article mass shooter mass shooting

USA Today Opinion Article: Why the Fear of Mass Shootings is pervasive

Warning: This article is using misleading statistics. I’ll leave it to you to read the aforementioned article, but will provide some relevant quotes from the article:

Survey after survey has found that fears of mass shootings are not restricted to school settings. Nearly half of Americans reported in 2019 being worried that they or a family member will fall victim to a mass shooting, and a third say they avoid certain public places because of the threat of a mass shooting.

Here’s another.

Although feelings of anxiety and apprehension must not be dismissed, fears are not always consistent with the risk. But unlike fear of flying or of sharks that can be controlled by avoidance of airplanes or oceans, students cannot choose to dodge school (other than home schooling), and always buying groceries online so as not to face the possibility of supermarket shootout is hardly ideal. One could decide never to attend a holiday parade or a concert, but staying indoors for fear of the unthinkable is an overreaction.

As well:

If there is anything about mass shootings that reflect an epidemic, it is in the spread of panic. It might help restore some sensibility, however, to address two major reasons why fear of mass shootings is so pervasive: misleading statistics and gratuitous news coverage.

And lastly:

The media obviously shouldn’t ignore massacres when they occur. However, by relaying accurate statistics about the risk and avoiding coverage that is more alarming than informing, we can confront the real problem of gun violence without hype and hysteria.

In my opinion, the media is purposely doing this to further indoctrinate folks into thinking guns are bad. I’ll agree that gun violence is bad, but guns are tools…it’s the human behind the gun that’s the issue.

That’s the first article in a LONG while that cuts against the media “grain”. I’m actually surprised it wasn’t buried (it showed in my browser when I was searching for weather info in a Microsoft Edge browser). It’s actually refreshing to see such articles and more such articles need to be published, as a counter to the media’s abuse in spamming readers with skewed and misleading gun violence articles.

active shooter anti-gun liberal mass shooter mass shooting

Never Let a Good Opportunity Go To Waste…

Never let a good opportunity go to waste, even if you’ve to be untruthful and misleading.

Snippets of the article:

The CNN story states that the Supreme Court Justices who dissented in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, INC. vs Bruen, cited data from the Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, which falsely claimed there have been 277 mass shootings since the beginning of 2022…an average of one mass shooting per day.

It is not until later in the story — much later — that CNN mentions the misleading definition the GVA uses to define a mass shooting, which the Second Amendment Foundation first exposed.

“When most Americans hear the term ‘mass shooting,’ they picture a crazed gunman stalking the halls of a school or a shopping mall, coldly and randomly executing innocent young victims,” CNN wrote, quoting from the Second Amendment Foundation’s July 2021 story. “What does not come to mind are rival drug crews shooting it out in Chicago or Detroit, or a madman murdering his entire family.”

Not included in the CNN story was a full explanation of the vast differences between the GVA’s definition of a mass shooting and how the FBI categorizes the crime, or the massive discrepancies the two definitions produce.

This type of deception is becoming an art form for the Liberal media organizations.

Read the full article at CNN Tries to Prop Up Their Debunked Source for Misleading Mass Shooting Data – The Truth About Guns

active shooter mass shooter mass shooting Article – Media Inflates Counts of Mass School Shootings

There have been 13 mass school shootings since 1966, not 27 this year, per a very recently posted article. The difference is determined by defining the meaning of school shooting. This is a good read because it offers good reference material and offers objective discussion material. This article highlights (unintentionally or intentionally) the issues with the media inflating data to further their argument.

The meat of the article:

Obviously, 13 incidents in the last 56 years is a very different statistic than 27 incidents in the last few months. The two figures are so far apart because they measure separate things. One-off gun incidents are a serious problem in the U.S., and those taking place at schools are no exception. Mass casualty events, on the other hand, constitute less than 1 percent of all gun deaths. Suicides and non–mass-casualty murders—usually carried out with handguns rather than assault rifles—constitute the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.

There Have Been 13 Mass School Shootings Since 1966, Not 27 This Year (

2A AR-15 Helen Ubinas liberal mass shooting Orlando


Take a look at this:

This lady claims that she bought an AR-15 in 7 minutes:

That’s how long it took me to buy an AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.  Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver’s license to the moment I passed my background check.

A Facebook friend shared it but he’s not in favor of gun ownership.  He’s basically in awe and I believe he believed this lady’s article.

I believe it’s bullshit, no matter if it’s in Philadelphia (I’m in Virginia).  Here’s why.

I’ve fourteen handguns and one rifle (an AR-15). When I buy my guns locally (online is a whole different process, at least until the gun has been shipped to my local gun store), the whole process can take maybe 20 minutes. The background check paperwork takes maybe 10 minutes and the approval process (where the background check is actually submitted by the FFL/store) usually takes 5 minutes for me. The approval process time frame is different for everyone. While mine usually takes 5 minutes, some people usually have to wait an hour. Others have to wait a few hours.  For some, it may take a day.  For others, it may take days.  For some, it may come back disapproved.  It depends on your background, as well as if you’ve a common name (which will slow down the process). Whether it is a handgun or “assault” rifle, the process is the same (although, for an AR-15, two forms of ID are needed (UPDATE (9/6/2021) – the requirement has changed in VA since this article was posted) — I used a passport and my concealed carry license). A person that gets approved within 5 minutes of submitting their background paperwork is a person that has a clean background. There’s nothing wrong with that. A person that goes through the background check process goes through the same checks as law enforcement officers. I’d ask the author of that article if there’s a set amount of time one should wait before knowing that person is bad. I’m wondering what she was expecting.

I highly doubt it took five minutes, total process time for everything, for this lady to buy an AR-15. It takes more than five minutes to read the paperwork and sign/initial them properly (and there are two forms, a state and a federal form). Most guns stores don’t move that fast (they can’t because they’re also required to do certain things before they submit the paperwork, like add the weapon’s serial number(s) to the paperwork, then check to see that you completed it correctly). Gun stores (or FFLs) are meticulous with their paperwork because they’re liable if they get something wrong and the person turns out to be a nut. They also are routinely audited…any audit failures mean they could lose their FFL credentials (ie, they’re out of business).

Something stinks with this story and we shouldn’t always believe what we read on the internet, no matter our stance on a particular subject.

It’s funny…she didn’t even supply where she bought it.  With even the gun owners that have used their guns for bad purposes, the statistical data available shows that gun owners in American have less issues than the whole of the USA LEO group.

Yes, this Orlando shooter killed people.  So did the guy who shot up the SC church.  So did the San Bernardino couple.  So did the Boston bombers (they used bombs in lieu of guns…we’ll discuss that in a bit).  So did the Sandy Hook shooter, and so did the VA Tech shooter.  So did Vester Flanders, the Roanoke shooter that killed a news crew on camera.  I can go on, but that is a small drop in the ocean of gun owners in the US.

I don’t believe in bans or limitations.  Gun restrictions in the UK, Australia, France, or any other place won’t work here because the difference between the US and those countries is that we have, and have always had, the 2nd Amendment.  That’s an inalienable right to bear arms where the right “shall not be infringed”.  

Remember, our forefathers left England because they were oppressed.  That’s why the Bill of Rights reads the way it does.  They wanted to ensure that we’d have less issues than they experienced.  2A reads clearly…there’s no other way to read it.  There’s also a reason it’s listed as the 2nd…yes, it’s that important in priority, and only the 1st Amendment trumps it.

And I’ll say this again.  I refuse to be group-shamed.  I refuse to take responsibility for the Orlando killings, or any other mass shooting.  I’ll only take responsibility for the things I’ve actually done.  Each individual in the U.S. is responsible for their own actions.  There’s no law that says that one individual has to be responsible for another because of group affiliation.  I’ve never killed anyone and my intention is that I never will, unless it’s in self defense, but that’s a whole different discussion.

The reader is attempting to lump lawful gun owners with these mass killers.  Why do Liberals always do this?  There are people that own guns legally, and there are people that don’t.  There are people that own guns legally that end up killing many people, and there are (many many more) people that don’t.  If she thinks guns are the problem she’s wrong.  Remember when I mentioned that the Boston Marathon bombers used a bomb?  Yes, they didn’t use guns…they used a bomb.  Bombs are illegal.  They used a bomb anyways.  If guns are banned or highly restricted, do you honestly think criminals will stop using them?  NO.  Cocaine has been never been legal…people use that more than they do guns.  Let’s lump all illegal drugs together.  In the last 20 years, drugs have kills far more people than the last 20 years of active shooters.  Hell, on 9/11, the terrorists used PLANES!!  We haven’t banned planes yet.  There was also Prohibition.  That didn’t work well, either.

And once again, Obama refuses to categorize this as Islamic terror plots, even when the Orlando shooter was found to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.  WTF?  Last time, in San Bernardino, they tried to classify it as workplace violence when those two killers pledged allegiance to the same group.  He also focused on the gay angle.  We’re all Americans.  Both of these were terrorist attacks on American soil.  Yes, the Orlando shooting was at a gay club, but it was targeted because those who practice Islam believe that gays are perverted and because the U.S. pushes for gay rights, they believe the U.S. is perverted. This wasn’t just a gay thing, otherwise the shooter wouldn’t have pledged his act to ISIS.  Obama won’t use this angle, but he’s trying to go after guns (again).

This is why people are questioning Obama’s loyalties.

This isn’t Australia.  US citizens will not let the US government take their freedoms.  Every Aussie I’ve spoken with always tells me, “don’t let them do you like they did us”.  In fact, I’ve also had British citizens tell me the same.  This has nothing to do with the Civil War…back then, they were divided because of slavery.  This has to with Liberals altering/limiting/removing an inalienable right. They (Liberals) believe doing this will make the population more pliable…take away the guns, and you don’t have to worry about uprising when the government oversteps their bounds (like they’re currently trying to do).

She also said the following:

No need for a concealed carry permit. No mandatory training, though the guys did give me a coupon for a free day pass for a local gun range. No need for even a moment to at least consider how gross all of this felt as relatives of the dead were still being notified.

Who carries an AR-15 concealed?  Why do you need mandatory training?  I advise it but 2A says NOTHING about there being a training requirement for bearing arms.  Because if they did, the government would dictate the training.  2A is a right, not a privilege.  And no, there’s no need for a moment to consider “how gross all of this felt”…it’s a purchasing decision.  What other purchases do you make where you need a moment to consider.  Maybe take a moment before you step into the store to buy such a thing as an AR-15.


Colion Nior LA Times mass shooting San Bernardino terrorist watch list

Colion Nior: LA Times Update – Suspects’ weapons were legally purchased

Check this out:

According to the LA Times: Suspects’ weapons were legally purchased. Police said the two suspects were armed with two…
Posted by Mr. Colion Noir (@MrColionNoir) on Thursday, December 3, 2015


If they got them legally, it’s probably a given that they weren’t on the terrorist watch list, which is ironic, because Obama mentioned that a law is needed that prevents gun purchases for people on the watch list. It will fail if radicals such as these two are not on the watch list.

WTH kinda of buggery is this double-talk of theirs??

CA Farook Malik mass shooting radicalized San Bernardino Syred Tashfeen terrorist

CNN Sources: San Bernardino Shooter Was Radicalized; Communicated With More Than One International Terror Suspect

A snippet:

San Bernardino shooter Syred Farook was apparently radicalized and in touch with more than one international terrorism suspects, according to law enforcement sources cited by CNN.

Farook reportedly communicated with overseas terror suspect over the phone and using social media.

The network also reported that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia at least twice prior to Wednesday’s shooting that left 14 people dead and at least 17 injured. During one of those trips, Farook reportedly brought home Tashfeen Malik, his wife and parter [sic] in crime, on a “fiance visa.”

My comments:


They’re going to have a difficult time convincing the nation that this was a workplace-related. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill active shooting. And all those gun-related laws that CA has didn’t stop or slow down this group. And the topic of creating laws to stop people on the terror watch list from purchasing guns…do you actually NEED a law for that?  And would that have stopped this group? They’d have had to have been on the watch list…I don’t believe they were on that list (they might be scribbled in, though).