I had originally set out to join the local El Paso Moms
Demand Action Facebook group to see if I could slip a satirical meme past the
group administrators and gauge the reactions to it. The meme is a photo of an
M1 Garand rifle, with a Moms Demand Action logo and the text “The 2nd
Amendment is for hunting rifles like this… not weapons of war”. The joke, of
course, is that the M1 Garand is one of the most prolific war rifles in the
history of the world, with millions being used by armies of all nations since
World War II. Would they catch the irony? Would they allow the post? All posts
to the group need to be approved by an administrator. Well, it got posted, and
that post received numerous “likes” “hearts” and “thumbs up”. I was in, not so
much a wolf among the sheep, but a pro-gun rights advocate lurking unbeknownst,
among an anti-gun rights Facebook group. James Bond would have been proud. OK,
it’s not really to that level of stealthiness but the point is, they were
clueless to my intentions.
My intentions were not to ridicule the members of the El
Paso Moms Demand Action group, not at all. But to ultimately, discover what facts
about the gun rights issue they actually knew, what facts they didn’t know,
what types of misinformation and myths they might believe and through my super
human satirical and sarcastic powers, to open their eyes to their hypocrisy,
lack of factual knowledge and what should be the obvious logic of the pro-gun
rights side of the issue.
My next opportunity to comment presented itself when someone
in the group made a post commemorating the second anniversary of the Santa Fe,
Texas High School shooting in which eight students and two teachers were killed
and 13 others were wounded. A tragedy, to say the least. I saved screen shots
of the entire exchange between myself and the person that made the original
post and later, someone who appears to be the admin / leader of the local Moms
Demand Action group. The idea of turning this comment thread into a blog post
struck me when I saw just how distant these particular people were from the
actual facts, of anything they were talking about. So let’s get started…
I commented on the post with an honest question, given that
schools are “gun free zones”…
“Honest question about
tragedies such as this: does anyone really believe that “gun free zones”
actually do anything to mitigate the risk of a shooting? The answer of course
is no. A sign or a law isn’t going to deter anyone with the intent and
motivation to carry out such an atrocity. Shouldn’t we focus on a solution that
would actually be a deterrence?”
The issue of “gun free zones” has been talked about over and
over again and so here was an opportunity to hear from people who I knew to be
on the gun control side of this issue. My question was a sincere one as well as
fishing around to see what they might have to say on the issue. How can we
mitigate the risks? My answer at the conclusion of this blog post. Her reply
started me doing some heavy internet research. Just kidding, it only took one
search and a few minutes to discover just how disconnected this person was from
the actual facts. She replied…
“A background check on
all gun sales could have prevented this tragedy. The shooter purchased his
weapon from the same website as the Aurora, Colorado shooter. A background
check wasn’t required nor did they verify his age. All he had to do was click a
box saying he read the terms and conditions.
Moms Demand Acton is
actively working on trying to pass legislation that includes background checks
on all gun sales as well as other gun sense laws.”
Wait, what? Now granted I am not an expert on the facts and
events of either of the Santa Fe, Texas High School shooting or the Aurora,
Colorado movie theater shooting, but her claim that a background check wasn’t
required in either case and that the guns in both cases were purchased online?
And that in the case of the Santa Fe shooter they didn’t verify his age and all
he had to do to buy his gun was click a box saying he read the terms and conditions???
Come on. This person posting couldn’t be that detached from reality and
uninformed could they? Yes, yes they were that uninformed and detached from
reality. The fact of that matter is, and anyone who has ever purchased a gun
knows, that you cannot buy a gun from a licensed dealer, nor can you buy a gun
online without a background check. Anyone with any level of knowledge of the
issue knows, that when you buy a gun online, it does not, it cannot, it will
not be shipped directly to the person making the purchase. It gets shipped to a
licensed dealer who conducts a background check before the firearm is delivered
to the person buying it. So as you can see in the screen shot below, I took the
opportunity to inform and educate this misinformed member of the El Paso Moms
Demand Acton group who had made obvious inaccurate claims about how both
shooters acquired their weapons. I went on to post links to news stories which
describe the FACTS of how each acquired the weapons used in the shootings. I
even went so far as to use links to the stories from CNN, further cementing my disguise
as a left-wing, “I’m on your side” for gun control member.
In the case of the shooter at Santa Fe High School, he took
a revolver and a shotgun that were legally owned by his father. So all of her
assertions and statements that he bought it online without a background check
etc etc are completely false. All he had to do was check a box saying he read
the terms and conditions? This person needs a reality check.
In the case of the Aurora, Colorado shooter, neither did he
purchase his guns online, he purchased them legally, through two local stores,
where he passed a background check. So again, this person was just plain wrong
about the facts.
This is the point at which a second person enters the
discussion. I believe that she is the administrator of the group and a leader
of the local El Paso Moms Demand Action group but I can’t confirm that because
I have never attended any of their events (I don’t think I’d be able to keep
from laughing hysterically) but from what I gather in the Facebook group, she’s
the head honcho.
Somehow, she makes the leap from background checks and
online sales, to private sales, which has nothing to do with the two incidents
this post is about. But, she took the bait and ran with it and I found her
comments quite interesting and revealing as well…
She starts, “Unfortunately
the private sales are not monitored as you say in every state…”
Ok, hold up. “as I say”? When did I say anything about
private sales?
She goes on, “Guns can
be purchased online from a private seller, without any gun shop having to be
involved. For instance, shooter from Odessa did not pass a legitimate
background check, but was able to purchase one from a private seller with no
problem. Not every state is the same and do not have to be registered to sell
or transfer a gun. Unfortunately that is one of the laws that took effect on
September 1st, 2020, as well as protecting citizens from being
charged with a crime for carrying a hand gun without a license to carry. As an
Army veteran trained in many weapons of diffrent (sic) caliber and shooting
from moving vehicles, I know that a good guy with a gun can make more damage
than saving the day in an active shooter situation. I also study statistics and
understand how seldomly a civilian taking down a shooter happens.
Then she links to the complete list of Bills the state of
Texas has taken up in the last several years.
While it is true that private sales are legal in some
states, she still opened up a can of worms with her comments. First let me
start with my disdain for military veterans who forget about their oath to
defend the Constitution. Doesn’t she remember the words “…shall not be
infringed”? But let me get right to which of her comments jumped out the most…
As an Army veteran
trained in many weapons of diffrent (sic) caliber and shooting from moving
vehicles, I know that a good guy with a gun can make more damage than saving
the day in an active shooter situation. I also study statistics and understand
how seldomly a civilian taking down a shooter happens.
She’s claiming that because she ran through the convoy live
fire range while serving in the army, that somehow translates to having
knowledge that she KNOWS a good guy with a gun can make more damage than saving
the day in an active shooter situation? My literal interpretation of that is
that she did a convoy live fire range and she was a horrible shot, she shot up
everything but the targets, so therefore, because she was a bad shot, she knows
for a FACT that a good guy with a gun can make more damage than saving the day
in an active shooter situation.
Do you see where this is going? This should, if not already,
begin to open your eyes to the perceptions and beliefs of the people on the gun
control side of the debate. This is astounding, really. But let’s continue with
her next sentence…
I also study statistics
and understand how seldomly a civilian taking down a shooter happens.
Well ok, I’ve never researched the statistics myself, but I’ll
give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment, maybe she has? After all, she appears to be
the leader of the El Paso Moms Demand Action group, surely she wouldn’t just
blurt out a claim like that would she?
While typing my reply to her, I simultaneously began a
simple Google search to see if I could find any statistics regarding how often
an armed citizen stops an active shooter (i.e. a good guy with a gun stopping a
bad guy with a gun).
My reply, “I did not
say private sales are monitored in every state”.
If you look back, you can see that she claimed I said that,
I did not and she’s just making this shit up and putting words in my mouth as
she goes along, I guess. But I continued…
“Not to start an argument…”
(Yes, actually, let’s argue, please.)
“…but please show me
where I said that. Can you please post some links to examples of when an armed
citizen with a gun caused more damage than saving the day? Where might I find
statistics regarding how often an armed citizen takes down a shooter?”
My request for links an examples is sincere, I want to know
where she is getting her information. Because I have never heard of any
instances of an armed citizen (a good guy with a gun) intervening in an active
shooter situation and causing more harm than good. There might be examples, I
don’t know, but she makes this claim, she says there’s statistics to back it up
so let’s see them right?
I admit, my next sentence is another attempt to continue my
guise as an anti-gunner, not sure at this point if my ruse has been discovered.
But I tried…
“Again, I am in
agreement with having common sense laws, but I really want to be informed with
factual data so that when I talk to others, I can back up our gun control
position with facts.”
What I mean is, I really want YOU, THEM (the anti-gun, gun
control side of the issue) to be informed with factual data, so that when THEY
talk to others, they can back up THEIR position with facts because so far, they
seem to be lacking ANY factual data.
But wait, this is all about to get even better.
She continues to dig herself, and her cause, into a deeper
hole with her next comment…
“I respect your
opinion, and I am not trying to get into a discussion with you.”
Too bad, I AM trying to get into it with her.
;)
“The only name that
comes to mind is Jack Wilson, a trained firearms instructor. There may be more
cases that I am not aware of, but the number is not significant enough in
statistics to have a study. The sample is simply not big enough, meaning there
is not enought (sic) evidence, so at this time I cannot point you in the
direction of peer review statistics study. Same goes for the opposite, there is
not evidence to say that protected armed citizzens (sic) prevent mass shottings
(sic). Gun sense laws do not only apply to mass shootings, there are also
focused on keeping gusns (sic) awar from criminals and domestic abusers. I am
glad you are on on side. Enjoy the rest of your evening.”
Oh, I am enjoying my evening already.
OK, let’s break this down bit by bit, starting with Jack
Wilson. Why does that name sound familiar? A simple Google search delivers the
answer…
Jack Wilson was, of course, one of the armed, volunteer
security team member and parishioner at the West Freeway Church of Christ in
Texas, who stopped an active shooter within 6 seconds of that shooters first
shot. Unfortunately, two people were shot before Jack Wilson could get a clear
shot but when he did, he was able to stop the threat and save countless lives
in the process.
So her response to my request for examples of when a good
guy with a gun does more harm than good, is Jack Wilson? A good guy with a gun
who stopped an active shooter from killing more people? Folks, I cannot make
this up, it appears that at least in the case of the El Paso Moms Demand Action
Facebook group, they are sabotaging their own bad arguments with
counter-examples of cases in which it was GOOD that a citizen had a gun. I
mean, holy bajeezus.
Let’s keep going please…
“There may be more
cases that I am not aware of…”
Cases of what? More cases of good guys with a gun stopping
bad guys with a gun? Yes, but what about what I had asked for? Examples of good
guys with a gun causing more harm than good, which was YOUR claim, a claim I
might add that you said was backed up by statistics.
“…but the number is
not significant enough in statistics to even have a study.”
Oh really? Because you just completely contradicted
yourself. Let’s rewind back to her comment,
“I know that a good
guy with a gun can make more damage than saving the day in an active shooter
situation. I also study statistics and understand that how seldomly a civilian
taking down a shooter happens.”
She says she KNOWS and that she studies statistics and
understands how SELDOMLY it happens but yet when asked to provide links to
examples of stories and links to statistics she changes her tune to, “There may be more cases that I am not aware
of, but the number is not significant enough in statistics to even have a
study. The sample is simply not big enough, meaning there is not enought (sic)
evidence, so at this time I cannot point you in the direction…” blah blah blah.
So which one is it? Cause you said you KNOW and you study
the statistics. The bull shit and blind ignorance gets even thicker if you can
believe it.
But let’s get to her next contention that “there is no evidence to say that protected
armed citizzens (sic) prevent mass shottings (sic).”
Well, I’ll be a goose pimple on a horny toads nut sack. Boom
shacka lacka, a simple Google search yielded a statistic that shows the exact
opposite is true of what this woman claims that she KNOWS, statistically, that
a good guy with a gun more often than not, causes more damage than good.
At this point, even I am beginning to be a little surprised
at the shear ignorance I am having to bear witness to, given that I anticipated
some level of misinformation but this is just outrageous. She is making my
argument for me and in the process destroying any credibility her side of the
issue might have ever had.
In her next comment she lists all the Bills in Texas that
apply to gun laws, there are 12 of them. To which I simultaneous replied with
the fact that Jack Wilson stopped an active shooter (i.e. a good guy with a gun
who did not do more harm than good, remember her original claim that she had
stats showing good guys with guns do more harm than good). She replied.
“Yes, he is a hero.”
Look at that, there is a god. At least she recognizes that!
But the good times didn’t last…
“Although, his
presence didn’t deter the shooter from going into the church. Just to be clear,
I don’t have a theory, I shared my personal experience and thought process as
an Armed Forces Veteran. Not everyone is trained to be a sniper and react in a
chaotic situation with perfect aim and precision.”
You don’t have a theory? Then what do you call this
statement that you made?
“I know that a good
guy with a gun can make more damage than saving the day in and active shooting
situation.”
Perhaps she is right? That is not a theory, she stated it as
a matter of fact. She KNOWS that a good guy… blah blah blah. Well Moms Demand
Action of El Paso, you’re misstating the facts and proving beyond any doubt
that you do not know any of the FACTS. Just spewing out misinformation and
patently false statements.
But ok, let’s just see how much more of a hole she can dig
for herself and her group. Hang in there, we’re almost done, I promise (but this
is good stuff though right?).
She says his presence wasn’t a deterrent and I was unable to
find any confirmation of which condition he was carrying his pistol, concealed
or open carry. I watched the video of the incident several times but could not
tell with any certainty if his pistol was or wasn’t concealed. Ultimately, I
don’t think that really matters that much.
But I proceeded to ask a logical
question: “What are some ways the shooter
could have been deterred?”
Now we’re getting to the meat of the issue, mitigating the
risk of these types of shootings, and I was anxious to hear what she had to
say. But, no surprise, I did not get an answer to my question, instead I got
the first hint of “chippiness” on her part…
“He was open carrying
his weapon, you would know this if you had read the bills that I listed for you.”
(Clears throat) Wait, what? She is saying that I would know,
by reading the Texas state Bills recently adopted related to gun laws, that
Jack Wilson was open carrying his weapon that day in the church? Just to spite
her, I read every single one of those Bills, which took a little time, because
I wanted to confirm for certain, what I already knew. That Jack Wilson’s name
and whether or not he was concealed carrying on the day of the shooting was not NOT mentioned in any Bills. Why the fuck would Jack Wilson’s specific name and
his chosen method of carrying his side arm on a given day be mentioned in a
Bill or Law ? It makes no sense. Just like their (the gun control advocates)
side of the entire issue. THEY MAKE NO SENSE! And they are proponents of making
into law their so-called common sense gun control legislation??? They can’t
even make sense of their own arguments!
She finishes, “We seek
answers by attending meetings with legislators and experts in a wide variety of
fields, from gun shop owners to distric (sic) attorneys and doctors. Have a
great night and be safe staying home if you can. I have mommy duties to attend to
now, so enjoy the rest of your evening.”
Oh, I am already enjoying my evening immensely.
I finished by letting her know that I was reading the Bills
and bringing up the obvious stupidity of her assertion that if I had read the
bills I would know that Jack Wilson was open carrying on the day of the
shooting. But whatever, I read the bills so just no one can say I didn’t.
The next morning I woke up and went back to the group to see
if anyone else had replied, but I found that I was no longer a member. I didn’t
bother to try and join again, clearly, my ruse had been discovered. But with
two posts, I achieved what I had set out to do, to set in writing, a few
examples of just how uninformed members of that group are, and they are,
completely uninformed. The “likes”, “hearts” and “thumbs up” that the M1 Garand
meme received and diving into the rabbit hole of a thread that started with one
simple question posed by me:
“Does anyone really
believe that ‘gun free zone’ actually do anything to mitigate the risk of a
shooting?” I continued, “Shouldn’t we
focus on a solution that would actually be a deterrence?”
Sadly, many of the easily swayed and uninformed wrongly
believe that a sign that reads “gun free zone” will do anything to prevent a
shooting in that area. And since the person whom I believe is the ringleader of
the local El Paso Moms Demand Action Group claimed to study statistics on the
subject (but then failed to show me any) let us look at the REAL statistics,
heck, I’ll even defer to a story in the Washington Post (a well-known
left-leaning publication) that found that 86% of mass shootings, between 2009
to 2016 took place in gun-free zones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/
There are other statistics that show that percentage is
higher, but for the sake of argument let’s accept the stat from the Washington
Post at 86%.
No, “gun free zones” do not prevent mass shootings. Someone
with bad intentions, especially those whose intent is to kill or injure many,
will undoubtedly look for a soft target. It’s nature, is it not?
The fact that I was removed from the group proves another
point, that groups such as Moms Demand Action El Paso, do not want their
members to be presented with facts, they don’t want their narrative questioned,
they want to continue to espouse their misinformation for the purpose of
gathering easily swayed voters to back their candidates. They call for common
sense gun laws but they themselves have no common sense. They are unable to
make any arguments that make any sense at all. But those of us that love America
and the values and rights on which this country was established, better wake up
to the scary fact that there is a massive number of people that believe in this
false narrative. They truly believe that you can simply order a gun online and
have it delivered to your front door without a background check and by simply “checking
a box” that you agree with the terms and conditions. They believe that another
law (how many do we have already?) or a posted sign will deter an evil person
intend on committing a violent crime.
What we must promote and get everyone to remember, is that
one of the founding principles of America is liberty, individual liberty. That
securing our safety falls upon us, individually. If Jack Wilson had not taken
down that shooter, if another armed citizen was not able to do it either, then
the only option would be to wait for the police, who are ARMED. And that might
be the fundamental difference in the two sides of the issues. One side wants us
ALL, to rely on the Government for safety, security, protection and reaction to violent
crimes. On the other side, we believe that while the government does play a
role, our safety and security is OUR OWN responsibility. The police can’t be everywhere
at all times and this has NEVER been a safe world. To believe that if we ban
guns we could live an utopian society. I for one love the fact that I have the
right, the god given right, to defend myself with a gun if I so choose. What
other tools would they like me to use? A spear?
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.”
Oh that pesky little document called the constitution, with
all those inalienable rights, just keeps getting in the way of the changes
those on the other side of the issue would like to see. Disarming the citizens.
When it comes down to it, that’s what they really want, a
complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons. I said it. They don’t say it. But
that’s the truth isn’t it? I, for one, will reach the point of turning to active resistance when it might appear that we will be living in a society in which ONLY the criminals and government have guns.
What do you think?
I think that there's no way you can convince an idiot of the truth, and so the strategy must be to counter their blatant lies with the truth. And use the truth to change the minds of those whose minds can be changed, and turn their votes to candidates who DEFEND the Constitution. What a wonderful idea, that we are free men (and women), that we do not need to depend on governments.
If you want to mitigate violent crime of any kind, you must first look at the conditions that motivate someone to carry out just such a crime. That's an entirely different discussion for another day, maybe another Facebook group I can join eh? One thing is for sure, evil has existed since the beginning of time, and there will always be evil. THANK GOD we live in a country whose founders understood that the power of the people to care for the own security, thought enough of that right to enshrine it in the CONSTITUTION. Let's protect it with spreading the truth and getting out the vote, if not, we may lose that right to the ignorant masses, and that is a scary and realistic possibility.
Stay tuned for Part Two of this blog when I comment on the Moms Demand Action web cast featuring Shannon Watts interview of Senator Kamala Harris. It's just as juicy and frankly, disturbing.
.PNG)
