‘Wow’: Journalist Attempts to ‘Debunk’ Anti-Gun Group’s List of ‘School Shootings in America Since Sandy Hook’ — Here’s What He Found

Everytown for Gun safety, an anti-gun group formed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and prominent gun control advocate Shannon Watts, released new data on Tuesday suggesting that there have been an average of 1.37 school shootings every single week in the U.S. since the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

The anti-gun organization cites a total of 74 school shootings since Dec. 14, 2012. However, several of the shootings have come under scrutiny as some of them appear to have occurred off-campus and at least one may have been an instance of self-defense.

Journalist Charles C. Johnson dug deeper into Everytown’s data on Tuesday and published his findings on Twitter. He also criticized the fact that the group classified violent disputes and gang-related violence as “school shootings.”

“It’s not a school shooting when someone goes and shoots a specific person on campus. It’s a shooting that happens to take place at school,” he wrote.

You can cross-reference the news reports with Everytown for Gun Safety’s list here.

Do you think these shootings should still be classified as “school shootings?”

Two armed criminals reportedly put a gun to a 17-year-old girl’s head on Monday night as she was outside retrieving something from a car. The man, whose intentions still aren’t entirely clear, then ordered the teenager to take them into her house — a decision that would prove to have deadly consequences.

Peering out the window of the St. Louis home were the girl’s mother and father, each prepared to protect their daughter with deadly force. There was also a 5-year-old boy in the house, though his relationship to the family wasn’t known on Tuesday.

The girl’s father, a 34-year-old man, reportedly observed the men walking towards his home while holding a gun to his daughter’s head, a sight that no father ever wants to see. He quickly retrieved his firearm and his wife did the same.

The brave dad then confronted the two criminals and opened fire, hitting both suspects with accurate shots. The girl’s mother also fired off some rounds, but failed to hit either suspect.

One of the men was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene while the second suspect escaped only to later be arrested after calling his brother to take him to the hospital because he had been shot.

“Police identify the suspect who was killed as 31-year-old Terrell Johnson from north St. Louis,”KTVI-TV reports. “The second suspect- a 33-year-old man- is hospitalized in critical but stable condition with gunshot wounds to his chest and both thighs. Police say he will face charges.”

No one other than the suspected criminals were injured in the incident.

More from KTVI-TV:

IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR ALL UTAH CFP HOLDERS! Pennsylvania has just dropped the Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Reciprocity as of 5/12/2014!

No other information has been released at the time of this release.

There are now 22 states disputing the constitutionality of New York state’s ban on semi-automatic weapons passed in 2013.

South Dakota on Tuesday became the latest state to sign onto a “friend of the court” brief challenging the constitutionality of the ban in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Wyoming and Montana joined the brief on Monday.

While nearly half of all U.S. states have joined in opposition to New York’s law already, the top plaintiff in the case expects more states to join.

“We have a lot of attorneys general throughout the states and would have more, except some believed they should not be involved with the Second Circuit,” New York State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King told TheBlaze. “We believe we will have 44 to 45 states by the time this reaches the Supreme Court.”

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013, better known as the NY SAFE Act, bans possession of semi-automatic weapons that opponents call “assault weapons;” bans high-capacity magazines; expands background checks for gun buyers and gun dealers; and bans the Internet sale of guns, among other restrictions.

A federal district judge in December upheld most of the law, rejecting arguments that it violates the Second Amendment because the law addressed the “important governmental interest” of public safety. The law was adopted following the Newtown elementary school massacre.

The states challenging the New York law in the “friend of the court” brief are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

A party does not have to have standing to file an amicus brief. The states are asserting their concerns that if a federal court upholds the New York state law, that what they deem an unconstitutional law could be passed in other states.

“While the ban only applies to New York at this time, the federal court’s upholding of the gun ban sets a concerning precedent interpreting limitations on Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens including here in South Dakota,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty J. Jackley said in a statement. “An outright ban on semi-automatic weapons used for self-defense and hunting purposes violates the Second Amendment.”

Three of those states – Arkansas, Kentucky and Missouri — have Democratic attorneys general, another reason King if confident of even broader bipartisan support.

“Anywhere outside of New York, the Second Amendment is not a partisan issue,” King said. “We expect to be successful. It may take the Supreme Court for it to be successful.”

A representative for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not respond to phone and email inquiries from TheBlaze Thursday.

In one of Cuomo’s more famous impassioned speeches arguing in favor of the weapons ban,Cuomo said in January 2013: “I say to you forget the extremists. It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer and too many people have died already.”

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead asserted his state was entering the lawsuit to protect the civil liberties of all people.

“This is another case where one state’s gun laws could have a negative impact on Second Amendment rights nationally and in Wyoming,” Mead said in a statement. “These rights are fundamental to the people and critical to our way of life. I will continue to protect our Second Amendment rights.”

The amicus brief says New York’s ban of semi-automatic firearms, including in the home, constitutes a categorical ban on possessing certain firearms that are commonly owned for self-defense and are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Because New York’s ban on semi-automatic weapons burdens the core of Second Amendment rights, the states argue that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional. The amicus brief further argues that New York’s ban of these firearms has little effect on gun violence and is not the least restrictive means to serve the state’s interests in public safety and crime prevention.

“Semi-automatic firearms are perhaps the most commonly used firearm for self-defense,” Montana Attorney General Tim Fox said in a statement. “Excluding an entire class of firearms from law abiding citizens limits their ability to lawfully protect themselves, their families, and their homes. It would also impact law-abiding sportsmen and shooting enthusiasts, because semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns would not be available for their use either.”

“A freedom-destroying cocktail.”

That’s how Justice Antonin Scalia characterized Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that law enforcement officers may pull over and search drivers based solely on an anonymous tip.

The justices ruled 5-4 Tuesday to uphold a traffic stop in northern California in which officers subsequently found marijuana in the vehicle. The officers themselves did not see any evidence of the tipped reckless driving, which was interpreted as drunkenness, even after following the truck for several minutes.

Justice Clarence Thomas said the tip phoned in to 911 that a Ford pickup truck had run the caller off the road was sufficiently reliable to allow for the traffic stop without violating the driver’s constitutional rights.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the dissent in Prado Navarette v. California, had strong words about the decision’s implications for the future.

Here are some of Scalia’s points, in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor (emphasis added):

• Law enforcement agencies follow closely our judgments on matters such as this, and they will identify at once our new rule: So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop. This is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers’, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

• Anonymity is especially suspicious with respect to the call that is the subject of the present case.When does a victim complain to the police about an arguably criminal act (running the victim off the road) without giving his identity, so that he can accuse and testify when the culprit is caught?

• The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunken­ness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences, even if 911 knows his identity. After all, he never alleged drunkenness, but merely called in a traffic violation—and on that point his word is as good as his victim’s.

• Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of hav­ing our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving.

A Dallas woman might have been killed if she wasn’t carrying her firearm last week. Police say Angela Martin, 44, shot and killed a man who began stabbing her during an altercation on Friday.

When she started to feel unsafe, Martin says she retrieved her handgun from her purse and placed it on her lap. She stayed inside her vehicle.Martin, who is the assistant manager at the Dallas apartment complex where the incident occurred, was arguing with an unidentified female resident while sitting in her car when things started to get heated. The woman’s husband, identified as 52-year-old Louis Rodriguez, eventually got involved in the altercation.

Suddenly, Rodriguez allegedly pulled out a knife and started stabbing Martin, CBS DFW reports. The woman then grabbed her gun and shot her attacker several times. He would later die from his injuries.

Rodriguez’s brother apparently got caught in the crossfire and was shot in the abdomen while he was seemingly trying to stop him from stabbing Martin. He was treated at Baylor Hospital and was recovering over the weekend. Martin was treated for her injuries and released.

Eye witness accounts match up with Martin’s recollection of the incident, police say. However, the case will still be turned over to a grand jury.

On Tuesday April 15, Denver woman Kristine Kirk, was shot to death by her husband after remaining on the line with 911 dispatch for a reported 13 minutes. Her husband, Richard Kirk, was arrested and is being held without bail on charges of first-degree murder.

A Denver police spokesman stated that they will “examine” the incident to ensure that it was handled properly.

This is not the first time the 911 dispatch system has fallen under national scrutiny.

In May 2013 the Daily Mail UK reported a story from Oregon in which a woman was told by the 911 dispatcher that no help was available and offered that she should ask her attacker to leave. The victim was subsequently beaten and sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend who broke into the house.

There was a time in our nation’s history that 911 emergency dispatch systems did not exist. Those old enough to remember thick, paper phonebooks will recall that your local emergency numbers were always listed on the first page, the inside cover or both. There were separate telephone numbers for police, fire and medical emergencies.

The concept of having a simple three-digit emergency number, 9-1-1, actually goes all the way back to 1968 and Haleyville, Ala. However, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that a nationwide effort was put in place to implement the 911 system.

Creating centralized 911 Dispatch Centers over thousands of jurisdictions nationwide would require a lot of money; tax money. To secure that tax money the voters would have to be convinced to approve a new tax levy to foot the bill. I recall the 911 campaign that went on in my home county around 1992. EMTs, firefighters and members of the Sheriff’s Reserve spearheaded the campaign to explain the need for approximately $300,000 in new tax revenue to create the 911 system.

All across the nation 911 was touted as the new miracle cure for any and all emergencies. The police, fire department and ambulance service were all three simple digits away. The taxpayers were assured that passing these new tax levies would streamline the existing dispatch system, reduce caller wait time and improve response time for all emergency services.

Naturally, the people accepted the promise, voted for the tax levies and the 911 emergency dispatch system became nearly universal throughout the United States.

And that was the good news.

Slowly but surely, many in the populace began to use 911, not just for emergencies, but for every time they needed to speak to a police officer. People started calling 911 to complain that their neighbor’s music was too loud or “those kids keep running though my yard.” Cases of 911 “hang-ups” became a legitimate problem for law enforcement officers who could not ignore a call and had to spend precious time investigating each and every incident, even from payphones.

The mobile phone era ushered in a new twist to the 911 conundrum. Rather than prepare themselves to deal with emergencies, people began to view their cell phone as a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and handgun all rolled into one. The emergency number was viewed by many as an instant fix for all that ailed you.

Anti-gun politicians began to bolster their arguments against firearms ownership by stating that calling 911 was a better option than keeping or carrying a gun. As recently as April 2013, U.S. Rep. Diana Degette (D-Colo.) told a senior citizen, who was concerned about gun control measures putting him at a disadvantage, “The good news for you is you live in Denver, the DPD would be there within minutes.”

After pausing to smugly acknowledge audience laughter she continued “you’ll probably be dead anyway.” The reasoning for Degette’s last statement is unfathomable.

It is not that the 911 system is a bad idea. Quite the contrary, it was a tremendoulsy valid idea. Even small children can be taught to dial 9-1-1 to get help. There have indeed been numerous occasions where a child called 911 and help was sent to save the life of an injured parent or family member.

The problem with 911 is that an entire generation has been raised to believe that there is no need to prepare for emergencies.

Why learn CPR? I have a phone.

Far too many fail to realize that dialing 911 in an emergency is just one step in an overall emergency plan, not the only step. Calling 911 is supposed to get help rolling in your direction, not instantly solve the crisis.

What happens when there is a utility failure, a natural disaster or a loss of phone coverage? If 911 is your entire emergency plan, the joke is on you and it’s not funny. Sadly, for far too many otherwise capable adults, their strategy has never evolved past making a phone call.

Advice from people who are ostensibly in a leadership position to “call 911 and wait” is at very least irresponsible and, at worst, insidiously dangerous and self-serving. The very idea that citizens would be encouraged to relinquish all responsibility for safety and self-preservation to a faceless bureaucracy should be seen as a grievous insult.

Regardless of what you were told during the 911 levy campaign or by a self-serving politician, the 911 emergency system can never be expansive enough to immediately solve your every problem. The government cannot station a policeman, fireman or paramedic on every street of every city. The system is there to get the “cavalry” moving in your direction.

What you do between the phone call and the arrival of the “cavalry” could very well be the difference between life and death.

For the past three decades Paul Markel has had the privilege to study with some of the finest instructors the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement world have to offer. Visit Student of the Gun.

 

A pizza deliveryman in Buffalo, N.Y., gave a group of would-be robbers an unforgettable lesson on the Second Amendment and concealed carry on Monday.

As the man delivered food to a home in the area, a thug wearing a mask and a brown hoodie pulled over his face hit him in the head with a hammer, police said. That move would turn out to be a huge mistake.

The unidentified pizza deliveryman, a concealed carry permit holder, then pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect twice. The rest of the would-be robbers ran for their lives.

More from the Buffalo News:

DeJuan Coleman, 18, of Deerfield Avenue, was under police guard at ECMC in fair condition Tuesday, recuperating from gunshot wounds to the upper right arm and abdomen. He has been charged with first-degree robbery.

The pizza deliveryman, whose name is being withheld by Buffalo police for safety reasons, was treated for head cuts and bruises as well as a left hand injury suffered in the robbery attempt. Police said his gun was properly registered.

Police also did not reveal the name of the pizza shop the deliveryman works for.

As previously reported by TheBlaze, this is not the first time an armed pizza deliveryman has taken a stand against a criminal.

In August, a would-be robber reportedly threatened to kill a Dominos employee if he didn’t give him money. In response, the employee retrieved a firearm he carries in his vehicle and fired one deadly shot.

“Because it’s the law, that’s why.”

How many times have you heard that excuse or justification for some regulation or statute that seems to be prima facie punitive or unjust? Notice how I dropped a bit of Latin legalese on you?Prima Facie means “on the face of it” or obvious, or at first glance.

Latin terminology is strewn throughout “the law.” Some argue that it holds with timeless tradition. Others contend that use of Latin words keeps the layman from understanding the law and keeps attorneys in business. Regardless of your take on the situation, there are a few Latin terms used in the legal system of which you would do well to acquaint yourself.

Malum in se is a Latin phrase used to describe an act that is wrong or evil in and of itself. This would be an action that by its very nature is sinful or wrong. Murder, rape, robbery, theft would all be acts classified as malum in se; we do not require an elaborate explanation to tell us why they are wrong.

Converse to malum in se is malum prohibitum, an act that is wrong because someone told you it was wrong. This is an act that has been prohibited by some authority. The statutory wrong of exceeding a 55mph speed limit is malum prohibitum as speed limits are not part of natural law and they also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Hunting without a state-issued license or permit ismalum prohibitum, as are age restrictions on purchasing alcohol or tobacco.

Burden of Proof

In the judicial system, in order to convict a person of a crime that is malum in se the prosecution needs to establish the elements of the crime. One element is the demonstrated intent to commit said act. Culpable mental states are broken down into the sub-categories of purposeful, knowledgeable, reckless and negligent. The Latin term for a “guilty mind” is mens rea.

To be convicted of the First Degree Murder or Capital Murder, the prosecution must not only establish the fact that A killed B. They must convince the jury that A purposefully killed B and that said killing was either premeditated or committed while A was engaged in other criminal activity. Culpable mental state is the determining factor between First Degree Murder and Justifiable Homicide. If you chat with an attorney they will tell you that most every felonious act or specifically the statutes prohibiting these acts require the establishment of culpable mental state.

Think about it like this, a FedEx driver arrives at your house with a medium-sized box that requires your signature. The package is signed for and you set it down on the table. As you are opening the box your front door is broken down and a police raid team enters. You are shoved to the floor and handcuffed. The detective on scene enters, looks in the box and determines that it contains a kilo of cocaine. You are arrested and charged with felony possession and intent to distribute a controlled narcotic substance.

Your defense is that you did not request, order or purchase the drugs. The prosecution claims that you signed for the package and it was in your home, ergo possession, when an anonymous tip led them to your house. Without the requirement to demonstrate culpable mental state all the prosecution would have to determine was that you were in possession, not how, when, and why. Minus the need to prove “purposeful” and “knowledgeable” mental states you could be convicted and sentenced.Malum Prohibitum sans Mens Rea

Are there unlawful acts or statutes that do not require mens rea for conviction?

Yes, there are. When I went through the police academy we were taught that traffic violations and most “minor misdemeanors” did not include culpable mental state. We didn’t need to prove that you intended to drive 79mph in a 55mph zone, only that you did.

Why exclude mens rea from a statute? Minor misdemeanors do not have accompanying jail time, just a monetary fine. Is it much easier for the state to get a conviction when mens rea is not required? Most certainly it is.

What about felonies minus mens rea? Is possession of an object in and of itself sufficient evidence to convict a person of a felony charge and incarcerate them for a period greater than one year?

Consider the Connecticut prohibition against certain types of firearms and firearm accessories. Is mere possession, without demonstrated intent, sufficient to convict a person of a felony?

Is malum prohibitum law being used to create criminals where there previously were none? Is the possession of an inanimate object a greater crime that the malum in se crime of murder, robbery or rape?

Colorado’s recent malum prohibitum laws prohibit the ownership of certain type of firearms accessories. On June 30, 2013 you were a lawful citizen. On July 1, 2013 you are a potential criminal. We have nearly the same situation with New York State and their fraudulently named “Safe Act.”

Again, are the states using malum prohibitum to create crime where none existed?

Return to Tyranny

While most Americans can quote you the term “innocent until proven guilty,” few understand that such a concept is not universal. We accept that the “burden of proof” lies squarely with the prosecution and that the state must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the crime occurred.

Considering the state of affairs here in the colonies, it appears that we are on a fast track back to the day when mere possession equates guilt. The rampant use of malum prohibitum statutes puts the citizen on the defensive and creates “gun criminals” that have no mens rea.

Do the current crop of “gun crime” laws violate the United States Constitution’s protection against ex post facto, or “retroactive” prosecution as laid out in Article 1, Section 9? Are we creating criminals where there were none?

For the past three decades Paul Markel has had the privilege to study with some of the finest instructors and teachers the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement world have to offer. He is a lifelong student of the gun.

About the Author

Paul G. Markel became a U.S. Marine in 1987 and served his nation during times of war and peace. A law enforcement veteran, Paul was a police officer for seventeen years before becoming a full-time Small Arms and Tactics Instructor. During the late unpleasantness, Mr. Markel has trained thousands of U.S. Military troops prior to their deployment to combat zones. Paul has been writing professionally for over twenty years and currently hosts and produces Student of the Gun television and radio. For the past three decades Paul Markel has had the privilege to study with some of the finest instructors and teachers the US Military and Law Enforcement world have to offer. He is a lifelong student of the gun.

Criminals, crazed maniacs, and terrorists always obey the rules.

After all, Sandy Hook Elementary School’s gun-free policy deterred Adam Lanza from his sadistic plot to slaughter children in Newtown, Conn. The same policy at Rocori High School stopped Jason McLaughlin from pulling a gun on his fellow students in my childhood home of Cold Spring, Minn. In the same vein, the Cinemark Theater chain’s gun-free zone policy certainly dissuaded James Holmes from his plan to walk into a dark room of unsuspecting movie goers in Aurora, Colo. and blast the life out of them.

Indeed, criminals, crazed maniacs, and terrorists always obey the rules.

Right.

Here’s a concept—murder is also against the law. Yet thousands of people are murdered every year in the United States. Just because something is “illegal” or “banned” stops few who want to get away with it (or at least make the attempt) if they really want. 

Rules are followed by the law-abiding. Provisions like our Second Amendment allow us to protect ourselves from those who choose to break the law.

In a shocking turn of events, the Fort Hood military post has yet again become the site of a mass shooting perpetrated by one of their own. Spc. Ivan Lopez allegedly brought an illegal firearm onto the base, and proceeded to open fire, killing three, wounding 16 and taking his own life.

The tragedy has sparked an important debate—why are our soldiers not allowed to carry guns on an Army base?

Due to a Depart of Defense directive signed at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration, they are prohibited from doing so. With a few exceptions, the only armed personnel on army bases are military police (MPs).

There are many today who believe that had our soldiers (extensively trained individuals who deploy overseas and carry loaded, high-power weaponry on a daily basis) been allowed to freely carry their firearms, this tragedy could have been halted far quicker than it was.

Others instead turned, yet again, to gun control.

Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem. It never has. No matter the restrictions . . . they always seem to find a way.

I spent several years living in Mexico, where gun laws are extremely restrictive. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to obtain a personal firearm, yet the violent drug war resulting in the gun-related deaths of thousands still rages.

Consider a similar environment—Connecticut—where gunman Adam Lanza in fact did shoot 20 children and six staff. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Connecticut is now home to the second worst school shooting in American history, perpetrated by a young man who, according to that state’s laws, shouldn’t have been able to have the gun in the first place.

Fort Hood is no different. According to the rules, Lopez shouldn’t have technically had the weapon in the first place. But he did . . . and he used it to fundamentally alter the lives of 20 families; his own included.

Still others may argue that the real issue at hand is mental health. That’s true—PTSD is a burgeoning problem that isn’t being properly addressed at all. So much so that some statistics show that as many as 22 veterans are taking their own lives every day.

But what about Nidal Hasan? Hasan (ironically enough, a United States Army psychologist) is perfectly sane. As a matter of fact, he admitted to having committed the shooting for radical Islamic purposes, saying that “we mujahedeen are trying to establish the perfect religion;” referencing his desire to kill U.S. soldiers who might otherwise kill Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.

In the end, what causes a person to take innocent lives (while important to understand and recognize) is secondary. The fact of the matter is simple: evil people and the mentally ill are always going to be around. That is as certain as death and taxes. The more important question lies in how we can protect ourselves from them.

Piers Morgan, the now-fired CNN host who developed quite a reputation as a vitriolic anti-gun proponent, was at it again this week, tweeting out the following in response to Fort Hood:

In other words—guns don’t stop other guns.

To quote Mr. Morgan, that is simply “such crap.”

If good people with guns don’t stop bad people with guns, then do tell—what does? What stopped Spc. Ivan Lopez on Thursday afternoon?

A female MP with a gun.

After spending nearly 20 minutes freely rampaging the base, Lopez was confronted by one of the few people on base actively carrying a loaded gun.

Heritage’s Steven Bucci rightly points out that prior to the directive banning guns on Army bases, military personnel weren’t walking around en masse with guns at the ready.

Be that though it may, it’s beside the point. The fact of the matter is that times have changed, and we’re fighting several enemies from within today. There are the Nidal Hasans of the world, where our enemy has actively infiltrated our military. Then there’s the unimaginable burden of PTSD carried by thousands of veterans; a burden that drives many of them insane.

Our military should be allowed to carry for the same reason private citizens can. We call the police when we’re in danger, but when an armed intruder is pointing a gun at your family, seconds count. You must act in the moment. It’s no different on a base, which are often the size of small cities. When a crazed gunman is on the loose, there isn’t always time to wait for an MP.

If the oft-repeated argument of gun control advocates; that is, that we leave it to the professionals is true, then what are we doing? What are the armed forces if not professionals?

We trust them with guns to protect us (and often civilians in the country they’re in), and yet when they return home, we thank them for their service and promptly tell them they can’t be trusted with their weapons on base. It is absolutely beyond the pale.

How many more Fort Hoods must take place before we realize that when we ban the right to self protection, people will die?

We’ve trained them to be the very best. They fight for our freedom to bear arms . . . it’s about time we let them exercise it.