Ignorance Is Bliss?

Ignorance may be bliss, but it is definitely not safe.

One of the latest PR pushes by anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign is about “asking the question.”  They say that in the interest of safety, you should ask if there are guns in the home before allowing your kids to play at a friend’s house.  The implication is then that if the answer is affirmative, you interrogate the parents about how the guns are stored…and if you are unsatisfied with their response, I guess you “unfriend” that family immediately, and never let your child play at that house ever again.  Or something.

 

Simply asking doesn't make kids safer...education does.

Simply asking doesn’t make kids safer…education does.

 

But if you aren’t educated in firearms safety, how could you intelligently question a gun owner on safe storage? If all you know about guns is what you’ve seen on TV and in movies, how could you possibly make an educated assessment?  More importantly, how can you ensure that your children are safe when you aren’t around to supervise them?

There’s a better way:  Education…for yourself, and for your kids.

What if everybody had to learn at least a little about guns? Like maybe in school?  I learned basic gun safety from my Dad as a young boy, but at age 14 began to get formal marksmanship and gun safety training in JROTC. We set up traps and shot formal position rifle with air rifles, right in the classroom. We all went through the Tennessee Hunter’s Safety Course as part of class…whether we hunted or not. Whether I ever picked up a gun again, I at least had some education in their use and safety. How is that bad?

 

The NRA's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program has educated 27 million children in simple gun safety.

Stop. Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell An Adult. The NRA’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program has educated 27 million children in simple gun safety.

 

You know, regardless of your individual feelings on the topic, as a society we have largely adopted a similar attitude with sex education. The argument is that you can’t prohibit it, so you ought to at least teach people how to be safe. With sex, we acknowledge that ignorance is dangerous, and that at least a little bit of education is prudent. We may disagree about exactly when and how one might get that education, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that complete ignorance on the topic is wise.

But as the gun prohibition movement attempts to stigmatize gun ownership, and segregate gun owners from “proper” society, education in firearms use and safety suffers.  In today’s public schools, rather than learn gun safety as I did, children are punished for chewing a Pop-Tart into a gun shape, or for pointing a finger and saying “bang” in a game of cops-and-robbers.  Unless a parent or family member provides that education, children these days are much more likely to leave school and enter adulthood completely ignorant of firearms than ever before.

Like it or not, guns are a part of American society. But when our national policy is to stigmatize and prohibit…we institutionalize ignorance over education.  You can’t shield your children from every danger, but you can make them smarter.  Eliminate ignorance.

 

Image courtesy of Oleg Volk

Image courtesy of Oleg Volk

Share

Doing The Math

If it saves even one life.

It’s an argument we often hear from gun prohibitionists.  They say that if we’ll just be “reasonable,” and give in and concede some of our gun rights…if we accept an “assault weapons” ban, a magazine capacity limit, or “universal” background checks…it might save one life.  They say that saving just one life is worth the infringement.  They say that it is only “common sense.”

Really?

 

 

Before we dive in, a quick disclaimer:  Civil rights should never be dependent on a cost/benefit calculation.  That sort of thinking can be used to justify any number of infringements and atrocities.  Rights are rights, and are absolute as long as their exercise does not interfere with the rights of others.

But for the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that the only bar which must be cleared to restrict an individual freedom is that it, “saves just one life.”  If that were so, we could make a case to lower the national maximum speed limit to 10 miles per hour.  Such low speeds would certainly save at least one life, and likely thousands more.  Better yet, if we banned all motorized vehicles, we could completely eliminate all traffic fatalities!

Yet no one would seriously consider either of those proposals, despite the fact that it would clearly save at least one life.  Why is that?

Simple.

It is because we as a society have done the math and determined that the benefits which we enjoy from having cars, and from being able to drive them at a relatively high speed outweighs that “one life.”  In fact, we have concluded that it outweighs thousands of lives.  While we will certainly work to make the roads as safe as possible, we are also clearly willing to exchange a certain number of fatalities for the convenience of personal, rapid transportation.  We will probably never reduce traffic fatalities to zero…and we’re okay with it.

You might say, “Hold on a minute, Dave!  It isn’t that simple.  Cars might be dangerous, but they are also essential to keeping our modern economy and society moving.  Without rapid, individual transportation, our economy and our quality of life would suffer.  Besides, eliminating all motor vehicles would also eliminate such things as ambulances,fire engines, and police cars.  People would die without those; the fact that we have such modern equipment saves lives.”

 

Well, it would cut down on traffic fatalities...

Well, it would cut down on traffic fatalities…

 

And you’d be right.  But therein lies the essential falsehood of the “if it saves one life” argument as applied to the gun control debate.  Our opponents do not want to concede that while the absence of guns might save one life, it could just as easily cost another life.  Lives are tragically lost to motor vehicles every day, but we balance that cost with the benefits they bring us, and the lives they save.  Guns are the same.  In fact, for every single tragic loss of life to the misuse of guns, dozens more are saved because an innocent person was able to defend themselves…with a gun.

Recognizing only costs, and ignoring benefits…”if it saves just one life”…is a false argument.  Applied to cars, it’s simply silly.  Applied to the civil right to keep and bear arms, it is a crime.

Share

1,320 Words

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for

Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

What do those words mean to you?

Share

I Got Your Warning Shot Right Here

This is going to be a rant.  There, you’ve been warned.

Now then, let’s discuss Florida’s so-called “warning shot” law.  I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to get into the weeds and try to spell out all the specifics for you.  Andrew Branca has already done that much better than I can over at legalinsurrection.com.

But I will say that I have had it up to here with gun writers, bloggers, podcasters, and…let’s just call them all People Who Should Know Better®…denouncing the law for legalizing the firing of warning shots.

IT DOES NOT.  Again, read Andrew Branca’s analysis.

Since Florida Governor Rick Scott signed this bill into law, I have seen way too many People Who Should Know Better® proclaiming what an awful, stupid law this is for making warning shots legal, because everybody knows warning shots are bad.

As a community, we do ourselves no favor by posting to blogs, Facebook, etc. about how stupid this law is for legalizing warning shots when it does no such thing.  We criticize our political opponents for being ignorant of guns and the laws that govern their use, but I sure have seen a ton of People Who Should Know Better® going nuts over this law when they clearly have not read it and do not understand it.

Do your homework, people.  You’re making us look bad.  The information is available, and if you are a “gun person,” there is probably at least one person out there who places some value on your opinion.  At least make sure it is an educated opinion.

 

ignoranceisachoice

 

Now then…let me put on my firearms instructor hat…there we go.

Warning shots are indeed bad.  They are dangerous, they are poor tactics, and they are illegal in every place I know of (even Florida).  If you read this article and come away thinking I advocate the use of warning shots, go back and read the whole thing again.  It’s not that long.  If after a second read, you still think this means I am in favor of firing warning shots, the only further advice I could offer is that you might consider picking up the Rosetta Stone English language package.

Rant over.

Share

A Short Conversation with a Gun Prohibitionist…Armed Teachers Edition

You didn’t think our old hoplophobic friend was done, did you?  Seems like he has a problem with allowing teachers to go armed in order to protect children…

Gun Prohibitionist:  We cannot allow teachers and other school personnel to carry guns! It would be unsafe!

Dave:  Well, a maniac with a gun shooting schoolkids is unsafe…maybe somebody ought to be able to shoot back.

GP:  But a teacher with a gun would be too dangerous.  They might miss and hit a child by mistake!

Dave:  So you don’t think they should be allowed to defend themselves and the children?

GP:  They can defend themselves, just not with a gun.  They could throw something, like a stapler or a book.

Dave:  Well, what if they missed with the book or the stapler, and hit a child by mistake?

GP:  At least a book or a stapler wouldn’t hurt the child.

Dave:  Probably wouldn’t hurt the shooter, either.  Probably just go right on shooting children, huh?

GP:  I hate you, Dave.

 

"What? There's a shooter in the building? I guess I'm ready."

“What? There’s a shooter in the building? I guess I’m ready.”

Share

Mandatory Training

Everybody should be properly trained if they intend to use a gun for self-defense, right? No argument here. But should it be mandated by the government?

I say no.  Emphatically.

“But Dave,” you might point out, “You are a firearms trainer.  Clearly you believe in the importance of training.”  And you’d be right.  Proper and continued training enhances safety, physical skill and mindset, and mitigates legal risk.  These are all good things.  So why would I be opposed to making minimal firearms training the law of the land?

 

I like training, whether I'm giving it or receiving it.

I like training, whether I’m giving it or receiving it.

 

For starters, I could point out that there is no empirical evidence which shows that mandatory firearms training actually guarantees any of those things.  I spent several hours scouring the internet for some data which would at least show some correlation between mandatory training and firearms accident rates in different states.  The data I did find was frankly all over the place…so scattered I won’t even bother including it here.  I found states with strict training requirements, low training requirements, and no training requirements.  I looked at states with constitutional carry (requiring no permit) and “may issue” states which, even with stringent training requirements…issued almost no concealed carry licenses at all.  Some had relatively low firearms accident rates, some had higher rates…some didn’t even report that type of data.  I found no apparent pattern to tie firearms training (or lack of it) to firearms accidents (or lack of them).

The only substantial data I could find was from the Centers for Disease Control, and it shows that on a national level, firearms accidents have been on a steady downward trend for decades.  Also, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has data showing that accidents have been trending downward since these types of records began being kept in 1903…and is currently at its lowest point ever.  But data connecting training and accident rates?  It isn’t there.  Never mind proof of causation, I couldn’t even correlate the two.  If you can, share it with me.

 

Accidental-Deaths-chart-2-declining-trend

 

But you still might ask, “So what?  Even without data, we know training is good.  You say so yourself.  What’s the harm in mandating it?”

The harm is in the potential to disenfranchise citizens from a civil right which the Constitution guarantees “shall not be infringed.”  To mandate training in order to exercise that right is to require that citizens spend money and time…which they may not have…in order to exercise a right.

Would you approve of a law requiring a 12-hour, $100* reading comprehension class prior to being permitted to read a book?  To write one?  The pen is mightier than the sword, of course…ensuring the responsible exercise of speech would be a reasonable thing to do, right? Millions of people have been killed over words, you know.

What about requiring a similar class in civics and current events before being licensed to vote?  Surely such a class would result in people making better choices in the voting booth…what possible objection could there be?  Poor voting choices have resulted in a multitude of woes, so what’s the problem with requiring people to be a little smarter before pulling that lever?

 

Good firearms training isn't free. Dave Spaulding of Handgun Combatives

Good firearms training isn’t free.
Dave Spaulding of Handgun Combatives

 

The problem comes when you don’t have the $100, or you don’t have the 12 hours to spend on the class.  Then suddenly that right to free speech or that right to vote is getting infringed a bit, isn’t it?  Does that bother you a little?  It bothers me a lot.  Putting a price tag and a license on the exercise of those rights would be intolerable, yet we tolerate it when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.  We can’t even prove that it makes a difference, yet we force citizens to pony up money…sometimes exorbitant amounts…and spend their time getting training before they can legally defend themselves with a gun.

So training is good, but we don’t want to make it mandatory?  Then how do we get people to willingly spend that money and that time to make themselves better with a gun?

- Let’s begin with dropping the negative, elitist attitude that “ordinary people” simply cannot handle the responsibility.  They can and have since before the founding of this nation…even before the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

- How about we stop “othering” gun owners, and stop stigmatizing the concept that taking responsibility for our own self-defense is a good thing?  It is a human right…a civil right…and there is nothing wrong with wanting to exercise it.

- And if the government really wants to help (yeah, I know), then how about taking more positive steps?  Give a tax credit for taking a firearms class…instead of taxing a civil right.

 

*The state of Ohio requires completion of a 12-hour training class prior to applying for a Concealed Handgun License.  Class fees run between about $85-$125…I charge $100 (and these fees do not include ammunition or travel expenses associated with training).  I offered the figures of 12 hours and $100 as representative of concealed carry training, though it can vary widely between states.

Share

Three Lessons From the Seattle Shootings

There are some lessons to be learned from the recent shootings at Seattle Pacific University.

When a maniac bent on mass murder entered the campus and began shooting innocent people, a student armed only with pepper spray took the killer down, and then held him for police with the aid of other students.

First lesson?  There are still heroes.  According to reports, university student Jon Meis took the gunman down using nothing but pepper spray.  Apparently Meis took advantage of the attacker pausing to reload, and went on the offensive.  He did this though he could not have known if the killer perhaps had another weapon, or of his physical strength or skill.  Jon Meis would have known that there was no guarantee that he would prevail, but he went in anyway. Full marks to this young man for his courage…he undoubtedly saved lives.

 

This is what a hero looks like. Photo: Seattle Times/Dean Rutz

This is what a hero looks like. Student Jon Meis is treated by emergency responders after subduing a gunman at Seattle Pacific University.
Photo: Seattle Times/Dean Rutz

 

Next lesson?  There is an old saw in the law enforcement training world that states, “Fortuitous outcomes reinforce poor tactics.”  Put simply, it means that just because you won doesn’t necessarily mean that your tactics were correct…you might have just gotten lucky. Remember this when an anti-gunner points to Jon Meis’ success against the gunman at Seattle Pacific, and says that this is proof that you don’t need a gun. Just because he was able to defeat a shotgun wielding maniac with no more than pepper spray and testicular fortitude does not make it the preferred approach.  If it were, the police wouldn’t carry guns when they go after spree killers.  They’d just roll in with a big can of their favorite defensive condiment and hose ‘em down.

 

It doesn't look like pepper spray is their first choice when going up against a spree killer. Photo:  KIRO-TV

It doesn’t look like pepper spray is their first choice when going up against a spree killer.
Photo: KIRO-TV

 

Which takes us to the last lesson,  though not a new one.

There is no such thing as a gun free zone.  They are only gun free until they aren’t gun free anymore. Neatly lettered signs proclaiming that guns, and anyone carrying them, will be considered naughty if they cross an imaginary line are just plain silly. They are effective only in disarming those who are inclined to obey the law, leaving them without an effective defense when the wolf comes.  Murderers do not honor signs.  You want some “common sense” when it comes to guns?  Get rid of “gun free zones.”

 

Doesn't look like a gun free zone to me. Photo: Seattle Times/Jillian Smith

Doesn’t look like a gun free zone to me.
Photo: Seattle Times/Jillian Smith

 

Postscript – As details surrounding this incident are revealed, look to the Four Constants. Let’s see how many prove true this time.

Share

Aim Higher

I shot the USPSA Ohio Sectionals recently, and as part of post-match clean-up, I did an ammo inventory.  In one day of competition, I shot 265 rounds of .45 ACP.  I shot them at multiple targets, some partially obscured by cover, or by friendly “no-shoots.”  I shot them at moving targets, and targets of various sizes.  I shot some of those rounds of ammo from unconventional positions, and I shot some while I was moving.

 

My friend John H., shooting a production gun at the 2014 USPSA Ohio Sectionals

My friend John H., shooting a production gun at the 2014 USPSA Ohio Sectionals

 

A typical police qualification course might be about 100 rounds, and a cop might shoot that once or twice a year. I know of one state where officers are required to shoot a 30-round qualification twice a year…60 rounds total per year.  I’ll also guarantee you that the qualification courses that most agencies require their officers to pass are nowhere near as challenging as your average weekend USPSA or IDPA match.  This is not a knock on cops…it’s just a fact. Police departments don’t like to spend money on training, or take working cops off the street so that they can go to the range and practice.

 

That's 200 rounds...about all the average cop shoots in a year. It's not that hard to do more.

That’s 200 rounds…about all the average cop shoots in a year. It’s not that hard to do more.

 

The thing is, the gun prohibitionists would like to convince you that you couldn’t possibly become as adept with a firearm as a police officer.  They would like you to surrender your firearms and leave your protection to the “professionals.”  But the truth is, if you go to the range and shoot one 50-round box every third month, you are likely on par with the average cop as far as firearms skill goes.  That isn’t a whole lot of shooting.  With only a bit more focus in your training, it is neither difficult nor expensive to become much better with a firearm than the average cop.

 

 

This summer, I’ll be accompanying my sister (a teacher, by the way) to her first real gun class since she took her concealed carry course.  It’s a one-day class with a top-notch instructor.  The course description says students should bring 300-400 rounds of ammunition, and tuition is $150.  In that one day, my sister and I will each expend at least twice the amount of ammo an average cop shoots in a year, doing productive skills training under the supervision of a pro instructor.

I’ve been a police officer, and I understand the conditions of the job.  I give them full marks for the dangerous, difficult job they do.  They work hard and the vast majority will do their very best to help you in your time of need, risking their own lives in the process.  But you are deluded if you think that they are capable of responding to your emergency with any more speed or skill than you.  Do not allow gun prohibitionists to convince you that you are better off waiting for a “professional” to bring you a gun, than to have one with you right now.  That is an outright lie told by politicians who wish to see you disarmed.

You are your own first responder, so be your own first responder.

 

Share

A Short Conversation With A Gun Prohibitionist…About Santa Barbara

Our friend the gun prohibitionist wants to “have a conversation” about the recent spree killing near the University of California-Santa Barbara. Well, OK…

Gun Prohibitionist:  These killings prove the need for more gun control!

Dave:  Such as?

GP:  We should pass universal background checks for all gun transfers!

Dave:  California has “universal background checks.”  The killer submitted to, and passed background checks.

GP:  We should outlaw high capacity magazines!

Dave:  California limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, which is what the killer used.

GP:  Well, all guns should be registered!

Dave:  California requires handguns be registered, and the killer had registered his.

GP:  He had three pistols!  It should be illegal to buy three pistols all at once!

Dave:  He didn’t buy them all at once.  California only allows one handgun purchase per month.

GP:  Well…um…there should be a waiting period for gun purchases!

Dave:  California has a 10-day waiting period for all purchases.

GP:  Er…mandatory safety training?

Dave:  Californians must take and pass a safety test and be issued a Handgun Safety Certificate before purchasing a gun.

GP:  Well, there must be some law that could be passed to keep this from happening again!

Dave:  True.  California could pass shall-issue concealed carry, universal reciprocity, and eliminate “gun free zones.”

GP:  You know that’s not what I mean, Dave.

Dave:  Yeah.  I know.

 

Image courtesy of Oleg Volk

Share

The Four Constants of Spree Killers

The latest spree killer in Santa Barbara, California (I won’t print his name)…has reinforced that there are almost always four consistent factors in these events; any such event which doesn’t share all four is an exception. When the next one occurs*, look for these four constants:

1.  The killing occurred in a “gun free zone.”  In this case, California itself is very nearly one big gun free zone, as it is near impossible for an ordinary citizen to carry a defensive firearm.

2.  The killer was mentally ill.  It is almost always the case that the killer struggled with mental illness, often for some time.

3.  Somebody knew the killer was mentally ill.  With a lengthy mental illness, family and friends are aware of it.  In this case, it appears that even his therapist considered him potentially dangerous, and told his family so.

4.  The killer kept going until confronted with armed resistance.  Then they surrendered or committed suicide.

 

 AP Photo/The News-Press, Peter Vandenbelt

In a “gun free zone,” a known mentally ill person kills until someone shows up with a gun to stop him. The universal caption…

 

*There will be a “next one,” no matter how many gun laws are passed, thanks to the mainstream media splattering this maniac’s name and picture all over every TV screen in the country.  The mainstream media is creating the “next one” right now…

Share