The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘gun-control’

Gun Rights: Why Are We Armed?  


Forget about why we Americans are armed for a moment. Don’t give any thought to the reasoning of the Founding Fathers and what they were doing when they drafted, then passed, the Second Amendment. Disregard the court cases, arguments, myths and fears — push all that aside. You care about these, sure, and see it as essential. You latch your Second Amendment hopes on those sorts of things. But surprise — none of that matters. It simply doesn’t matter to society’s adversaries — criminals who arm themselves. 

They Walk Among Us 

It’s already well-established gun control doesn’t work. Criminals the world over are already armed. The cause? It’s because the Chinese invented gunpowder in the 9th century. Add centuries of human ingenuity and here we are. The Founders are in no way responsible for armed villains around the world and they’re certainly not responsible for it here. The criminals are responsible solely and completely. They choose and acquire weapons then stand outside of control. If gunpowder ceased to exist villains would remain. They would switch to edged weapons or clubs. It’s not the guns. 

We have criminals on some streets (but not all); they’re in our schools; they run black ops to provide drugs, sex and anything else a demanding public wants that government forbids. A lapel pin famously says, “Disarm Criminals First.” But evidence shows this doesn’t work. Splashy public efforts to disarm affect only the good guys, the innocent, the protectors of peace, safety, law, order — essentially you and me. The pretzel gun in front of the U.N. isn’t a statement against the armed thugs and tyrants running that place. It’s aimed at innocent civilians, us. 

Just for the record, the endless delightful global world peace the pretzel-gun worshippers seek is of course utopian. It exists nowhere. While the human condition contains what I call the Four Horsemen of Human Havoc — angry, hungry, stupid and wicked — we are doomed to a turbulent world. Your options are limited, but you do have some. Hungry we might be able to solve, angry only in your dreams with endless psychiatry and soma in the water. But stupid and especially wicked, are part and parcel of this existence. This begins to answer the question I posed when we started. It’s about the villains. 

It Ain’t The Crime … 

Many gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters make the mistaken assumption we are armed to protect ourselves from them … “the criminal element.” While true, it’s short-sighted and incomplete. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the rest were well aware of the self-defense values of firearms. They faced dangers in a new land, wild animals on four and two legs, criminal activity in a largely lawless land, often with too much distance between them to simply call for help. Self-reliance and independence required the ability to police your own surroundings. It was simply understood. That right and reality of self-defense harkens all the way back to the Bible. But self-defense was not the main driver of their desire for an armed public. 

The fundamental reason the Founders wanted us armed is for balance of power. Self-governance had never been tried. Worldwide, rulers were armed. In classic time-honored style, they use that capability, that monopoly of force, against the people they supposedly serve. Power corrupts — and possession of power frees those with it to act as they please — a two-way street! By spreading power around, freeing everyone, we achieved a level of liberty unimagined. 

Democidal Tendencies 

If you’re reading this, you likely know genocides of the past were preceded by disarmament campaigns, orchestrated by “officials,” who then go on to commit atrocities and democide once the population is de-fanged. Democide — murder by government — claims the very top mass-murder statistic. Street thugs and police don’t hold a candle. Last century it cost 262 million lives by the best estimates available (U.S. historian Rudolph Rummel). The slaughtered were generally defenseless. That right there is why we’re armed. And that right there is why America is and remains the land of the free: because we’re armed. Thoughts of messing with us gives villains pause. 

Now this isn’t to say even this system is perfect, far from it, and we all know it. While anti-rights monsters will insist our unique right to arms — exceedingly well-implemented — has something to do with the fact criminals exist, we know better. Malfeasants are active and sometimes horrific but being armed and being evil are unrelated concepts. America’s 100 million gun owners basically never shoot anything but targets and food. The anti-rights bigots may holler guns kill people. We know guns protect people. Guns are good. If guns disappeared, we would have to re-invent them. 

Guns keep the peace. Action-at-a-distance from a firearm far exceeds the value of a broadsword. Sam Colt’s great equalizer works on the person-to-person scale, and writ large, against the entire artifice of civilization. Villains will conduct their villainy. Accept it. Guns, and people who bear them righteously, watch over and protect all of us. And that’s why we’re armed. 

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

CLUELESS, FEARFUL HAND-WRINGING ANTI-FIREARMS PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS.  VERY, VERY DANGEROUS! 


Fear and hatred of guns have unintended consequences; political fallout and dangers which are largely missed in the running monologues that pass for “news” in America today. 

Age-old wisdom suggesting knowledge of guns leading to harm is incorrect, according to leading experts on both sides of the aisle. People who avoid guns, and refuse to discuss the subject, exhibit fear bordering on paranoia, leading to accidents, defenselessness, and potentially dire consequences. Criminals now running rampant on a small number of American streets have virtually no training, and certainly don’t represent the values of marksmanship and firearms education, which generally lead to self-control and responsibility. 

“A person who knows nothing about guns, and preserves that ignorance with great vigor, which many anti-gun people do, harms society’s fabric by promoting counter-productive law, hampering police efforts and putting children at risk,” I noted in a recent public speech. Starbucks, as a case in point, had ignorantly refused to serve armed police officers, people tasked with protecting society. How did that help anyone? It simply showed their disdain for something good. 

Projection? 

“Many people who fear guns secretly harbor internal rage, just waiting to break into violence upon some slight provocation. They project this instability onto others, falsely assuming anyone with a firearm will eventually erupt into violence and injure others — as they believe they might do, according to Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “They cannot imagine most people are not also plagued by the demons under which they suffer. So, they fear guns and believe everyone should be disarmed, just as they don’t trust themselves from erupting into violence,” he said. Mr. Marbut is a firearms instructor accepted as an expert witness in state and federal courts concerning self-defense, use of force and firearms safety. His cogent testimony has helped defendants wrongly charged by misguided anti-gun prosecutors. 

Heavily credentialed firearms training expert and author Stephen P. Wenger notes that gun-fearing folks have what’s called “poor impulse control” and project that onto others. The lack of understanding gunless people exhibit leads to laws that affect the innocent and ignore the criminal element, which I have personally witnessed repeatedly in legislatures nationwide. People with terror in their eyes and myths on their lips over imagined dangers band together, hire lobbyists, and rally for laws to disarm people who haven’t done anything. 

Real Responsibility 

The gun-fearful flatly ignore actual perpetrators entirely. Frequently, the criminal perps are people of color or other “disadvantaged” types (ethnic, immigrant, poor, released prisoners, gang members) who they are afraid to single out or implicate out of fear of being called names like “racist.” 

Red-flag laws are an example. Notice these laws let police confiscate your property on hearsay and without a trial, merely on suspicion of you being a potential mass murderer. Afterwards, they just set you loose back on the streets. How much more dangerous could a plan be? “You haven’t done anything, so we’re letting you out. Go buy a chainsaw, matches and some gasoline. You’re not angry at the person who had you detained, are you?” Red-flag laws were drafted by the gun-control lobby, without evidence that they work, based on their desire “to make guns go away.” 


Authorities might take “your gun” for a while, but that doesn’t put you in the database preventing you from buying another gun, because you lack guilt or a conviction necessary to be included. And they may not check to see if you already have several guns. It’s an irrational response to psychotic mass murderers and sociopathic children seeking to slaughter their classmates. 

Also at issue are prosecutors — or perhaps lack of prosecutors — willing to prosecute, using laws we have to incarcerate truly dangerous people using guns for illegal purposes. That’s how we get felons on our streets with mile-long rap sheets, committing one serious crime after another. In an insidious way, this serves a valuable purpose. It keeps gunless people terrified, clamoring for more so-called “gun control,” which increases government power. Just take the guns away and we’ll all be safe while leaving officials armed to the teeth. Right. The fact it hasn’t worked for decades doesn’t seem to enter the equation, and efforts continue to hamper the innocent. 

There is no known way to reliably make or staff a “pre-crime” bureau, according to forensic experts, and catch psychopaths before they act out. That’s a fanciful feature of sci-fi films, with no place in the real world. “It’s hoplophobic,” said Dr. Bruce Eimer, Ph.D., a police forensic psychologist, “just a manifestation of irrational fears. Those people promoting such things need help, but typically refuse any.” Red-flag laws are delusions, typically promoted by gunless people, to quell their fears, without any hope of success. 

Take a person against firearms to a shooting range, an often-reliable cure for their phobia, and help improve the safety of the nation. Dr. Eimer would advise it. 

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Madison’s Tragedy: How Policies Failed Our Schools Again


In a quiet classroom at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, the unspeakable happened once again: two dead, six wounded and an entire community shattered. The shooter, a 15-year-old, turned a study hall into a scene of terror before taking her own life. Predictably, political rhetoric came swiftly, as did the tired solutions that follow every school shooting.

President Biden spoke of “prayers” and “unacceptable” violence, sentiments as sterile as they are predictable. Vice President Harris decried the “senseless gun violence” while the drive-by media spun inflated statistics—650 mass shootings a year, they claim, as if this carnage occurs on every street corner. It doesn’t. But that’s the problem. Public massacres, like the one in Madison, occur in places that we’ve willfully left defenseless.

Gun-Free Zones

The very words drip with irony. There is nothing safe about disarming the law-abiding while leaving criminals emboldened. A gun-free zone is a target—an irresistible siren call to those who want to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Nearly 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones, according to research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which analyzed data on mass shootings in the U.S. over the last several decades. Why? Because murderers are cowards, not crusaders. They seek defenseless victims, not resistance.

The Failed Logic of Gun-Free Zones

The Madison shooter chose her venue deliberately, just as the Covenant School shooter did last year in Tennessee. The Covenant shooter explicitly avoided a secondary location because of “too much security,” according to police reports. This cowardice is consistent: the Buffalo supermarket shooter in 2022 admitted in his manifesto that he targeted an area where concealed carry permits were outlawed.

Yet the politicians and pundits pretend ignorance. Instead of addressing the root of the problem—defenseless soft targets—they tout gun-free zones as virtuous policies. It’s worth asking President Biden why he feels safe behind armed guards and fences at the White House but thinks schoolchildren can be protected by nothing more than a “No Guns Allowed” sign.

If “Gun-Free Zone” signs worked, the U.S. Capitol wouldn’t need security. Yet politicians rely on armed protection for themselves because they know such measures are essential. Their refusal to apply the same logic to schools speaks to a deeper hypocrisy: they prioritize their own safety while ignoring the vulnerability of America’s children. It’s not ignorance; it’s political convenience. Replace those guards with placards declaring the building weaponless and watch how quickly Congress demands action. Of course, they know better. They protect themselves, but leave our children vulnerable.

The Data We Ignore

  • Since 1998, 82% of mass shootings occurred in places where firearms were banned.
  • Schools that permit concealed carry for staff have seen zero mass shootings during school hours. Zero.
  • States like Utah and New Hampshire allow any teacher with a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on campus. In 19 other states, local districts make that call. Yet where such policies exist, the grim scenes we saw in Madison simply do not happen.

To this day, critics raise alarmist fears about “armed teachers snapping” or students grabbing weapons, but these scenarios have never materialized. Not once. Instead, the data reveal an uncomfortable truth: gun-free zones work only for killers. The law-abiding comply, the criminals rejoice.

A Return to Common Sense

The solution to Madison’s tragedy—and others like it—is not complicated. First, abolish gun-free zones in schools. Replace them with policies that deter attackers and protect students. Allow teachers and staff—volunteers who are trained and licensed—to carry concealed weapons. This doesn’t mean turning schools into fortresses but turning classrooms into deterrents.

Sheriff Kurt Hoffman of Sarasota County, Florida, put it plainly:

“A deputy in uniform… may as well be holding up a neon sign saying, ‘Shoot me first.’”

Hoffman’s point underscores the need for tactical discretion. Uniformed guards, while a visible deterrent, can inadvertently become the first targets. Schools should adopt the strategies used in aviation security, where plainclothes air marshals blend in seamlessly. Similarly, plainclothes or covertly armed staff can provide critical protection without drawing attention to themselves. This element of unpredictability forces attackers to reconsider their plans, knowing that resistance could come from anywhere.

He’s right. Security must be strategic, not theatrical. This is why air marshals on planes don’t wear uniforms. Schools could adopt similar measures: armed staff members concealed among their colleagues, indistinguishable from any other teacher. Let potential attackers wonder who might shoot back.

Dispelling the Misleading Narrative

Much of this debate has been hijacked by misleading claims. President Biden’s “650 mass shootings” figure comes from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a gun control advocacy group that classifies even nonfatal injuries in domestic disputes as “mass shootings.” Yet there is a reason Uvalde and Madison dominate the headlines: the horror of indiscriminate public slaughter is unique, and rare. Inflating the numbers undermines genuine solutions.

The FBI focuses on public shootings—those where attackers seek out undefended targets. Under that definition, mass public shootings are increasing, but still average only 3.9 attacks per year since 1998. This isn’t about “daily gun violence”; it’s about ensuring that when evil strikes, it meets resistance.

The Costs of Willful Naïveté

Gun-free zones persist because they are politically convenient. They offer the illusion of safety, not the reality. They allow politicians to feel like they’ve acted, even as they make the next Madison inevitable. If you doubt this, consider California: the state with the strictest gun laws also has the highest per capita rate of mass public shootings since 2000—far above the national average. Why? Because laws disarm the innocent and embolden the guilty.

The Moral Responsibility to Act

Parents send their children to school believing it is a place of learning and growth. They should not have to wonder if it will be their child’s last day. Abundant Life Christian School, like too many before it, learned this lesson at a terrible cost.

But Madison does not have to become just another tragic name. It should be a call to action. We must abolish gun-free zones and replace hollow virtue-signaling with policies that work: trained, armed and concealed staff. We must admit what the attackers already know—soft targets invite slaughter.

It is time to defend our schools the way we defend our ‘leaders’. (‘leaders’: God, I absolutely abhor that term) Anything less is a failure of moral responsibility.

“If you want peace, prepare for war,” the Roman author Vegetius wrote.

Schools do not need to become battlegrounds, but they do need to be fortified. Because when the next coward comes seeking defenseless victims, let him find resistance instead.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

First, Second, & Fourth Amendments Endangered By Kamala Harris


Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats claim they are the party of freedom. In Harris’ interview on Club Shay Shay on Monday, she argued that people need to vote for her to preserve the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, that Trump “wants to terminate the Constitution.”

Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins. You have been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

You’re Not Crazy: Study Proves Legal Gun Owners Are the Sane Ones. ‘Gun Crime’ is the Fault of Psychopaths.


Women Shooter at Ready Range Ladies Lady Gun Holder IMG NRA-ILA
You’re Not Crazy: Study Proves Legal Gun Owners Are the Sane Ones, ‘Gun Crime’ is the Fault of Psychopaths File Photo IMG NRA-ILA

If you only get your news from the biased mainstream media, you might think that gun owners, especially those who carry concealed, are one step away from being labeled a “crazy gun nut.”

It’s practically guaranteed that after every new concealed carry law is passed, there’s no shortage of headlines warning us that the sky is about to fall, violence will run rampant, and “law-abiding gun owners” will soon be indistinguishable from dangerous criminals.

But what if I told you the truth is far less dramatic? According to a recent study, it’s not legal gun owners we should be worried about—it’s the psychopaths.

That’s right, a new study titled Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence by Sophie L. Kjærvik and Nicholas D. Thomson turns the tables on this narrative. Contrary to what mainstream media would have you believe, the study found that psychopaths—not your average law-abiding citizen—are far more likely to be involved in gun violence and illegal gun carrying.

The “Crazy Gun Nut” Stereotype

Before we dive into the facts, let’s talk about how mainstream media loves to sensationalize anything related to guns. According to a McLaughlin survey, “71.9 percent of Americans are concerned that the national media and news organizations such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are biased when it comes to reporting about gun violence and Second Amendment issues.” And honestly, who could blame them?

From labeling semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons” to making wild predictions about the chaos concealed carry laws will unleash, the media has a long history of misleading the public about gun ownership. But as AmmoLand News has pointed out before, Careful CNN, Your Bias is Showing. The media doesn’t really care about accuracy as long as they can connect gun sales to rising violence—even when the truth is far more nuanced.

Psychopathy, Not Legal Gun Owners, Drives Gun Violence

Now, let’s get to the meat of the study that flies in the face of all the mainstream media’s fearmongering. Kjærvik and Thomson found that “firearm violence was positively related to the affective and antisocial facets of psychopathy.” In plain English, people with emotional coldness and a disregard for social norms are far more likely to commit acts of gun violence. But here’s the kicker—none of those psychopathic traits were linked to legal gun ownership.

In fact, “gun carrying with a concealed permit was not related to any of the facets” of psychopathy. Legal gun carriers, the ones who follow the law and obtain permits, are not driven by the same impulses as those who commit violent crimes with guns. In other words, legal gun owners are, as the title suggests, not crazy.

This study slams the door on the idea that expanding concealed carry laws will somehow lead to widespread violence. The researchers found that “only the antisocial facet statistically predicted gun carrying without a concealed permit” (KJÆRVIK AND THOMSON Page 6), and not a single psychopathy trait was associated with those who carry guns legally.

The ones causing the chaos are those who break the law—not law-abiding gun owners.

The Media’s Obsession with Fear-Mongering

Yet, despite the clear evidence that psychopaths are the driving force behind unlawful gun use, the mainstream media continues to conflate all gun ownership with gun violence. As highlighted in AmmoLand News’ article New Media Group Has Formed to Push the Anti-Gun Narrative, there are now entire organizations dedicated to framing guns as a systemic problem, ignoring the fact that responsible gun owners exist.

Groups like the Association of Gun Violence Reporters (AGVR) are out to “shift public perception about firearms,” framing the conversation in a way that makes legal gun ownership seem dangerous. This is the kind of narrative the media latches onto, painting every gun owner as a ticking time bomb while conveniently leaving out research that contradicts their bias.

Concealed Carry Laws: The Reality vs. The Hype

Every time new concealed carry laws are passed, the media goes into full-blown “the sky is falling” mode. But what does the study say about those who legally carry guns? Absolutely nothing alarming. Legal gun owners who carry with a permit are not prone to violence or psychopathy.

This is in stark contrast to the portrayal in the media, which—as AmmoLand News pointed out in Where Stupid Meets Phobia: A Finger-Gun Update—loves to blow things out of proportion. Finger guns, pastry guns, and even kids playing cops and robbers are treated as threats, while real threats, like people with antisocial tendencies who carry guns illegally, go largely unnoticed.

The Real Problem: Psychopathy & Illegal Gun Use

Psychopathy Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence by Sophie L Kjrvik and Nicholas D Thomson
Psychopathy Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence by Sophie L Kjrvik and Nicholas D Thomson

The real issue here is that the media’s obsession with fear-mongering is clouding the facts. The study found that “firearm violence was positively related to the antisocial and affective facets” (KJÆRVIK AND THOMSON Page 1) of psychopathy. Those with these traits are more likely to engage in illegal gun behavior and violence.

American Gun owners who obtain permits and follow the law? They’re not part of the problem.

But don’t expect to hear that on the evening news. Instead, you’ll get stories that link rising gun sales to violence, ignoring the fact that gun purchases have surged because people are worried about protecting themselves from crime—a crime committed by the very psychopaths the media doesn’t talk about.

The Irony of It All

In the end, this study proves what many gun owners already knew: legal gun carriers aren’t the problem. It’s ironic, really, that the media spends so much time vilifying law-abiding citizens when the real focus should be on identifying and addressing the mental health issues that drive unlawful gun violence. But, as the McLaughlin Poll reveals, a vast majority of Americans have already caught on to the media’s bias.

So, next time you hear someone rant about “crazy gun nuts,” just remember: the real threat isn’t concealed carry permit holders—it’s the psychopaths committing crimes while the media continues to push its tired, inaccurate narratives.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

5 Myths About “Gun Free” Zones


There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Gun Free” zones and, frankly, a lot of it has been useless blather from people who know nothing about guns and reveal more and more of their ignorance with each additional word they speak.

With that in mind, I want to share 5 “Gun Free” zone myths and responses you can use when you hear them.

Myth . Gun Free Zones make us safer and reduce crime. It should be obvious by now that gun free zones don’t make us safer. Any time you hear this argument, ask the person who makes it if they have “gun free zone” stickers on their cars to stop carjackings, “gun free zone” signs in their yards to stop home invasions, and wear “gun free zone” shirts and hats to stop muggings, robberies, rapes, etc.  If they balk, remind them that “Change starts with me” and that they should “Be the change you want to see.”

If “gun free” zones make us safer, suggest that they tell that to the Secret Service and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. I’m sure they’ll change how they protect people right away.

The fact that these signs don’t exist in large numbers is a tacit admission that gun haters and people who are ignorant about guns KNOW, at some level, that gun free zones don’t work.

Equally silly is the thought that gun free zones reduce crime…they simply change the location.

First off, someone who intends on murdering large numbers of people will commit 5 or more misdemeanors and/or felonies in the process of firing their first shot. Do you really think that someone intent on murdering innocent people cares about breaking 1 additional law? Do you really think that someone who intends on killing themselves or committing suicide by cop cares about additional penalties from a judge? Of course not.

Next, gun free zones don’t reduce crime because they change the behavior of moral and ethical people who carry guns more than the behavior of murderers.  In fact gun free zones are a common factor that mass murderers cite for how they picked the locations of their crimes.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be law abiding citizens…both because it’s their general nature and it’s kind of a requirement to get the permit. As a result, a higher percentage of concealed carry permit holders obey gun free zone signs and laws than murdering psychopaths.

Myth . Highly Trained Law Enforcement Will Arrive Immediately And Save You. Law enforcement is my literal and figurative family.  They are short-changed when it comes to the training they get and what’s expected of them.  The average officer receives about as much firearms training as a dog groomer before starting work.  MANY patrol officers across the country only do their 1 day of mandatory training and qualifying per year and do zero practice with their firearms the rest of the year.  Other officers are world class shooters who regularly do extensive reality based training and are training for the fight every day.

On average in the US, it will take 11 minutes for law enforcement to arrive (assuming that someone is connected with a HUMAN 911 operator the instant that the murdering starts).  If a motivated murderer is unchallenged, they will historically shoot an average of 6-20 victims per minute.  When law enforcement arrives, you may get an officer who shoots once a year and doesn’t really like guns or you may get an officer who does dry fire before every shift and has mentally rehearsed and prepared themselves for this situation.  They have trained themselves to fight through the pain of minor gunshot wounds (like the officer in Uvalde).  They have no quit in them and will finish the fight.

It is rare that a school resource officer has both the temperament to be a school resource officer AND be able to flip the switch and pursue a lethal aggressor.  It happens and I’ve trained with one, but it’s rare.  It’s much more likely that in a school full of teachers, administrators, and support staff that there will be a frustrated warrior or two who will already have the mindset and training to solve the problem…we just need to make sure they aren’t prevented from having the tools they need.

Myth Common sense laws will stop mass shootings. We have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US. What’s the magic next law that will make all of the bad people stop doing bad things?

The only thing that would take care of gun crime would be to eliminate guns. By definition, a country with zero (not even 1 gun) guns would have zero gun crime.

We’ve got more than 300 million guns in the US. They’re not going away. If they’re outlawed, then the law would disproportionately affect law abiding citizens. (remember, murderers don’t care about laws or the consequences of breaking them.)

But if we look at how this has worked out in DC, Chicago, Australia, the UK, and other places with strict gun laws, we see that it doesn’t work out well for law enforcement or the general public.

It didn’t work out well for Jews in Germany in the 30s, or minorities in ANY country throughout history that has been disarmed.

Look at Austria…one recent Muslim extremist mass murderer ran his car into a crowd and then got out and started stabbing the survivors.

Look at China…in the last few years, they’ve seen almost a dozen mass school stabbings and hammer attacks, including one where the attacker beat preschoolers in the head with a hammer and then lit himself on fire. Within 24 hours of the Sandy Hook attacks, one murderer stabbed 22 children in an attack in China. In another attack, 4 Muslim extremists used knives to kill 29 civilians and injure 140 others at the Kunming railway station.

Look at Northern Ireland…when gun ownership was prohibited for certain groups, those groups became targets of violence from the groups who could still own guns. Explosives, knives, rocks, and deadly modifications to potato guns took their place to fill the role of the gun. Violence didn’t go away with gun confiscation.

When someone thinks that gun laws will solve the problem of mass shootings, they need to ask themselves what the point is, to protect innocent people or convict guilty people more harshly after they’re dead?

Additional laws only allow for harsher penalties to be enforced, after the fact, on a murdering psychopath.

If you want to protect innocent people from murdering psychopaths who are comfortable breaking laws, you need to look to another solution than more laws. A solution like the most effective way to STOP the attacker.

Myth #4. Locking doors, hiding, throwing cans, and pleading/begging are effective strategies for stopping the threat.

We live in a time where we can find out an amazing amount of detail about EVERY active shooter situation that has happened in the US in recent history. We can see where these strategies were all tried and the outcome. None of them STOP the threat. They may delay death, reduce the number of innocent deaths, change who dies, create time and space for additional attacks, or change the location of deaths, but they don’t stop the threat on their own.

Myth #5. You’re unarmed if you don’t have a gun. This mindset is absolutely toxic. Poisonous. Corrosive. Venomous. Deadly. Wrong.

Yet it’s a common line of thinking for people who have it in their mind that a gun is a magical laser beam that gives the holder supernatural 1 shot killing ability that can only be matched by another gun.

The gun is just a tool that allows the mind to exert it’s influence kinetically at a distance.

The mind is the weapon that decides whether or not to wield tools in a moral and ethical manner or in a psychopathical/sociopathical manner.

As an example, what would have happened if some of the people who kneeled/layed down would have fought the attacker after he shot his first victim? Would they have been killed trying to stop him? Maybe.

We know that at the Umpqua shooting in 2015, at the first sign of armed resistance (from police in this case), the killer ran, hid, and shot himself in the head, ending the killing. If that would have happened after he shot his first or second victim, it wouldn’t have even been considered a “mass shooting.”

I need to be clear…I’m not surprised that nobody who was lined up to get executed fought back.

One soldier, Chris Mintz, actually did fight back at Umpqua…and a lot more. He set off fire alarms, directed students away from the shooting, and then headed towards the gunfire, and attempted to block a door so the gunman couldn’t get through.

He stopped fighting when he was mechanically unable to…because he had one or both legs broken from being shot.

But nobody joined him. And it doesn’t surprise me. And I wouldn’t have expected them to act any differently than they did unless they had different training. The phrase, “you’ll perform half as well in battle as you do in training” applies. If you have zero training, then your expected performance will be that you’ll freeze, cower, or run…and running is probably the best option for someone with no training, but history tells us that the untrained are much more likely to freeze or panic than deliberately run.

When someone who has no training cowers, it’s not cowardly. It’s a reflection of a lack of training. You can’t be expected to perform beyond the level of your training…and that’s why training is SO important, like the Praxis Dynamic Gunfight Training course that goes WAY beyond static, sterile, paper-punching skills that most gun owners call “training.”

But an effective response could have been simple, like grabbing fire extinguishers and, as Clint Smith says, “spray ‘em with the white stuff and then hit them with the red thing.”  It completely baffles me that every classroom in the country doesn’t have at least 2 fire extinguishers for this purpose.  It’s relatively inexpensive, most likely donated, not threatening, and it’s something that could be implemented any day of the week.  A big crowd-control sized pepper spray can may freak out parents, but would a fire extinguisher attached to the teacher’s desk?

It could have been deploying a concealed carry firearm. We have super-stupid federal “gun free zone” legislation that should be eliminated immediately, as well as state laws regarding carry at schools, but that brings up a VERY important point that few concealed carry permit holders know.

In many cases, it is “against the rules” but not illegal to carry a concealed carry firearm in a gun free zone. In other cases, it results in being asked to leave. In other cases, it’s a simple, minor misdemeanor, like trespassing. In other cases, it’s a serious misdemeanor. In other cases, it’s a felony. We have an inconsistent, illogical patchwork of gun laws in this country and you NEED to know the laws where you live.

You could be a teacher somewhere where carrying a gun in a gun free zone on campus might be legal but against school policy and just mean a firm talking-to or it could be losing a job or a serious crime with possible jail time.

If not a fire extinguisher or a gun, then Tasers (not stun guns), knives, pepper spray, or other purpose built or improvised defensive tools combined with offensive strikes can easily change the number of innocent people who were murdered.

But, again, these things are simply TOOLs. The only weapon is the mind. And an effective tool in the hands of someone with an ineffective mind is useless. You must train the mind.

You must train the mind to see targets on the human body.

Watch any UFC fight and you’ll see trained fighters hitting each other in the head and body for 5, 10, and 15 minutes at a time. This illustrates just how ineffective most strikes—even really hard strikes from professional fighters—are at stopping a threat.

A fighter will absorb massive kick after kick after kick and keep fighting, but if their left nut gets grazed, the ref will stop the fight and give them a chance to recover.

A fighter will absorb dozens of punches to the face, but if they barely get touched with a pinky finger in the eye, the ref will stop the fight and give them a chance to recover.

Fighters will try to “knock a guy’s head off” for an entire fight with strikes you can feel from home, but any one of these strikes delivered a few inches lower, to the throat or side of the neck, would instantly knock him out or crush their opponents’ windpipe.

Targeting matters, but conditioning the mind matters too. You must train the mind to be able to switch from the loving, caring, empathetic, socialized person that you are to a cold-hearted robot with ice flowing in your veins JUST long enough to stop the threat with the minimum force necessary to preserve human life.

And the most scientific and proven way that we know of to do this is with the Fight To Your Gun training

It’s based on gross motor movements and what’s in your environment, so it’s effective on younger, faster, bigger, and stronger attackers and it’ll allow you to stop a lethal force threat at bad breath distance faster than you could with a concealed carry pistol.

I’d suggest people buy it before they buy their first gun. You can learn more about it >HERE<

Thoughts? Questions? Comments? 

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: