues that the laws preventing the average citizen from lawfully bearing arms in defense of themselves and others “reasonably furthers the peace and safety conducive to robust civic engagement, and therefore does not contravene the Second Amendment.” In other words, restricting the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers somehow protects their First Amendment rights to speak their mind and to publicly assemble.

Continue reading “”

St. Louis homeowner shoots and kills intruder

ST. LOUIS– St. Louis homeowner was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed a man who entered his home, that’s according to officials.

Police say a 40-year-old homeowner shot the intruder after he came into the home and tried to assault him. It happened on the 4500 block of Alcott Monday night around 11:40 p.m.
Police have identified the intruder as 58-year-old Michael Norman.

Officials say the homeowner had a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his hand and that the other man was found near the entrance to the home with several gunshot wounds.

Police took both men to the hospital. The man who entered the home died.

The Circuit Attorney’s office refused charges of second-degree murder and armed criminal action citing self-defense.

Observation O’ The Day
Another reason may just be the concentration of ownership of major media in the hands of a few, very wealthy, people. Wealthy people have feared armed commoners for most of recorded history, and especially since the invention of reliable, concealable firearms, so publication of news likely to encourage gun ownership is discouraged.

There Are Far More Defensive Gun Uses Than Murders in America. Here’s Why You Rarely Hear of Them.

While Americans know that guns take many innocent lives every year, many don’t know that firearms also save them.

On May 15, an attacker at an apartment complex in Fort Smith, Ark., fatally shot a woman and then fired 93 rounds at other people before a man killed him with a bolt-action rifle. Police said he “likely saved a number of lives in the process.”

On June 30, a 12-year-old Louisiana boy used a hunting rifle to stop an armed burglar who was threatening his mother’s life during a home invasion.

On July 4, a Chicago gunman shot into a crowd of people, killing one and wounding two others before a concealed handgun permit holder shot and wounded the attacker. Police praised him for stepping in.

Al Hartmann/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP
According to academic estimates, defensive gun uses — including when guns are simply shown to deter a crime — are four to five times more common than gun crimes.
Al Hartmann/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP

These are just a few of the nearly 1,000 instances reported by the media so far this year in which gun owners have stopped mass shootings and other murderous acts, saving countless lives. And crime experts say such high-profile cases represent only a small fraction of the instances in which guns are used defensively. But the data are unclear, for a number of reasons, and this has political ramifications because it seems to undercut the claims of gun rights advocates that they need to possess firearms for personal protection — an issue now before the Supreme Court.

Americans who look only at the daily headlines would be surprised to learn that, according to academic estimates, defensive gun uses — including instances when guns are simply shown to deter a crime — are four to five times more common than gun crimes, and far more frequent than the fewer than 20,000 murders each year, with or without a gun. But even when they prevent mass public shootings, defensive uses rarely get national news coverage. Those living in major news markets such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are unlikely to hear of such stories.

Continue reading “”

Juvenile cites self-defense after killing man with arrow

DITTMER, Mo. (AP) — Authorities in eastern Missouri are investigating the death of a 40-year-old theft suspect killed by an arrow shot by a juvenile, who said the man came at him menacingly.

Jefferson County Sheriff Dave Marshak on Tuesday announced details of the incident that happened Friday near the town of Dittmer. The man killed was identified as Michael Stotts of Dittmer.

An attorney for the juvenile’s family told authorities that the juvenile was walking to a tree stand to hunt deer with a bow and arrow. He allegedly saw Stotts trying to steal a lawn tractor and wood splitter.

The juvenile called his father, who arrived and confronted Stotts. Authorities say that during the confrontation, Stotts ran toward the juvenile.

The attorney said the juvenile warned Stotts several times. When Stotts didn’t stop, the juvenile fired the arrow.

The sheriff’s department said the property has been the site of several recent thefts.

Little Rock woman providing gun training for women and minorities
Desstoni Johnson is the founder of Fearless Firearm Instruction LLC: a firearms academy in central Arkansas created with women in mind.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark — After her husband bought seats to a concealed carry class as a gift for her 21st birthday, Desstoni Johnson left the class feeling like she didn’t learn a thing.

Many times during class, she felt the male instructor was speaking to everyone except her and the only other woman in the class. Johnson and her classmate would constantly glance at one another wondering if they were the only ones confused and feeling left out.

Instead of becoming discouraged about it, Johnson became motivated to continue practicing and learning as much as she could on her own. It inspired her to want to help others.

“From then on, I couldn’t put guns down. When carrying, I feel I am in control of my own safety and when teaching, I feel empowered knowing I am gifting that same sense of security to other men and women,” said Johnson.

She created Fearless Firearm Instruction LLC, a firearms academy in central Arkansas founded with women in mind.

Continue reading “”