VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 2/23/16

Post by **OakRidgeStars** » Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:30:04

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 2/23/16

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a Virginia Citizens Defense League member? Join VCDL at:
http://vcdl.org/join-VCDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's calendar: http://vcdl.org/events
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. VCDL Federal Candidate Surveys - Donald Trump has responded
2. Correction
3. The ordeal after the ordeal
4. Serial street robber strikes in Fairfax 7x since September
5. Guns stolen from McLean gun store
6. White House unable to explain how gun control will stop mass shootings
7. Obama told NSC and FBI to downplay terrorist angle of San Bernardino
8. Democrats are lying about their gun sales ban
9. Winchester XPR rifle recall
10. Majority of Americans oppose 'assault weapons' ban for first time in 20 years
11. Insisting on gun-control laws that don't work...
12. Another honest liberal pours cold water on fiery gun control debate
13. An actual strategy to reduce gun violence
14. NYT warns of teens flooding streets with .50 caliber rifles
15. [GA] Neighbors hailed as heroes by taking on man's attackers with their guns
16. ACLU CO board member resigns after encouraging shooting Trump supporters
17. Kurt Russell interview [AUDIO]
18. [FL] Some sheriffs tell public: Arm yourself to protect against mass shootings

**************************************************
1. VCDL Federal Candidate Surveys - Donald Trump has responded
**************************************************

VCDL has sent surveys to the Democrat and Republican candidates for
President.

So far, only Donal Trump has responded and he did so with a “strongly pro-gun” rating.

If you have an "in" with any of the candidates or their campaigns,
please contact them and urge them to answer the VCDL Candidate Survey.
If they have misplaced the survey, have them contact VCDL VP, Jim Snyder, at
vp@vcdl.org and he will email them a copy.

An assessment of the candidates' responses will be posted this weekend,
before the Primary on Tuesday, March 1, 2016.

**************************************************
2. Correction
**************************************************

VCDL Update 2/15/2016, Item #10, "Under Obama: More mass shootings than
under the 4 previous presidents combined [VIDEO]"

It was brought to our attention that Snopes.com rates this claim as
"FALSE" (or at least in the title of the snopes.com article as
misleading). See: http://www.snopes.com/mass-shootings-obama/ for the
details.

**************************************************
3. The ordeal after the ordeal
**************************************************

Thanks to Executive Member Pat Webb for sharing this:

Over a decade ago our little country store was the target of an
attempted armed robbery. Afterward, we became much more active in VCDL,
started participating in IDPA to keep our skills honed and got more
serious about defending our rights.

This is not an account of the incident, but an observation of the
aftermath. Many people are well prepared to defend themselves from
crime...but the attack AFTER the assault, well, we just don't expect
that! I know I didn't.

http://www.gadsdengunsblog.com/?p=419#more-419

The Ordeal After The Ordeal
By Kitty
December 11, 2015

Smart people plan.

Do you know what you would do if you were forced to defend yourself?
Especially if you're going to carry a gun, having a self defense plan is
worth some serious thought.

What we rarely ever expect, though, is the second attack - the part that
comes after the emergency is over - because it generally comes from a
totally unexpected source.

If you're confused, that's okay. Here's a real life example:

Several years ago, our family was victimized.

A young man came into our little neighborhood store on a hot summer
afternoon, wearing a heavy hoodie with the hood pulled up. That young
then man drew a gun, pointed it our way, and demanded that we turn over
the contents of the cash register.

As owners of a general store, we knew this was always a possibility, and
we were prepared to defend ourselves, so we did.

But, I have to say, waiting for the police to arrive, all while pointing
a handgun at a living human being, knowing that this situation might
escalate and you'll have to decide whether your life is more important
than theirs...that's an agonizing experience. I can't even begin to
describe the kinds of thoughts that race through your mind in a moment
like that, and frankly, I don't want to.

It was a traumatic event which, thankfully, ended without any shots
fired, and with the would-be robber spending several years in jail.

We were prepared for the possibility of armed robbery. This is something
we had discussed with our children and employees, and because we were
alert (and armed), the outcome was as good as could be hoped for in that
kind of situation.

The real shock for us was not facing down the barrel of a gun in a robbery.

The real shock was the aftermath.

Of course it was difficult returning to work, acting as if everything
was normal. Nothing felt normal, but we always expected that something
like a robbery would be a traumatic experience.

We never expected a second attack, though.

It wasn't from other criminals.

People we thought we knew, neighbors we thought were friends, and
sources we had until then trusted (hint: the news media) skewered us
with hate.

Our story hit the news, and we were instantly under attack again.

This time, we were being accused of vigilante justice, excessive use of
force, and more. The phone was ringing off the hook with people cursing
at us, making accusations, calling us awful names, treating us like WE
were the criminals.

Can you imagine that?

Picture going from a situation where you're suddenly and violently faced
with your own mortality, forced to decide whether to submit and quite
possibly die or to stand and protect yourself and your family - and then
from that, you're plunged directly into a shower of hate and anger
because of that awful experience.

Maybe some of the backlash could have been avoided if we hadn't shared
our story or talked to reporters, but even if we chose not to be
interviewed, that doesn't mean the article wouldn't have run. The only
thing we knew for sure was that if we didn't talk to the news media,
then nobody would ever hear what happened from our perspective. Not to
mention, we live in a small town. Gossip can snowball into a huge
problem in tight knit communities like ours.

To make matters worse, the robber used what turned out to be a fake gun.

Of course, when it's pointed at your face and a man is standing there
threatening your life, there's no time to inspect the weapon too
closely. Were we supposed to stop and ask: "Excuse me, is that real?"

The media made us out to be zealots, all too eager to murder a teenager
who wasn't even armed, but luckily, the law didn't agree. In fact, the
court convicted the young man for armed robbery, calling it 'use of a
firearm in commission of a felony.'

Besides the whole fake gun thing, many people accused US of being the
aggressor, as if we somehow victimized this poor young man by not
willingly handing over what we had worked hard to earn, the money we
relied on to pay our employees, pay our mortgage and feed our kids.

Never mind that he was threatening to kill us.

Never mind that he could have had an accomplice holding our family at
gunpoint in our home nearby.

Never mind that, for all we knew, he could have murdered innocent
bystanders, or might shoot anyone who happened to walk through the door
right at that moment.

Never mind that this was literally our worst fear, happening right there
in real life.

Even those who didn't berate and vilify us often tried to turn that
horrific experience into some kind of joke for their personal amusement,
as if it were nothing serious. After all, it wasn't a real gun, right?
Nothing was taken and nobody got shot, so no harm, no foul?

How would you react if, for months after you knew for certain that you
were facing death, people kept walking up to you and acting like they
were drawing a gun? Telling you to 'stick-em-up' as they laughed in your
face? Jokingly saying 'give me all your money' at the very same register
where you thought you were going to die just days before?

Maybe the robbery was stopped by our self defense training (and our
guns), but something WAS taken.

Our sense of security was shattered.

For months, every time a customer reached in their pocket, our hearts
started pounding. The little voice in the back of my head kept asking if
it will happen again, when it will happen again, if we wouldn't be so
lucky the next time, if we were putting our children in danger by
staying here...

And the difficult truth is, it could happen again at any time.

Like we said earlier, we knew it would be hard to recover from the
trauma of an armed robbery, and even years later, the jitters are still
there. Maybe it's just something you never really get over.

We knew that the sense of violation was inevitable:

Becoming the victim of a terrible experience like an assault, a sexual
crime, a robbery or mugging...it reaches something deep in your soul
that takes years to build back up, if you have the strength and courage
to try. So many people never really recover from a crime that strips
away the last vestiges of innocence and challenges the way you look at
the world.

We never expected a second wave of violation.

We didn't ever dare to imagine that kind of hurt could come from those
we trusted.

We had no idea we would be treated as if we were the criminal, while the
person who stole so much from us was made out to be some kind of an
underdog hero.

And we're not the only ones that this has happened to. We're just one of
the few who has finally found the courage to speak up about it.

If we, as a society, want to affect meaningful change, we must stop
making excuses for criminal behavior. We must stand up to those who
would victimize us by defending ourselves and our rights.

Police cannot keep us safe. Think about how long ten minutes really is
when it's just you and a stranger, and neither one of you know if you're
going to survive this experience.

It is up to us to be proactive. Police can only be reactive.

Some may see this as "taking the law into your own hands," but let us
assure you it is not. It's taking responsibility for your own life.

You are not dispensing justice, only defending your life and your
rights...something that is everyone's own, individual responsibility.

People like us, people who have been faced with that hard decision, we
aren't going out looking for this stuff. We don't want to save the world
or fight crime, we just want to go home and hug our family.

We decided to share this story now because, scary as it may be, some of
you may someday be in this same position.

Many more of you will be on the outside, looking in as one of your
friends, family, or neighbors is targeted by a criminal.

Will you be supportive?

Or will you, even unintentionally, victimize them a second time?

Making light of the incident doesn't make it go away, and can often rub
salt in the wound. Despite the best of intentions, people who have gone
through a horrific experience don't need you to make fun of them.

Perhaps, instead of trying to lighten the mood, just offer support.
Offer to listen, or maybe even spend some time with the person so they
don't have to face the trauma alone. Friends like you make the healing
go faster, and help life start to get back to normal again.

**************************************************
4. Serial street robber strikes in Fairfax 7x since September
**************************************************

Thanks to member Mark Shinn for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/p9xq5s8

or

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... story.html

Serial street robber strikes in Fairfax seven times since September
By Martin Weil
December 13, 2015

A serial street robber, armed and masked, is on the prowl in Fairfax County.

Since September, the same man has carried out seven holdups in a single
area of southeastern Fairfax, the county police said.

The robberies have all been reported near Pohick Road and the Richmond
Highway, in the Pohick/Lorton /Newington area.

In all of them, police said, the robber has approached on foot, showed a
gun and demanded cash or property.

It is not known just what was taken. No injuries have been reported.

The robber was described by police as a slim black man in his late teens
or early 20s, about five feet eight inches to six feet tall, and about
150 pounds. In addition to his mask, police said, he wore black clothing.

**************************************************
5. Guns stolen from McLean gun store
**************************************************

Thanks to member David Custer for sharing this:

And I'm sure the antis in McLean will say this is a reason a gun store
shouldn't be near a school. Ignoring the fact that NOVA Firearms are the
victims of a crime.

http://tinyurl.com/ozpxkwe

or

https://fcpdnews.wordpress.com/2015/12/ ... gun-store/

Guns Stolen from McLean Gun Store
by FCPD PUBLIC AFFAIRS BUREAU
December 11, 2015

Officers responded to a commercial burglary alarm at Nova Firearms in
the 1300 block of Chain Bridge Road on Friday December 11, around 12:35
a.m. The owner was monitoring the alarm system and responded to the
location when it activated. The rear door was found damaged and two
handguns were missing from inside the store. The suspect fled the area
in an unknown vehicle.

**************************************************
6. White House unable to explain how gun control will stop mass shootings
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/p27jrc9

or

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-1 ... -shootings

White House Unable To Explain How Gun Control Will Stop Mass Shootings
by Tyler Durden
December 11, 2015

Authored by Steve Watson, originally posted at PrisonPlanet.com,

The White House cannot name one single shooting incident that would have
been prevented by gun control legislation.

As President Obama prepares executive action to pass further gun control
legislation, one errant reporter asked the White House press secretary
exactly how such proposals would have prevented any recent mass shootings.

Josh Earnest couldn't directly answer the question and floundered around
repeating the same talking points over and over again.

Reporter Byron Tau referred to a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio that
no mass shootings in recent memory would have been prevented by gun
legislation, which even the Washington Post fact-checked as true.

"If not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the
kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach
to this problem?" Tau asked.

"Well, Byron, I think we've been pretty direct and upfront," replied
Earnest, not being very direct and upfront.

"...there is no piece of legislation that Congress can pass that would
prevent every single act of gun violence," Earnest added, avoiding the
question.

"I think the case that we have made is one that rests primarily on our
concern about national security and our careful consideration of common
sense." he stated, again avoiding the question entirely.

Earnest then diverted the talking point to the terrorist no-fly-list,
prompting Tau to follow up, "Were any of the recent mass shooters on the
'no-fly' list?"

"Not that I'm aware of," Earnest admitted. "You'll probably have to ask
the director of national intelligence to confirm that."

The reporter stuck to the central issue at hand - that gun control
legislation is not a fix for mass shootings.

"Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have
been stopped by a expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background
checks?" Tau asked.

"The evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these
folks either passed background checks or were very determined to
circumvent the strict gun laws that are already on the books." the
reporter added.

Indeed, The shooters at Virginia Tech, the Aurora Colorado movie
theater, Fort Hood, Isla Vista, the Washington Navy Yard, the attempted
mass killing at Arapahoe High School ALL passed background checks.

The shooter at Washington Navy Yard even managed to buy his firearm
after the background check system was supposedly strengthened following
the incident at Virgina Tech.

The BATF has also determined that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two
shooters in San Bernardino, also legally purchased two of the weapons at
a gun shop in Corona.

The reporter pressed Earnest, asking "Can you point to any that would
have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the White House
is championing?"

Earnest again repeated the "common sense" talking point without
addressing the actual question and threw in a smattering of empty
"national security" rhetoric.

Last week when addressing the same line of questioning, Earnest admitted
that further gun control legislation would not have prevented the San
Bernardino shooting, and that it is purely "hypothetical" that terrorist
incidents could be prevented with such new laws.

While the Obama administration is seemingly hell bent on going after
stricter gun control, research from Pew Research Center, the FBI, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reveals that gun
violence in the US is actually on the decline, and is at its lowest
since the 1960s.

In addition, gun crime, despite an exponential increase in privately
owned firearms over the same period, has steadily declined for about 20
years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones.

**************************************************
7. Obama told NSC and FBI to downplay terrorist angle of San Bernardino
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this:

http://tinyurl.com/gv7jfyc

or

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/repor ... bernadino/

Report: Obama Told NSC And FBI To 'Downplay' Terrorist Angle Of San
Bernardino
by Jonah Bennett
December 10, 2015

The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San
Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI
reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the
shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White
House, however, didn't feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash
the terror classification.

This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama
convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of
other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy.

Part of the reason for trying to avoid the designation of the shootings
as terrorism is because it threatens to upset the Obama administration's
strategy in Syria. A case of Islamic terrorism in the U.S. would put
additional pressure on the administration to play a much more active
role in the conflict.

But in this case, because the preponderance evidence so pointed to
terrorism, the FBI's hand was forced, and the agency declared the
existence of a terrorism investigation, going against top-down
priorities from the White House. Syed Rizwan Farook, the shooter, had
contact with ISIS and other groups.

In response, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of
Justice was ready and waiting to prosecute people engaging in
"anti-Muslim" rhetoric.

Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said
publicly that the Obama administration wants to completely sideline
discussion of terrorism, because it contradicts the claim that al-Qaida
is dwindling. Obama recently suffered major embarrassment after he
claimed that ISIS was contained, only one day before the Paris attacks
took place.

In the end, Obama told the American people in a public address from the
Oval Office that the attacks were an act of terrorism, though he hedged
his admission by saying that the war is not on Islam, but against ISIS.

He added that sending boots on the ground into Syria and Iraq would be a
huge mistake. Obama has already violated previous promises not to send
boots on the ground by authorizing 50 special operations forces into
northern Syria, where the Kurds hold sway.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the troops didn't
really count because they are not part of a combat mission.

**************************************************
8. Democrats are lying about their gun sales ban
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this:

http://tinyurl.com/ob2tpmk

or

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/09/dem ... sales-ban/

Democrats Are Lying About Their Gun Sales Ban
Democrats' gun sales ban bill gives the U.S. attorney general the
discretion to decide whether a person meeting the terrorist watch list
criteria should be prevented from purchasing a firearm.
By Gabriel Malor
December 9, 2015

Gun deaths are down. Gun crimes are down. And progressives still want to
take your guns. To aid that purpose, and also because they think it will
give Democrats a boost during election season, they are pushing
legislation that would allow the Justice Department to forbid the sale
or transfer of firearms to, they say, terrorists. Or maybe just to
suspected terrorists. Or maybe to people on the federal no-fly list. Or
maybe to all of these people. The Democrats have not been clear about
just who would be prevented from purchasing firearms under the proposed law.

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address, "Right now, people on
the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If
you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by
definition, to buy a gun. And so I'm calling on Congress to close this
loophole, now." Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also refers to
the no-fly list when advocating for the gun sales ban.

On the other hand, the legislation itself, introduced most recently by
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), is entitled the "Denying Firearms
and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015." Sen. Harry Reid
(D-Nevada) said it must be passed to keep individuals on the terrorist
watch list from buying firearms. But Feinstein herself has referred to
both the no-fly list and the terrorist watch list when talking about the
bill.

So which watch list does the Democrats' gun ban rely on, and why the
obfuscation? The Democrats aren't going to give anyone a straight
answer, but we can go straight to the bill's text (Senate version, House
version). It turns out that the gun sales ban is not tied to the no-fly
list, as falsely stated by the president and Clinton and numerous other
people, including journalists who have baked this false assumption into
their writing. But neither is it directly tied to the terrorist watch list.

Instead, the relevant statutory text links the gun sales ban to
individuals who are "known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have
been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or
related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof." That
language is cribbed from Homeland Security Presidential
Directive/HSPD-6, which is what created the terrorist watch list (PDF).
Thus, the bill gives the U.S. attorney general the discretion to decide
whether a person meeting the terrorist watch list criteria should be
prevented from purchasing a firearm.

The Democrats' lie matters for four reasons. First, the terrorist watch
list is much larger than the no-fly list. It varies over time, but there
are approximately 1,000,000 people listed in the former, and somewhere
around 47,000 people on the no-fly list. Feinstein defends using the
criteria that creates a larger list by saying only a fraction of the
million-or-so people on the terrorist watch list are U.S. citizens, but
whether that's a large or small fraction is classified.

That's the second thing. We don't have precise numbers because these
lists are secret. At present, the government has no obligation to inform
you that you have been placed on the terrorist watch list, and there are
no statutory means to get off of the list. All of that is left in the
hands of unknown and unknowable bureaucrats. Under this bill, the only
way you might find out that you are a suspected terrorist is if you
apply for a background check to purchase a gun and are denied. Even
then, the legislation gives the government the discretionary authority
to withhold its reasoning for why you were denied.

Third, this will shock the president and Clinton, but people forbidden
from buying a gun under this legislation will still be allowed to travel
by air. This is because people on the terrorist watch list are not
forbidden from flying. They get extra scrutiny at airports, but can come
and go as they please, making the president's pitch even more
nonsensical. The terrorist watch list was never designed as a vehicle
for adjudicating an individual's rights or benefits in relation to the
government.

Fourth, the terrorist watch list already gets pinged when an individual
applies for a background check for a firearm purchase. Matches are
passed to the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, which may then
investigate and block the purchase if it is illegal. Individuals on the
terrorist watch list routinely pass this extra screening because the
government usually lacks evidence to forbid the purchase. After all,
that's why these individuals are on a watch list, and not in a jail cell.

Thus, when Democrats say the no-fly list should be a no-gun list, they
are misleading the public about the bill before Congress. Even
Feinstein, who introduced the legislation, gets this wrong some of the
time, willfully, according to one of her aides.

The fact that they are pushing for this law now is also pure
opportunism. Feinstein introduced this particular legislation in
February 2015. It didn't go anywhere. Nor did it get any traction when
it was introduced back in 2009, 2011, and 2013. That's because, as
discussed here previously, the law as written would violate both the
Second and Fifth Amendments. Democrats obviously think the time is ripe.

**************************************************
9. Winchester XPR rifle recall
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/zg9wsux

or

blog.cheaperthandirt.com/winchester-xpr-rifle-recall/

Winchester XPR Rifle Recall
By CTD Blogger
December 11, 2015

** Important Winchester Repeating Arms Safety Notice and Recall **

In October 2015, Winchester issued a recall and important safety notice
for Winchester XPR rifles.

XPR rifles have the potential to fire an unintended round when the
safety switch is manipulated. During continuous product testing,
Winchester found that moving the safety switch on the XPR rifle "may
cause movement in the trigger system that could result in unintended
firing of certain XPR rifles."

As such, Winchester is recalling all XPR rifles. Winchester is replacing
certain trigger group parts in all Winchester XPR rifles free.
Winchester requests all owners of XPR rifles send their rifles for
retrofitting.

Winchester stresses:

WARNING: Do not load or shoot any XPR rifle until it has been returned
to our service center and received a retrofit. Failure to follow this
warning may result in a risk of harm, including serious personal injury
or death to you and others.

To return your rifle to Winchester for work, contact them immediately
with instructions

Email: XPR@winchesterguns.com
Toll Free: 1-800-727-4312

**************************************************
10. Majority of Americans oppose 'assault weapons' ban for first time in
20 years
**************************************************

Thanks to member Clay Rhoades for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/jxuqro7

or

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... t-polling/

Majority Of Americans Oppose 'Assault Weapons' Ban For First Time In 20
years Of NYT Polling
by AWR Hawkins
December 11, 2015

A majority of Americans oppose an "assault weapons" ban for the first
time in 20 years of New York Times' polling on the topic.

According to NYU political scientist Patrick Egan, the opposition to
such a ban is up 16 percentage points from the numbers seen in 2011.
Moreover, support for an "assault weapons" ban is down 19 percent. On
January 15-19, 2011 Americans polled at 63 percent in favor of a ban and
34 against. On December 4-8, 2015, American polled only 44 percent in
favor of such a ban, with 50 percent polling in opposition.

The real swing in numbers can be seen by contrasting the latest figures
with the first poll NYT took on the topic during January 2-3, 1995. At
that time support for a ban was at 67 percent, while opposition to a ban
was at 27 percent.

These numbers square with a post-San Bernardino Breitbart News report
showing that AR-15 sales have been skyrocketing since the December 2 San
Bernardino attack. The situation was best summed up by Lynchburg,
Virginia's Patrick McNamee, manager of L. Oppleman Pawn Shop. McNamee
said AR-15s flew off the shelves after the San Bernardino attacks and
the demand around the country was so great that when he called suppliers
to have more ARs they said they were out.

On December 8 -- two days after President Obama renewed his call for an
"assault weapons" ban -- News Advance quoted McNamee saying, "When the
best salesmen in America speaks, sales peak.”

**************************************************
11. Insisting on gun-control laws that don't work...
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this link:

The anti-freedom crowd just loves mouthing off even when what they say
won't change anything for the better.

http://tinyurl.com/opbpspr

or

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op- ... 00490.html

Insisting on gun-control laws that don't work, then registration, then
confiscation
by Greg Wallace
December 12, 2015

The recent tragedies in Colorado Springs and San Bernardino have
prompted more calls for gun control. But what controls? And will they work?

Gun-control advocates say we need universal background checks and bans
on assault weapons and gun sales to those on the no-fly list.
Unfortunately, these laws are not likely to stop terrorists or deranged
persons determined to commit mass murder.

Both Colorado and California have universal background checks, which
means they require a background check on every sale - retail or private.
These checks did not stop the recent attacks. Yet President Obama,
Hillary Clinton and other gun control advocates keep pushing such checks
at the federal level.

Universal background checks cannot stop people who are dangerous but
have no disqualifying records. The Umpqua College shooter apparently was
seriously mentally ill but passed Oregon's strict universal
background-check law.

Background checks also are subject to bureaucratic error. The Charleston
church shooter should not have been allowed to purchase a gun because he
had confessed to a drug charge, but his data were not entered correctly
into the background-check database.

President Obama wants to ban "powerful" assault weapons. So-called
assault rifles sold to civilians are not the same guns our military uses
in war. They do not spray bullets with a single press of the trigger
like a machine gun. They fire only one bullet each time the trigger is
pulled, like every other ordinary civilian firearm. They shoot
small-to-intermediate-sized bullets common to hunting rifles used to
shoot rabbits or deer, but not big animals like elk or bears.

The features that define assault rifles - telescoping stocks, barrel
shrouds, pistol grips and bayonet lugs - make the rifle look scarier but
have nothing to do with the gun's rate of fire, ammo capacity or firepower.

The federal government banned assault weapons from 1994 to 2004, but the
ban had little or no effect on gun violence. Laws in France and Belgium
banned the fully-automatic rifles used in the recent terror attacks. The
terrorists still got the weapons they wanted. The two rifles used in the
California attack were sold in compliance with the state's strict
assault weapons ban, but then illegally modified.

President Obama wants to block gun sales to those on the government's
secretive no-fly list. This list contains names of persons merely
suspected of being terrorists - those who may be too dangerous to fly
but are too harmless to arrest. The list is notoriously inaccurate. One
report says 77 employees of the Homeland Security department are on the
no-fly list. There is no fair and expeditious process for innocent
persons to clear their names from the list.

Using the no-fly list to keep people from exercising their Second
Amendment right to arms is almost surely unconstitutional. The
government cannot deny constitutional rights based on mere suspicion and
speculation.

If these laws don't work, why do gun-control advocates insist on having
them? By taking advantage of the public's ignorance about guns and gun
laws, they create an illusion of security. That's why politicians like them.

But there's another reason. Many gun-control advocates don't like guns
and don't want anyone having guns. Their endgame is not gun control, but
gun confiscation. Obama has pointed to the mass confiscation of guns in
Australia as a model for the United States - despite the fact that the
Australian ban had no effect on firearm homicides. Current gun-control
proposals are just intermediate steps toward registration, then
confiscation.

Americans own over 300 million guns. Gun confiscation means taking away
a huge number of guns from a huge number of gun owners. We tried
something like that with Prohibition, and it didn't work out so well.
And then, of course, there's that inconvenient Second Amendment that
would need to be repealed.

If gun control is the proper response to terrorism and mass murder, then
gun-control advocates should give up their security theater and
confiscation fantasies. Specify what gun laws would have made a
difference in these cases, and let's talk about them - nobody wants
these tragedies to continue. But please stop wasting our time with gun
controls that burden law-abiding citizens but do little or nothing to
stop mass murderers.

**************************************************
12. Another honest liberal pours cold water on fiery gun control debate
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/jsxjm49

or

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/daniel-mi ... rol-debate

Another Honest Liberal Pours Cold Water on Fiery Gun Control Debate
by Daniel Mitchell
December 11, 2015

In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a
left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically
admitted his side was wrong about gun control.

Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York
Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world
events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.

Kudos to both gentlemen for putting accuracy ahead of ideology (just
like I applauded the honest liberal who wrote how government programs
subsidize dependency).

Well, we can add another person to our list of honest liberals. Jamelle
Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate, just authored a piece
that says it is downright silly to fixate on so-called assault weapons
and to try to deny people their 2nd-Amendment rights based on the TSA's
no-fly list.

"Although well-meaning -- supporters genuinely want to keep
military-style weapons 'off the streets' and guns out of the hands of
suspected threats -- both measures are wrongheaded."

Here's some of what he wrote about scary-looking rifles.

"... assault weapons -- there's no official definition for the term,
which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not
impossible -- are scary to many Americans, especially with their
presence in high-profile shootings like the massacre at Sandy Hook
Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, or the theater killings in Aurora,
Colorado. But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used
rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used
revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a
related point: We might feel safer if we ban 'assault weapons,' but we
won't be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010,
just a fraction -- 3.5 percent -- were killed with rifles."

Mr. Bouie points out that almost all murders are with handguns, but - to
his credit - he says you can't try to confiscate those weapons because
"A ban would be unconstitutional."

He then addresses the use of the no-fly list as a means of imposing gun
control.

"... civil libertarians -- and liberals, at least during the Bush
administration -- think it's constitutionally dubious. They're right.
... If you're on these lists, you're presumed guilty until proven
innocent, with no due process and little recourse. The list is
conceptually flawed, and using it to deny gun ownership is wrong on its
face. Add racial and religious profiling to the mix -- the people on the
list, including Americans, are disproportionately Arab or from Muslim
countires -- and you have an anti-gun measure with deep disparate impact."

Bouie isn't actually a supporter of gun rights, as you can see from some
of his concluding thoughts, but he at least recognizes that much of what
we're getting from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is empty posturing.

"The sooner Democrats abandon ineffectual gun control measures, the
sooner they can turn their attention to ideas that would actually limit
gun accidents, suicides, and murders. ... In all of this, however, gun
control supporters should keep one fact in mind: The United States is
saturated with guns, and barring confiscation or mandatory buybacks,
there's no way to end mass shootings. ... You can read that as futility,
but it's not. It's a recognition of reality and a plea for perspective."

I wonder if "a recognition of reality" is the first step on the path to
being libertarian.

By the way, I can't resist adding my two cents on the topic of Obama
wanting to deny constitutional rights to folks who wind up on a list.

I recognize that there are plenty of people who should not be allowed on
planes (and since I have to fly a lot, I have an interest in keeping
nutjobs on the ground), but government lists leave a lot to be desired.

Consider, for instance, this tidbit from an article in the Washington
Free Beacon.

"Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional
investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also
'were on the terrorist watch list.'"

Does this mean the federal government is so brain-dead that it has
terrorists on the payroll?

Maybe, but another item from an editorial in the New York Times should
make us wonder about the quality of these lists.

"A 2007 audit found that more than half of the 71,000 names then on the
no-fly list were wrongly included."

And I remember several years ago when - on multiple occasions - I wasn't
allowed back in the country until bureaucrats had taken me into
windowless room for interrogation.

I never learned why this happened. Was there another Dan Mitchell with a
sketchy pattern of behavior? Did the bureaucrats actually target me for
unknown reasons?

More important, what if I had bitched and whined during one of these
episodes and some spiteful bureaucrat decided to put me on one of the
government's lists?

And most important of all, can any of us trust that President Obama
wouldn't misuse and/or expand these lists to arbitrarily deny
constitutional rights?

By the way, Reason exposes some dishonest and hypocritical leftists.

"Even though the ACLU opposes the no-fly list -- and is suing the
federal government for violating the due process rights of several
people on it -- the civil liberties advocacy group is theoretically okay
with depriving people on the list of their gun rights."

But I'm digressing. Today's topic is supposed to be how some honest
liberals acknowledge the silliness of gun control efforts.

P.S. Let's close with some good news on guns. It's from a liberal who is
reflexively hostile to the 2nd Amendment, but is quasi honest in that
she's willing to discuss polling data she dislikes.

Here's some of what Catherine Rampell wrote in the Washington Post.

"... millennials seem to have neither the desire nor the willpower to
pressure our political leaders ... Which does not bode well for liberals
hoping that the arc of history will eventually bend toward greater gun
control. ... statements about protecting gun rights generally elicit at
least as much support from younger Americans as from older ones. ...
This is a bit puzzling, given that younger Americans are less Republican
in their political leanings than older people are and are also less
likely to own a gun - two factors that are usually strong predictors of
opposition to gun restrictions. These survey data suggest, then, that
younger people might be especially predisposed to oppose gun-control
measures, after controlling for these variables. ... for the most part,
young people reveal themselves to be at least as pro-gun-rights as their
elders, if not more so.

I'm a skeptic of polling on this issue, largely because the questions
often seem designed to elicit pro-gun control answers.

That being said, it's good to see young people being more rational.
Particularly since - as explained in this video - millennials have been
at times hopelessly naive about the downside of bigger government.

**************************************************
13. An actual strategy to reduce gun violence
**************************************************

Thanks to John Risenhoover for sharing his blog:

I am a retired ATF Senior Special Agent and National NIBIN Coordinator
that developed the Crime Gun Intelligence Strategy to combat gun
violence which targets the habitual criminal shooter while protecting
citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights. This strategy has been extremely
successful in Denver and other cities. Most of these anti-gun people
push their agenda on the basis of reducing gun violence. We have proven
that most of these gun control measures don't do anything to reduce gun
violence, but only punish armed citizens who have done nothing wrong. By
providing cities with another approach to reducing gun violence, which
isn't gun control, we can reduce the call or perceived need for the
bogus easy button of Gun Control. You can read some of my article on
johnsgunblog.com.

I also believe if ATF is going to continue to exist, they must focus
their limited resources on actual gun violence in which a habitual
criminal shooter is actually shooting people.

John Risenhoover, Director
CCW Safe Rocky Mountain Office

http://johnsgunblog.com/

AN ACTUAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE
by John Risenhoover
September 10, 2015

As we look at the recent murder of five military service members at a
recruiting station, the church shooting in South Carolina and the 4th of
July shootings in Chicago, we hear the familiar cry for more gun
control. While we can't stop every person bent on evil, we can do
something about the gun violence plaguing our cities. I understand
this call for Gun Control from the people who live on the south side of
Chicago. They live with guns everywhere, constant shootings, people
bleeding on the streets and murders. It is perfectly reasonable that
they want something done to make their community safer, but the reality
is they aren't going to get more gun control and they aren't going to
stop the flow of guns into Chicago. Guns are a legal product and that
isn't going to change. If you figure out where the guns are coming from
today and stop it, another source will pop up tomorrow because someone
can make money and again, guns are a legal product and sold throughout
this nation. The reality is there is no "Firearms Trafficking"
statute/law. ATF expends a huge amount of their limited resources trying
to enforce a law that doesn't exist. The call for Gun Control is just
something that allows politicians to say they are trying to do something.

A solution we call all agree on, from the far left to the far right, is
to refocus the limited resources of law enforcement to do what everyone
already thought they were doing. What does that mean? You first have to
understand a dirty little secret about crime in this country. For years,
politicians have been pushing law enforcement to reclassify crime to
keep stats down and in doing so, keep property values and the tax base
up. This is done primarily through the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting or
UCR. How is this done? Well, a Drive by Shooting of an Occupied
Residence might be classified as an Illegal Discharge of a Firearm
instead of Attempted Murder. Or an exchange of gunfire between rivals in
which no one is hit might be classified as a Reckless Endangerment
instead of an Attempted Murder. Or shots fired into an occupied vehicle
might be called Property Damage instead of Attempted Murder. I hope you
see the pattern here and this simple change in reporting keeps crime
stats down and protects the tax base. Keep in mind that what is
documented on the Police Report has little to do with what the suspect
might be charged with. What happens next is even more surprising, even
to some Police Chiefs. If a Drive by Shooting of an Occupied Residence
(Illegal Discharge of a Firearm) occurs and no one is hit, no detective
will be assigned. If police show up to a Shots Fired call (Reckless
Endangerment) and no one is hit, no detective or investigation occurs.
If someone is shot and wounded (Attempted Murder), a detective is
assigned, but he is so overworked the case will quickly be closed if he
can't solve it in a few days. The only real attention is given to
Homicide Investigations. This is where police put a lot of resources and
their solve rate is a source of pride for a department.

The problem with this strategy is we only take shooters seriously when
they finally kill someone. So a shooter could commit dozens of
shootings, even hitting victims on numerous occasions, and police won't
focus on him until he commits a murder. Can you imagine ignoring a
serial arsonist until someone finally dies in one of his fires? The goal
should be to address illegal behavior before it escalates to a murder.
We need to correct these young men early on rather than wait until a
murder occurs and lock them up for life. Even more critical is the
effect of not addressing shooters. Every time they commit a shooting and
no one addresses their crimes, it only emboldens them and makes it more
likely for them to continue and escalate their violence. It also allows
others in the community to come to the false belief that there is no
consequence to shootings a gun. I know it sound simplistic, but these
are basic playground rules we learned in kindergarten. If you don't
address the bully on the playground, he will only escalate his bad
behavior and soon others will also become bullies. But if you believe in
the current strategy, Gun Control, the solution to playground bullies is
to not address the bullies, but just ban the playground equipment. You
don't tear down the swing set because Billy is pushing Susie off the
swing. This is what we are doing with Gun Control.

I developed a strategy while at ATF that targets shooters with the goal
of addressing their behavior before they commit a murder. Again, the
reality of this strategy is most citizens assume law enforcement is
already doing this. This is all done by implementing the Crime Gun
Intelligence Strategy. By focusing Law Enforcement's limited resources
on shootings, we identify, target and prosecute shooters before they
commit a murder. NIBIN (National Integrated Ballistic Information
Network) is the technology centerpiece of the strategy. Law enforcement
officers would respond to every scene and attempt to collect shell
casings. If the city has "ShotSpotter" (an acoustic gunfire detection
system) the strategy would work even faster and more accurately by
assisting in the collection of shell casings from crime scenes and
locating shootings that weren't reported to police. Keep in mind, the
national average is only one in five shootings is actually called into
911. In some areas, only one in forty-five shootings are called into
911. Once the spent shell casings are collected, they are digitally
imaged and compared to other shootings previously entered into the NIBIN
database. Investigators can quickly identify if the same firearm has
been used in numerous shootings to determine if there is an active
"serial shooter" on the streets. By going back and interviewing
witnesses from the previous incidents, detectives can identify the
shooter. Keep in mind; witnesses are more likely to identify a suspect
on lesser crimes than on major crimes. Connecting the lesser crimes to
the major crimes is critical. It should also be noted that witnesses are
also more likely to talk a few days after the incident rather than
immediately following a shooting since most people flee when shots are
fired and no one wants to be identified as a snitch. This is extremely
helpful in solving minor and major crimes.

The primary goal should be stopping the violence - not making high
profile cases for prosecutors or locking someone up for life. Once the
shooter is identified, all effort is done to stop his crime spree.
Often, this can be done by a probation revocation or an arrest for
traffic violations. Again, our priority should be to stop the shootings.
Once we remove the shooter off the streets, witnesses are more inclined
to come forward and testify. This strategy has already been
effectively implemented in Denver. By using this strategy with only a
few agents, detectives and a progressive crime lab, Denver has seen a
70% reduction in gun violence in areas where these active serial
shooters are identified, targeted and prosecuted. While solving
homicides, the Denver Crime Gun Intelligence Center is also able to
address these shooters - BEFORE a murder is committed. The problem we
face across the nation has nothing to do with Gun Control. We must
target the shooters.

Why is this so difficult? Even though NIBIN/Crime Gun Intelligence is
DOJ and ATF's main strategy of combating gun violence, the reality is
ATF still spends most of its time and money buying narcotics with the
hope of eventually getting a gun.

For the past thirty years, Law Enforcement has claimed that drugs are
causing all the problems of this country. Police departments assign more
people to drug squads than to investigate shootings under the old belief
that drugs cause gun violence. But by using the Crime Gun Intelligence
strategy, we find the majority of shootings are over women, respect or
old feuds, not drugs. To be clear, I am not advocating legalization of
drugs, but drugs aren't the primary cause of the gun violence plaguing
our nation. Targeting young men making street level drug sales has
little effect on gun violence and only causes more anger in the inner
cities towards law enforcement. It also brings up the all too common
allegations of racial profiling. But to admit this strategy has failed
would require changing the way we do business in law enforcement. One of
the biggest battles I had at ATF was getting upper management to admit
the first ten years of NIBIN was a failure and didn't produce any
measurable results. But by owning this failure, we were able to stop
continuing the mistakes of the past and make positive changes. This is
huge hurdle in government, but until we admit our current strategy has
failed, the gun violence will continue.

This is important to help us get past the debate over gun control. Not
only can we do something to actually reduce gun violence, we can also
avoid driving someone to the edge because he thinks the government is
coming for his guns. This fight has gone on too long and we need to find
some common ground to make our country safer, provide some peace to our
citizens and alleviate the fear of legal gun owners. We can do this!

**************************************************
14. NYT warns of teens flooding streets with .50 caliber rifles
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/q78hv75

or

http://www.weaselzippers.us/245092-new- ... er-rifles/

New York Times Goes Full Moonbat, Warns Of Teens Flooding Streets With
.50 Caliber Rifles...
by Dapandico
December 12, 2015

Haven't heard any reports of shootings involving a .50 caliber 'assault
weapon'.

Via The Federalist:

Another day, another series of embarrassing errors and obfuscations by
gun controllers who are ignorant of how guns, and the laws that seek to
control them, actually work.

In its quest to drive up gun sales even further and make gun control
even less popular, the New York Times published yet another overwrought
editorial on Friday demanding more gun control. Here's how the
editorial, given the very measured and objective title of "Gunmakers'
War Profiteering on the Homefront," began:

As each new mass shooting leaves dead and wounded Americans strewn like
casualties on a battlefield - a butcher's toll that has now intersected
with the international terrorist threat - the gun industry's culpability
amounts to war profiteering through the reckless sale of military
weapons tailored for the civilian home front.

It only got more hysterical from there. Notably missing from the
editorial? Any basic understanding of guns or gun control laws. In this
paragraph, the New York Times claims that .50-caliber sniper rifles are
now flooding the streets due to the expiration of the 1994 federal
assault weapons ban:

Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan
obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004. As a result, gun
manufacturers have been allowed to sell all manner of war weaponry to
civilians, including the super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle,
which an 18-year-old can easily buy in many places even where he or she
must be 21 to buy a simpler handgun. Why any civilian would need this
weapon, designed to pierce concrete bunkers and armored personnel
carriers, is a question that should be put to the gun makers who profit
from them and the politicians who shamelessly do their bidding.

Those icky guns aren't just destructive, they're super destructive.
There's just one teeny, tiny problem with that paragraph: bolt-action
.50-caliber rifles were never covered by the federal assault weapons
ban. There's no possible way the expiration of the assault weapons ban
could have led to the proliferation of a weapon that was never actually
banned by the law, but editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal has never
been one to let simple facts get in the way of an unhinged screed.

Keep reading…

**************************************************
15. [GA] Neighbors hailed as heroes by taking on man's attackers with
their guns
**************************************************

Thanks to member William Goodman for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/zx3y3nl

or

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... acker.html

Brave neighbors are hailed as heroes for saving an elderly man's life by
taking on his attacker with their guns
by Belinda Robinson, Dailymail.com
December 12, 2015

Two Georgia residents are being hailed as heroes after they saved an
elderly neighbor's life when they heard him screaming for help.

Karen Duncan was walking up her friends's driveway in Lawrenceville on
Monday afternoon when she heard an elderly man's desperate cries for help.

She told Fox 5: ' Help, he is trying to kill me, help
me, help me.'

Duncan saw an elderly gentleman laying on the ground with a younger man
on top of him with a knife. There was blood and 'this big old knife.'

Her friend Ron Childress describes how he saw Duncan run towards his
house and says he instinctively knew something was wrong.

Childress threw open the door and was horrified to hear the elderly man
crying out for help.

That's when they both sprung into action.

Duncan grabbed her purse with her gun inside and ran outside. She
pointed the weapon at the attacker telling him: 'I'm getting ready to
shoot you.'

She says the knife attacker looked stunned and quickly stopped what he
was doing. He threw the knife away.

Duncan's friend, Childress, a former law enforcement officer, also
showed up as back-up. He too pointed his gun at the man. Duncan then
called 911.

Childress told Fox: 'I said [to the knifeman] put your arms out, put
your legs out and stay right where you are, do not move.

The brave pair said that without their intervention the attacker would
have likely stabbed the elderly gentlemen.

No other information about the knifeman - such as name or age - has been
released by police.

Childress said: 'You cannot protect everybody, police can't do it,
they're good after the fact, but they're no good to you when it happens
generally.

'They're not going to be there so you need to be ready to protect
yourself and others because what happened yesterday is a perfect example
of how a citizen can protect other citizens.’

**************************************************
16. ACLU CO board member resigns after encouraging shooting Trump supporters
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for sharing this link:

http://tinyurl.com/q8y4n6y

or

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... upporters/

ACLU Colorado Board Member Resigns After Encouraging Shooting Trump
Supporters
by Alex Swoyer
December 12, 2015

An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Board Member in Colorado has
resigned after making national news headlines for urging people to kill
Donald Trump supporters.

Loring Wirbel of Colorado Springs, posted on Facebook, "The thing is, we
have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump
and say, 'This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are
voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.' They're
not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there's always
force..."

ACLU of Colorado issued the following statement after the controversy,
saying the organization:

...does not condone the recent personal Facebook post of regional
volunteer Loring Wirbel. The ACLU of Colorado is a nonpartisan
organization. We do not endorse candidates or parties. We have proudly
spent decades fighting for the rights of all Coloradans, regardless of
political affiliation, to vote and to freely participate in the
political process. Our members, supporters, and volunteers are free to
express their own personal views and opinions in their personal lives.
We have fought for decades to preserve that right, as well, for all
Coloradans, no matter how strongly we disagree with the content.
However, the personal posts of members, supporters, and volunteers on
their own personal social media sites should not be mistaken for
endorsements or official statements of the ACLU of Colorado.

The CBS affiliate in Denver reports this is the second incident in one
week where Republicans have been threatened.

"It's almost like, you will think the way we think, you will do what we
want you to do, or we eliminate you?" Colorado's Republican Party Chair
Steve House stated. "I think we have to be prepared as a party and I
think politics is just overdone. We've got to realize the country needs
to pick leader and we need to do a serious job of doing that but this
kind of rhetoric really doesn't help at all and frankly it scares us and
people need be worried about it a little bit.”

**************************************************
17. Kurt Russell interview [AUDIO]
**************************************************

Thanks to member Sean Clarkson for sharing this:

It's Kurt Russell being interviewed by some Hollywood reporter trying to
turn the entire interview into an anti-gun hit piece, and it's awesome.

http://tinyurl.com/o7jouja

or

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/imag ... llguns.mp3

This is an audio-only item (no video), and it may need a setup because
there is no ID in the audio.

**************************************************
18. [FL] Some sheriffs tell public: Arm yourself to protect against mass
shootings
**************************************************

Thanks to member Rick Evans for sharing this:

As an addendum to VA-ALERT Update 12/10/2015 Item 8: "[US] Sheriffs are
telling CHP holders to carry 24/7", is a good article. [I'd like to see
John Lott rebut the "Violence Policy Center" and its contention that
Concealed Carry Permit Holders Threaten Public Safety, VPC Research
Shows (see last 7 paragraphs).]

As much as I agree with the notion of LE asking law-abiding citizens to
participate as a first line of defense, it also underscores the need for
gun-toting citizens to carve out adequate time for some serious (and
frequent) training - and improving their physical conditioning. I know I
do - think that's going to be my top New Years resolution.

In the piece, Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair said his department's
concealed weapons class "makes sure these citizens are skilled in
firearms tactics" ... "so we have capable citizens our in our community
who are confident and able to defend themselves and others safely."
Would be excellent if local LE would be willing to consider creating
some training classes that included not just the fundamentals, but
tactics, and how citizens engaged in defensive action should identify
themselves and communicate/interact/participate (or safely disengage)
with LE when LEOs come upon an active scene.

http://tinyurl.com/nmlhp5k

or

http://www.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/a ... -20151210/

Arm yourself to protect against mass shootings, some sheriffs telling public
by Keith Morelli
December 10, 2015

TAMPA - With a backdrop of terrorism in California, mass shootings on
college campuses and jihad in Paris, a handful of Florida sheriffs are
urging citizens to arm themselves to be the first line of defense in
such attacks.

That has outraged gun control advocates, who say the public is in more -
not less - danger when there are more guns are on the street.

The debate between gun advocates and gun control supporters got new
traction in recent days with some sheriffs suggesting more citizens
should carry guns to protect themselves and others in case of terrorist
attacks or mass shootings.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
gun," said Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey in a video posting on his
agency's Facebook page.

"Like each of you, I've had enough of terrorists and others who decide
they want to target U.S. citizens because they want to make a statement
or get their 15 minutes of fame," he said. "Now, more than ever before,
is the time for law enforcement and citizens to be fully prepared for an
attack or an active shooter scenario with the right tools to eliminate
or at least disrupt the attack."

He urged those who are licensed to carry concealed firearms to have
their guns with them at all times.

"You are the first line of defense," he said, "for you, your family and
others around you."

Those who aren't licensed to carry a concealed firearm should take the
class and get certified, he said.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd echoed Ivey's sentiments.

"I can tell you the probability of needing a firearm is remote," Judd
said Thursday afternoon, "but it's more important to have a gun in your
hand than a cop on the phone.''

He said those who are comfortable with guns - and can appropriately
handle a firearm - should get a gun permit and carry a gun with them.

Judd said mass killers typically take two to four minutes to carry out
their plans, while the average time of response of law enforcement is
more than five minutes.

"We know that we may get there to mitigate a piece of it, but we will
never be there in time to prevent it," Judd said. "So that means until
we arrive, we need the help of the good citizens of the community to
protect themselves and to protect others."

Other sheriffs around the Tampa Bay area were unified in saying they
supported the Second Amendment rights of citizens but stopped short of
urging people to arm themselves in public.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri a strong opponent of open carry
laws, would not comment on statements made by other sheriffs but said he
had no problem with people legally and responsibly carrying firearms.

"I'm not and won't make a call to arms," he said. "That's not what I'm
saying. I have no issue or concern with any citizen who decides on his
or her own that they want to posses and own firearms if they are well
trained and it's done in a reasonable way.''

Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee was unavailable for comment
Thursday but issued a statement saying he "supports any lawful citizen's
right to defend themselves while acting in accordance with Florida state
and federal laws."

Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said this:

"I support our citizens' Second Amendment rights. I also support their
right to defend their lives or the lives of others. In critical times
such as these, or any other time, our country was founded on the
principles that allow our citizens to protect themselves."

The Florida Sheriff's Association hasn't taken a position on the matter,
said association spokeswoman Nanette Schimpf.

"It is up to each individual sheriff how he or she would like to educate
and communicate on this issue," she said.

Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair was more outspoken, saying this on his
department's Facebook page:

"If you are certified to carry a gun, I would like to encourage you to
do so," he said. "Those who carry firearms responsibly and are confident
in their abilities can - and should - be our first line of defense in an
active shooter situation.''

Blair said about 600 Marion County residents have attended the
department's concealed weapons class, so that "our citizens who want to
be armed can lawfully do so.

"Most importantly," he said, "we make sure these citizens are skilled in
firearms tactics so we have capable citizens our in our community who
are confident and able to defend themselves and others safely."

While self defense is the reason for the statements delivered by Ivey,
Judd, and Blair, gun-control advocates say having more concealed weapons
on the streets can only endanger the public.

The Violence Policy Center, an Washington-based organization that
supports strong gun control laws, says the vast majority of shootings by
concealed weapons permit holders are homicides, suicides and accidents.
A small percentage is in self defense, the center says.

Since 2007, the center has identified at least 579 fatal, non-self
defense incidents involving concealed carry permit holders in 38 states,
including 74 in Florida. In the 579 shootings, 763 people died, the
center's data shows.

"Our research shows that private citizens with concealed handguns kill
far more innocent victims than criminals," said center spokesman Avery
Palmer. "Concealed handgun permit holders were the perpetrators in at
least 29 mass shootings since 2007, including four mass shootings in
Florida.

"When private citizens are encouraged to carry loaded guns wherever they
go," he said, "our public spaces become less safe."

At least 17 law enforcement officers died at the hands of concealed
carry killers since May 2007, research shows.

"The idea that civilians have the skill to intervene successfully in a
mass shooting is a fantasy," said Palmer, who also said armed bystanders
could be mistaken by police for the shooters.

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]