Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

A firearms is an equalizer. It allows a weaker person to fight back against a stronger attacker. Tom Knighton has such a case

It seems the woman, while riding a motorcycle, somehow angered 60-year-old Bruce Jones over how she was riding the bike. Then, things got ugly.

The incident took place Feb. 8 in Milton, and the woman, who had been on a motorcycle, said she acted in self-defense when she shot 60-year-old Bruce Jones to death.

The Prosecutor’s Office said that it could not prove that she didn’t act in self-defense because of the evidence in the case.

Witnesses said Jones became upset with how the woman was riding her motorcycle on I-5. He boxed her in, and she couldn’t drive away.

He got out of his vehicle and aggressively approached her on the shoulder of I-5, the Prosecutor’s Office says witnesses report.

The Prosecutor’s Office says Jones initiated the fight.

While it sounds like a heck of a brawl, it appears Jones threw the woman to the ground and started to get on top of her. That’s when she shot him in the chest.

I can’t say that I’m surprised by that. Not only would that be a terrifying predicament for any woman–after all, how many rapes are portrayed just like that?–but would be scary for anyone in general. That was the same position Trayvon Martin was in when he began pounding George Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk. It sounds like some definite risk to life.

Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

Aurora, Colorado

AURORA, Colo. – A good guy with a gun helped stop a bad guy with a gun in Aurora Friday afternoon, according to the Aurora Police Department.

A shooting at the Village East Grocery Store in the area of East Mississippi Avenue and South Peoria Street led police to the crime scene at around 2:09 p.m., where they found a woman suffering from a gunshot wound in the parking lot of the grocery store, according to a press release.

“It is believed that the female victim is the owner of the grocery store and that she sustained her injuries during a robbery of the business,” Aurora Police spokesman Kenneth Forrest said in a statement.

The woman was taken to a hospital where she currently remains in serious, but stable condition.

Forrest said that during the investigation, officers determined that a Good Samaritan confronted the robbery suspect outside of the grocery store and shot him. The suspect then fled the area.

Kansas rejects gun control foolishness

Kansas gets it

When students all over the country stepped out of their classrooms on Wednesday, many believed they’d change the world. They thought people would suddenly realize that gun control is essential for whatever reason. Not all thought that, mind you, but a decent number did.

And they were wrong, as the state of Kansas decided to remind them.

Kansas lawmakers rejected a series of gun control measures one by one on Thursday, the day after students nationwide walked out of class to protest school shootings.

The sprawling debate demonstrated the Legislature remains solidly in favor of gun rights.

A shooting in Parkland, Fla., killed 17 people last month. That led to walkouts Wednesday across the country and in Kansas, including at the Kansas Capitol.

Thursday, senators voted against more than half a dozen measures, including:

▪ Prohibiting rifle purchases for people under 21

▪ Imposing a three-day waiting period on some gun purchases

▪ Allowing public colleges to decide whether to allow concealed weapons

Senators did unanimously pass a bill making it a state crime for people convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to have a firearm.

They also passed a bill requiring Kansas to recognize conceal-carry permits from other states, 25-15.

The defeated gun control measures came in the form of amendments to that bill.

In short, they rejected useless laws that would have done nothing to make anyone safer

Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

Son saves mom from carjacker

 – A Fulton County woman came face to face with an armed robber Thursday afternoon.

“I was taking my grandson to doctor’s appointment and had one foot in the car when suddenly a car was blocking my driveway,” the woman said.

The woman doesn’t want to be identified but told FOX 5 News, the driver immediately got out and rushed to her.

“I started screaming so loud that my son who was inside at the time heard me and came out to help,” the woman said.

Police said the woman’s son fired shots at Delk, hitting him multiple times.

“He still managed to drive himself to a nearby fire station where he tried to play the victim,” the woman said. “He told them that he was the victim of an interstate shooting.”

Texas man stops crime spree

The benefits of armed citizens

Grand Prairie police arrested a man Friday after he allegedly killed his ex-girlfriend and tried to burn her house down before assaulting another woman. Police credit a concealed handgun license holder with ending the man’s violent spree.

Bill Nguyen, 47, is accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Chi Pham, and setting her home in the 2900 block of Hastings on fire before driving to a nearby nail salon and assaulting another woman.

Grand Prairie police said the good Samaritan intervened and stopped Nguyen’s violent episode in the 5100 block of Magna Carta.

“He held the suspect at gunpoint while this individual had a gun himself. Had he not been there, there is no telling what could have happened. We are in his debt and very grateful for him taking action when he did,” said Assistant Chief Daniel Scesney.

Police said Nguyen and Pham had recently ended their romantic relationship. The two had worked together at the salon in the past.

Did this man save lives? Certainly, and who knows what the man he stopped would have done. The 24/7 news networks will not touch these stories, nor do they report on school shooting plots that are foiled when police take threat seriously. Over 16 million Americans carry firearms legally, and no chaos has ensued from that. The media will not share that news either. Instead they choose to focus on the mass killers that do succeed, giving the impression that mass shootings are common in America. And they spend more time on talking heads with agendas than they do on actual facts. Rarely if ever will any anchor challenge the assertions of gun control supporters that paint the NRA as if they are at fault. Nor do they correct the repeated use of terms like “assault  weapon”, “weapons of war”. They also rarely challenge the claims that grossly exaggerate the number of school shootings. So much for journalism.

Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

A good guy with a AR-15 stops a stabbing

There was blood “everywhere” in the hallway of an apartment building in Oswego, Illinois, as a man allegedly attacked a victim with a knife on Monday.

Dave Thomas witnessed the attack unfolding and he knew he had to do something.

“I poked my head out the door. There was a pool of blood, blood was everywhere in the hall. There was still a confrontation going on, there were about three or four people involved at this point,” he recalled to WGN 9.

Thomas said he ran back to his home and grabbed his AR-15 rifle. Moments later, he was ordering the knife-wielding attacker to stop.

And he did.

“I grabbed the AR-15 over my handgun — bigger gun, I think a little more of an intimidation factor. Definitely played a part in him actually stopping,” Thomas added.

Ah, but the left insists no one uses an AR for defensive purposes

Thomas, a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit, said after the incident that the AR-15 is his “weapon of choice for home protection.”

“It’s light, it’s maneuverable. If you train and know how to use it properly, it’s not dangerous,” he continued. “And this is just a perfect example of good guy with an AR-15 stopped a bad guy with a knife. And there were no lives taken, so all in all it was a good day.”

But again, the left says this does not happen.

So, teachers do not want to carry firearms?

The idea of allowing teachers with carry permits that have completed some additional training is an idea I support. Of course we have heard from some on the left that teachers do not want to pursue such a course of action. We have heard they will just go crazy and shoot students (the left never grow tired of such foolish rhetoric). We have heard how trachers would either freeze, or would stand no chance against an AR-15. We even heard Senator Marco Rubio say he is against arming teachers. You know who seems to disagree with these arguments? Teachers!

But there’s another idea that seems to be gaining traction this time around, and it doesn’t involve taking away your guns. In fact, it suggests the opposite: arm teachers and other school staff members.

Now, it’s important to note that those in favor of such legislation do not believe all teachers must carry. No one is forcing anyone to carry a gun who is not comfortable doing so. But those who are comfortable conceal carrying a firearm, and are willing to do so in a school setting, should be allowed to – after receiving the proper training, of course.

That’s why, following the massacre in Parkland, Florida, Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones in Ohio announced that his department would be offering a free concealed carry weapons course for all Butler County school employees.

According to Jones, within 20 minutes, 50 people had signed up for the class. On Tuesday, when registration closed, that number had risen to 300.

Remember this, disarming the good only aids the evil

Yes, more firearms in civilian hands does reduce crime

As I listened to the kids reading their emotionalistic appeals for Congress to “do something” today, I kept thinking to myself why not one brought up armed security at schools. Not one word about armed teachers, not one word about anything, except blaming the NRA, and guns of course. Well, the NRA, champions of gun safety and better background checks are right. Armed resistance is the best security measure……. 

Just ask Israel H//T Tom Knighton, Bearing Arms

Many people have pointed to Israel as proof of how gun control should be. The Jewish state, that is otherwise an anathema to the left, has some pretty strict gun laws, making it a role model for us to consider, some argue.

Well, one Israeli writer, Tzvi Lev, thinks it’s proof of something, it’s just not what the anti-gun zealots would like.

Gun rights advocates contend that the way to stop mass shootings is by ensuring that there are always well-armed citizens present who can neutralize the shooter. As NRA chairman Wayne Lapierre always says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. A bedrock of the NRA’s philosophy is that criminals will always acquire guns illegally, and draconian gun laws only render law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Enter Israel: When the knife intifada erupted in September 2015, the Israeli government’s response was to ease the process for the civilian populace to obtain weapons. After a particularly bloody Jerusalem shooting attack that killed four, then-Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan drastically changed the gun laws in order to significantly raise the number of armed civilians on the streets. Instantly, graduates of Special Forces units and IDF officers with the rank of Lieutenant and above were permitted to purchase guns at their will, security guards were allowed to bring their guns home after work, and the minimum age for a license was reduced from 21 to 18.

Erdan explained that “civilians well trained in the use of weapons provide reinforcement in the struggle against terrorism”, while Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called for every resident to carry a gun, and was even photographed traveling the city carrying a Glock 23.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in Israel are stopped by armed civilians, not law enforcement. For example, the terrorists in the 2016 Sarona market attack were stopped by armed passersby. A pistol-carrying tour guide put an end to the 2017 ramming attack in Arnona that left four soldiers dead.

In Israeli eyes, guns are a valuable deterrent against terrorism. In fact, terrorists have told the Shin Bet internal security service that they often target haredi Jews due to the high likelihood that they are unarmed.

Gun control supporters would answer that the mandatory military service that every Israeli undergoes justifies the trust Israel has of its citizens. However, this argument doesn’t hold water. The vast majority of IDF soldiers aren’t combat soldiers and are certified as 02 riflemen. To be 02 requires one to shoot between 40 and 70 bullets. The pistol course needed to obtain a license takes less than four hours. It is a far cry from the highly trained population that the Left imagines.

Ah, so Israel, in response to numerous knife attacks, moved away from stricter gun laws, and, well, the results are there to see aren’t they? The left, naturally rejects such data because it does not fit their narrative. Then the left blames the NRA, and Republican lawmakers for not backing more gun control? Violent crime have dropped over the last two-plus decades. All the while the number of gun owners, and the number of Americans why carry firearms has skyrocketed. Again, the left denies reality, because the idea of armed Americans exercising the natural right of self-defense offends the left more than do mass shootings, or gang related violence.

One Colorado school district is actually doing something that makes sense

The cries of “do something” from the left have all been about curbing rights of the law abiding. This is all too predictable because the left never wants a good crisis to go to waste do they? But one Colorado school district is going to take steps that address the need for better security

The news following the Parkland massacre has focused primarily on efforts to impede the rights of people who had nothing at all to do with Parkland. The anti-gun left wants to inhibit the rights of law-abiding citizens in some misguided effort to stop the next shooting, which will still happen no matter what you do.

However, a small school district in Colorado is addressing the situation differently. They’re expanding gun rights in an effort to combat school shootings. And not just any expansion, but one that will directly impact these kinds of shootings.

A rural Colorado school district decided Wednesday night to allow its teachers and other school staff to carry guns on campus to protect students.

The Hanover School District 28 board voted 3-2 to allow school employees to volunteer to be armed on the job after undergoing training.

The district’s two schools serve about 270 students about 30 miles southeast of Colorado Springs, and it takes law enforcement an average of 20 minutes to get there. The district currently shares an armed school resource officer with four other school districts.

Board member Michael Lawson backed the idea not only as way to protect students from a mass shooting, but also as protection against possible violence connected with nearby marijuana grows, which he believes are connected with foreign cartels, the Gazette of Colorado Springs reported.

Of course, there were those who refuse to see reality.

School board President Mark McPherson said a survey showed the community was split on the issue. While staffers would get some training, the retired Army officer said he didn’t think it would be enough to help them respond effectively to an active shooter. He worries what would happen if they fired and missed in a classroom.

“We need to leave that to the professionals,” said McPherson, who also worries about the risk posed by just having the guns in the school building and how they would be stored.

Of course, because some people are convinced that self-defense with a gun is simply impossible. Of course stats show that armed self-defense is not rare. And arming teachers not only gives teachers a tool to meet a mad man with deadly force, but, it also serves as a deterrent. Remember almost every single mass shooting has happened in a “gun-free” zone. Those intent on wreaking havoc are not stupid, they much prefer soft targets.

Also, over 15 million Americans carry firearms legally, yet, very, very, very few ever have neglgent discharges, or do anything wrong with that weapon. Also, as Tom Knighton points out in districts that do allow armed teachers, there have been no incidents.

Do something? Yes, tighten background check records. And accept the reality that self-defense is a good thing, and that being a disarmed victim is not somehow morally supperior to be armed.

What if our leaders actually thought about preventing school shootings?

WEll, if they stopped looking only at gun control, or at half-measures and accepted that some people are evil, they might come up with a common sense solution. One like Mike McDaniel has 

The ultimate problem is human nature. Evil exists. Some people are simply evil, and evil people do evil things. Whether they are somehow mentally defective, their parents abused them, they are inspired by the author of evil, or even possessed by demons doesn’t matter to their victims. Thankfully, the number willing to carry out mass school attacks remains small, but they have always existed and always will, and there is nothing we can do about that. Nothing.

What does that leave us? What can we do, if anything, to deter, and if deterrence fails, to stop school shooters?

Let me say, Mike has some similar ideas to what I, and others have wished for, and yes, it starts with accepting the truth. Some people are evil, and will only be stopped by force. Either being arrested before they carry out the intended acts, or are stopped by force as they carry out such acts.

There is a simple method, one that would cost little, would effectively deter shooters, and alone, would allow school personnel to stop an attack, potentially before a single person is wounded or killed: allow willing, qualified school personnel—teacher and support staff—to carry concealed handguns.

Concealed carry licensees constitute a ready pool. Many teachers already have such licenses, but are not, with a few states being exceptions, allowed to carry on school property. Texas, for example, allows teachers to keep firearms in their vehicles on school property, and to carry concealed if their districts establish a policy allowing it, but thus far, few have. Most simply prohibit it.

In 2016, I posted an article with a model armed school policy. In that article, I established a fundamental principle:

Fundamental Principle: to have as many armed staff members present in every school as possible, so that when and wherever an attack takes place, there will be multiple armed and capable adults ready, then and there, at that instant, to save lives.

I recommend taking the link and reading that article, but for the moment, allowing every willing concealed carry license holder to carry concealed—the weapon must be completely concealed and always on the person—and publicizing the fact that all employees are allowed to carry, and many are, is the most effective possible deterrent. Unfortunately, this will be resisted because any school district that does not have the policy will be painting a target on the backs of their students and staff, and once nearby districts adopt the policy, they’ll have no choice. That’s right. They’d rather allow their students to be murdered than allow responsible adults to protect their lives.

The tendency to over-regulate must be avoided. To do otherwise violates the fundamental principle. Teachers must be allowed—within professional reason–to carry the handgun they can effectively conceal and shoot well. No teacher need be a police officer or trained to that standard. They need only sufficient skill with their handgun, and to know the law relating to the use of deadly force. Their handguns will only be removed from concealment if they need to save themselves or another from the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Tactical training should be offered every year, but that would be the only real expense for any school district.

Even if a given school had no one carrying concealed, it would enjoy the deterrence benefit. For a school of 3200 students, and likely, 300 or so staff, it’s the only rational possibility. Multiple adults on every floor, in every hallway, in every building, ready and able to save lives, is the only policy that can save lives. To do otherwise, to do less, is to tacitly accept some number of wounded and dead. That number will always be determined by the number of officers on the street when the call is made, traffic patterns, their knowledge of the school facility, the lack of marksmanship of the killer, in other words, dumb luck.

School shootings will happen again; anywhere; anytime. We cannot prevent them, but we can deter and potentially, stop them when and where they occur.

The next time someone feigns shock at the mere idea of armed teachers, ask them this: an armed killer is walking down the hallway of the school where your eight year-old daughter attends class. It will take thirty rounds of gunfire before a phone call is made to the police, 45 seconds for the call to be dispatched, five minutes for the first officer to arrive, and five more minutes for him to enter the school and locate the shooter. Would you rather have multiple teachers armed and ready to stop the shooter, perhaps before he fires a single round, or are you comfortable waiting for that first officer, who stands a 50/50 chance of being shot and killed by the shooter?

Go read the whole thing. I doubt the sage advice given will ever be put in place. Frankly, too many of us are conditioned to not assign blame to the person seeking to do evil. And too many of us refuse to accept that our safety, and our kids safety is our responsibility.


Sheriff calls for common sense

He speaks the truth. Much better armed security is needed in schools

So, AR-15s have no good purpose?

The left demonizes a rifle, and tries to convince us it has no legitimate purpose?

A Henderson homeowner defended himself against a home invasion Monday morning, shooting an intruder who kicked in his door.

Jonathan Haith said he was sleeping in his home on Thomas Lane at around 9:45 a.m. when he heard a light knock on his backdoor.

He ignored it at first. Then he heard a louder sound.

“I heard the loud bang in the laundry room area,” he said.

Someone kicked in the door. Haith grabbed the AR-15 rifle he keeps under his bed.

“I crouched down, grabbed the firearm and was walking up the hallway,” he said. “As soon as I poked my head around the corner I saw a tall male standing there with a gun.”

Haith said he surprised the intruder.

“He shot first, I shot second,” he said. “He missed and I reckon I connected.”

The fact is AR’s, yes, I own one, have many uses, target shooting, hunting, and yes home defense

By Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation

An Oklahoma man last week defended himself from home invaders with the same type of rifle that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled Maryland citizens did not have the right to own.

The 23-year-old, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, man was jarred awake by the sound of what turned out to be three masked men breaking through a glass door of the home owned by his father. The man armed himself with an AR-15. He confronted a criminal trio dressed in black, wearing masks and gloves. He fired in self-defense.

All three were killed. A knife and brass knuckles were recovered by police. The 21-year-old would-be getaway driver turned herself in. Since a person committing a felony in Oklahoma can be charged with felony murder when a death occurs during that crime, she now faces first-degree murder charges.

The incident, as regrettable and unfortunate as it is, shows the wisdom of the 2008 Heller decision in affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms that are in common use. The case provides a real-world counterargument to the faulty logic of the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbe v. Hogan decision.

Had this decision been in effect across the nation, it is possible that the young Oklahoma man would not have had the very rifle he successfully used to save himself from what could have been serious injury or death. For now, the ruling only sustains Maryland’s ban on AR-15s.

This young man faced multiple attackers, who were wearing masks and carrying weapons. What if he had been restricted to a handgun? An AR is easier to be accurate with than a pistol, and have a much higher capacity. The result might have been much different if he had to face his attackers with a handgun, especially if the left had their wish and magazines were limited to 10 rounds, or less.

Despite what the left does, no matter how many lies they spew about “assault rifles” and “weapons of war”. Do not take my word for it, listen to a former SEAL

There are evil people, predators, and no law, restriction, or intrusion on natural rights will deter them. Gun control? Gun-free zones? These only make it harder for good people, not for criminals

NO, mass shootings do not only occur in America

The Left, especially the members of the Cult of Gun Control, are doing what they always do after a horrific act of evil. They are blaming guns, gun owners, Republicans, and of course te NRA for the evil actions of an individual. Like bleating sheep they are calling for “action” and “common sense gun laws”. OK, what action? What law would have prevented what happened in Florida yesterday? Better security might have stopped it, certainly, it would have had a far better chance than any of the impotent fixes the left will rant about. In some cases tough sentencing guidelines for violent crime would stop certain shooters because they would have been in prison rather than walking the street. That of course will not be discussed either.

Certainly, they will ignore any connection to psychotropic medications that so many of the mass shooters were on.

The fact is exploring might actually do something to prevent mass shootings

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence.  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School.   Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant.  The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant.  While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother.  He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two.  Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant.  James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight.  He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants.  These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq.  Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent.  One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior.  This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal.  There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant.  In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.

A parent retells how his child couldn’t stand how the drugs made him feel and so he committed suicide.  Another parent is stuck with the image of his child running in front of a moving car because the child wanted to die.  Imagine calling 911 because your child is trying to kill herself when you know your child was not like that before taking the antidepressant.  Imagine what you would feel like upon finding out that your child is the shooter in a murderous rampage on the school campus.

While on a mix of antidepressants, sixteen year old Cory Baadsgaard took a rifle to school and held twenty-three students hostage.  His father said he was not a violent kid before he took the drugs but while on the medication he was volatile and susceptible to blind rage.  Cory does not remember anything other than waking up, not feeling so well and going back to bed.  The next thing he remembered was being in juvenile detention.  Luckily no one was hurt, but it could have become another mass shooting.

Certainly they will not bring up that almost every mass shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

The fact is this. There are evil people in the world. Some are maniacal, some are just evil perhaps. But they are predators. And, it is natural for a predator to seek out an easy target. Lions, leopards, wolves, all seek prey that is injured, very young, or old. The same goes for human predators. And gun-free zones make for soft targets

Some have a hard time accepting that criminals can be deterred from committing crimes. They don’t believe that potential mass shooters have second thoughts when faced with the prospect of armed citizens who can fight back. They seem to think that everyday Americans can’t help stop attacks. But it is getting hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves. It’s little wonder that gun-control advocates resort to desperate tactics.

Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting — and there have been plenty of mass shooting in Europe — has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual (Norway in 2011, which from the shooting alone left 67 people dead and 110 wounded).

Again, those who seek to do evil seekout targets that make easy marks. All predators, no matter their motivation, do.

One thing the left is doing, of course, is parroting the “these events do not occur anywhere but America” lie. Yes, such rhetoric will stir emotions, and enrage those who will not think or do any research, but facts are stubborn things


Again, the left will ignore this, the media will ignore it. And they will ignore gun-free zones, and anti-depressants as well. Instead they will try to pimp this tragedy for all it is worth. Not to solve any problem, but to further their agenda. That agenda? To centralize firearms in the hands of the State. 

Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

Via Fox

A Utah police officer who was being attacked on Friday was saved by a passerby with a concealed pistol, officials said.

The unidentified police officer confronted the attacker, identified as Paul Douglas Anderson, after spotting feet dangling from a donation bin in Springville, FOX13 Salt Lake City reported on Saturday. Anderson got out of the bin, but refused to remove his hands from his pocket.

The officer ordered Anderson to remove his hands out of his pockets. Anderson eventually took his hands out of his pants’ pockets and began repeatedly punching the officer in the face.

Derek Meyer told FOX13 he was driving by the area when he spotted the police lights and saw Anderson attacking the cop. Meyer turned around and pulled out his pistol.

Need I say that the hardest hit in this story is the rhetoric of the Cult of Gun Control

Man who shot mass shooter to be hosted at State of the Union

I have often aid if I were a Congressman I would do this type of thing

Congressman Henry Cuellar’s office announced on Wednesday that he will host Sutherland Springs hero Stephen Willeford at President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on January 30.

“I speak on behalf of the entire Sutherland Springs community when I say that we are grateful to have such an incredible citizen visit,” Congressman Cuellar said in a statement. “It is amazing that this man, who almost became a victim himself, managed to face the assailant and ultimately prevented further tragedy from unfolding.”

Willeford is credited with fatally wounding Sutherland Springs gunman Devin Kelly after Kelly killed 26 people at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Willeford reportedly grabbed a gun and ran across the street to the church, where he saw Kelly and opened fire. After Kelly got into a vehicle and started driving away, Willeford flagged down a nearby vehicle and continued the pursuit until Kelly lost control of his vehicle and officials arrived on scene.

Perhaps the most intriguing thing here? Cuellar is a Democrat

The Cult of Gun Control’s tenuous relationship with reality

No one should “need” a gun in a church is a cry we hear from gun control supporters all the time. Ideally speaking, they are right. But idealism is never going to trump reality. And,the reality is this. There are some bad/evil/psychotic people in the world, and they seek easy targets. Giving up one’s right to self-defense will never deter one of these predators

When the parishioners at one Oswego County church gather for worship each week, many of them are armed. And it’s no secret. The Lighthouse Mexico Church of God even advertises that its not a gun-free zone – a response to the frequent mass shootings in the country that’s the subject of some debate.

Russell has encouraged his people to bring their firearms to church since 2013 when Dylan Roof walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina and killed nine people. The church places that no gun-free zone advisory on its website, warning anyone who might target them.

“If it’s out there, ‘wait a minute churches are starting to arm themselves’, then it’s going to put a question mark in those people’s minds that want to cause a shooting,” Russell said. “Are they going to come to this church where they know – and you had probably five or six armed people in this church today – or are you going up the street where, you know, well that church up there, they don’t have nobody? Where are they going to go? They aren’t going to come here to be challenged.”

The pastor grasps reality, as do his parishioners. Does this mean they are 100% safe? No, but, it means they are not a soft target. Members of the Cult of Gun Control, however, reject common sense

But SUNY Cortland political science professor Robert Spitzer says it’s actually the least desirable way to deal with violence problems. Spitzer, who has written extensively about gun control, says there’s little to no evidence that so-called good guys with a gun provide meaningful help in a mass shooting.

“There have been some studies of the statistical likelihood of an armed civilian actually being able to provide meaningful help in such a situation, it’s vanishingly small,” Spitzer said. “You almost can’t measure it.”

Spitzer says well-intentioned civilians with guns who try to thwart mass shootings typically add to the mayhem and confusion for police.

Spitzer prefers to live with his head in the sand. There have been cases where armed civillians stopped mass shootings. Yes, the examples are few. But, mass shotings are very rare too. And, the fact is this. Every mass shooting I can hink of occurred in a “gun-free zone”. Again, predators seek soft targets. That is reality, and those who reject reality in favor of idealism are fools

Never forget the Left only cares about the ends, not the means

The Left is evil, and not only use tragedies, but hope for them

George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and a regiment of like-minded new world order propaganda hacks feed disinformation to their army of apparatchik who, with no critical thinking skills at all, spread the word. Currently, the hot topic is concealed carry national reciprocity. Clearly, to them, the concept of anyone being able to carry a gun anywhere is anathema to the very core theme of progressive liberalism: John Q. Public should not be allowed to own a gun, until he/she reaches the stature of Rosie O’Donnell – to whom such rules do not apply.

As I said the left is evil, and yes, they prefer innocents be slaughtered than law-abiding people be able to carry arms

What has torched me off most recently is a letter to the editor of Silicon Valley’s Mercury News titled “Just wait till ‘Good Guy’ with a gun kills innocent bystander.” This is typical liberalism – spread the gospel regardless of facts. In it, the writer expressed concern over what the author of a previous letter to the editor wrote, saying he “is more concerned with ‘bad guys’ packing heat than Joe Average with an out-of-state permit.” He then suggests, “It’s going to take some wannabe cowboy trying to be a hero and hitting an innocent bystander to demonstrate just how bad that can be. How many people have to die to defend the Supreme Court’s twisted version of our Second Amendment rights…?”

This is so wrong on so many levels and underscores the fact that anti-gun liberals truly have no clue. I tried to find a case where a concealed carry holder’s life was threatened, used his legally possessed firearm to defend himself or another, and accidentally shot an innocent bystander. I’m not suggesting it has never happened, but I sure couldn’t find an example of it.

Having said that, the far more important issue is the writer’s position that it is better to have an active shooter shooting innocents all around him than for someone with a firearm to try to stop his murderous shooting spree, because he might miss and hit someone else. So, to liberals, is it better for potentially dozens of people to die at the hands of some fanatic than allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm?

This is an excellent piece, and David Lombardo nails it. Please go read the whole thing

The answer ma’am is you shoot to stop the threat

Bearing Arms has the story

Ruiz’s son, Andrew Herrera, was shot and killed when he tried to rob a Popeye’s Chicken in Texas. That’s when he came face-to-face with the state’s self-defense laws.

Now, Ruiz has questions.

 “Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

A police spokesman later said, “Here in Texas, if you’re in fear of loss of life, loss of property, you have a right to defend yourself.”

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

I hate to break it to Ruiz, but the reason the man shot him five times was simple. You shoot until there’s no longer a threat. The armed citizen judge there was still a risk to him and his family–and the word “family” means no self-respecting man is going to take a chance at that point–and kept shooting until there was no longer a threat.

Shootings aren’t like the movies or on TV. You don’t shoot to wound. A wounded person can still kill you. You shoot until the threat has been eliminated. If the first shot wounds them but they drop their weapon and surrender, so much the better for everyone, but only a complete and total idiot expects that to happen.

Herrera threatened the lives of human beings, and he paid a price for that. It’s a price that Ruiz is being forced to pay, which is a pity, but either she failed to teach him it was wrong to steal, or he failed to heed the lessons. Either way, he tried to rob a chicken place and came face-to-face with someone who was not going to be a victim.

Why was Herrara shot five times? Because he stood there, gun in hand, and threatened the innocent.

Knighton is right. It is a tragedy this young man is gone. But, when you threaten the lives of people, and their families, well you must accept the consequences.

What this mother, who I feel for, should ask is why her son chose, chose, to point a firearm at innocent people.

Now that is backing the Blue

One heroic woman, armed, and ready to defend a police officer

 – A chaotic scene in Dawson County Tuesday afternoon where what started out a good deed ended in gunfire and injuries.

It started at a Chevron on Georgia Highway 400 when 52-year-old Sgt. Randy Harkness arrived with a homeless man. Sheriff Jeff Johnson said the Harkness had given the man a courtesy ride to the gas station to help him out with a bit of money.

“He then began to give the gentleman some money just to help him out and the suspect began to physically assault him,” said Sheriff Johnson.

The sheriff said a woman in a car at the Chevron witnessed the assault, got out of her car, gun in hand, and fired on the homeless man attacking Harkness. Eyewitnesses in the gas station saw it unfold.

“She shot off, a round. The guy got off the police officer and she shot another round and he was running that way I think, there was three shots,” said Aseem Kahn, owner of the station.

Of course do not expect any national reporting on this because the Cult of Gun Control “narrative” would not furthered by it

“It could have been worse, mate, thank you for that lady who was carrying,” said Kahn.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Dawson County District Attorney’s Office are involved in the investigation to determine, among other things, if the woman who fired on the man attacking Sgt. Harkness should face charges.

“I truly believe she’s a hero I believe she thankfully saved this officer’s life,” said Sheriff Johnson.

Hero? Yes!