The Mall in Columbia Shooting: What We Should Have Learned by Now

The Baltimore Sun published an extensive article (which you can access here) that covers the shooting at The Mall in Columbia on January 25 of this year. After reading the piece, I could do nothing but shake my head as the chilling details sounded all too familiar. After the Newtown tragedy, I had become heavily engaged in researching and commenting on gun control issues, including the factors commonly found around mass shooting incidents. This incident at The Mall in Columbia was a textbook case of points that gun rights advocates have been stating all along, but these points seem to fall on deaf ears, or at least they fail to sway those who have an agenda to disarm law abiding citizens.

Key Points

1. The shooter was inspired by the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. He waited until the exact time that the Columbine shooters began their shooting spree to start his own shooting spree. He even committed suicide in the same manner as one of the Columbine shooters.

2. The shooter suffered from mental health issues and indicated in his journal that he had been hearing voices in his head. He also indicated a lack of emotions and feeling of empathy. Although he admitted to hearing voices to a doctor, he did not seek or receive any treatment afterwards.

3. The shooter had been planning the incident for months prior to the January 25th incident. He had been researching mass shootings, especially Columbine.

4. The shooter brought plenty of ammunition and even a bomb that did not detonate. The police have no answer as to why he chose to end his shooting spree at the time he did, as he could have easily kept the shooting spree going.

5. The shooter carried out his plans with a Mossberg 500 shotgun that he purchased on December 10, 2013, well after Maryland's new Firearms Safety Act went into effect on October 1st of the same year, which included an "assault weapons" ban. The shotgun that was used is one of the more popular shotguns available, and is not considered an "assault weapon." It is clear that the shooter had time to reload and plenty of ammo to use. The shooter fired 9 rounds, which is more than this particular shotgun can hold at one time.

During the press conference that revealed all of these details, Howard County Police Chief William McMahon pointed out the need to focus on mental illness. This is something that many gun rights advocates have been saying all along. Nothing in Maryland's Firearms Safety Act of 2013 does anything to address situations like this despite the fact that the Newtown incident, which shares many of the key points above, was used as an excuse to pass the legislation.

I'll leave you with this quote from Mr. Vincent DeMarco of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence and my reaction.

Based on what we know, this tragedy could have been much worse. The shooter bought the shotgun he used at a gun store in Rockville, MD in Decemeber of 2013. This was after Maryland's new Firearm Saftey Act of 2013 went into effect on October 1. As a result, the shooter was not able to buy an assault weapon or a magazine that could fire more than 10 bullets at one time. We will never know how many lives were saved because he could not buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47.  We hope this will inspire other states and the federal government to also ban these weapons of mass destruction.

Thank goodness that the shooter didn't choose to emulate the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters and just bought multiple guns with multiple magazines and ammunition. At the end of the day, the tool doesn't matter. It's the mindset of the individual that does matter, but I'm sure for people like Vincent DeMarco, they can't be bothered with things like that when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

Minor edit: Although this was not brought up in the original Baltimore Sun article, another key point that this incident shares with almost every other incident is that it happened in a gun free zone. However, in Maryland a carry permit is almost impossible to obtain anyways since Maryland is a "may issue" state.

Bad Journalism Spreading Misinformation

Facebook issued a statement due to pressure from anti-gun groups to take down gun-related pages. Anti-gun groups have stated that anyone can buy a gun on Facebook without a background check, a claim which is patently false. Facebook's policy statement in reaction to the anti-gun groups highlights two key elements on how they will handle gun related posts. The first is that Facebook will now prevent minors from viewing posts related to firearms. The second is that any user who sets up a transaction via Facebook is reminded to follow the law, and that they cannot advertise a willingness to evade the law. That's it. Nothing too big right?

Well not if you follow the mainstream media like USA Today who touted this as a major victory for gun control groups. The author, Natalie DiBlasio reports:

"The social media giant is blocking minors from seeing postings of gun sales and will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines."

However that is not what the statement by Facebook lays out. Facebook's statement says:

"We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer."

Again, Facebook is basically saying that people cannot advertise a willingness to break current firearms laws. A private transaction can still be arranged through Facebook for a gun sale as long as it follows the law.

Based upon this false information, Natalie DiBlasio reports that the Facebook statement is a major win for gun control groups. I'm sure it would be if only it were true.

Update:

After going back and forth with Ms. DiBlasio on Twitter, I confirmed with a Facebook representative that posts promoting a private gun offer will remain on Facebook as long as they do not violate Facebook community standards. Per my email exchange with said Facebook representative, these standards are:

• Does the post include a specific indication that the person is willing to evade or help others evade the law?  If so, we will remove the post. If not, it will remain on Facebook.
  • Two examples we’ve pointed out as specific indications are offers that demonstrate a willingness to sell a firearm across state lines without a licensed dealer; and offers where someone specifies no background check is required.  
• Does the post include a specific, direct threat against another person’s (or group’s) safety? If so, we will remove the post and potentially notify law enforcement. If not, it will remain on Facebook.

This confirms that Natalie DiBlasio's article is providing false information about Facebook policy. The statement that the social media network will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines are not being taken down. The policy simply states that you can not advertise a willingness to evade or help others evade the law.

Media Plays on Audience's Liberal Bias?

I'll leave this screen captures here of IGN.com's main page. You'll notice the different headlines, but the headline for the article in the showcase for the promoted articles is very different from the original title of the article. It seems like someone changed the headline in order to get more clicks / views from their liberal audience.

If you are a news organization, you are not at liberty to lie or mislead your audience. Your job is to provide information, not misinformation. Where's the accountability?

Even in Chicago a Good Guy With a Gun Can Stop a Bad Guy With One

This story from The Blaze made me think for a bit. Long story short, three thugs decide to commit armed robbery with a gun against a person at a gas station who happened to be filling up their car with gas. As the events unfold, the story ends with the one dead robber, two criminals on the run, and the victim alive and well, all because the victim had his own gun to defend himself. The real kicker is that all of this unfolded in the rabidly anti-gun city of Chicago, where its impossible for law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm to defend themselves. Well except for law enforcement, as it so happens that the victim was an off-duty Sheriff's sergeant.

But what if the victim wasn't law enforcement? What would have happened to another less fortunate law abiding citizen? They wouldn't have had any means to defend themselves at all, and they would have totally been at the mercy of the armed robbers. By definition, criminals don't obey laws, so all the anti-gun laws and policy in Chicago has done is create a populace of victims.

I'll leave the reader with this thought. If you make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms to defend themselves, then of course all you are going to hear is people using firearms for nefarious purposes. Anti-gun policy sets the stage for nothing but news of bad guys committing heinous crimes with guns, while making a good guy will not be able to defend themselves with a gun. Maybe that's why gun control advocates say self defense with guns rarely happens… because they want to make it impossible for it to happen.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak Resigns Rather Than Face Recall

As some might remember earlier this year, two Colorado state senators, Senate Pres. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, were successfully recalled by their constituents in historic election, that was prompted by their support and subsequent passage of wildly unpopular gun control laws. Not long after the historic recall election, that same energy was put forth in an effort to recall another state senator, Evie Hudak, who supported the same gun control legislation.

What was at stake though was control of the Senate by the Democrats. If Hudak were to be successfully recalled she would be replaced by a Republican, which would give the Republicans control of the state Senate. However, rather than face a recall, Sen. Hudak has decided to resign.

Her reasons were that it would protect the newly passed, and unpopular, gun laws which were one of the major reasons why she was being recalled in the first place, by allowing another Democrat to replace her. Another reason why these Senators were facing recalls is that they chose not to listen to the interests of their constituents, and instead to national politics. Not only is this resignation a slap in the face to the good people of Colorado, but it also confirms the latter point of the recall.

The democrats in this instance have conceded that the legislation is unpopular and that Sen. Hudak would have likely lost the recall election she faced. Basically they do not wish to abide by the will of the people.

These politicians are putting politics and party as a priority instead of the people who they are supposed to be representing. Ms. Hudak and her ilk are the reason why faith int he democratic process is dwindling. They would rather game the system and advance their agendas rather than listen to their constituents. To these types of politicians I say good riddance.

Police Misconduct and Arrogance vs. Your Second Amendment Rights

Earlier this year, C.J. Grisham was out hiking with his son along a Temple, Texas road, when they were approached by a Temple Police Officer. Grisham is carrying an AR-15 latched to his chest which is completely legal in the state of Texas. The officer instructs Grisham not to touch the firearm, and Grisham complies, however the situation escalates as the officer grabs the rifle and can be seen attempting to unlatch it from Grisham without prior instruction or consent that he was going to disarm Grisham.

At this point, Grisham grabs the stock of his rifle saying that the officer shouldn't be disarming him, and what follows is a stunning display of police arrogance and misconduct.

The initial reason given as to why Grisham was stopped was that police received a call of someone walking around with a rifle, again, something that is completely legal under Texas law. The officer stated that Grisham was "rudely" displaying his rifle, whatever that means.

During the encounter, more police officers, including a superior officer, join in on the situation. Some of the most shocking displays of police arrogance come when the superior officers claim they are "above the law" meaning they can disarm you whenever they want. If you are not breaking the law or not a danger, I would ask, how is it that agents of the state can so willfully proclaim that they can "disarm" you whenever they so please?

This makes me wonder, do these officers really think they are above the law? Do they even know what the laws they are supposed to follow and enforce are? Have they even read the United States Constitution, including the Second Amendment?

Many police officers deserve the utmost respect because their jobs are difficult, but especially because they have the responsibility of enforcing the rule of law. However, the rule of law applies to everyone equally and the fact that one puts on a badge and uniform does not exempt them from the law, but it holds you to a higher level of scrutiny. These officers displayed the utmost contempt for the laws they were meant to uphold, and the unfortunate victims of this are the great citizens of this country.

How Gun Control Advocates Manipulate the Debate

We've all heard the terms in the gun control debate: assault weapon, weapons of war, military-style weapons, arsenal, and rapid fire killing machines capable of spraying bullets. It's about time we call "assault weapons" what they actually are: semiautomatic firearms that fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. They are not the same weapons that our military uses, nor are they the ones used in war. What we call these firearms does matter if we want to have a healthy discussion about them.

After watching the video below, I felt compelled to write this article. As the presenter in the video points out, labels are a very powerful way to control the debate before the debate even gets started. If you call something an "assault weapon" or a "rapid fire killing machine," you've already limited any meaningful discussion of the topic. Surely no one wants anyone to have a rapid fire killing machine!



Consider the difference in impact of these two statements, where the first is a quote from President Obama:

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a weapon of war.”

Versus …

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a semiautomatic firearm."

Notice the difference?

Even when our politicians reference these firearms as "military style guns," they are already making that decision for us, that these should not belong to the ordinary citizen because they only have military uses, when in fact that is not true. When Obama calls these firearms "weapons of war," he is already planting the seed in our minds that these firearms are meant only for "war," when in fact they are used for other purposes.

Furthermore, labels can also be used to elicit emotions like fear, insecurity, and disdain. When gun control advocates call these guns "weapons of war" or "military-style assault weapons," they are already assigning a negative connotation to these guns. Our politicians in turn can use these negative emotions to garner support for legislation that they say will make us safer.

Instead of calling the new gun control legislation an "assault weapons ban," maybe we should call it a "scary semiautomatic firearms ban." What we name this new legislation matters *cough* PATRIOT Act *cough*.

These labels are used to control what we think about certain things even before the discussion starts. They can also be used to control people's emotions and thoughts on a particular subject. In that sense, the language of labeling becomes more powerful than any gun can ever be, especially in the hands of a politician.