Biden’s Anti-Gun Push Proves “Unity” Was Always A Lie

H/T Bearing Arms.

If you believed that Joe Pee Pads  Biden wanted unity you are a moron.

President Joe Biden said he wanted to unify a fractured nation. He campaigned as a moderate, something only the media bought, but he did everything he could to present himself as someone who could unite us all. Yet he also campaigned on gun control, which should have been a big red flag.

 

But hey, people campaign on stuff all the time, then never deliver it. They make a show of trying to do it, just so they can say they tried, but they knew it would never fly and are fine with that.

Yet Biden has already made inroads on gun control and is still pushing for more, thus proving his claims of seeking to unify us were nothing but a lie.

Just months into President Joe Biden’s tenure, his early calls for “unity” look not only insincere—something we expect of any politician—but positively laughable. Last week, he threatened executive action to tighten restrictions on privately owned firearms in a move bound to infuriate gun owners, including millions of people who purchased tools for self-defense for the first time amid the chaos of the past year. Much of the country is certain to ignore his dictates, including state and local governments who have already vowed that they won’t enforce such rules. Forget unity—the president has found an effective means of deepening the country’s divisions.

“I asked the Attorney General and his team to identify for me immediate, concrete actions I could can take now without having to go through the Congress,” the president huffed from the White House on April 8. “And today, I’m announcing several initial steps my administration is taking to curb this epidemic of gun violence.”

The legality and wisdom of his proposed restrictions on arm braces and “ghost guns” aside—Jacob Sullum ably dissected those schemes elsewhere—Biden’s plan to bypass Congress is a wild departure from his insistence at his inauguration that “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.” After all, he’s bypassing Congress specifically because lawmakers are very definitely not unified around an anti-gun agenda. That includes Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), from Biden’s own party.

The issue of gun control is easily one of the most divisive issues we currently have in American politics. Anyone looking to unify the country should really steer clear of this one because while anti-gunners wouldn’t like it, they’re also going to continue getting what they want at various state levels. They’re not going to feel like they lost. Not really.

But gun rights activists, on the other hand, aren’t interested in playing nice on this. We played nice over the decades and all we saw was more and more encroachment on our Second Amendment rights.

The truth of the matter was that when Biden claimed he wanted to unify us, he really intended to take a big, steaming dump on the gun rights crowd. He never wanted to unify with us. He just wanted to play some lipservice the media would lap up and then go about dismantling our Second Amendment freedoms.

It was a lie from the start and we all knew it.

The problem is, he’s now shown it to be the lie we all knew it to be, yet few in the mainstream media are willing to call him out on it. That’s alright. I’ll be thrilled to do it for them.

CNN Actually Fact Checks (Some Of) Biden’s 2A Lies

H/T Bearing Arms.

CNN commits a small act of random journalism fact checking some of Joe Pee Pads Biden’s gun control lies.

Last week Tom Knighton covered quite extensively the subject of Biden’s announcement on executive action on guns in: Biden Lies About Background Checks & More During Anti-Gun Presser. The subject of these actions is so hot that many will be talking about them for weeks and months to come. Something we all need to appreciate is that what Biden can do without the full support of our congresscritters is very little. The most “teeth” that any of his actions has revolves around the head of the ATF (or AFT if you ask Biden) appointment. Aside from putting anti-gun, frothing-at-the-mouth, freedom haters in charge of different agencies, his hands are largely tied.  Still, freedom-loving Americans will have a hard time navigating through certain sections of the executive branch because of this.

 

In an article from CNN we can find some really interesting fact checks to chew on. To be completely fair, hat tip goes out to Braden Langley, from the Langley Outdoors Academy. It was a recent video that he put out that directed me to the article in the first place. Holmes Lybrand, Tara Subramaniam and Daniel Dale, the authors of the piece really did some due diligence while working on it.  Some select bits that I extracted for you to ruminate on:

Biden claimed that “the only industry in America — a billion-dollar industry — that can’t be sued — has exempt from being sued — are gun manufacturers.”
Facts First: This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.

Biden claimed that “If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.”
Facts First: This framing from Biden is misleading, since it leaves the false impression that gun shows are exempt from background check laws.

He said that states with red flag laws have “seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.”
Facts First: This needs context. Research on this subject is limited, some of the available research data is mixed, and suicide rates have increased around the US in the 21st century.

These are just the highlights of a fairly well done article. To navigate through all the lies and rhetoric that we were bombarded with, do read the article in full as well as Knighton’s. There is nothing Earth shattering here though, as most civil rights minded persons already know these facts.  What is groundbreaking here is the that this was an article from CNN. The cable news network is not usually yelling from the rooftops about protecting our Second Amendment rights. To be perfectly honest, very few, if any main stream television news outlets meet, never mind exceed, the amount of coverage the 2nd Amendment rightfully deserves.

I won’t be holding my breath that this is the start of a new trend towards fairly covering the gun control debate on the part of CNN, but it’s worth noting that the media is capable of doing its job when it wants to. It’s just a shame that so few reporters are actually interested in doing so.

Do You Carry a .22 For Personal Defense?

H/T The Truth About Guns.

A friend of mine used to say he would sooner be missed by a .45 than hit by a .22 as a.22 had a tendency to go in you and bounce around causing lots of damage.

Whatever you may read on the intertubes, not everyone is a high speed, low drag tactical operator. They don’t walk around all day strapped with an optics-equipped, suppressor-ready pistol that packs 17+1 rounds of ammo in a drop leg holster (in addition to a couple of extra magazines).

Here in the real world, lots of people choose to buy guns that don’t intimidate them. Guns that are easy to load and easy to shoot. When they were standing at the gun counter, they only wanted to make sure they were buying something that would go ‘bang,’ not a pistol that a Navy SEAL might carry.

So yes, many of these people bought handguns chambered in .22LR for personal defense, either to carry or for home defense purposes.

Federal Punch 22 .22LR personal defense ammunition
Courtesy Federal

We know…you’re horrified. I wouldn’t be caught dead carrying a pop gun like that! Shooting a bad guy with a rimfire round will only make him angry! 

But the first rule of self-defense is…have a gun. The reality is, lots of people actually do rely on .22LR for personal defense. And if your personal defense gat is a .22, you’ll want to fill it with the best ammo for the job.

In light of that, back in January the people at Federal Premium introduced Punch 22 ammunition for short-barrel .22LR handguns.

 

 

As their web site notes . . .

Self-defense isn’t one size fits all. Punch 22 LR from Federal Premium uses a first-of-its-kind nickel-plated lead-core bullet pushed at maximum velocities to achieve the deepest penetration through short-barrel handguns. So, whether you want to carry a 22 LR pistol as a backup gun, don’t feel comfortable with centerfire pistols, or simply want to get more versatility from your rimfire, Punch makes the 22 LR cartridge a viable choice for the first time ever.

Our favorite part is the MSRP of $9.99 for a 50-round box. If only.

The people at Federal, who know a thing or two about the ammunition market, recognized that in a country of 100 million or so gun owners, many of them will be very content and sleep quite well at night owning a handgun that’s chambered in .22LR. Hence Punch 22.

As for the question of penetration . . .

Federal’s engineers tested Punch 29-grain 22 LR ammunition against three other small-caliber loads: 25 Auto 50-grain FMJs, 32 Auto 60-grain HPs, and 32 Auto 71-grain TMJs. The 25 Auto, 22 LR Punch and 32 Auto TMJ reached the FBI protocol minimum penetration threshold of 12 inches in 10 percent gel (the 32 Auto 60-grain round penetrated an average of 8.5 inches). Of the three loads that reached the minimum depth, only the 32 Auto out-penetrated 22 Punch.

So what about it? Do you own or carry a .22LR for personal defense? Know someone who does? Have you recovered yet from reading that there are people who do?

Carjackers Stopped by Armed Driver – Armed Citizen Stories

H/T AmmoLand.

It was luckily the car driver was armed and was able to defend himself.

 

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- We start with this news report from Fox29 news in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

You drive for Lyft. You get a call to a residential area in Philadelphia at 5 on a Sunday morning. When you pull up to the location, two teenagers run up to your car. One of them has a gun. Your attacker orders you to get out of your car and give him the keys.

You are a gun owner. You have your Pennsylvania License to Carry a concealed firearm. You’re armed this morning. You present your firearm and shoot the armed attacker nearest you.

Your attacker drops his gun. The other attacker puts his arms up in the air, so you don’t shoot him. The wounded attacker shouts to someone in a car nearby and that car drives away. You step away from your car, look around, and then call 911.

Police arrest your two attackers. EMS takes your wounded attacker to the hospital for treatment of a non-life threatening injury to his leg. Police also recover your attacker’s gun. It is a BB gun. The attackers who remained at the scene are 14 and 15 years old.

Lyft says you’re not supposed to carry in your car, but an unarmed driver was carjacked in Philadelphia yesterday. You didn’t want that to happen to you.

Comments

Our armed defender did a number of things to save his life. Well before this incident, he recognized that driving the public around is a dangerous job. The defender went to the time and trouble of being publicly armed in Philadelphia. He got his permits. Day after day, he dressed around the gun and carried concealed.

On the morning when he was attacked, our defender recognized what appeared to be an immediate, unavoidable, and lethal threat. It sounds like he kept his head and chose his moment to defend himself. When he had an opportunity, the defender shot his immediate attacker until the threat stopped, then the defender stopped shooting. He did not shoot at the second attacker or at the other car because they were not an immediate threat at that time.

After he defended himself, our defender stayed at the scene. He called 911 and made a statement to the police.

Our society changes everyday. Rideshare services now bring hot food to hungry people at all hours. They are also delivering fresh cars to criminals. The carjacker gets to order up the time and location of their robbery. As he places his order, the carjacker can select or reject the make and model of the car.. and the appearance of the driver.

Carjackings are up across the country, but particularly for rideshare drivers.

There are a number of things that were not mentioned in the news report. Let’s look at what we would want to do if we were in a similar situation.

The defender shot his attacker in the leg. Typically that is hard to do from inside the car, so it looks like the defender might have fired as he opened the door and got out of his car. Shooting from inside your car or shooting as you get out of your car are not the presentations we’re taught in our concealed carry class.

If you can, take a class that goes beyond firearms safety and the minimum required for your carry permit. We can learn to shoot from unusual positions. We can also dry practice our shooting from a seated position.

It is harder to find good opportunities to live fire from unusual positions. For example, I could not usually draw and fire from a seated position at my public range, but I could do so during competitions. In that setting you can learn by watching others as well as from your own experience.

We talked about firearms training, but we also have to talk about the judgments involved. Every shot we take will be judged against the legal standards for justified self-defense. Our defender shot when he faced a threat, and he stopped shooting when that threat was sufficiently diminished. The law is not a fool and it recognizes that it takes a moment to realize our situation has changed. We don’t have to be perfect but we want to be responsible with every shot we fire.

There is more we can learn from this news report. These two attackers were not alone. There was at least one additional accomplice in the car that drove away. Multiple attackers are the rule rather than the exception. That is why we want to look around after we’ve addressed the immediate threat.

There is no easy rule to follow when we decide between moving to safety or staying at the scene. There could be greater safety if we flee. We have to weigh that against the possible loss of evidence or witnesses if we run away. In this case, the second attacker might grab the BB gun and disappear. It is unlikely that the wounded attacker would tell the truth about the attack. Criminals usually run and we don’t want to run if we don’t have to. Each of us will have to weigh the pros and cons of that decision in the moment.

Once we’re safe, we want to call 911. Stay on the call and say little. We give our location. Ask for police and medical support. Say that someone is wounded and the scene is secure. Say that there were additional attackers. Give a description of their car and the way they were headed as they left. Tell the dispatcher what you look like including how you’re dressed.

I suggest you stay on the call so you know when the police are about to arrive. Put your gun away, preferably back into your holster. If not, then put your gun back into your car and lock the doors or trunk.

Give a brief statement to the police when they arrive. Tell them the essential facts and then state your willingness to cooperate. We can say something like this.

I was attacked and I called 911. That man pointed a gun at me and I defended myself. That man was also one of the attackers. I called you as soon as I could. Please arrest them. I’ll press charges and testify in court. I’ll cooperate and give a complete statement after I’ve spoken to my attorney.

Of course you want to tell your story, but now is not the time. You may be handcuffed. You may be arrested. You may be taken to jail until you post bail. You are a mess and this is not the time and place to state your legal case.

Have a legal plan and call them. Your lawyer will negotiate you bail. He will ask you to go over what happened several times, preferably at least once after you’ve had a chance to sleep. Let your lawyer take everything you say and put it into a coherent report. Having an experienced self-defense lawyer also makes it harder for a prosecutor to throw unwarranted charges at you. It happens, and you don’t want to face that alone.

We can plan to save lives, both before, during, and after an attack.

 

SHOULD YOU CARRY A HANDGUN IN THE SMALL OF YOUR BACK?

H/T Guns In The News.

The small of your back is a bad carry idea.

When it comes to the concealed carry of a defensive handgun, there are a variety of acceptable ways to do it and there are some bad ideas. Small of the back (SOB) carry is one of those bad ideas. This is primarily because it is an unsafe way to carry a defensive handgun, but there are other factors at play as well. Let’s look at the reasons SOB carry should be avoided and let’s start with comfort.

Comfort

Though it may seem like your lumbar region is a great little alcove to hide a handgun, the first time you sit in a chair and lean back your mind will change. Most of us spend our days seated at a desk and having a glob positioned in that area makes sitting uncomfortable. Even those who spend a great deal of time on their feet during the day will have to sit at some time and with SOB carry it will be unpleasant.

On the other hand, if you are on your feet SOB carry can provide deep concealment with the right cover garment. However, at the same time, if you bend over it becomes almost impossible to maintain that concealment unless you’re wearing a trench coat. Additionally, accessing a handgun carried SOB is slower than almost anything but ankle carry.

Access

When it comes to access, when compared to common inside-the-waistband (IWB) or outside-the-waistband (OWB) carry on your strong side or in the appendix position, it’s slower and harder to access and draw a handgun that is carried in the SOB manner. In fact, drawing from a shoulder holster is easier, faster and safer than drawing from SOB carry. Clearing the cover garment is just one of the problems.

With a shoulder holster it is fast and easy to just reach inside your coat and access the handgun. And, with hip and appendix waistband carry, sweeping aside or tugging the cover garment above your holster is easily done with the support hand. With SOB carry you really have no practical method of ensuring your cover garment is clear for access to the handgun or for the draw. Accessing the handgun is even more problematic if you’re seated or lying on your back.

Safety


The biggest reason SOB carry is a bad idea is because of safety and there are two aspects of safety that need to be considered. It’s not uncommon when attempting to defend a violent attack for you to be pushed or knocked to the ground. If you’re carrying in the SOB method and you land on your back with a gun pressing against your L-3 vertebrae, you could potentially end up with an injury without a shot fired—from your own gun! And too, trying to draw a handgun positioned in the small of your back while a 200-pound attacker is on top of you will be difficult.

The above-mentioned comfort, access, and safety reasons should be enough to discourage the practice of SOB carry and they’re all relevant concerns. But let’s talk about what might be the most important reason not to carry a handgun in the SOB position and that’s the safety related to the actual presentation and holstering of the handgun.

6

Both are almost impossible to do without pointing the gun at important parts of your body. Regardless of if the handgun is carried in the SOB method with the butt pointed up or down, you will most assuredly sweep the muzzle across your hip. Can you draw a handgun from the SOB position safely? Yes, but the process is slow and does not involve motions that are conducive to a smooth, fast, and tactical presentation.

There is a reason that Galco Gunleather, a company that is arguably the foremost manufacture of defensive handgun holsters in the world, does not offer a holster suited for SOB carry. Galco has been making premium defensive handgun holsters for half a century and they do not make an SOB holster because an SOB holster is, well, a sub-optimal idea.

North Carolina: Pistol Purchase Permit Repeal Filed

H/T AmmoLand.

Hopefully this bill will become law it is ridiculous to have to buy a permit to buy a gun.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On April 7th, Senate Bill 687 was filed, to legalize acquiring handguns without having to first apply for a permit. It is currently in the Committee On Rules and Operations of the Senate for consideration.

Senate Bill 687 repeals the statute that requires law-abiding citizens to obtain pistol purchase permits to acquire handguns. The pistol purchase permit was created before modern, computerized background checks existed. The federal NICS checks that licensed firearms dealers to conduct are often completed in minutes. This relic that is the pistol purchase permit now only serves as a time barrier, an unnecessary fee, and a general inconvenience to the exercise of the Second Amendment.

The need for such a reform was made quite clear last year when the Wake County Sheriff’s Office announced that they would suspend processing pistol purchase permits for at least a month in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with many citizens around the country seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the first time. The prospective new gun owners of Wake County would have been left unable to obtain handguns for that duration, even if friends or family wished to loan or gift one to them. Fortunately, the sheriff reversed course after a few days and resumed processing permits. SB 687 will ensure that this cannot happen again.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.

Indiana State Senator Liz Brown (R), and Leadership, Kills Constitutional Carry

H/T AmmoLand.

There are too Damned many RINO’s in the Indiana General Assembly leadership.



U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Indiana appeared to have a good chance of passing Constitutional Carry in 2021. The House passed the bill 64 – 31. A majority of Republicans in the Senate called for the bill’s passage.  From therepublic.com:

Republicans easily pushed the proposal through the Indiana House, but Senate leaders have decided against taking up the bill in the final weeks of this year’s legislative session even though it was co-sponsored by 21 GOP members of the 50-person Senate.

The Indiana Senate has 39 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The opposition of key Republican leaders killed Constitutional Carry through the simple expedient of inaction.

Republican State Senator Liz Brown of Ft. Wayne killed the bill by never scheduling it for a committee hearing. From the indystar.com:

Fort Wayne Republican Sen. Liz Brown, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bill has been sitting, declined to give the bill a hearing before the deadline, effectively killing the legislation.

Instead, in the last week bills can be heard in committee, she gave a hearing to a resolution emphasizing the Indiana Senate’s commitment “to protect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

Liz Brown was supported in the killing of the bill by the Republican Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray.  Bray may have organized the killing of the bill. From pdclarion.com:

Specifically, Bray said he concurs with the Hoosier Gun Rights organization that the requirement in the legislation for Indiana to create a database of individuals barred from possessing a gun due to a felony or domestic violence conviction, dishonorable military discharge, or history of mental illness is a “poison pill,” since data restrictions and privacy concerns inevitably will prevent such a database from being created.

Bray said eliminating the handgun license without creating the database means Indiana police officers will have no easy way of knowing whether a person they encounter on the street with a gun is legally permitted to be carrying the weapon.

That interpretation of the bill is disputed.  From journalgazette.net:

Guy Relford, a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, disputed Bray’s characterization of the bill. He also has a radio show called “The Gun Guy.”

“This is an outright lie. H.B. 1369 did not mandate any new ‘database’ at all and certainly did NOT contain a ‘poison pill,’” he said in a Facebook post. “The bill simply required a ‘process’ for getting information in existing criminal history databases, … to an officer on the street. That process could be as simple as a radio call or an email.”

Resolution SR 39, has many lofty sentences about supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It has no force of law. It may be a coincidence it was passed by Senator Brown’s committee on April Fool’s day.

President Pro Tem Bray offers a consolation prize of eliminating the current $75 fee for an Indiana lifetime carry permit. From wane.com:

 Instead, the Senate will support eliminating the $75 fee for a lifetime permit after the Legislature eliminated the state’s five-year permit fee in a 2019 bill.

If the Indiana Senate can eliminate the fee for a lifetime permit, they could easily have passed Constitutional Carry, if President Pro Tem Bray had wished to pass it. Bray represents Indiana Senate District 37.

Media Misrepresentation: Guardian says Black Gun Ownership up 58.2%

H/T AmmoLand.

It comes as no surprise to me the drive-by media lies about black gun ownership.



U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Gun ownership is up in the United States. Record numbers of new gun owners, about eight million, purchased a gun in 2020. In a sensationalist article by the far-left British paper The Guardian, the sub-headline reads:

Americans bought a record number of firearms last year. Gun ownership among Black Americans is up 58.2%

While it may be wished to be true, the headline is both sensationalist and misleading. Here is the paragraph in the article which purports to support the headline. From the guardian.com:

Americans bought a record number of firearms last year. An estimated 5 million people bought their first ever gun between March and August, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade organization, and that number continued to climb throughout the year. Black Americans saw the highest increase in new gun owners of any demographic, the NSSF found, with gun ownership in the group up by a staggering 58.2%.

The first, obvious mischaracterization, is the sleight of hand which changes the increase in gun purchasers into an equivalent percentage increase in gun owners.

The 58.2% increase is based on reporting by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).  The report shows the number of black gun purchasers increased by 58.2% in the first half of 2020.

There is little reason to doubt the mix of customers changed much in the second half.  An increase in black customers does not translate into the same increase in black gun owners, white gun owners, Hispanic gun owners, Asian gun owners, or any group of gun owners. To put the increase in black customers in context, the NSSF reported the increases in customers of four groups:

  • Black – 58.2%
  • White – 51.9%
  • Hispanic – 49.4%
  • Asian – 42.9%

Only the four groups were listed.

The number of total gun owners in the United States is notoriously difficult to determine, as is the distribution into various groups.

Before 2020, there appeared to be about 100 million gun owners in the United States.  The number is uncertain because it is based on surveys.

The NSSF reported the percentage of total customers as this:

  • Black – 14.7%
  • White – 72.4%
  • Hispanic – 9.1%
  • Asian – 3.8%

While gun purchases in 2020 appear to have increased the number of gun owners by about 8%, it is a far cry from 58% as reported in the Guardian headline. We would have to know how gun ownership is distributed across the United States before 2020 to understand how much of a percentage increase occurred in each group.

According to a Pew survey done in 2017, about 30% of all adults personally owned a gun. Asians were not broken out. The distribution was this:

  • Black – 24%
  • White 36%
  • Hispanics 15%

Very likely, these numbers represent a minimum. It is easy to understand why people would be reluctant to admit gun ownership to a stranger on the phone.

The numbers are uncertain because Hispanics are an ethnic group that may be any race.

As the Guardian article focused on black people, consider those numbers. Black people are about 13.4% of the U.S. population.  Adult black people are about 31.5 million people in the US.

If 24% were gun owners, that would be about 7.56 million self-reported black gun owners before the increase in 2020.

The total increase in 2020 was about 8 million new gun owners. According to the NSSF, 14.7% of them were black.  That calculates to 1.176 new black gun owners. 1.176 million is about a 15.6% increase in gun ownership by black people. It is a significant increase, but not the sensational 58% mischaracterized in the headline.

Contrary to the Guardian’s selected quotes, gun owners and the NRA welcome all colors into the ranks of the gun culture.

Black people, prevented from legal gun ownership by racist gun laws in the past, have some catching up to do.

Professor John Lott has said minorities in crime-ridden urban centers derive the most benefit from increased legal gun ownership. From Dr. John Lott:

 My research has demonstrated that the two groups that benefit the most from carrying guns are the likeliest victims of crime (poor blacks in high-crime urban areas) and people who are physically weaker (women and the elderly). Dozens of published peer-reviewed studies find similar results.

It makes sense those who are at the highest risk of crimes of violence would benefit the most from being armed.

Secret Service Threat Assessment: Observe…Investigate…Intercede

H/T AmmoLand.

Here I go trying to confuse the anti-gun crowd with the facts.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center recently released a report on targeted school violence that didn’t seem to get much attention from the media. After reading it, we can understand why, as it doesn’t easily fit into the standard legacy media paradigm of exploiting tragedy to “prove” that guns are bad, and we need new laws to further restrict access to them.

This report focused on the analysis of “67 averted school attack plots” in the U.S. from 2006 to 2018, with an averted attack defined as “a plot in which (i) a current or former K-12 school student (ii) took steps to advance an attack plan (iii) to cause physical injury to, or the death of, at least one student and/or school employee.”

Of course, it is impossible to know for sure, how many of the 67 plots would have actually led to violent attacks, but the report showed that those whose plots were uncovered shared many similarities with those who actually did perpetrate school attacks.

The shared histories of those who plotted and those who perpetrated attacks included:

    •       Histories of school discipline and contact with law enforcement.
    •       Experience with bullying or mental health issues, frequently involving depression and suicidality.
    •       Intent to commit suicide as part of the plot.
    •       Use of drugs or alcohol.
    •       Having been impacted by adverse childhood experiences, including substance abuse in the home, violence or abuse, parental incarceration, or parental mental health issues.

The real takeaway from the report, though, is that plots against schools are often preventable.

Whether the plotters actually discussed their plans with others or exhibited behavioral patterns and/or experiences that indicated there may be something troubling the plotter, the reason each of these 67 plots was uncovered was that someone became aware of a potential problem and reported the situation.

In its analysis of the overview of the plots averted, the report looked at school characteristics, plotter demographics, motivation for the plots, planning, plot elements, plot detection and reporting, and responding to the report.

Under the background of the plotters, the report looked at disciplinary history, prior law enforcement contact, mental health and substance use, stressors, bullying, concerning communications, and interest in violence.

All of the categories under the overview of plots and backgrounds of the plotters had numerous subsets—some shared and some not—so delving into those details would run a bit long. Anyone interested in those details can review the report online.

When it comes to the topic of firearms, that issue is discussed, predominantly falling under planning and plot elements.

Firearms were planned to be used by most of those plotting violence. But more than half also intended to use explosives, while many others planned on using incendiary devices and/or bladed weapons. More than half intended to use at least two or three types of weapons.

The report says that roughly three-quarters of the cases involved plotters who had “potential access to at least one weapon,” but that includes all potential weapons, not just firearms. The report is also unclear as to what “potential access” actually means in each circumstance.

The overall message from the report is that in many situations, if not most or all, students who plot violent attacks that take place at school can be stopped before they perpetrate their crimes. Identifying stressful circumstances and the signs that an individual is experiencing them is key. So is reporting such things. And, of course, reporting any communication of threats is paramount to interceding in a possible future attack.

Sadly, there have been instances when warning signs were ignored, and tragedy followed. It is then that anti-gun extremists tend to start calling for more restrictions on firearms. The reality of this report, though, is that there are means to prevent tragedy without diminishing our rights protected under the Second Amendment.

The report makes clear that if people pay attention to the actions of truly troubled students, and act accordingly, tragedy can often be averted. It also shows that those in distress can have their situations appropriately evaluated, and treatment can follow before it is too late to act.

IDAHO: GOVERNOR SIGNS SHOOTING RANGE PROTECTION ACT INTO LAW!

H/T Guns In The News.

Thank you Governor Brad Little(R-ID)for signing a law to protect gun ranges in Idaho.

Governor Brad Little has signed the Shooting Range Protection Act, Senate Bill 1055, into law.  The signing of this legislation is a huge victory for Idaho gun owners, sportsmen, and shooting ranges.  The measure went into effect on March 19th.

Senate Bill 1055 clarifies and enhances the protections on sport shooting ranges under Idaho law.  By adding new definitions, SB 1055 will allow ranges to more easily expand and remain open against frivolous lawsuits attempting to shut them down.

Thank you to Governor Brad Little for signing SB 1055 into law, as well as those legislators who supported this legislation through the whole process.  Also, thank you to NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their lawmakers in support of this important measure.​

Article by NRA-ILA