No matter your age, your background, your ethnicity, or your religious affiliation, there is one thing that we can all agree on: nothing is more important than protecting what you love.
Where we are divided is HOW we protect those things that are most precious to us.
People who ascribe to the anti-gun rhetoric and agenda, and who belong to groups such as Moms Demand Action (MDA), Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence, all proclaim that saving lives is at the core of their mission. We all can applaud and agree on that. Life is precious. And each of us can name at least one life we want to protect.
But protecting what we love sometimes requires that good people stand against predators and murderers with the very tools that MDA, Everytown, and Giffords vilify: guns. People who understand that reality dedicate their own time, money, and energy to training themselves and others to be safe and responsible gun owners. This training and education is truly what will protect those you love.
People who value life and liberty belong to groups like The DC Project: Women dedicated to safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms. Members of the DC Project are the counter-voice to the groups that are solely focused on guns and laws. The DC Project focuses on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by emphasizing education, not legislation, as the key to keeping our communities and our children safe.
KidSafe Foundation is another organization that loves kids enough to empower them to be safe around guns. KidsSafe has trademarked the phrase “ZERO firearm accidents are the only acceptable goal!!®” and teaches age-appropriate safety training to children to ensure kids know to “Stop, don’t touch, run away and tell an adult!” if they find a gun, or if a friend is playing with a firearm.
Reducing suicide is the goal of Walk The Talk America (WTTA). By building a bridge between mental health professionals and responsible firearms owners in order to reduce suicide and increase the availability of trusted mental health care, WTTA is “paving the way by educating mental health professionals about gun culture and breaking negative stigmas around mental health for gun owners.”
Another solution-focused organization is Hold My Guns (HMG). HMG helps to reduce firearm-related deaths by partnering with local gun stores and ranges to offer safe and voluntary storage of firearms to people and families who want to temporarily remove guns from their homes. As stated on HMG’s website, “While many organizations use ‘gun safety’ as a cover to take away your rights, our focus is to never compromise rights for the sake of ‘safety.’”
The anti-gun groups think that laws will make us safer. Each one of these groups condemns something they call “gun violence” and believes that laws will stop this kind of violence. One can only assume that the people in charge of these organizations are aware that guns, all by themselves, cannot cause violence. Surely, the people in charge of these organizations know that it is people who cause violence. Some use guns, others use knives, and still others harm their fellow humans with cars, bombs, and even clubs and hammers.
Perhaps it’s not as catchy to say that their organizations condemn people who harm other innocent people; sometimes by using guns.
Inherent in the brand names of these groups is the valuation of children, towns, safety, and courage. However, when we take a look at their methods of protecting these things they purport to hold dear, they have but one tool in their toolbox: laws. Laws they naively expect law-breakers to follow. These anti-gun groups believe that laws, more laws, and some as-yet not enacted magical laws will make humans who do not value and respect human life somehow value and respect words on a legal document stating that assault and murder are bad. Extra bad, apparently, if the murderer uses a gun.
Every one of the organizations mentioned is undoubtedly sincere in its mission to save lives and make our communities safer. However, laws piled on top of more laws are not making the difference we all seek. Teaching and training children from their youngest ages to respect firearms and how to be safe around them is as common sense as teaching them to be safe around kitchen knives. Helping people get effective mental health care, free from stigma and judgment, and allowing safe and voluntary storage of firearms for families going through difficult times and emotional turmoil or drug addiction offers real-world solutions for individuals where and when they need it most. And emphasizing education over legislation is how we all truly can protect what we love.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of stabilizing braces on firearms, with some people suggesting that these braces make guns deadlier and easier to use in violent attacks. This belief has been perpetuated by some anti-Second Amendment politicians and advocacy groups, including Giffords Law Center, which claims that shooters have used stabilizing braces to “skirt the National Firearms Act and commit horrific tragedies.” But this claim is both misleading and inaccurate.
First, let’s discuss what stabilizing braces actually are. These accessories can be attached to certain firearms, such as pistols, to provide additional support and stability when shooting. They were originally designed to help people with disabilities or injuries to safely and effectively use firearms. But they have since become popular among gun enthusiasts and sport shooters as well.
Giffords and others claim that stabilizing braces are somehow responsible for enabling shooters to commit violent acts. But there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the vast majority of shootings in the United States are committed with illegally obtained firearms, rather than legally purchased guns that have been modified with accessories like stabilizing braces.
Furthermore, the idea that stabilizing braces allow shooters to “skirt” the National Firearms Act (NFA) is also misleading. The NFA regulates certain types of firearms, such as machine guns and short-barreled rifles, and requires owners to register these weapons with the federal government and pay a tax. However, the use of stabilizing braces on pistols is not a violation of the NFA and does not allow individuals to avoid the registration and tax requirements.
In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has issued guidance on the use of stabilizing braces, stating that “the use of a handgun stabilizing brace… does not change the classification of the firearm or impose any additional registration, licensing, or other requirements on the firearm or its owner.” The ATF has also made it clear that it will take action against individuals who use stabilizing braces to create a firearm that meets the definition of a short-barreled rifle, which is regulated under the NFA.
The claim made by Giffords and others that stabilizing braces make firearms deadlier and enable shooters to “skirt” the National Firearms Act is simply not true. There is no evidence to support this claim, and the ATF has made it clear that the use of stabilizing braces on pistols does not violate any federal laws or regulations. It’s important to separate fact from fiction when discussing issues related to firearms and public safety, and to base policy decisions on sound evidence and analysis.
That’s why the Arizona Citizens Defense League and the Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association will continue to stand up for Arizona citizens and the firearm industry against unconstitutional laws and these types of lies.
Americans were outraged to learn of the Nashville school shooting, where a transgender female shot and killed three children and three adults at a Christian school.
As always, a fierce political debate broke out after the murders. Gun control advocates, mostly Democrats, again made impassioned and often vitriolic pleas for more stringent gun laws.
It would be a wonderful world if there were some laws we could pass, some clever strategy to keep criminals from having guns. The big problem is that gun control laws don’t work, much as we might wish otherwise. If they did, Chicago, Baltimore, and other big cities, with their strict gun laws on the books, wouldn’t be the murderous hell-holes that they are.
It’s been pointed out many times, but it’s still true: violent criminals don’t follow the law. The victims are the law-abiding citizens who bring knives to a gun fight.
Conservative commentator Matt Vespa recently wrote a thoughtful column advocating instead for posting “resource officers” in every school. He notes that it took 14 minutes for police to arrive at the Nashville shooting, and that other killers have had even more time before facing significant deterrence.
On the other hand, there are many accounts of officers in schools who were able to prevent potential murders just by being present.
But there’s a problem. There are approximately 115,000 K-12 schools in the U.S., according to Dun and Bradstreet. If we lowball an estimate of $50,000 yearly to support an FTE, that means placing an officer in every school would, according to my back-of-the-napkin calculator, cost at least $5 and $6 billion annually.
That would be a justifiable cost if we were facing an epidemic of school killings, but the numbers tell a different story. Although the especially traumatic nature of school killings and extensive media coverage make the shootings seem commonplace, for the last 35 years, school shooting deaths have hovered around 20–30 per year, less than one for every two states.
From 2010 to 2019, there were 305 incidents involving guns and 207 deaths—or about 20 per year. Arizona, with about 2,700 schools, has had one shooting death ever, in 1987, in addition to four suicides and one accidental death.
For American schools, this computes to an annual average of one shooting death for every 4,000 schools. Full-time school resource officers would, over the course of a career, have an infinitesimal chance of preventing even one shooting.
Throwing money at a problem without a sober cost-benefit analysis, however passionately we may feel about it, seldom works out. A more practical solution would be to authorize one or more teachers per school to carry concealed weapons.
These teachers would be volunteers who are licensed carriers and would undergo additional training in the very focused area (confronting an armed criminal in a school setting) that their duty might entail. They would receive a modest stipend.
Would recruiting be a problem? I like to think there are enough teacher-heroes with a heart for their students who would be willing and up to the task if called upon. Remember, it has often been teachers who answered the call when peace officers cowered in emergency situations, as in Uvalde and Parkland.
Moreover, the deterrent effect of armed teachers would be inarguable. Schools would be changed from soft targets with idiotic “Gun Free Zone” signs into places where criminals with bad intentions would know they were risking their lives by entering.
Unfortunately, the teachers’ unions have pitched a fit. Their purported worries include the safety of their members, the qualifications of the volunteers, and the image of teachers involved with violence.
Their arguments are easily rebuffed, remembering that no solution is perfect, and the point is to pick the best available. But the unions are powerful, tough competitors in public debate, even when the facts and arguments are against them, as when the schools were shut down during COVID on their demand.
Wasting a few more billion in a nation over $30 trillion in debt may not seem like much, but we have to start somewhere. Let’s believe in our educators and look to American resilience and resourcefulness to protect our children.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
An Arizona legislator informed his constituents that he wouldn’t be caving to their demands for supporting gun control legislation. The call to action has mainly come from left-leaning groups and activists in the wake of the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, Tennessee that left three young children and three adults dead.
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) announced his intent in a letter issued Thursday. Gillette advised his constituents, at length, for his rationale for not supporting greater gun control: criminals can work around gun control measures to obtain weapons, citing the Nashville shooter lied on her background check to obtain guns; FBI data shows no correlation between gun control and crime reduction; and that crime generally correlates with law enforcement procedures and economic factors.
“Controlling a physical object has zero effect on human behavior,” said Gillette. “Laws are followed by law-abiding citizens, not criminals and not people who suffer from mental illness.”
Gillette further noted that no National Rifle Association (NRA) member, licensed firearms dealer, or “right-wing” activist had committed a mass shooting.
“These murders were committed by mentally unstable left-leaning adults that were known to law enforcement or mental health professionals or both,” said Gillette.
— Rep. John Gillette AZ House LD30 (@AzRepGillette) March 30, 2023
Gillette disclosed that he would be open to legislation imposing the death penalty on those who commit a mass shooting, as well as legislation imposing civil penalties on any agency or licensee that failed to report or act on a credible threat.
Gillette also pointed out that FBI data hasn’t been updated for the last eight quarters — since 2021.
Following the shooting, Democratic legislators and activists called for stricter gun control.
State Sen. Anna Hernandez (D-LD24) claimed that the shooting occurred because guns have more rights than individuals.
“Instead of finding solutions to end gun violence we continue to see legislation across the nation that grants more rights and protections to guns rather than legislation to mitigate the loss of human life to mass shootings and other gun violence,” said Hernandez.
Another school mass shooting 💔
Instead of finding solutions to end gun violence we continue to see legislation across the nation that grants more rights and protections to guns rather than legislation to mitigate the loss of human life to mass shootings and other gun violence. https://t.co/43PnBpqykn
— Senator Anna Hernandez (@ahernandezfor24) March 28, 2023
State Rep. Laura Terech (D-LD04) used the tragedy to promote her legislation barring school blueprints and floor plans from being publicly available.
“The senseless act of violence in Nashville further shows the need for sensible policy to keep our children safe from gun violence,” tweeted Terech. “My bill #HB2075 will keep school blueprints and floorplans [sic] from public view.”
The senseless act of violence in Nashville further shows the need for sensible policy to keep our children safe from gun violence. My bill #HB2075 will keep school blueprints and floorplans from public view. @AZHouseGOP
State Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D-LD18) also promoted Terech’s bill, and said that the deaths were proof that guns were the cause of the school shooting. It has been widely reported that the shooter — a 28-year-old woman that struggled with gender identity issues — had a manifesto which outlines the reason for her killing spree. The manifesto remains unpublished.
“The shooting in Nashville is another failure of the US to stop our gun problem,” stated Gutierrez.
The shooting in Nashville is another failure of the US to stop our gun problem. In AZ, @lauraforAZ intro'd HB2075-it would make blueprints in schools private. Blueprints were used in the Nashville shooting. So, @AZHouseGOP can we see her bill now? @AZHouseDems
— Representative Nancy Gutierrez (@nancygforAZ) March 28, 2023
State Rep. Leezah Sun (D-LD22) blamed those opposing stricter gun control for the deaths.
“We cannot keep letting our children die while we fail to pass gun control on the basis of ‘political differences,’” said Sun.
My heart goes out to families and students in Nashville today. We cannot keep letting our children die while we fail to pass gun control on the basis of “political differences.”
Undercover video revealed that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs’ campaign travels with an AR-15 firearm in the car for protection, contradicting Hobbs’ long-held desire to ban assault weapons.
Hobbs’ head consultant, Joseph Wolf, told an undercover Project Veritas reporter that they traveled with an AR-15 because it was “easier to fire than a handgun.” In a separate clip, Wolf stated that Hobbs would do everything in her power to issue an assault weapons ban.
“There’s nothing she could do about it, at least immediately, right? Except advocating for it publicly, which is really more impactful once you’re governor,” said Wolf. “This state is unfortunately crazy in love with their guns.”
Other undercover videos obtained by Project Veritas showed that grassroots activists assisting with Hobbs’ campaign were troubled by her, especially her refusal to debate Republican opponent Kari Lake. Field organizer Jasper Adams with Mission For Arizona, which is a group funded by the Arizona Democratic Party, disclosed that they had “a lot of concerns” about Hobbs’ campaign.
Adams disclosed further that his group wasn’t privy to the reason behind Hobbs’ refusal to debate Lake. He explained that even Hobbs’ communications director, who he described as freshly hired and not prepared, didn’t know why Hobbs wouldn’t debate Lake. The closest thing to an answer Adams received: the Hobbs campaign wouldn’t need a debate because they wouldn’t lose Democratic voters, and only Democratic voters care about a debate.
“They basically said only Democrats care about debates and it’s not going to change anything,” said Adams. “Either it wouldn’t persuade people one way or the other or it wouldn’t help her.”
Hobbs has long supported a ban on assault weapons, which gun control advocates usually mean to include AR-15s.
We must refuse to accept that nothing can be done about gun violence. Renew the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire for starters. https://t.co/b2eKtdSsLL
While minority leader for the state senate in 2018, Hobbs lamented to Arizona PBSthat the state legislature wasn’t going to ban assault weapons.
“Unfortunately, it’s been business as usual,” said Hobbs. “There seems to be no push to do anything different than we have, and that’s to ignore bills we have put forward that would bring about common sense solutions to end gun violence.”
I literally quoted a list of all the shootings committed w/AR15’s.
Hobbs supports “common-sense gun reform” proposed by groups like Everytown. Their suggested policies include the prohibition of assault weapons, which they classified as high-powered semiautomatic firearms, or AR-15s. (Note: the “AR” in “AR-15” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” it stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” after the company that developed it originally in the 1950s).
Today is #WearOrange Day, which honors the more than 40,000 lives lost to gun violence in America every year. We will always remember you, but we will never forget why you’re gone. We need common-sense gun reform now. @Everytownpic.twitter.com/bzCAl3EDXP
Those opposed to gun control advocates disagree with the characterization of AR-15 as an assault weapon. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade association, argues that assault rifles are fully automatic, like machine guns.
In 1994, Congress included AR-15s in the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” or the “Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” The ban on AR-15s lasted until 2004. A vast majority of the studies on the effects of the ban concluded that its effects were negligible on gun crime.
President Joe Biden claimed last March that the decade-long Federal Assault Weapons Ban resulted in a reduction in mass killings. However, even FactCheckdisputed his claim.
Hobbs has also historically opposed concealed carry. In June, Hobbs decried the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision to strike down New York’s restriction on concealed carry.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
