Gun Control hasn’t stopped mass shooting attacks

Gun control in Europe is almost total. It hasn’t stopped mass shooting attacks like Las Vegas

Within hours of the horrible attack in Las Vegas, before we knew most of the relevant facts about the tragedy, gun control advocates were calling for more gun control.  Here is something I would like those advocates to consider: Europe, which has all the gun controls that are being pushed in the aftermath of the Las Vegas carnage, has actually suffered more bloodshed from these types of attacks than the U.S.

You heard that right: Countries such as France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks. All four of the 2015 mass public shooting in France involved machine guns, including the 130 people killed in November of that year in multiple attacks including one at a concert venue.

In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, Europe saw machine gun attacks in airports and nightclubs by groups such as Black September and the Red Army Faction. In fact, machine guns are commonly used in mass shootings in the rest of the world.

This has not been the case here in the U.S. In fact, Sunday’s attack on a country music festival in Las Vegas – that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded – may be the first mass public shooting in the U.S. involving a machine gun, if it turns out the killer did use such a weapon. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the gunman, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, is believed to have used at least one fully automatic weapon – weapons that are heavily restricted under U.S. federal law.

It is an attack that is likely to rank 14th in the most deadly mass public shooting in the world since 1970. It is the worst ever in the United States, according to data collected by the Center for Crime Research where I am founder and president.

There were 29 such shootings (four or more fatalities in a public place, according to the FBI’s official definition) in the U.S. during the eight years of the Obama administration; 26 in Europe. The rate at which people are killed is virtually the same in the European Union as in the United States.

Again, many of the facts about what happened in Las Vegas remain unknown at the moment, including exactly what type of firearm the gunman used. But one sad fact that everyone calling for gun control needs to consider is that, as Europe has shown, you can have all the gun control laws you want and you still won’t be able to stop horrors like this from happening.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including “More Guns, Less Crime.” His latest book is “The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

Original Article is here:

Shasta Defense Comment: Also, reflect on the hypocrisy of those (anti self defense and “anti gun” persons) who will call 911 requesting that the police to show up with guns to defend their lives from an evil attacker. Yet, they concurrently seek to disarm Americans and deny the right of self defense.  They place the police officers and other citizens at risk (e.g., high speed response, etc…) in order to save their own lives, when they have already made the decision that their life is not worth defending. For those who seek to remove our American Bill of Rights, it is suggested that you buy a plane ticket and go live in a 3rd world country. Our Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable!

Las Vegas Shooting – Fences and gates crowd control – but not cover

An article and video shows the gates and fences that the crowds pushed down to escape the gun fire.  When out in a large gathering, reflect that chain link fences may control the crowds, but they don’t serve as cover. In essence, you may be locked into the killing zone. Also, such wouldn’t protect against a  vehicle attack.

See article here

Las Vegas Killing – Would armed citizens, skilled with rifles, have saved lives?

Below is a post – 5 Gunfighting Myths Debunked By Massad Ayoob.

[Shasta Defense comment: It shows how armed citizens disrupted a murder spree  (Texas Clock Tower sniper shootings) – reducing the number of casualties].  The Ayoob post follows:

[Myth]  — “YOU CAN NEVER JUSTIFY SHOOTING A MAN MORE THAN 7/15/25 YARDS AWAY!”

[​IMG]
Ray Martinez, hero of the Texas Tower incident, credited armed citizens on the ground with stopping the murder spree.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but this statement flunks the litmus test for cluelessness. By definition, if you were able to shoot him at that distance, he was able to shoot you at that distance.

In 1867, Dave Tutt opened fire on Wild Bill Hickok across the town square in Springfield, Missouri. Hickok carefully aimed his .36 caliber Navy Colt two-handed and shot Tutt through the heart, killing him. The ruling: Justified.

Fast-forward about a century to 1966. Charles Whitman began a murder spree by firing his scoped rifle from atop a 330-foot clock tower in Austin, Texas, killing people hundreds of yards away. When police .38s and buckshot proved impotent at that distance, private citizens on the ground returned fire on Whitman with hunting rifles and target rifles. Whitman was forced to take cover and stop shooting. Armed citizen Allen Crum then led Austin policemen Houston McCoy and Ramiro Martinez to the top of the tower. Crum fired the first shot of the encounter (which may have broken Whitman’s planned ambush of the officers), and McCoy and Martinez shot Whitman dead. Martinez later publicly credited the armed citizens with stopping the killing. They became heroes, not defendants.

Fast-forward again to Brownwood, Texas, in 2012. A man went berserk and began killing his neighbors. When the first responding officer arrived, the killer pinned him down with a .30-30 rifle. Armed citizen Vic Stacy shot the gunman from some 65 yards away with a Colt Python .357 Magnum revolver, wounding him badly enough that the officer could take control and finish the fight, killing the killer. Far from becoming a defendant, the heroic citizen was presented with a fine rifle by appreciative Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Ayoob  article is HERE

Also, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

“Texas Tower shooting of 1966, also called University of Texas clock tower shooting, mass shooting in Austin, Texas, on August 1, 1966, in which Charles Whitman, a student and ex-Marine, fired down from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas, killing 14 people and wounding 31 others (one of whom died years later from complications related to his wounds). Earlier in the day, Whitman had killed his wife and mother. The incident was one of the worst mass murders in a public area in the history of the United States and the first to unfold “live” in the era of mass media. …”

“…After killing or wounding a number of others on the mall, Whitman trained his fire toward the businesses of distant Guadalupe Street, wounding or killing others as they innocently passed by or sought cover in fear. Alerted by a phone call only minutes after Whitman began shooting at the mall, police arrived quickly on the scene, and one of them became another victim, shot dead through a columned stone wall. Most of the event’s casualties occurred within the first 15 or 20 minutes of Whitman’s fusillade. As police began arriving in greater numbers, they were joined by private citizens (many alerted by the on-the-scene radio report of the incident as it occurred) who came armed with hunting rifles. The expanding fire from the ground forced Whitman to seek shelter behind the observation deck’s thick walls and limited his targeting ability by confining him to shooting through waterspouts. … ” (emphasis added).

“…As a result the assault that ended Whitman’s rampage came about haphazardly. Using stairs and the elevator, three police officers and an armed citizen (the university bookstore manager), acting largely independently, found themselves together on the 27th floor. Without a plan or any real coordination, all four men took to the observation deck in a successful attempt to surround Whitman, enabling policemen Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy to shoot and kill Whitman. After more than 90 terrifying minutes, Whitman’s murder spree had been brought to an end. Excluding his wife and mother, he had killed 14 people (including the unborn child) and wounded another 31 (one of whom would die some 30 years later after deciding to end the daily dialysis treatments necessitated by his wounds).”

And this account, from a person on the 26th floor of the tower (one floor below the gunman)  from http://www.khou.com/news/local/texas/50-years-later-survivors-recall-horrific-ut-tower-shooting/285583966

‘…There’s bodies in the stairs, bodies in the stairs,’” said Houston defense attorney Herb Ritchie, who was a student on the 26th floor of the tower that morning helping a professor with a research project. He, along with seven other people, remained trapped one floor below the gunman for the full hour and a half before the siege ended.”

 

 

 

 

 

Warning Shots

Self-Defense: Are Warning Shots a Good Idea?

By Massad Ayoob December 17, 2014

Is it ever a good idea to fire warning shots in self-defense?

Warning shots have long been prohibited by most American police departments. Massad Ayoob spells out 10 good reasons why.

The “Warning Shots Are a Good Idea” Myth

You know a myth is widespread when it emanates from the White House. In 2013 while campaigning for a ban on so-called “assault rifles,” Vice-President Joseph Biden told the public he had advised his wife that if there was a home invasion, she was to take a double barrel shotgun and fire both barrels upwards. One can only imagine how the Secret Service Vice-Presidential detail felt when they heard that. I can tell you that across the nation lawyers, cops, and gun-wise people rolled their eyes and shook their heads.

Here are 10 reasons why firing a warning shot is not a good idea.

  1. What goes up, must come down. The stereotyped warning shot is fired skyward. Shooting live ammunition into the sky is a practice normally associated with Third World countries where respect for human life is not as great as in the United States. There are many cases on record where such bullets “fell from the sky” and killed innocent people. In one New England case, a man carelessly fired a warning shot upward in the state’s largest city; the bullet struck and killed an innocent bystander who was on the upper porch of a tenement building.
  2. To fire the warning shot safely, the shooter would have to aim it into something that could safely absorb the projectile. This would force the shooter to take his eyes off of the potentially dangerous criminal opponent he was trying to intimidate – always a poor idea tactically.
  3. What appears to be a safe place to plant the warning bullet, may not be. I know a police officer who, trying to break up a riot, fired a warning shot from his 12 gauge shotgun downward from the upper floor walkway of a hotel into what appeared in the dark to be a soft patch of earth. It was, instead, darkened pavement. Double-ought buckshot pellets caromed off the hard surface, one striking a young woman in the eye.
  4. Suppose the person who caused you to fire the warning shot runs around a corner. Another gunshot rings out; someone else has shot the man, in a moment when deadly force was not warranted. The bullet goes through and through, fatally, and is not recovered. The man who wrongfully shot him claims that he fired the warning shot, and it was your bullet that caused the wrongful death. It’s your word against his…unless you can say, “Officer, you’ll find the bullet from MY gun in the friendly oak tree right over there.” But it would have been better in these circumstances if you had not fired at all.
  5. Warning shots can lead to misunderstandings with deadly unintended consequences. Years ago in the Great Lakes area, two police officers were searching opposite ends of a commercial greenhouse where a burglar alarm had just gone off. One confronted the burglar, who ran. The officer raised his arm skyward for the traditional silver screen warning shot. As is often the case, the blast just made the suspect run faster. On the other end of the building, the brother officer heard the shot and shouted to his partner, asking if he was all right. But the powerful handgun had gone off so close to the first officer’s unprotected ear that his ears were ringing, and he didn’t hear the shout. The second officer then saw the suspect running. Concluding that the man must have killed the partner who didn’t answer, that second officer shot and killed a man who was guilty only of burglary and running from the police.
  6. A single gunshot sounds to earwitnesses (and, depending on the circumstances, even eyewitnesses) as if you tried to kill a man you were only trying to warn. Did you yell the standard movie line, “Stop or I’ll shoot”? It could sound to an earwitness as if you threatened to kill a man for not obeying you, and then tried to do exactly that. Don’t make threats you don’t have a right to carry out, and as will be noted elsewhere in this book, the confluence of circumstances that warrants the shooting of a fleeing felon is extremely rare. (Remember that there are usually more earwitnesses than eyewitnesses; sound generally travels farther than line of sight, especially in the dark. Remember the infamous case of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered as 38 New York witnesses supposedly watched and did nothing. A study of the incident shows that only two of those witnesses actually saw the knife go into her body. However, more than 38 apparently heard her scream, “He stabbed me!”)
  7. Even if there are no witnesses and the man claims you shot at him and missed, evidence will show that you did fire your gun. If he claims you attempted to murder him, it’s his word against yours.
  8. Murphy’s law is immutable: if your weapon is going to jam, expect it to jam on the warning shot, and leave you helpless when the opponent comes up on you with his gun.
  9. The firing of a gun even in the “general direction” of another person is an act of deadly force. If deadly force was warranted, well, “warning shot, hell!” You would have shot directly at him. The warning shot can tell judge and jury that the very fact that you didn’t aim the shot at him is a tacit admission that even by your own lights, you knew deadly force was not justified at the time you fired the shot.
  10. If the man turns on you in the next moment and you do have to shoot him or die, you’ve wasted precious ammunition. With the still-popular five-shot revolver, you’ve just thrown away 20% of your potentially life-saving firepower. In one case in the Philippines, a man went berserk in a crowded open-air market and began stabbing and slashing people with a knife in each hand. In a nearby home, an off-duty Filipino police officer heard the screams, grabbed his six-shot service revolver (with no spare ammunition), and ran to the scene. When he confronted the madman, the latter turned on him. The officer fired three warning shots into the air, sending half of all he had to protect himself and the public into the stratosphere. He turned and ran, trying to shoot over his shoulder, and missed with his last three shots. He tripped and fell, and the pursuing knife-wielder literally ripped him apart. Responding officers shot and killed the madman, but their off-duty brother was already dead by then.

Massad Ayoob

Massad Ayoob is one of the world’s outstanding handgunners and is the Director of Massad Ayoob Group. A prolific author, Ayoob is the author of Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry, Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer, Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, Massad Ayoob’s Greatest Handguns of the World and many other books and more than one thousand articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues.

 

Source of Above Article: https://gundigest.com/article/self-defense-warning-shots-good-idea

Mirror Image Shooting

Source:  Massad Ayoob

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

When I say “mirror image” shooting, I mean the right-handed shooter running the gun left-handed in every respect, and the southpaw shooter doing vice-versa.  It’s useful for a number of reasons.

  • An injury to anything from eye to hand may, someday down the road, force you to shoot this way. It would be nice to know how to do it beforehand, and not have to learn it while suffering through a recuperation period.
  • For defensive shooting, particularly with a rifle or shotgun, if vertical cover must be used mirror image shooting will give the practitioner minimum exposure from behind the cover.
  • For those of us who teach, how will we teach a student with opposite-side dominance to shoot if we can’t teach ourselves to do it?
  • Many professionals and serious users carry a backup gun on their non-dominant hand side, in case they ever have to shoot weak-hand only. One should be prepared to do so, no?
  • I ask my staff instructors to teach a class, compete in a match, or at least shoot a qualification once a year “mirror image.” It’s my insurance that they continue to master the techniques they teach, and aren’t overcoming bad technique with physical strength or constant repetition. (Either of the latter can eventually work for an individual, but they don’t lend themselves to transmission to students.  ….
  • Read More Here

“Offended” – meet the 1st Amendment

You are already being subjected to Sharia law when you are not allowed to say anything negative about it… . Further, the Christian God is the real God. Islam is at war with America. Their goal is to establish Sharia control.

—Miss Puerto Rico Suspended for Tweets: ‘Islamic God is NOT the Same God as Christians & Jews’

Mark Judge

By Mark Judge | December 21, 2015 | 11:21 AM EST

2015 Miss Puerto Rico Destiny Velez has been suspended after sending out a series of tweets critical of Islam.

The tweets were addressed to filmmaker Michael Moore, who recently stood in front of Trump Tower in New York holding a sign that read “We Are All Muslim.”

In response Velez, 20, tweeted:

“There’s NO comparison between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Jews nor Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books.”

“All what Muslims have done is provided oil and terrorize this country & many others! All they do is build their mosques, feel offended by American values and terrorize innocent Americans and plant gas stations.”

“Most terrorist attacks have had a religion & a name associated with them & they have been from Islam religion.”

“Many pull out the card of Muslims serving in our military. Are they in the military cuz [because] they love our nation or to acquire benefits.”

“Why do ppl [people] want to separate Muslims from Isis when ISIS is a group of Muslim fanatics.”

Read More here

Want Sharia Law – then go live in the middle east

Sharia Law is a direct threat to our Constitutional Republic.

Controversial ‘Sharia Law’ Bill Advancing in Montana

Andrew Eicher

By Andrew Eicher | March 16, 2017 | 1:52 PM EDT

(AP) 

(CNSNews.com) – Montana’s Senate Bill 97, which bans the application of foreign laws in Montana, passed the Republican-controlled House Judiciary along party lines and will now move to the House floor, Montana Public Radio reported on March 13.

While the legislation does not specifically mention Sharia law, both those in favor of and in opposition to the measure have referred to it in hearings as the “Sharia law bill.”  Sharia law is what governs Islamic societies, in the public square and in the home.

The bill’s sponsor, state Senator Keith Regier (R-Kalispell) insists that his intent is to protect the fundamental liberties of Montana citizens by forbidding the use of foreign laws in state courts.

“For these immigrants to retain their diverse rule of law would create a society in chaos,” said Regier, as reported by the Flathead Beacon.

Read more here

What is Jury Nullification

What Is Jury Nullification?

Jury BoxIn its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.

In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of either Guilty or Not Guilty, this is known as a hung jury. When further deliberation clearly will be unproductive, the judge will declare a mistrial. The prosecution may or may not retry the case in the future, but the law has at least been nullified in the trial at hand.

Former prosecutor and current Georgetown University Law Center professor Paul Butler has dubbed another variation on this theme to be “jury nullification 2.0”. He used this term in reference to the case of Touray Cornell, a Missoula, Montana man charged with possession of 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana in a county that had passed a citizen initiative instructing law enforcement to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority. Of 27 potential jurors questioned during voir dire, only five said they would vote to convict a person of possession of such a small amount of marijuana. Skeptical that it would even be possible to seat a jury, the judge in the case called a recess during which time the lawyers worked out a deal known as an “Alford plea” in which the defendant didn’t admit guilt.

When these kinds of rejections of enforcement of laws stack up over time, the laws become unenforceable. We’ve seen this rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition, for example, undermine such laws’ enforcement. Eventually it is no longer worth the time or hassle or embarrassment for government officials to try to enforce these laws. They may be further nullified in a sense either remaining on the books but not being enforced, or being repealed altogether

Other terms you may hear in place of jury nullification are conscientious acquittal, juror veto, or jury pardon.

Source of Above is:
http://fija.org/document-library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification/