bearingarms--2020-09-04--"Not Today": Colorado Gun Owner Stops Carjacking

You never know when your life could be turned upside down by a violent criminal .
Take Paul Heagerty for example .
He was just putting his groceries into his car after a trip to the local grocery store in Arvada , Colorado when a stranger approached him with a gun pointed in his direction and demanded the keys .
Heagerty didn ’ t comply with the demand , however .
He reached into his pocked and grabbed his keys , but threw them several feet away from where the carjacker stood .
“ I took a giant sidestep , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at him and said , ‘ Not happening .
Not today.
’ The look on his face was sheer shock when he looked up and he was looking down the barrel of my pistol , ” Heagerty said .
It worked .
The man took off running .
“ I was yelling at the top of my lungs that ‘ This guy tried to rob me with a firearm .
Call the police !
Call the police !
’ ” Haegerty said .
Someone did , and soon afterwards police were able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with the crime .
Authorities say Cho had just abandoned a stolen truck after crashing it at a nearby McDonalds and was looking for a new vehicle to use as his getaway .
Instead of an easy target , however , he found Paul Heagerty .
The concealed carry holder says that he can ’ t recommend that anyone who finds themselves in a similar position do what he did , but he also says he has no regrets , telling KDVR-TV that the suspect ’ s in jail and his training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say that I disagree .
Unfortunately , not every self-defense story has a happy ending like this one .
A firearm isn ’ t a magic talisman that offers a guarantee of personal safety , after all , and sometimes the good guys lose the fight .
That was the case in Lafayette , Louisiana , where a Dominos delivery driver was brutally murdered just minutes after shot and killed a would-be robber who ’ d confronted him .
Joshua L. Ungersma shot and killed 19-year-old Alberto Vanmeter late Monday when Vanmeter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block of North 16th Street , according to a witness who might have been the last person to speak to Ungersma .
In the minutes after the first shooting , Vanmeter ’ s suspected accomplice shot and killed Ungersma , according to Patrick Gibson , who witnessed Ungersma ’ s killing .
Gibson heard four shots outside of his house at the corner of 16th and Hart streets about 11:15 p.m. Monday .
When he went outside , he said he saw a man lying dead on the sidewalk near a fence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they tried to rob him , Gibson said .
“ I was talking to the pizza guy when I came out , ” Gibson said .
“ I was like , ‘ Bro , you all right ?
’ ” At that point , Ungersma was uninjured , Gibson said .
“ He was like they were trying to rob him from what he told me , ” Gibson said , noting that Ungersma asked Gibson and his roommate to call the police , which they did .
While Gibson ’ s roommate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a 17-year-old girl walked across the street and shot Ungersma at point-blank range , killing him in the street .
Police arrested the girl at the scene .
It sounds like Ungersma did everything right , but after shooting Vanmeter , he may have let his guard down .
A few minutes had passed after Vanmeter ’ s shooting before the 17-year old girl approached Ungersma .
He likely presumed that the threat had passed .
Tragically , it had not , and now three lives have been cut short because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robbery .
Vanmeter lost his life in pursuit of robbing a man of a few dollars , Ungersma lost his life because a young lady decided to murder him in cold-blood , and her life is now likely ruined because of her decision to kill an innocent man .
Ungersma was a husband and father who was working two jobs when he was killed .
A GoFundMe set up to help pay for his funeral expenses has reached its goal , but any additional funds will be put in a trust fund for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donated what I can , and I hope that you will too .

You never know when your life could be turned upside down by a violent criminal. Take Paul Heagerty for example. He was just putting his groceries into his car after a trip to the local grocery store in Arvada, Colorado when a stranger approached him with a gun pointed in his direction and demanded the keys. Heagerty didn’t comply with the demand, however. He reached into his pocked and grabbed his keys, but threw them several feet away from where the carjacker stood.
“I took a giant sidestep, drew my firearm, pointed it right at him and said, ‘Not happening. Not today.’ The look on his face was sheer shock when he looked up and he was looking down the barrel of my pistol,” Heagerty said. It worked. The man took off running. “I was yelling at the top of my lungs that ‘This guy tried to rob me with a firearm. Call the police! Call the police!’” Haegerty said.
Someone did, and soon afterwards police were able to take 38-year old Jonathan David Cho in connection with the crime. Authorities say Cho had just abandoned a stolen truck after crashing it at a nearby McDonalds and was looking for a new vehicle to use as his getaway. Instead of an easy target, however, he found Paul Heagerty.
The concealed carry holder says that he can’t recommend that anyone who finds themselves in a similar position do what he did, but he also says he has no regrets, telling KDVR-TV that the suspect’s in jail and his training served him well. I can’t say that I disagree.
Unfortunately, not every self-defense story has a happy ending like this one. A firearm isn’t a magic talisman that offers a guarantee of personal safety, after all, and sometimes the good guys lose the fight. That was the case in Lafayette, Louisiana, where a Dominos delivery driver was brutally murdered just minutes after shot and killed a would-be robber who’d confronted him.
Joshua L. Ungersma shot and killed 19-year-old Alberto Vanmeter late Monday when Vanmeter tried to rob him in the 1900 block of North 16th Street, according to a witness who might have been the last person to speak to Ungersma. In the minutes after the first shooting, Vanmeter’s suspected accomplice shot and killed Ungersma, according to Patrick Gibson, who witnessed Ungersma’s killing. Gibson heard four shots outside of his house at the corner of 16th and Hart streets about 11:15 p.m. Monday. When he went outside, he said he saw a man lying dead on the sidewalk near a fence, and a pizza delivery man telling him they tried to rob him, Gibson said. “I was talking to the pizza guy when I came out,” Gibson said. “I was like, ‘Bro, you all right?’” At that point, Ungersma was uninjured, Gibson said. “He was like they were trying to rob him from what he told me,” Gibson said, noting that Ungersma asked Gibson and his roommate to call the police, which they did. While Gibson’s roommate called police, he said he watched as a 17-year-old girl walked across the street and shot Ungersma at point-blank range, killing him in the street. Police arrested the girl at the scene.
It sounds like Ungersma did everything right, but after shooting Vanmeter, he may have let his guard down. A few minutes had passed after Vanmeter’s shooting before the 17-year old girl approached Ungersma. He likely presumed that the threat had passed. Tragically, it had not, and now three lives have been cut short because of one stupid idea to commit an armed robbery. Vanmeter lost his life in pursuit of robbing a man of a few dollars, Ungersma lost his life because a young lady decided to murder him in cold-blood, and her life is now likely ruined because of her decision to kill an innocent man.
Ungersma was a husband and father who was working two jobs when he was killed. A GoFundMe set up to help pay for his funeral expenses has reached its goal, but any additional funds will be put in a trust fund for his infant son. I’ve donated what I can, and I hope that you will too.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Should Officer-Involved Shootings Be Linked With Other Shootings?

When you look at the raw numbers , there are a lot of people shot and killed in the United States every year .
Even if you remove the suicides by firearm , you still have more than 10,000 people who are shot and killed each year .
While that ’ s not a large percentage of the American population , it ’ s still a big number all things considered .
However , it seems that some aren ’ t content with that big number .
No , they want police shootings to be part of the “ gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to delve too deeply into the rest of the opinion piece because , well , we ’ d be here all day addressing some of the arguments .
Since many run far beyond what I want to talk about with this bit , it wouldn ’ t be productive to even begin to talk on it .
So , should police shootings be part of that number ?
Should they be part of the conversation ?
See , while people are all upset about Jacob Blake ’ s shooting , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were out of line without understanding the first thing about law enforcement use of force .
I ’ m not an expert , but I do know that what I saw in that video sure looked like a man reaching into a vehicle for a firearm .
As a result , he was shot .
It ’ s not “ incomprehensible ” if you actually know what the hell you ’ re talking about .
The truth is , justified shootings–be they law enforcement or armed citizen shootings–don ’ t belong in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost always gets around to talking about gun control .
I ’ ll be damned if I ’ m going to tolerate being lectured about how the numbers show I should have my guns taken from me when the numbers include justified shootings .
Besides , law enforcement shootings are separate issues because the setting is so much different .
Armed citizens aren ’ t the ones responding to calls of knife-wielding accused rapists who violated the restraining order taken out by their alleged victims , for example .
We ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls or making traffic stops .
The truth is , officer-involved shootings are a different world entirely , so lumping them in with everything from those domestic disputes gone wrong to gang warfare makes no sense .
Then again , when your goal isn ’ t to solve a problem but to demonize an entire segment of society filling a necessary role , what do you care , right ?
Treating police shooting as just another bit of violence–despite the incredibly low numbers all things considered–isn ’ t addressing the issue , it @ @ @ @ @

When you look at the raw numbers, there are a lot of people shot and killed in the United States every year. Even if you remove the suicides by firearm, you still have more than 10,000 people who are shot and killed each year. While that’s not a large percentage of the American population, it’s still a big number all things considered.
However, it seems that some aren’t content with that big number. No, they want police shootings to be part of the “gun violence” conversation.
When a law enforcement officer shoots a Black person, as happened Aug. 23 to Jacob Blake in Kenosha, the incident rightfully reignites the national debate about racism, policing and lethal force. Blake did not suffer the same fate as other high-profile shootings — he is alive and paralyzed instead of dead and buried — but to get shot in the back seven times is incomprehensible. However, no matter the outcome, we must label the incident for what it is: gun violence. The broader debate about the nearly 40,000 annual firearm-related deaths in the United States tends to stereotype criminality and mental illness. “Bad guys” with guns commit homicides, “depressed” people commit suicide, and “crazed” killers go on shooting rampages. This is a narrow view of gun violence that overlooks the impact of officer-involved shootings, especially for Black Americans.
I’m not going to delve too deeply into the rest of the opinion piece because, well, we’d be here all day addressing some of the arguments. Since many run far beyond what I want to talk about with this bit, it wouldn’t be productive to even begin to talk on it.
So, should police shootings be part of that number? Should they be part of the conversation?
Not really.
See, while people are all upset about Jacob Blake’s shooting, they’ve already determined that the officers were out of line without understanding the first thing about law enforcement use of force. I’m not an expert, but I do know that what I saw in that video sure looked like a man reaching into a vehicle for a firearm. As a result, he was shot.
It’s not “incomprehensible” if you actually know what the hell you’re talking about.
The truth is, justified shootings–be they law enforcement or armed citizen shootings–don’t belong in that conversation because, frankly, that conversation almost always gets around to talking about gun control. I’ll be damned if I’m going to tolerate being lectured about how the numbers show I should have my guns taken from me when the numbers include justified shootings.
Besides, law enforcement shootings are separate issues because the setting is so much different.
Armed citizens aren’t the ones responding to calls of knife-wielding accused rapists who violated the restraining order taken out by their alleged victims, for example. We’re not the ones showing up to domestic dispute calls or making traffic stops.
The truth is, officer-involved shootings are a different world entirely, so lumping them in with everything from those domestic disputes gone wrong to gang warfare makes no sense.
Then again, when your goal isn’t to solve a problem but to demonize an entire segment of society filling a necessary role, what do you care, right?
Treating police shooting as just another bit of violence–despite the incredibly low numbers all things considered–isn’t addressing the issue, it’s clouding it.


bearingarms--2020-09-04--Fired NRA Exec Becomes New Golden Boy For Anti-Gunners

A new books had all the anti-gun media a-buzzing .
In it , a former NRA executive is , among other things , calling for gun control .
It ’ s just the kind of thing everyone seems to love , that moment someone abandons their cause because they ’ ve “ seen the light.
” It becomes fodder for news sites for some time and suddenly , everything they say takes on new importance .
I know because we do the same thing .
If a prominent anti-gun advocate flips , we make hay out of it as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , though , former NRA number two man Joshua Powell is the one in the spotlight .
Except , he ’ s not an insider .
Oh , he was , but he ’ s not anymore , and that ’ s an important point .
You see , he was fired .
That ’ s a key point that , I think , is being glossed over by some .
Meanwhile , Powell is making some claims .
Yet during that three-year stint , the NRA didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he ’ d been an exec back in the 80s he might have a point , but he was there in the midst of pretty much everything .
After all , he was still in his role up until January of this year .
And while he likes to play like he has some moral problem with the NRA and how they ’ ve been conducting business , it didn ’ t stop him from seeking to continue working for the organization .
Now , in fairness to Powell , he acknowledges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t convinced about jack until they told him to hit the road .
Look , had Powell resigned and then wrote this book , that would have been one thing .
Instead , he sought to continue working for the nation ’ s oldest civil rights organization , only they didn ’ t want him .
Then , mysteriously , he has a “ come to Jesus ” moment and sees the evil of his ways ?
No , this is a way to lash out at the organization and leadership that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he claims in this book needs to be taken with a truckload of salt .

A new books had all the anti-gun media a-buzzing. In it, a former NRA executive is, among other things, calling for gun control. It’s just the kind of thing everyone seems to love, that moment someone abandons their cause because they’ve “seen the light.” It becomes fodder for news sites for some time and suddenly, everything they say takes on new importance.
I know because we do the same thing. If a prominent anti-gun advocate flips, we make hay out of it as well. Such is the way of things.
Now, though, former NRA number two man Joshua Powell is the one in the spotlight.
The National Rifle Association’s former second-in-command is breaking with the group’s orthodoxy and calling for universal background checks and so-called red flag laws in a new book assailing the organization as more focused on money and internal intrigue than the Second Amendment, while thwarting constructive dialogue on gun violence. The former executive, Joshua L. Powell, who was fired by the NRA in January, reinforces the kind of criticism made of the organization by gun control groups and state regulators, but it is the first critical look at its recent history by such a high-ranking insider.
Except, he’s not an insider.
Oh, he was, but he’s not anymore, and that’s an important point. You see, he was fired. That’s a key point that, I think, is being glossed over by some.
Meanwhile, Powell is making some claims.
During his more than three-year tenure, Powell served at various periods as LaPierre’s top deputy and chief of staff, and likens himself to Ned Stark, a well-meaning and ultimately ill-fated counselor to a king in the television show “Game of Thrones.” A hunter since childhood and former Chicago options and derivatives trader, Powell says that the NRA has fundamentally lost its way, abandoning “its roots as an organization focused on gun safety and education.” That has led it to limit its own long-term membership growth, he argues, by turning its back on the majority of gun owners who support background checks.
Yet during that three-year stint, the NRA didn’t really move that far politically. Oh, if he’d been an exec back in the 80s he might have a point, but he was there in the midst of pretty much everything. After all, he was still in his role up until January of this year.
And while he likes to play like he has some moral problem with the NRA and how they’ve been conducting business, it didn’t stop him from seeking to continue working for the organization.
Powell’s critics see his turn as a tell-all book writer as self-serving. In the weeks before he was fired, he was seeking to restructure his contract and receive $1.7 million as a consultant. “My loyalty to the Association is without question,” he wrote to LaPierre at the time, according to documents reviewed by The Times. He uses his book to address accusations of nepotism as well as an allegation against him of discrimination based on gender and an allegation of sexual harassment. And while he was at the NRA, Powell took no action to reset the group’s hard-line course, a choice he discusses in the book.
Now, in fairness to Powell, he acknowledges as much.
“I was part of a message machine that helped to perpetuate the problem and exacerbate the extremism of the gun debate, something I wouldn’t fully appreciate for a long time,” he writes. “I would become lost. And my experience would ultimately convince me that the NRA itself had lost its mission, and lost its way too.”
Except, he wasn’t convinced about jack until they told him to hit the road.
Look, had Powell resigned and then wrote this book, that would have been one thing. Instead, he sought to continue working for the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, only they didn’t want him. Then, mysteriously, he has a “come to Jesus” moment and sees the evil of his ways?
No, this is a way to lash out at the organization and leadership that spurned him. As such, anything he claims in this book needs to be taken with a truckload of salt.


bearingarms--2020-09-05--Expect A Run On Guns In Louisiana This Weekend

Business hasn ’ t exactly been slow for gun store owners in the Louisiana for the past few months , but it ’ s likely to be even busier than normal this weekend .
That ’ s because the state ’ s “ Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday ” is underway through Sunday evening , offering gun buyers a chance to save a little bit of money on firearms , ammunition , and hunting supplies .
Firearms eligible for the sales tax exemption include shotguns , rifles , pistols , revolvers or other handguns which may be legally sold or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun or firearm is also eligible for the tax exemption .
Hunting supplies are eligible for the tax exemption include : • Archery items such as bows , crossbows , arrows , quivers and shafts • Optics such as rifle scopes and impact resistant glasses for shooting The sales tax holiday was first put in place in the state several years ago , but nearly disappeared in 2019 amid efforts to plug holes in the state ’ s budget deficit .
During the back-and-forth dealmaking on a new sales tax rate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all three of the state ’ s sales tax holidays ; one dealing with emergency preparedness , one for back-to-school supplies , and the weekend reserved for Second Amendment and hunting-related items .
Republicans pushed back with legislation to reinstate the sales tax holiday , and thankfully for Second Amendment supporters their efforts were successful .
Neil Riser , then a state senator and now a state representative , was among those advocating for the tax holiday ’ s return .
It ’ s Republican Sen. Riser who is pushing the legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he is very pro-gun , but as an economic development idea .
He acknowledges that while the gun holiday results in little revenue , the sales that are made are vital to his hometown ’ s remaining retailers who operate on narrow profit margins .
Columbia is the jumping off point for many a hunting trip into the 51,000-acre Boeuf Wildlife Management Area .
Owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries , Boeuf is known for ducks , deer and wild pigs .
For local merchants , the sales tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunters visiting Columbia and making purchases , not all of which are guns .
Sales taxes have multiplier of seven , Riser said , meaning that every dollar spent in one establishment is used to pay wages or buy more stuff at some other local business .
“ It ’ s a huge impact for us , ” he said .
“ It may not mean much in places like Baton Rouge , ” said Riser , who will handle HB60 in the Senate , “ but for the local Chevron and Quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driver.
” So it ’ s not just gun owners who benefit from the small discount on guns , ammunition , and accessories this weekend .
Retailers that have nothing at all to do with gun sales get an economic boost as well .
Of course the big question is whether or not gun stores in Louisiana will have much to offer customers this weekend .
With gun and ammunition sales still at record highs , shelves may be sparse this year , but I suspect that gun shops will still be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks go looking for a deal .

Business hasn’t exactly been slow for gun store owners in the Louisiana for the past few months, but it’s likely to be even busier than normal this weekend. That’s because the state’s “Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday” is underway through Sunday evening, offering gun buyers a chance to save a little bit of money on firearms, ammunition, and hunting supplies.
Firearms eligible for the sales tax exemption include shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers or other handguns which may be legally sold or purchased in Louisiana. Ammunition fired from a gun or firearm is also eligible for the tax exemption. Hunting supplies are eligible for the tax exemption include: • Archery items such as bows, crossbows, arrows, quivers and shafts • Optics such as rifle scopes and impact resistant glasses for shooting • Hearing protection gear and enhancements • Holsters
The sales tax holiday was first put in place in the state several years ago, but nearly disappeared in 2019 amid efforts to plug holes in the state’s budget deficit. During the back-and-forth dealmaking on a new sales tax rate, lawmakers in Baton Rouge decided to scrap all three of the state’s sales tax holidays; one dealing with emergency preparedness, one for back-to-school supplies, and the weekend reserved for Second Amendment and hunting-related items.
Republicans pushed back with legislation to reinstate the sales tax holiday, and thankfully for Second Amendment supporters their efforts were successful. Neil Riser, then a state senator and now a state representative, was among those advocating for the tax holiday’s return.
It’s Republican Sen. Riser who is pushing the legislation, not so much as pro-gun measure, though he is very pro-gun, but as an economic development idea. He acknowledges that while the gun holiday results in little revenue, the sales that are made are vital to his hometown’s remaining retailers who operate on narrow profit margins. Columbia is the jumping off point for many a hunting trip into the 51,000-acre Boeuf Wildlife Management Area. Owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Boeuf is known for ducks, deer and wild pigs. For local merchants, the sales tax holiday accounted for a significant boost in hunters visiting Columbia and making purchases, not all of which are guns. Sales taxes have multiplier of seven, Riser said, meaning that every dollar spent in one establishment is used to pay wages or buy more stuff at some other local business. “It’s a huge impact for us,” he said. “It may not mean much in places like Baton Rouge,” said Riser, who will handle HB60 in the Senate, “but for the local Chevron and Quick Mart, it’s an economic driver.”
So it’s not just gun owners who benefit from the small discount on guns, ammunition, and accessories this weekend. Retailers that have nothing at all to do with gun sales get an economic boost as well.
Of course the big question is whether or not gun stores in Louisiana will have much to offer customers this weekend. With gun and ammunition sales still at record highs, shelves may be sparse this year, but I suspect that gun shops will still be a little busier than they have been as folks go looking for a deal.


bearingarms--2020-09-05--Why Midland-Odessa Shooting Shouldn't Impact Gun Laws

It ’ s been a year since the Midland-Odessa shooting spree in Texas .
It feels like longer , though .
After all , there ’ s been a lot going on since that happened , unfortunately .
As is normal for the anniversary of a mass shooting , some are wondering if there will be any change to gun laws because of what transpired that day .
A year after her brother was killed in a Midland-Odessa shooting spree , Carla Byrne is still waiting for stricter background checks on the purchase of guns .
The man who killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August 2019 mass shooting obtained the weapon through a private sale , despite having previously failed a background check , according to reports at the time .
“ My brother ( Joseph Griffith ) had a life that was stolen from him , but I know with 100 % certainty that I can not … sit idly by and just be sad , ” said Byrne .
“ I can ’ t watch on the news any more kids being killed in schools .
Any more people being slaughtered in churches and synagogues.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people across the state calling for stricter gun laws in Texas and the country in the aftermath of mass shootings , including the one in Midland-Odessa a year ago .
The push is sure to face an uphill climb in the state that has resisted gun safety measures in the past .
I understand how Byrne feels as much as anyone can .
I honestly do .
But there are some things she needs to understand about her brother ’ s murder .
Namely that background checks , which is what this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have done a damn thing .
See , while the shooter couldn ’ t legally purchase a firearm and bought it during a face-to-face transfer , there ’ s not any real reason to believe a background check law would have had any kind of an impact .
See , the gun he purchased was reportedly sold to him by someone who was manufacturing firearms illegally .
Allegedly .
Anyway , if that ’ s true , why would someone making guns illegally not sell them illegally as well ?
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use , you can ’ t build them with the intent to sell them without proper licensing , which this individual apparently lacked .
Worse , he probably knew it was illegal as well , which means he wasn ’ t about to create a record by going through the ATF paperwork if he could avoid it .
No , such a person would have sold the gun just like he did regardless of the law .
Meanwhile , though , such a background check law suddenly makes it more difficult to loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one as a gift , pass one down as part of an estate , and a myriad of other situations , which is why they ’ ve been defeated when placed before the people to vote on .
While I have sympathy for Byrne and her loss , that doesn ’ t change the fact that what she is seemingly pushing for wouldn ’ t do a damn thing to bring her brother back , nor would such a law have prevented his death .

It’s been a year since the Midland-Odessa shooting spree in Texas. It feels like longer, though. After all, there’s been a lot going on since that happened, unfortunately.
As is normal for the anniversary of a mass shooting, some are wondering if there will be any change to gun laws because of what transpired that day.
A year after her brother was killed in a Midland-Odessa shooting spree, Carla Byrne is still waiting for stricter background checks on the purchase of guns. The man who killed her brother and six others in the August 2019 mass shooting obtained the weapon through a private sale, despite having previously failed a background check, according to reports at the time. “My brother (Joseph Griffith) had a life that was stolen from him, but I know with 100% certainty that I cannot … sit idly by and just be sad,” said Byrne. “I can’t watch on the news any more kids being killed in schools. Any more people being slaughtered in churches and synagogues.” Byrne is one in a coalition of people across the state calling for stricter gun laws in Texas and the country in the aftermath of mass shootings, including the one in Midland-Odessa a year ago. The push is sure to face an uphill climb in the state that has resisted gun safety measures in the past.
I understand how Byrne feels as much as anyone can. I honestly do.
But there are some things she needs to understand about her brother’s murder. Namely that background checks, which is what this particular article is pushing for, wouldn’t have done a damn thing.
See, while the shooter couldn’t legally purchase a firearm and bought it during a face-to-face transfer, there’s not any real reason to believe a background check law would have had any kind of an impact. See, the gun he purchased was reportedly sold to him by someone who was manufacturing firearms illegally. Allegedly.
Anyway, if that’s true, why would someone making guns illegally not sell them illegally as well? While you can man firearms for your own use, you can’t build them with the intent to sell them without proper licensing, which this individual apparently lacked. Worse, he probably knew it was illegal as well, which means he wasn’t about to create a record by going through the ATF paperwork if he could avoid it.
No, such a person would have sold the gun just like he did regardless of the law.
Meanwhile, though, such a background check law suddenly makes it more difficult to loan a gun to a friend, give one as a gift, pass one down as part of an estate, and a myriad of other situations, which is why they’ve been defeated when placed before the people to vote on.
While I have sympathy for Byrne and her loss, that doesn’t change the fact that what she is seemingly pushing for wouldn’t do a damn thing to bring her brother back, nor would such a law have prevented his death.


bearingarms--2020-09-06--Media Has A Newfound Interest In New Gun Owners

The Dallas Morning News is out with a new poll of voters in the state that focuses quite a bit on gun ownership , including those who ’ ve purchased a firearm for the first time in the past few months .
There ’ s some interesting stats in the poll , but I have to say right up front that I ’ m more than a little skeptical of some of the poll results based on its sample , which is skewed heavily towards urban voters .
Of the 1078 people who were polled about having a gun in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as living in metro areas , while just 101 people were from the suburbs or rural areas .
I wish the poll had been more balanced , particularly regarding suburban voters , but there are still a few findings worth highlighting .
According to the poll , conducted by UT-Tyler for the Dallas Morning News , 34 % of urban voters admit to having a gun in their home , compared to 54 % of suburban/rural voters .
Of those who purchased a firearm within the past 90 days , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was their first time ever to buy a gun .
Oddly , while the poll asks several questions about gun ownership , it didn ’ t ask respondents why they purchased a firearm in the past 90 days .
The Dallas Morning News also claims that new gun owners actually back Biden over Trump , though the paper doesn ’ t give any hard data and I ’ ve been unable to confirm that information by looking at the poll itself .
It could be that the skewed sample in favor of urban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we ’ re also talking about a sample size of 90 respondents , which is really too small to draw any firm conclusions .
Meanwhile , NPR has a report out this weekend about the number of new gun owners who don ’ t fit the stereotype of a middle-aged white guy .
Black gun ownership is rising faster than any other demographic group , according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , and NPR focused on one couple in Colorado who took the plunge and became gun owners earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign operative who ’ s actually given a few interviews about why she decided to purchase a gun .
Besides the NPR piece , she spoke to the New York Times earlier this summer in which she discussed her somewhat reluctant embrace of her Second Amendment rights .
“ I ’ ve been fighting for gun regulations in my state for eight years , ” said Kat Traylor , of Aurora , Colorado .
“ Regardless of who was in office , our lives didn ’ t get any better for black and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stayed the same , ” she explained .
“ That ’ s when the realization hit , until we have legislation and all the wrong people don ’ t have guns , you need a gun , ” Traylor said .
“ Guns are dangerous .
I never wanted one in my home .
But a month ago , I bought a handgun , and I learned how to shoot it , ” she explained .
“ Right now , I need a gun to be safe in this country.
” I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to guarantee that the “ wrong people don ’ t have guns , ” and Traylor didn ’ t elaborate on what new gun control laws she ’ d like to see in place , but the fact is that Colorado has passed a number of gun control bills in the past eight years , including universal background checks , a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds , and a red flag law .
Since the first round of gun control laws were put in place back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has actually increased .
You ’ d think that might be enough reason for Traylor to abandon her support for more gun control laws , but it sounds like at the moment she may be one of those new gun owners who plan on voting for Joe Biden , despite all of the evidence in Colorado pointing to the ineffectiveness of his anti-gun agenda .
I ’ m glad to see so many new gun owners across the country , and I know that not all of them will have the same attitudes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other gun owners share .
I still think that we have the opportunity and responsibility to reach out to as many of these new gun owners as possible , especially on the Left , to remind them that their support for gun control and things like defunding the police are fundamentally at odds with each other .

The Dallas Morning News is out with a new poll of voters in the state that focuses quite a bit on gun ownership, including those who’ve purchased a firearm for the first time in the past few months. There’s some interesting stats in the poll, but I have to say right up front that I’m more than a little skeptical of some of the poll results based on its sample, which is skewed heavily towards urban voters.
Of the 1078 people who were polled about having a gun in their home, nearly 1,000 were classified as living in metro areas, while just 101 people were from the suburbs or rural areas. I wish the poll had been more balanced, particularly regarding suburban voters, but there are still a few findings worth highlighting.
According to the poll, conducted by UT-Tyler for the Dallas Morning News, 34% of urban voters admit to having a gun in their home, compared to 54% of suburban/rural voters. Of those who purchased a firearm within the past 90 days, according to the poll, 54% say that this was their first time ever to buy a gun.
Oddly, while the poll asks several questions about gun ownership, it didn’t ask respondents why they purchased a firearm in the past 90 days. The Dallas Morning News also claims that new gun owners actually back Biden over Trump, though the paper doesn’t give any hard data and I’ve been unable to confirm that information by looking at the poll itself. It could be that the skewed sample in favor of urban voters may have given Biden an edge, but we’re also talking about a sample size of 90 respondents, which is really too small to draw any firm conclusions.
Meanwhile, NPR has a report out this weekend about the number of new gun owners who don’t fit the stereotype of a middle-aged white guy. Black gun ownership is rising faster than any other demographic group, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and NPR focused on one couple in Colorado who took the plunge and became gun owners earlier this spring. Kat Traylor is a Democratic campaign operative who’s actually given a few interviews about why she decided to purchase a gun. Besides the NPR piece, she spoke to the New York Times earlier this summer in which she discussed her somewhat reluctant embrace of her Second Amendment rights.
“I’ve been fighting for gun regulations in my state for eight years,” said Kat Traylor, of Aurora, Colorado. “Regardless of who was in office, our lives didn’t get any better for black and brown communities, in fact they just stayed the same,” she explained. “That’s when the realization hit, until we have legislation and all the wrong people don’t have guns, you need a gun,” Traylor said. “Guns are dangerous. I never wanted one in my home. But a month ago, I bought a handgun, and I learned how to shoot it,” she explained. “Right now, I need a gun to be safe in this country.”
I’m not sure what legislation is going to guarantee that the “wrong people don’t have guns,” and Traylor didn’t elaborate on what new gun control laws she’d like to see in place, but the fact is that Colorado has passed a number of gun control bills in the past eight years, including universal background checks, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds, and a red flag law. Since the first round of gun control laws were put in place back in 2013, violent crime in the state has actually increased.
You’d think that might be enough reason for Traylor to abandon her support for more gun control laws, but it sounds like at the moment she may be one of those new gun owners who plan on voting for Joe Biden, despite all of the evidence in Colorado pointing to the ineffectiveness of his anti-gun agenda.
I’m glad to see so many new gun owners across the country, and I know that not all of them will have the same attitudes towards the Second Amendment that I and many other gun owners share. I still think that we have the opportunity and responsibility to reach out to as many of these new gun owners as possible, especially on the Left, to remind them that their support for gun control and things like defunding the police are fundamentally at odds with each other.


bearingarms--2020-09-06--Police Presence Doesn't Create Criminals

To say there ’ s a very anti-police sensibility out there would be putting it mildly .
There ’ s a growing number of people who want law enforcement abolished completely .
How law and order will be kept in their Utopia is beyond me , of course , much less how they can fund all the socialism many of them want without some way to compel folks like me to pay taxes , but here we are .
However , there seems to be an attempt to link the police existing with crime itself .
At least , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By making many of these arrests , schools inherently safer .
See , that ’ s how it works .
The police arrest people who hurt other people so they don ’ t go on to hurt still more .
Especially since there ’ s no reason to believe these crimes wouldn ’ t have been committed if there weren ’ t an officer there on the campus .
The school cops didn ’ t make people break laws , after all .
Sure , some will argue that those incidents would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have required arrests , but I disagree .
I ’ ve seen how little some kids care about school discipline .
They seem to rejoice in it , actually , because it gives them status with their peers but no real ramifications beyond the school grounds .
They might get disciplined at home , but not all of them do .
By reminding them that they ’ re actually breaking laws , these students are learning a valuable lesson .
They ’ re learning that for every illegal action , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting your butt locked the hell up .
No one is making these students act in ways that would land them in handcuffs .
They ’ re doing that on their own .
They can learned it as juveniles or learn it as adults , at least since they didn ’ t learn it at home for whatever reason .
There ’ s zero reason for the rest of society to have to suffer later because someone finds the idea of them getting arrested at school offensive .
Look , if kids are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what are they doing when they know there are no real ramifications of their actions ?
Let ’ s stop blaming the presence of police for this when it ’ s the kids who are at fault in the first place .
Meanwhile , those police also help to deter would-be mass shooters from targeting those schools , which is part of why they ’ re there in the first place .

To say there’s a very anti-police sensibility out there would be putting it mildly. There’s a growing number of people who want law enforcement abolished completely. How law and order will be kept in their Utopia is beyond me, of course, much less how they can fund all the socialism many of them want without some way to compel folks like me to pay taxes, but here we are.
However, there seems to be an attempt to link the police existing with crime itself. At least, that’s the take I get.
There are now more law enforcement officers in Florida’s K-12 schools than there are nurses, and arrests of students have jumped in the two years since legislators passed a law requiring that every school deploy a police officer or armed school employee, according to a new report. During a single school year, 2018-2019, the number of youth arrests at school increased 8 percent even though communities around the schools saw a 12 percent decline in the number of youths arrested, the report said. And police officers arrested elementary-age kids 345 times, including an arrest of a 5-year-old and five arrests of 6-year-olds in that same year. The authors of “The Cost of School Policing: What Florida’s students have paid for a pretense of security,” said there is “little consistent evidence” that the presence of law enforcement led to a drop in the number of student behavioral incidents, indicating that school-based law enforcement officers “were not necessarily making schools safer.”
I beg to disagree.
By making many of these arrests, schools inherently safer. See, that’s how it works. The police arrest people who hurt other people so they don’t go on to hurt still more.
This ain’t rocket science, people.
Especially since there’s no reason to believe these crimes wouldn’t have been committed if there weren’t an officer there on the campus. The school cops didn’t make people break laws, after all.
Sure, some will argue that those incidents would have been handled with school discipline and wouldn’t have required arrests, but I disagree. I’ve seen how little some kids care about school discipline. They seem to rejoice in it, actually, because it gives them status with their peers but no real ramifications beyond the school grounds. They might get disciplined at home, but not all of them do.
By reminding them that they’re actually breaking laws, these students are learning a valuable lesson. They’re learning that for every illegal action, there may be an opposite reaction such as getting your butt locked the hell up.
No one is making these students act in ways that would land them in handcuffs. They’re doing that on their own. They can learned it as juveniles or learn it as adults, at least since they didn’t learn it at home for whatever reason. There’s zero reason for the rest of society to have to suffer later because someone finds the idea of them getting arrested at school offensive.
Look, if kids are acting like this when police are present, what are they doing when they know there are no real ramifications of their actions? Let’s stop blaming the presence of police for this when it’s the kids who are at fault in the first place.
Meanwhile, those police also help to deter would-be mass shooters from targeting those schools, which is part of why they’re there in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-09-07--What U.S. Can Learn From Australian Failure

Many gun control proponents like to look to Australia as somehow the template we should follow regarding guns .
Nevermind that Australia doesn ’ t have a version of the Second Amendment or anything .
Nope .
That just doesn ’ t play a factor in their minds .
However , let ’ s also be realistic here .
While proponents of such a scheme seem to think it ’ ll work just dandy , they tend to gloss over the failures .
You know , failures like this one : Now , this is just a disturbing case from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrates the flaws in the system .
Despite all the strict gun control , a horrible person was able to obtain multiple firearms .
Meanwhile , potential victims would have to jump through seemingly endless hoops in order to get a gun , which may end up being too late if someone like this is after them .
See , the problem with gun control isn ’ t that bad people will still get guns .
Not in and of itself .
No , the problem is that those same laws restrict the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting guns , guns that could be used to protect their own lives or the life of another .
They ’ re the ones who need guns , yet these laws make it more and more difficult for these folks to get them .
You can trust a person like that with a rocket launcher and they won ’ t hurt a living soul .
Meanwhile , piece of filth like this can just as easily beat people to death with a freaking rock .
The criminals will always find weapons .
Laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult for the good and decent people of this world to protect themselves .
After all , it ’ s clear the Australian government was unable to protect these two teens .
They had so much of their life ahead of them .
They likely trusted the system to keep them safe , even , only to see just how screwed up and unreliable such licensing schemes actually can be .
Bad people will always find a way to do bad things .
At the end of the day , you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep tilting and windmills or whether you want to empower the good and decent folks to be able to stand up and protect themselves .
Australia long ago decided to waste time and effort toward a losing proposition .
There ’ s no reason we have to follow their insanity .

Many gun control proponents like to look to Australia as somehow the template we should follow regarding guns. Nevermind that Australia doesn’t have a version of the Second Amendment or anything. Nope. That just doesn’t play a factor in their minds.
However, let’s also be realistic here. While proponents of such a scheme seem to think it’ll work just dandy, they tend to gloss over the failures. You know, failures like this one:
A man who murdered his two teenage children was able to legally buy guns despite a decades-long history of domestic violence, an inquest has heard. John Edwards shot his 15-year-old son Jack and 13-year-old daughter Jennifer at their home in West Pennant Hills in north-west Sydney in 2018. An inquest into their deaths will examine how Edwards, 67, was allowed a permit which saw him obtain five weapons. One of these was the glock semi-automatic he killed his children with. Another was the revolver he used to take his own life the next day. The inquest heard the Firearms Registry ran a check on Edwards in 2017, and it should have seen a number of police reports and AVOs against his name.
Now, this is just a disturbing case from the start. However, it also illustrates the flaws in the system. Despite all the strict gun control, a horrible person was able to obtain multiple firearms.
Meanwhile, potential victims would have to jump through seemingly endless hoops in order to get a gun, which may end up being too late if someone like this is after them.
See, the problem with gun control isn’t that bad people will still get guns. Not in and of itself.
No, the problem is that those same laws restrict the good people. It keeps them from getting guns, guns that could be used to protect their own lives or the life of another. They’re the ones who need guns, yet these laws make it more and more difficult for these folks to get them.
You can trust a person like that with a rocket launcher and they won’t hurt a living soul.
Meanwhile, piece of filth like this can just as easily beat people to death with a freaking rock. The criminals will always find weapons. Laws, however, only make it more difficult for the good and decent people of this world to protect themselves.
After all, it’s clear the Australian government was unable to protect these two teens. They had so much of their life ahead of them. They likely trusted the system to keep them safe, even, only to see just how screwed up and unreliable such licensing schemes actually can be.
Bad people will always find a way to do bad things. At the end of the day, you have to decide if you’re going to keep tilting and windmills or whether you want to empower the good and decent folks to be able to stand up and protect themselves. Australia long ago decided to waste time and effort toward a losing proposition.
There’s no reason we have to follow their insanity.


bearingarms--2020-09-07--Sheriff's Effort To Prevent Crime Goes Way Too Far

In the movie Minority Report , police are able to use psychics called “ precogs ” to tell when someone was about to murder another .
The police would then respond and arrest the person in question before they could do anything wrong .
To call it a flawed system is putting it mildly .
Luckily , there aren ’ t any real psychics being employed by police departments for the purpose of arresting people before they do something .
However , in one county , the sheriff has created a program that tries to predict who will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes it too far .
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco took office in 2011 with a bold plan : to create a cutting-edge intelligence program that could stop crime before it happened .
What he actually built was a system to continuously monitor and harass Pasco County residents , a Tampa Bay Times investigation has found .
First the Sheriff ’ s Office generates lists of people it considers likely to break the law , based on arrest histories , unspecified intelligence and arbitrary decisions by police analysts .
Then it sends deputies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears , often without probable cause , a search warrant or evidence of a specific crime .
They swarm homes in the middle of the night , waking families and embarrassing people in front of their neighbors .
They write tickets for missing mailbox numbers and overgrown grass , saddling residents with court dates and fines .
They come again and again , making arrests for any reason they can .
One former deputy described the directive like this : “ Make their lives miserable until they move or sue.
” Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a career criminal , there may well be plenty of reason to keep an eye on them .
Police doing that could easily be construed as harassment , right ?
Unfortunately , it goes beyond that .
Rio Wojtecki , 15 , became a target in September 2019 , almost a year after he was arrested for sneaking into carports with a friend and stealing motorized bicycles .
Those were the only charges against Rio , and he already had a state-issued juvenile probation officer checking on him .
Yet from September 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s deputies went to his home at least 21 times , dispatch logs show .
They showed up at the car dealership where his mom worked , looked for him at a friend ’ s house and checked his gym to see if he had signed in .
More than once , the deputies acknowledged that Rio wasn ’ t getting into trouble .
They mostly grilled him about his friends , according to body-camera video of the interactions .
But he had been identified as a target , they said , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , maybe it ’ s just me , but at a time when trust in law-enforcement is incredibly low and when the media is all but looking for things to hit police and sheriff ’ s departments over , you have to wonder just how intelligent it is to have a program like this up and running .
The report notes that two of the nation ’ s largest law enforcement agencies recent scrapped similar systems following complaints , but Pasco County is still going strong with theirs .
Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent crimes before they get bad .
However , when you ’ re showing up at friends ’ homes and parents work to check on the kid when he hasn ’ t done anything is going too far .
You ’ re making it impossible for the kid to have a life .
Especially since the peers a kid like this would need to avoid additional charges are going to also be the ones who have parents that aren ’ t going to be pleased with the police showing up out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to push young Rio to find friends whose parents simply don ’ t care .
Those are also more likely to be children whose parents don ’ t care about a lot of other things , like what their kids are up to on any given day .
In other words , this program isn ’ t predictive so much as a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making .
Frankly , this kind of thing needs to end .

In the movie Minority Report, police are able to use psychics called “precogs” to tell when someone was about to murder another. The police would then respond and arrest the person in question before they could do anything wrong.
To call it a flawed system is putting it mildly. Luckily, there aren’t any real psychics being employed by police departments for the purpose of arresting people before they do something.
However, in one county, the sheriff has created a program that tries to predict who will be a violent criminal, and then he reportedly takes it too far.
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco took office in 2011 with a bold plan: to create a cutting-edge intelligence program that could stop crime before it happened. What he actually built was a system to continuously monitor and harass Pasco County residents, a Tampa Bay Times investigation has found. First the Sheriff’s Office generates lists of people it considers likely to break the law, based on arrest histories, unspecified intelligence and arbitrary decisions by police analysts. Then it sends deputies to find and interrogate anyone whose name appears, often without probable cause, a search warrant or evidence of a specific crime. They swarm homes in the middle of the night, waking families and embarrassing people in front of their neighbors. They write tickets for missing mailbox numbers and overgrown grass, saddling residents with court dates and fines. They come again and again, making arrests for any reason they can. One former deputy described the directive like this: “Make their lives miserable until they move or sue.”
Now, in theory, if someone is already a career criminal, there may well be plenty of reason to keep an eye on them. Police doing that could easily be construed as harassment, right?
Unfortunately, it goes beyond that.
Rio Wojtecki, 15, became a target in September 2019, almost a year after he was arrested for sneaking into carports with a friend and stealing motorized bicycles. Those were the only charges against Rio, and he already had a state-issued juvenile probation officer checking on him. Yet from September 2019 to January 2020, Pasco Sheriff’s deputies went to his home at least 21 times, dispatch logs show. They showed up at the car dealership where his mom worked, looked for him at a friend’s house and checked his gym to see if he had signed in. More than once, the deputies acknowledged that Rio wasn’t getting into trouble. They mostly grilled him about his friends, according to body-camera video of the interactions. But he had been identified as a target, they said, so they had to keep checking on him.
Now, maybe it’s just me, but at a time when trust in law-enforcement is incredibly low and when the media is all but looking for things to hit police and sheriff’s departments over, you have to wonder just how intelligent it is to have a program like this up and running.
The report notes that two of the nation’s largest law enforcement agencies recent scrapped similar systems following complaints, but Pasco County is still going strong with theirs.
Look, I get the desire to try and prevent crimes before they get bad. However, when you’re showing up at friends’ homes and parents work to check on the kid when he hasn’t done anything is going too far. You’re making it impossible for the kid to have a life.
Especially since the peers a kid like this would need to avoid additional charges are going to also be the ones who have parents that aren’t going to be pleased with the police showing up out of the blue.
As a result, it is likely to push young Rio to find friends whose parents simply don’t care. Those are also more likely to be children whose parents don’t care about a lot of other things, like what their kids are up to on any given day.
In other words, this program isn’t predictive so much as a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making.
Frankly, this kind of thing needs to end.


bearingarms--2020-09-07--Boy Suspended Over Displaying Toy Gun During Internet Class

Earlier this year , after our local school system made it clear to me that they had no idea what the hell they were doing yet again , my wife and I made the decision to homeschool our daughter .
We , fortunately , had the resources to make that decision .
Plus , it allows me to make sure she ’ s actually being educated , not indoctrinated .
Since we made that decision , I ’ ve seen plenty of evidence that simply makes me feel better about our decision .
Take this , for example .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five days and sent the police to his home after a teacher saw him “ waving ” a toy gun during a virtual class .
Isaiah Elliott , a seventh grader at Grand Mountain School in Colorado Springs , was attending an art class via distance learning on Aug. 27 , his third day of school .
His mother , Dani Elliott , told BuzzFeed News that at one point during the lesson , her son picked up a neon green toy gun and moved it from one side of his computer screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isaiah often has trouble concentrating during classes because he has attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) .
She said that the school “ had been made well aware ” of her son ’ s ADHD diagnosis and that Isaiah has an IEP ( Individualized Education Program ) plan on file .
After the class concluded , Elliott said that she received an email from her son ’ s art teacher in which the teacher said that Isaiah had been “ extremely distracted , ” during the lesson .
The teacher wrote that there had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waving around a toy gun , ” which she had reported to the school ’ s vice principal , according to Elliott .
Now , I ’ m not going to say that Elliot should have even messed with the toy gun during class , even if it was virtual .
No , he should have been trying his best to focus on school , though as a fellow ADHD sufferer , I know how much easier that is said than done .
Still , that doesn ’ t excuse it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun at the child ’ s home .
A photo of the “ gun ” makes it quite clear that it ’ s a toy , thus nothing to be alarmed over .
It wasn ’ t even a realistic airsoft gun .
Nope , it ’ s clearly a toy .
The art teacher getting her knickers in a twist is beyond ridiculous .
However , it got dumber .
Yeah…I don ’ t think that one is going to make any sense anytime soon .
Especially since the teacher apparently admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toy .
Sheriff ’ s deputies showed the Elliot ’ s husband video of the supposed incident , which opened another can of worms .
After all , there was no mention to parents that classes would be recorded .
The school system went into damage control mode on social media , but I honestly don ’ t care .
See , I ’ ve long had an issue with zero tolerance policies , even when students were in physical schools .
They often got kids suspended or expelled for the most benign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the “ zero tolerance ” rules .
Frankly , this is even dumber .
Yes , you can and should bar children from bringing toys to school .
That includes toys of any kind .
However , if you ’ re going to have virtual classes , you have to expect that toys are going to be present .
While taking issue with the boy messing with his toys is one thing , to suspend him for having a freaking toy gun in his own home is beyond ridiculous .
Frankly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pulled my daughter out of public education .
No parent should have to put up with that level of outright stupidity in order to see their children educated .

Earlier this year, after our local school system made it clear to me that they had no idea what the hell they were doing yet again, my wife and I made the decision to homeschool our daughter. We, fortunately, had the resources to make that decision. Plus, it allows me to make sure she’s actually being educated, not indoctrinated.
Since we made that decision, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that simply makes me feel better about our decision. Take this, for example.
A Colorado school suspended a 12-year-old boy for five days and sent the police to his home after a teacher saw him “waving” a toy gun during a virtual class. Isaiah Elliott, a seventh grader at Grand Mountain School in Colorado Springs, was attending an art class via distance learning on Aug. 27, his third day of school. His mother, Dani Elliott, told BuzzFeed News that at one point during the lesson, her son picked up a neon green toy gun and moved it from one side of his computer screen to the other. Elliott said that Isaiah often has trouble concentrating during classes because he has attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). She said that the school “had been made well aware” of her son’s ADHD diagnosis and that Isaiah has an IEP (Individualized Education Program) plan on file. After the class concluded, Elliott said that she received an email from her son’s art teacher in which the teacher said that Isaiah had been “extremely distracted,” during the lesson. The teacher wrote that there had been “a very serious issue with waving around a toy gun,” which she had reported to the school’s vice principal, according to Elliott.
Now, I’m not going to say that Elliot should have even messed with the toy gun during class, even if it was virtual. No, he should have been trying his best to focus on school, though as a fellow ADHD sufferer, I know how much easier that is said than done. Still, that doesn’t excuse it.
That said, it’s a toy gun at the child’s home. A photo of the “gun” makes it quite clear that it’s a toy, thus nothing to be alarmed over. It wasn’t even a realistic airsoft gun. Nope, it’s clearly a toy. The art teacher getting her knickers in a twist is beyond ridiculous.
However, it got dumber.
Soon after getting the email, Elliott said that she received a call from Grand Mountain School Vice Principal Keri Lindaman informing her that she had called school resource officers from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office to conduct a health and wellness check on Isaiah at the family’s home.
Over a toy gun.
At his house.
A toy gun.
In his home.
Yeah…I don’t think that one is going to make any sense anytime soon. Especially since the teacher apparently admitted that she knew it was a freaking toy.
Sheriff’s deputies showed the Elliot’s husband video of the supposed incident, which opened another can of worms. After all, there was no mention to parents that classes would be recorded.
Whoops.
The school system went into damage control mode on social media, but I honestly don’t care.
See, I’ve long had an issue with zero tolerance policies, even when students were in physical schools. They often got kids suspended or expelled for the most benign of actions, all because they fell under the “zero tolerance” rules. Frankly, this is even dumber.
Yes, you can and should bar children from bringing toys to school. That includes toys of any kind.
However, if you’re going to have virtual classes, you have to expect that toys are going to be present. While taking issue with the boy messing with his toys is one thing, to suspend him for having a freaking toy gun in his own home is beyond ridiculous.
Frankly, it makes me that much happier to have pulled my daughter out of public education. No parent should have to put up with that level of outright stupidity in order to see their children educated.


bearingarms--2020-09-07--Ammo Shortage Hurting Gun Store Owners

Ammo Shortage Hurting Gun Store Owners

Here at Bearing Arms , we ’ ve written a ton about how gun sales have skyrocketed this year .
Honestly , Cam and I are getting a little bored writing those stories because , well , it ’ s starting to not really be news anymore .
It ’ s just the new status quo , apparently .
It seems that a global pandemic followed by riots really does a number on folks who just want to be left alone .
So , they bought guns .
Now , they and every other gun owner on the planet has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough ammo .
That created a short-term boom for ammo sales , but now there ’ s no ammo left to buy .
That ’ s creating a problem for some gun stores .
In an election year with protests happening across the country , gun sales are on the rise nationwide .
But an ammunition shortage has left gun shop owners in Montana in a tough spot .
“ I hate it when it ’ s like this , ” said James Mitchell , owner of Mitchell Supply in Great Falls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t get it , and it just makes it more difficult , ” he said .
“ It ’ s a nationwide thing .
Eventually they ’ ll catch up , but like I say , it ’ s going to be pretty ugly here for the next few months.
” Honestly , it makes sense .
I mean , you can ’ t sell what you don ’ t have on hand to sell .
That means no money coming in except for smaller things like accessories , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ammo shortage is also likely to hurt a lot of people beyond just the gun stores .
For example , a lot of trainers require people to have a certain amount of ammo on hand for classes .
I ’ ve seen a ton of schools telling you to bring 1,000 rounds for a three-day class .
That means that if you can ’ t get 1,000 rounds , there ’ s no reason for you to spend the money for a training class .
Sure , a lot of people are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In other words , the ramifications of this could go well beyond the struggles of your local gun store .
Meanwhile , manufacturers have opted not to expand production .
They got bit a few years back after they stepped up manufacturing to meet an increased demand only for that demand to evaporate with the election of President Donald Trump .
While things are tense right now , that could change at any moment and they don ’ t want to be looking at a full warehouse and reduced demand for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re almost going to have to step up their efforts at least to some degree , otherwise there won ’ t be many stores left to buy those products for later resale .
Sure , they can sell on the internet , but a lot of people don ’ t want to buy ammo on the internet .
They want to be able to talk to a local dealer and get their take on what is best .
Sure , a lot of those people don ’ t know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about like every other store on the planet , but people feel better talking to someone they can feel is an expert .
With ammo to sell , though , how much longer will those supposed experts have jobs ?

Here at Bearing Arms, we’ve written a ton about how gun sales have skyrocketed this year. Honestly, Cam and I are getting a little bored writing those stories because, well, it’s starting to not really be news anymore. It’s just the new status quo, apparently.
It seems that a global pandemic followed by riots really does a number on folks who just want to be left alone. So, they bought guns. Now, they and every other gun owner on the planet has realized they don’t have nearly enough ammo.
That created a short-term boom for ammo sales, but now there’s no ammo left to buy. That’s creating a problem for some gun stores.
In an election year with protests happening across the country, gun sales are on the rise nationwide. But an ammunition shortage has left gun shop owners in Montana in a tough spot. “I hate it when it’s like this,” said James Mitchell, owner of Mitchell Supply in Great Falls. … “People want to buy it; we can’t get it, and it just makes it more difficult,” he said. “It’s a nationwide thing. Eventually they’ll catch up, but like I say, it’s going to be pretty ugly here for the next few months.”
Honestly, it makes sense. I mean, you can’t sell what you don’t have on hand to sell. That means no money coming in except for smaller things like accessories, but that only goes so far.
The ammo shortage is also likely to hurt a lot of people beyond just the gun stores.
For example, a lot of trainers require people to have a certain amount of ammo on hand for classes. I’ve seen a ton of schools telling you to bring 1,000 rounds for a three-day class.
That means that if you can’t get 1,000 rounds, there’s no reason for you to spend the money for a training class.
Sure, a lot of people are still taking classes, but for how long?
In other words, the ramifications of this could go well beyond the struggles of your local gun store.
Meanwhile, manufacturers have opted not to expand production. They got bit a few years back after they stepped up manufacturing to meet an increased demand only for that demand to evaporate with the election of President Donald Trump. While things are tense right now, that could change at any moment and they don’t want to be looking at a full warehouse and reduced demand for their goods.
I get that.
Unfortunately, at some point, they’re almost going to have to step up their efforts at least to some degree, otherwise there won’t be many stores left to buy those products for later resale. Sure, they can sell on the internet, but a lot of people don’t want to buy ammo on the internet. They want to be able to talk to a local dealer and get their take on what is best.
Sure, a lot of those people don’t know what they’re talking about, which is about like every other store on the planet, but people feel better talking to someone they can feel is an expert.
With ammo to sell, though, how much longer will those supposed experts have jobs?


bearingarms--2020-09-07--D.C. Arrests Results Display Racial Disparity In Gun Law Enforcement

For some time , anti-gunners have been trying to push the argument that gun rights are inherently racist .
They want people to equate the desire to own a gun with a desire to shoot non-white people in the face or something .
They ’ ve tried over and over again to make the case that gun rights is about keeping black people oppressed .
They tend to ignore the fact that history shows that gun control has its roots firmly planted in racism .
After all , the earliest gun control laws in the country were designed to disarm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible for them to defend themselves from the white Klansmen who wanted to intimidate and oppress them .
And , frankly , little has changed .
See , while the Klan may not be riding through town unopposed anymore , the gun control laws are hitting the black community hardest .
At least , that ’ s what happened with a D.C. initiative meant to crack down on guns .
An anti-gun initiative in Washington , D.C. , that was backed by Mayor Muriel Bowser is attracting criticism because it has focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The controversy over the program , which prosecutes residents for violating the federal ban on firearm possession by people with felony records , illustrates the tension between two major items on the progressive agenda : strengthening gun control and reducing racial disparities in law enforcement .
Those goals are hard to reconcile because enforcing firearm laws has a disproportionate impact on African Americans .
Bowser , who is herself African American , presumably was not driven by racial animus when she backed the D.C. initiative , which aims to reduce gun crimes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commit them .
But the racially disproportionate results were predictable , since one-third of African-American men have felony records ( compared to 8 percent of the general population ) and police and prosecutors were apt to concentrate on high-crime , predominantly black neighborhoods .
That is what happened , as federal prosecutors recently acknowledged .
Instead of targeting illegal gun owners throughout the city , as originally advertised , the program has focused entirely on three police districts that overlap with Ward 5 , which is 64 percent black ; Ward 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ward 8 ( 89 percent black ) .
By comparison , blacks represent 44 percent of the District ’ s total population .
The program “ exclusively—and now we know , by design—targets District residents of color via specific police districts , ” D.C. Council Member Charles Allen complained in a press release .
“ It is one more policy defaulting to harsh penalties on Black residents whose neighborhoods have historically been underinvested in and overpoliced .
We must end this policy .
It is taking us in the wrong direction.
” D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official who enforces the D.C. Code , was likewise appalled by the “ discriminatory application ” of federal gun charges .
According to the Post , D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said “ he was unaware the initiative was being implemented in only certain parts of the District.
” Look , I won ’ t pretend to know why black people are convicted of felonies at a higher rate than white people .
I damn sure don ’ t think it ’ s something inherent in the genetics or anything .
That said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth isn ’ t the truth .
Because of that truth , though , gun laws disproportionally impact black Americans , and not just D.C. ’ s law , either .
No , they ’ re impacted by all the laws on the books .
Meanwhile , we ’ ll still have anti-gunners pretend that gun rights arguments are somehow rooted in racism despite zero evidence supporting that assertion , all while pretending their movement has always had the purest of motivations despite ample evidence to the contrary .

For some time, anti-gunners have been trying to push the argument that gun rights are inherently racist. They want people to equate the desire to own a gun with a desire to shoot non-white people in the face or something. They’ve tried over and over again to make the case that gun rights is about keeping black people oppressed.
They tend to ignore the fact that history shows that gun control has its roots firmly planted in racism. After all, the earliest gun control laws in the country were designed to disarm black men and women and make it impossible for them to defend themselves from the white Klansmen who wanted to intimidate and oppress them.
And, frankly, little has changed. See, while the Klan may not be riding through town unopposed anymore, the gun control laws are hitting the black community hardest. At least, that’s what happened with a D.C. initiative meant to crack down on guns.
An anti-gun initiative in Washington, D.C., that was backed by Mayor Muriel Bowser is attracting criticism because it has focused on predominantly black parts of the city. The controversy over the program, which prosecutes residents for violating the federal ban on firearm possession by people with felony records, illustrates the tension between two major items on the progressive agenda: strengthening gun control and reducing racial disparities in law enforcement. Those goals are hard to reconcile because enforcing firearm laws has a disproportionate impact on African Americans. … Bowser, who is herself African American, presumably was not driven by racial animus when she backed the D.C. initiative, which aims to reduce gun crimes by disarming and locking up people thought likely to commit them. But the racially disproportionate results were predictable, since one-third of African-American men have felony records (compared to 8 percent of the general population) and police and prosecutors were apt to concentrate on high-crime, predominantly black neighborhoods. That is what happened, as federal prosecutors recently acknowledged. Instead of targeting illegal gun owners throughout the city, as originally advertised, the program has focused entirely on three police districts that overlap with Ward 5, which is 64 percent black; Ward 7 (92 percent black); and Ward 8 (89 percent black). By comparison, blacks represent 44 percent of the District’s total population. The program “exclusively—and now we know, by design—targets District residents of color via specific police districts,” D.C. Council Member Charles Allen complained in a press release. “It is one more policy defaulting to harsh penalties on Black residents whose neighborhoods have historically been underinvested in and overpoliced. We must end this policy. It is taking us in the wrong direction.” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, an elected official who enforces the D.C. Code, was likewise appalled by the “discriminatory application” of federal gun charges. According to the Post, D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said “he was unaware the initiative was being implemented in only certain parts of the District.”
Woops.
Look, I won’t pretend to know why black people are convicted of felonies at a higher rate than white people. I damn sure don’t think it’s something inherent in the genetics or anything. That said, we can’t pretend that the truth isn’t the truth.
Because of that truth, though, gun laws disproportionally impact black Americans, and not just D.C.’s law, either. No, they’re impacted by all the laws on the books.
Meanwhile, we’ll still have anti-gunners pretend that gun rights arguments are somehow rooted in racism despite zero evidence supporting that assertion, all while pretending their movement has always had the purest of motivations despite ample evidence to the contrary.


bearingarms--2020-09-08--Biden's Gun Control Plans Just As Unconstitutional As His Mask Mandate

Joe Biden hasn ’ t exactly been the picture of consistency on the campaign trail this year .
He pledged to end fossil fuels during the Democratic primary , but was all “ Drill , baby , drill ” during his recent speech in Pittsburgh .
He wasn ’ t going to go to Kenosha , Wisconsin after riots erupted in response to the shooting of Jacob Blake , until he showed up a day after Donald Trump visited the city .
Less than a month ago , Biden declared that he would impose a three month national mask mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again , admitting that there are constitutional issues with his idea .
Asked to respond to the governors who had appreciated President Trump ’ s more targeted coronavirus approach , which gave more authority to the states , Biden said , “ Well , I hope you could trust the governors .
“ But here ’ s the deal , the federal government — there ’ s a constitutional issue whether federal government could issue such a mandate .
I don ’ t think constitutionally they could , so I wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the way , that Biden didn ’ t acknowledge ever calling for a national mask mandate .
Nor did he tell his audience when , exactly , he realized that there are constitutional concerns over the federal government attempting to impose a mandate .
He ’ s simply pretending that this has always been his position , despite the headlines from mid-August declaring his support for a federal order requiring Americans to wear masks .
As long as Joe Biden is paying lip service to the idea of governmental power being restricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another look at his gun control agenda , which suffers from the same constitutional defects and practical problems of enforcement that doomed his mask mandate to failure .
Take the centerpiece of Biden ’ s anti-gun platform : a ban on the sale and possession of so-called “ assault weapons ” and “ large capacity magazines , ” which are both pliable terms that can be most accurately defined as “ guns and magazines I want to ban.
” The modern sporting rifles that Biden wants to ban are the most commonly sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the magazines that Biden would make illegal under federal law may comprise more than half of all the ammunition magazines in the country , as Judge Kenneth Lee stated in the recent Ninth Circuit opinion that upheld a federal court ’ s decision that California ’ s ban on so-called large capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment rights of Californians .
These are items in common use by tens of millions of Americans for a variety of lawful purposes , but Joe Biden says they ’ re outside the scope of the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ limited ” in scope .
Of course Biden offers no evidence to support his position , nor does he bother to explain to voters what a “ limited ” Second Amendment looks like , though the new ( and laughable ) Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden describes a right to keep and bear arms that is limited to hunting and sporting , with no mention at all of the right to defend yourself with a firearm .
I suspect that no matter how many flip-flops we see from Joe Biden over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for inventing new non-violent crimes out of thin air will remain remarkably consistent , even though his gun control agenda is completely at odds with the Democratic campaign platform that calls for a “ top to bottom ” overhaul of the entire criminal justice system .
That statement alone suggests that the Left should reject the old-school model of gun violence prevention by imposing new gun control laws ( particularly non-violent possessory offenses ) , but so far the Democrats aren ’ t willing to confront the inherent contradiction in “ re-imagining policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws in place .
Joe Biden doesn ’ t see the constitutional concerns with his anti-gun agenda , and he doesn ’ t want to admit that his gun control plans can ’ t sit comfortably alongside his calls to reduce incarceration at both the federal and state level .
If we had a press corps that dared to ask a skeptical question of the Democratic candidate , he might be forced to try to square that circle .
Since that won ’ t happen , we can only hope that Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ square off in their first debate later this month .
If Trump really wants to make Joe Biden look like a babbling fool , he should ask him directly how his gun control laws can be enforced without putting more Americans in prison for a crime that Biden and the Democrats will have created out of what used to be the Second Amendment .

Joe Biden hasn’t exactly been the picture of consistency on the campaign trail this year. He pledged to end fossil fuels during the Democratic primary, but was all “Drill, baby, drill” during his recent speech in Pittsburgh. He wasn’t going to go to Kenosha, Wisconsin after riots erupted in response to the shooting of Jacob Blake, until he showed up a day after Donald Trump visited the city.
Less than a month ago, Biden declared that he would impose a three month national mask mandate. Now Biden’s reversed himself once again, admitting that there are constitutional issues with his idea.
Asked to respond to the governors who had appreciated President Trump’s more targeted coronavirus approach, which gave more authority to the states, Biden said, “Well, I hope you could trust the governors. “But here’s the deal, the federal government — there’s a constitutional issue whether federal government could issue such a mandate. I don’t think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn’t issue a mandate.”
Note, by the way, that Biden didn’t acknowledge ever calling for a national mask mandate. Nor did he tell his audience when, exactly, he realized that there are constitutional concerns over the federal government attempting to impose a mandate. He’s simply pretending that this has always been his position, despite the headlines from mid-August declaring his support for a federal order requiring Americans to wear masks.
As long as Joe Biden is paying lip service to the idea of governmental power being restricted by the Constitution, he should take another look at his gun control agenda, which suffers from the same constitutional defects and practical problems of enforcement that doomed his mask mandate to failure.
Take the centerpiece of Biden’s anti-gun platform: a ban on the sale and possession of so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines,” which are both pliable terms that can be most accurately defined as “guns and magazines I want to ban.”
The modern sporting rifles that Biden wants to ban are the most commonly sold rifles in the United States, and the magazines that Biden would make illegal under federal law may comprise more than half of all the ammunition magazines in the country, as Judge Kenneth Lee stated in the recent Ninth Circuit opinion that upheld a federal court’s decision that California’s ban on so-called large capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment rights of Californians.
These are items in common use by tens of millions of Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, but Joe Biden says they’re outside the scope of the Second Amendment, which his campaign website describes as “limited” in scope. Of course Biden offers no evidence to support his position, nor does he bother to explain to voters what a “limited” Second Amendment looks like, though the new (and laughable) Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden describes a right to keep and bear arms that is limited to hunting and sporting, with no mention at all of the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
I suspect that no matter how many flip-flops we see from Joe Biden over the next two months, his support for inventing new non-violent crimes out of thin air will remain remarkably consistent, even though his gun control agenda is completely at odds with the Democratic campaign platform that calls for a “top to bottom” overhaul of the entire criminal justice system.
That statement alone suggests that the Left should reject the old-school model of gun violence prevention by imposing new gun control laws (particularly non-violent possessory offenses), but so far the Democrats aren’t willing to confront the inherent contradiction in “re-imagining policing” while putting even more gun control laws in place. Joe Biden doesn’t see the constitutional concerns with his anti-gun agenda, and he doesn’t want to admit that his gun control plans can’t sit comfortably alongside his calls to reduce incarceration at both the federal and state level.
If we had a press corps that dared to ask a skeptical question of the Democratic candidate, he might be forced to try to square that circle. Since that won’t happen, we can only hope that Donald Trump raises the issue when the two candidates square off in their first debate later this month. If Trump really wants to make Joe Biden look like a babbling fool, he should ask him directly how his gun control laws can be enforced without putting more Americans in prison for a crime that Biden and the Democrats will have created out of what used to be the Second Amendment.


bearingarms--2020-09-08--Why People Shouldn't Trust Government For Protection

Every day , a concerning number of people are shot .
Not all are killed , mind you , but more are shot than anyone should be comfortable with .
Thousands of Americans are shot and injured every year and gunshot wounds aren ’ t necessarily easy recoveries for those who are wounded .
However , it seems that some of those who have been shot have trust issues .
America ’ s gun violence affects not only just those killed , injured or present during gunfire , but research suggests it can also sabotage the social and psychological well-being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread in the United States .
More than half a million Americans have been murdered by those brandishing firearms over the last four decades .
Many more are physically or psychologically injured by guns .
A Pew Research Center survey reports that , overall , one in four Americans ( 23 per cent ) say someone has used a gun to threaten or intimidate them or their families .
This includes a third of Black Americans ( 32 per cent ) .
Over the course of their lifetimes , nearly all Americans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know a victim of gun violence in their social network .
But there ’ s not been much scholarly attention dedicated to the social and psychological impacts of gun violence on Americans and American society .
My recent research shows that such widespread gun violence , both fatal and non-fatal , has a detrimental effect on Americans ’ trust in each other .
That erosion of trust is often long-lasting and has a greater impact on Black Americans .
The high likelihood that all Americans were either threatened or shot with guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be a plausible explanation for the half-century decline in trust in public institutions in the U.S .
The problem is , however , that far too many people are looking to the government to protect them .
They expect the state , local , and federal governments to all work in unison as part of a concerted effort to keep each and every individual safe .
Yet that ’ s not remotely possible .
Further , the courts have ruled the government has no such obligation .
See , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society as a whole .
That means things like arresting criminals so they can ’ t plague society .
It means trying to maintain a good economy since a bad one seems to increase crime rates .
More than anything , it means trying to keep things on as even a keel as possible from a big picture sense .
Unfortunately , a lot of people don ’ t understand that .
They expect the government to step in and make everything better in every way , particular with regard to protecting people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they want to blame someone .
They blame the government and their fellow Americans for allowing it to happen .
( I ’ m just going to pretend I don ’ t see the BS claim that all Americans were either threatened or shot with guns during a significant portion of my life when I was never threatened . )
The problem is , at the end of the day , the only one who can be responsible for your safety is you .
Not the state , not the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
Once you understand that , you don ’ t feel like you need to lash out at everyone else or blame everyone else for whatever happened and recognize that your safety is on you and always has been .

Every day, a concerning number of people are shot. Not all are killed, mind you, but more are shot than anyone should be comfortable with. Thousands of Americans are shot and injured every year and gunshot wounds aren’t necessarily easy recoveries for those who are wounded.
However, it seems that some of those who have been shot have trust issues.
America’s gun violence affects not only just those killed, injured or present during gunfire, but research suggests it can also sabotage the social and psychological well-being of all Americans. Gun violence is widespread in the United States. More than half a million Americans have been murdered by those brandishing firearms over the last four decades. Many more are physically or psychologically injured by guns. A Pew Research Center survey reports that, overall, one in four Americans (23 per cent) say someone has used a gun to threaten or intimidate them or their families. This includes a third of Black Americans (32 per cent). Over the course of their lifetimes, nearly all Americans of all racial and ethnic groups are likely to know a victim of gun violence in their social network. But there’s not been much scholarly attention dedicated to the social and psychological impacts of gun violence on Americans and American society. My recent research shows that such widespread gun violence, both fatal and non-fatal, has a detrimental effect on Americans’ trust in each other. That erosion of trust is often long-lasting and has a greater impact on Black Americans. The high likelihood that all Americans were either threatened or shot with guns from the 1960s to the 1990s could also be a plausible explanation for the half-century decline in trust in public institutions in the U.S.
The problem is, however, that far too many people are looking to the government to protect them. They expect the state, local, and federal governments to all work in unison as part of a concerted effort to keep each and every individual safe.
Yet that’s not remotely possible. Further, the courts have ruled the government has no such obligation.
See, it’s the government’s role to protect society as a whole. That means things like arresting criminals so they can’t plague society. It means trying to maintain a good economy since a bad one seems to increase crime rates. More than anything, it means trying to keep things on as even a keel as possible from a big picture sense.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t understand that. They expect the government to step in and make everything better in every way, particular with regard to protecting people.
When that doesn’t happen, they want to blame someone. They blame the government and their fellow Americans for allowing it to happen. (I’m just going to pretend I don’t see the BS claim that all Americans were either threatened or shot with guns during a significant portion of my life when I was never threatened.)
The problem is, at the end of the day, the only one who can be responsible for your safety is you. Not the state, not the federal government and not the local police, but you.
Once you understand that, you don’t feel like you need to lash out at everyone else or blame everyone else for whatever happened and recognize that your safety is on you and always has been.