Category: David B. Cole

The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

Are you ticked off about President Trump’s lack of support for the Second Amendment? Steamed that he banned bump stocks? Are you annoyed that he hasn’t signed executive orders repealing FOPA, GCA, NFA, and enacting nationwide constitutional carry? Maybe you’d like to teach him a lesson, and vote for a Democrat…but you can’t decide which candidate is the best choice for a no-compromise gun rights purist like yourself?

Hey…I’ve appointed enough conservative federal judges to overturn gun-control laws for a generation! (Including the bump stock ban.)

You’re in luck! Read on, and I’ll help you deduce which Democrat you can trust to respect the Second Amendment and protect your gun rights, all while making you feel better by sticking it to that bump-stock banning orange man! What follows is a list of Democrat candidates, their individualized positions on specific gun rights issues, for a simple compare and contrast guide to help you make your selection.

I don’t like (your) guns! Don’t be stupid!

First up is Michael Bloomberg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns, except around my gulags!

Then comes Bernie Sanders:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Of course I don’t like guns. Not for you, anyway.

And then there’s Pete Buttegieg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns just as much as the rest of them don’t like guns.

Next is Amy Klobuchar:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Do I like guns? Two words…Wounded Knee!

And then Elizabeth Warren:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I got your double barrel shotgun right here.

Then there’s Joe Biden:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

This is NOT a finger gun! Don’t like ‘em!

And don’t forget Tom Steyer:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

There you go. That should make it pretty easy for any voter who values the Second Amendment to decide which Democrat is the best choice for gun owners in 2020. None of them!

Inconceivable!

Inconceivable!

I was promised “human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!”

Listening to the anti-gun left and their media mouthpieces, I thought there was so much gunfire out there that I’d need to do 3-5 second rushes just to make it from my driveway to the front door.

So imagine my surprise when yesterday the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for 2018, and the data says that violent crime fell by 3.9% from 2017! Just when I thought things were getting worse, it turns out that when it comes to violent crime…things are actually getting better.

How the heck is an anti-gunner supposed to remain logical with facts like these?! Because the facts are that…even with hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands…crime is down, violence is down, and firearms accidents are down.

I Was A Gun Confiscator

I Was A Gun Confiscator

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on September 2, 2019.

Time to tell a story…a true story. I’m going to leave out specifics regarding locations and names, but this really happened, and I was there.

I was a cop, and I participated in a gun confiscation.

About 20 years ago, I was on a municipal police department SWAT team serving a small city near Cincinnati. One afternoon the pager (yes, pager) went off, and we all reported to the city building to gear up and be briefed on the situation.

The situation was this: A resident of an apartment in a small, four-unit building had called the PD to report that she had heard a neighbor in his apartment ranting about wanting to “kill everybody.” The complainant went on to state that she knew that the man who lived in the apartment had several guns, and that she had driven him to a local store recently to purchase a home surveillance camera kit.

Based on this single complaint, we loaded the truck and rolled the team out to the address, setting up out of sight of the building. The Assistant Chief (who held a law degree) arrived on scene and assumed incident command. The landlord was contacted for floor plans, at which time we also learned that the resident had no phone. This meant that the only options for contacting the man were to “knock and talk” or to break a window and put in a throw phone (a portable, hard line phone which can be inserted into a target location).

An example of a throw phone set.

The concern expressed by the Team Commander and Assistant Chief was that since the suspect was presumed to be armed and have surveillance cameras, we would only get one opportunity to approach with any possibility of surprise. He was on a ground floor with a window facing the street and only entrance to the building, meaning the team would be quite exposed with about 40-50 yards to cover once we moved on the apartment. It would be extremely dangerous if he were alerted to our presence and chose to fight. So the Assistant Chief made the decision to declare “exigent circumstances,” and directed us to execute a no-knock dynamic entry with breach.

Not me…just a picture of a team hitting a door.

I was Number 1 on the stack, with the responsibility to ram the door immediately to clear the way for the rest of the team to enter and apprehend the suspect. To make a long story short(er), we knocked this guy’s door down, tackled and cuffed him, and took his guns…based on a single complaint from a single witness. No criminal history. No psychological evaluation. No judge. No warrant.

I don’t recall exactly how things were resolved post-incident, except for some generalities. I remember that the man ended up being released, perhaps after agreeing to a psychological evaluation. I honestly don’t remember, except that he got to go home in fairly short order. I don’t even think he was criminally charged with anything. The 14 guns we confiscated from him were eventually returned; I think it took about a week or so. Basically, it ended up being a big nothingburger.

What I do remember is that we heard no ranting coming from his apartment before we went in, and he was genuinely surprised when his door came down that night; I remember him standing in his apartment with his hands up saying, “What’s going on, fellas?” as our team sergeant tackled him.

But the overriding memory is of how easily our police department leaders…based on the uncorroborated statement of a single witness…made the decision to enter this man’s home without a warrant, to deprive him of his freedom, and to seize his property. If police conduct of this sort bothers you, then consider what will happen when police departments are given a virtual green light* with red flag laws.

This is me, taking a break from SWAT training, “back in the day.”

*And yes, I will concede that the difference is that most red flag laws do call for a hearing in front of a judge prior to confiscation. I will also tell you that this will prove to be little more than a speed bump. Most judges will prefer to “err on the side of safety” and confiscate first, due process later. After all, this is exactly how red flag laws are designed to work.

If It Saves One Life

If It Saves One Life

It is one of the biggest lies gun control people tell…if not the biggest.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone argue in favor of the latest, most awesomest new gun law proposal, acknowledging that although it won’t actually end violent crime, it will be worth it “if it saves even one life.”

Anyone who tells you this is the bar for success is a liar. A big, fat, pants-on-fire, Pinocchio-nosed liar.

The truth is that in our society, we happily accept thousands of deaths for mere convenience as a matter of routine. There are any number of laws we could pass which would save one life.

Ban alcohol.

88,000 deaths per year

Ban peanuts.

200 deaths per year

Ban cars.

40,000 deaths per year

Some of these things cause a lot of death, and some of them only cause a little, but they are all widely accepted as a fact of life in the United States, and they are legal. Ridding our nation entirely of any one of these things would doubtless save at least one life (likely more than one), yet there is no serious movement to completely ban any of them.

And that’s despite the fact that some of these things are purely luxuries. No one needs to drink alcohol. No one needs tobacco. No one needs to eat peanuts. And don’t give me any of that crap about what you have a right to do, if taking away that right saves one life. You think a total ban on peanuts wouldn’t save one life? Of course it would, and what difference does it make whether or not you like peanuts?. But we would surely get more “bang for our buck” with total bans on alcohol and tobacco, right? Want to sit at a bar with a drink, a smoke, and a bowl of peanuts? Forget it. You don’t need it, and it would save one life.

I couldn’t even find a picture of all three together…

“But Dave,” you say, “we do need cars!” Do we really? There was a time in this country where there were no cars, and people managed just fine. But it sure is nice to be able to live more than a mile or two away from your job, isn’t it? It sure is nice to be able to not have to hitch up the horse and buggy to go to the store and get groceries, huh? But people did it. (Some people still do.)

Livin’ life.

By now you’re probably thinking, “Dave that’s just silly. You can’t be seriously suggesting we return to travel by foot and by horse and buggy.” Of course I’m not. But what I am suggesting is that we are willing to accept death caused by cars in order (for those of us who aren’t killed by them) to enjoy a higher quality of life. Think about that. We will accept that cars kill people so that we can enjoy a more comfortable and convenient life.

“Now, Dave,” you’re thinking, “that’s not 100% true. We don’t just accept deaths caused by cars. We are constantly striving to improve safety and save lives on the highway.” No argument there. And if you are willing to accept the inconvenience and cost, there are things we could do to save at least one life when it comes to cars. How about mandating breathalyzer ignition interlocks on every car in the United States? Sure, it would be expensive and inconvenience those who don’t drink and drive…but it would save one life. How about we lower the national speed limit to 20 mph? Talk about inconvenient…but it would save one life. Too much? Okay…then let’s just mandate that all cars must be speed limited to not exceed…oh, pick a number…70 mph? Nobody needs a Dodge Hellcat.

Capable of 204 MPH. Nobody needs to go 204 MPH.

But remember, we’re not debating cost/benefit, and we’re sure as hell not debating your silly rights. The debate we’re having is how to save one life, and removing cars from our society would save one life.

Or would it? Isn’t is possible that on the whole, cars save lives because now people won’t be dropping dead early from walking to work every day, or by the number of lives lost in horse and buggy accidents? Don’t cars save lives by making it easier to get to the doctor, and to the pharmacy to obtain life-saving medications? Perhaps, but again that debate gets into the area of cost/benefit analysis, and the gun-banners sure as hell don’t want to go there. Even the anti-gun CDC reluctantly confirmed over 2 million defensive gun uses per year, well in excess of any deaths by accidental, suicidal, or homicidal use of a gun. If you want to go all cost/benefit, guns win.

You should see by now where all of this “if it saves one life” stuff leads. It willingly ignores the reality that we do in fact accept a certain amount of death in order to enjoy the comforts of modern life and to enjoy the rights of free people. To say differently is a lie.

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on 8/30/2019.

Minority Report, This Isn’t

Minority Report, This Isn’t

In our recent debate over both the constitutionality and effectiveness of red flag laws, there have been a lot of comparisons to the movie Minority Report. In case you’re unfamiliar, Minority Report is a science fiction film set in a future world where technology exists which allows for the prediction and prevention of crime…thus the comparison to red flag laws.

It has been a while since I last saw the movie and it’s on Amazon Prime right now, so I decided a re-watch was in order. But in the first few minutes, the movie itself smashes any comparisons to our red flag laws, current or proposed.

Faced with a case of potential murder and the countdown clock ticking, the protagonist works frantically to decode exactly where and when the crime will occur. As the tension builds, and the team races the clock to pinpoint the exact location of the pre-crime, they assemble and deploy a tactical team to swoop in and grab the not-yet-a-criminal.

Only seconds remain as they narrow it down to two adjacent houses, but refuse to move in until they know exactly which house is the correct pre-scene of the pre-crime. They could just as easily have taken down both houses, rather than risk selecting the wrong one…but they did not. Watch the scene in question here:

This is a key difference in the imaginary world of Minority Report, and the reality which is red flag laws. Even with the advanced (yet fallible) technology of the future, the movie cops wouldn’t simply grab up anybody who might be a threat…they waited until they were sure. They wouldn’t risk arresting an innocent person, even in the name of preventing a murder.

Unfortunately, that was fiction. Our red flag laws enjoy neither the technology nor the restraint of Minority Report…but they are real. Who would have thought a dystopian sci-fi flick would offer a rosier picture than present-day America?

Contact your legislators now to demand they oppose red flag laws.

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com

That’s Crazy Talk

That’s Crazy Talk

I was recently listening to a talk given by my friend Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio on the topic of “red flag laws,” and she said something that caught my ear. She was explaining the difficulty that trained psychology and psychiatry professionals have in predicting violent behavior, and said “we suck at it.”

Minority Report is fiction, you know.

She’s absolutely right. It does not take much research to discover that it is in fact extremely difficult to predict violent behavior in even those clinically diagnosed…by professionals…as mentally ill. It is also a widely recognized fact that mental illness does not automatically mean someone is dangerous.

So why would we get in such a big hurry to take guns from people suspected of being dangerous, as assessed by the untrained non-professional…when the professionals admit that they “suck at it,” and that the vast majority of legitimately mentally ill people are not dangerous?

And why, if the mental health of the person is in question, do “red flag laws” confiscate the gun(s) but not the person? If the person is suspected of being dangerous, why should they not be immediately confined for assessment by mental health professionals? If their mental health were really that important to us, wouldn’t we want to see that they receive immediate care? And if the safety of those around them were truly the priority, how effective is it to just confiscate the guns we know about, while leaving the supposed dangerous person free to a gun we missed, obtain a replacement gun, or substitute another weapon to commit violence? After all, you could even leave the guns right where they are if you simply take the dangerous person away from them and into treatment.

Seems like there’s an awful lot of holes in that red flag.

You just know what she’s going to do if she gets out…

It is because it actually has nothing to do with mental health or violence prevention, and everything to do with removing as many guns as possible from the hands of free, law-abiding citizens. There are already plenty of laws on the books to prohibit criminals, addicts, and those who have been legally designated as mentally ill from possessing guns. But “red flag laws” are nothing more than an attempt to throw the largest possible net over as many gun owners as possible, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

And that’s crazy talk.

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on July 31, 2019.

Drive On

Drive On

An argument we often hear from gun prohibitionists is that it is more difficult to obtain and drive a car than it is to obtain and carry a gun. They’ll tell you that it is only “common sense” that we should make gun ownership more closely resemble car ownership. But let’s forget for a moment that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, and that the “right to own and drive” cars is not.

Not a right.

To make gun and car ownership more simpatico, we should first make concealed carry licenses reciprocal between all 50 states. The anti-gun crowd objects to this on the grounds that concealed carry licensing standards are inconsistent between the states, and that all driver’s licenses are the same. But a quick web search for state driver’s licensing requirements show that the standards each state enforces vary quite a bit…and despite these differences, a driver’s license from Alaska is still perfectly valid in Florida. So using the “treat guns like cars” standard, shouldn’t a concealed carry permit from Mississippi be valid in New Jersey, for example?  Instead, when it comes to concealed carry, people who have never even read the Constitution go all “states’ rights” and forget all about the differences in drivers’ licensing.

(And don’t even try to use the RealID program to argue about licensing standards. With RealID, the licensing document itself must meet certain formatting requirements, but has nothing to do with actual driving ability. If my driver’s license does not have certain physical characteristics I cannot use it to ride on…not fly…an airplane from Cincinnati to San Antonio. But I can still use it to drive my car from Cincinnati to San Antonio. Common sense!)

Driver’s license, or concealed carry license? Shouldn’t matter.

But let’s not stop there in our quest to make gun ownership and car ownership more similar. Any adult, 18 years of age or more, can buy a car any time they want.  Under current federal law, it is illegal for a person under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun…not like cars at all! In nearly every other aspect of life, we consider 18 to be the age of adulthood. An 18-year old can join the military, vote, buy a rifle or shotgun (according to Federal law)…or a car. Why not a handgun?

Not federally licensed. No background check.

Let’s also consider where we buy cars, and how. Car dealers are not required to be federally licensed, nor are they required to conduct a federal background check on potential purchasers. You certainly don’t need to run a background check in order to privately sell your car to someone else. Let’s get rid of that requirement for guns…in order to make it more like buying a car! We should also remember that car sales are not generally restricted depending on how big the engine is, how fast the car goes, or how much fuel it holds (and such restrictions, where they exist, are usually only with respect to whether or not you can take it on the public roads…we’ll cover that in a second). Similar restrictions on things like caliber, firing mechanism, and magazine capacity ought to go away if we want to treat guns like cars! Heck, some states even allow fully automatic cars!

A full-auto auto…

As an aside, we all know that it would be silly to restrict or ban cars that have certain cosmetic or ergonomic features, so of course we will discard all such restrictions for guns as well, right?  Of course we will…it’s only common sense.  And speaking of common sense, we normally require that cars be equipped with a muffler…so let’s make it easier to put one on your gun!

Nice muffler. Image by Oleg Volk.

Of course, the subject of registration of cars versus guns inevitably comes up, but the popular belief that all cars must be registered and licensed through the state is simply not true. Requirements will vary by state, but in most cases if a vehicle is not going to be driven on public roads, it does not have to be registered…and cars are never registered with the federal government! For example, if you had a 4-wheel drive that you only drove around your farm, or your buddy’s farm, or any other private driving complex…you certainly do not need to get tags for it. Except for an instance in which a firearm is actually used for legitimate self defense, every legal use of a firearm I can think of takes place either on someone’s private property with their consent, or on public land as already allowed by law. Never mind that no one can explain how registering an item…car or gun…prevents its use in a crime. They might try to argue that registration makes it easier to solve crimes, but the truth is that it rarely happens, and when it does it is after the fact and prevents nothing. And if you really want to mess with their heads, ask them how they intend to get criminals to register their guns…especially since the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot force a convicted felon to register a gun! (Violates their 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate.)

Unregistered.

Let’s not forget the old standby argument…insurance. Antis will often try to point out that you can’t honor concealed carry licenses in all states because there is no consistent requirement for liability insurance, like there is for drivers’ licenses. Swing and a miss! Drivers are not required to have insurance in order to be licensed to drive…liability insurance is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle. What if you didn’t own a car but wanted a drivers’ license? Does your state require you to purchase a car before they’ll license you to drive? Of course not. I didn’t own a car when I learned to drive and got my license; my parents had to add me as a driver on the insurance policy they had on their car…but the policy was written on the car, not me. Personally, I’ve never been asked to show proof of liability insurance to rent a car…just a valid drivers’ license (from any state, and even some foreign countries). I can easily fly to Texas and show my Kentucky license and rent a car, whether I own an insured car of my own or not (and if stopped by law enforcement my Kentucky license will be recognized). The car rental agency is the owner of the car, and they are the ones responsible for insuring it.

This is a road one could explore for hours…lots of points of interest and side trips, and you could even get a little lost. But if you keep going, you’ll wind up right back where you started…at one simple truth. Although the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected civil right, guns and gun owners are much, much more heavily regulated than cars and drivers. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something.

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

For Your Own Safety

For Your Own Safety

Katherine Nixon is dead, for her own safety.

Afraid of a co-worker’s potential for violence, she voiced that concern to her husband the night before she died, and told him she wanted to take a gun to work.

Dead, for her own safety.

She was forced by policy to work in a so-called “gun free zone.” As a utilities engineer for the City of Virginia Beach, she was forbidden to bring a gun into the building where she worked…as was her murderer. And I am quite confident that the managers of that organization told her (and the other 11 victims of the May 31st shooting there) that the reason for the policy was “safety.”

For your own safety.

If Katherine Nixon had argued this policy with them, they would have lied to her. They would have told her that allowing employees to bring guns to work was not safe. They would have told her that in the event of a workplace shooting, her having a gun would only make things worse. Worse than what?

This is the lie that managers tell employees (and themselves) every day in this country. Despite readily available data to the contrary, they continue to insist that denying citizens the most effective and easy-to-use self-defense tool available somehow makes them safer. Don’t you believe them.

The only ones made safer by policies like these are the managers and the organizations which employ them. As I have written before, these policies are meant to protect the organization from liability, rather than the lives of the human beings who work there. Organizations don’t see employees like Katherine Nixon as real people, with real lives…precious lives worth defending. They are “resources,” and resources can be replaced. You are the “R” in your company’s “HR” department, after all.

Job postings for Utilities Engineer with the City of Virginia Beach as of June 13, 2019

Jason Nixon has retained an attorney, hoping to force some answers and accountability from the city. My cynical side fears he will have little success, however, as the court system has been extremely reluctant to assign any liability to organizations which enact no-gun policies…even while they fail to protect the lives of the people who work there.

Very few states have any sort of law on the books assigning liability to organizations which disarm their people, or even grant immunity to organizations which allow the choice to go legally armed on their premises. This needs to change.

But I do hope that Jason Nixon’s revelation of Katherine’s fears in her final hours might inspire some change in the way the legal system and our lawmakers look at “gun free zones,” and start shifting the calculus of risk-averse managers.

No one should die defenseless…for their own safety.

Why Don’t You Kids Go Outside?

Why Don’t You Kids Go Outside?

That was the question many my age heard from our parents on a regular basis when we were kids…though it wasn’t really a question. Today, kids are often depicted as sedentary, smartphone and Playstation obsessed couch potatoes, and sometimes that’s true. Fortunately, there are still plenty of kids who very much want to go outside, and the state of Kentucky has a pretty cool program to help them do it.

The Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife operates three summer camps, known as “conservation camps,” for kids from 4th to 6th grade. At Camp John Currie, Camp Earl Wallace, or Camp Robert C. Webb, Kentucky kids can spend a week participating in nature studies, archery, boating, outdoor survival, firearm safety, fishing, and swimming.

The best part is that even if you don’t have kids (like me) or don’t live in Kentucky, you can still help a kid get off the couch and into a Kentucky conservation camp. A week at camp costs $225, and some families just don’t have the money to send their child. But by going to this page , you can sponsor a camper by contributing tuition assistance to a specific child or by donating to the general scholarship fund through the Kentucky Fish & Wildlife Foundation.

Read through the list of kids and their stories and see if you don’t find a few that tug at your heartstrings. A lot of these children are in rural counties and are depending on the generosity of another to help them get to camp. And for what it is worth, I’m not asking you to do anything I wouldn’t do. I made my donation today, and now this young girl who wants to “learn how to survive in the wilderness” and “learn gun safety” is going to get her wish.

That there are so many kids who want to do this is great, and it would be a shame if they missed the opportunity for want of a hundred bucks or so. If it gets a kid outside, I think it’s money well spent.

Originally published at:  https://www.deltabravocharlie.com/home/why-dont-you-kids-go-outside

Choose Well

Choose Well

Coloradoans recently experienced a (more or less) collective butt-clenching at the possibility that a crazy lady who wanted to shoot up a school might be running around loose in the state. In anticipation of this possibility, they responded by simply closing all the schools they thought might be at risk and keeping all the kids at home for the day.

Image: Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post

The thing is, this is precisely why an on-site armed response capability is necessary every day. Do you think that if Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook had actually expected that a shooting was imminent, they’d have been open that day? I’ll guarantee that if you asked any organization which had actually experienced a mass shooting if they expected it to happen that day, every single one of them would answer “no.” If they had honestly expected something like that to happen, or even think there was a truly credible threat, they would do just what Colorado did and close the doors for the day and send everyone home. (And for the record, I find no fault in that decision. I’d do the same thing if I really thought trouble was coming.)

“So what’s your point, Dave?”

My point is that every single mass shooting at a school or business happened when it was not expected, and if one happens at your school, church, or business it will also be unexpected. Just like every other victim of a mass shooting, you will not have advance warning.

If and when that day comes, the time for avoidance and for preparation is over…you will be forced to react, right then and there. The opportunity to avoid bloodshed will have passed, and the only option remaining is whether it will be a shootout, or a massacre…and guess what? You have to make that choice in advance. Choose well.

https://fastersaveslives.org/

Image: Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post

 

Note:  Due to excessive spamming, comments are disabled for the time being.

Thanks For Visiting