This week I have been writing a great deal about gun rights, just not on this blog. Below are links to the blogs I’ve been writing over at The Truth About Guns, a great blog that covers everything from gun reviews to self-defense tactics to hunting gear to politics. You can guess what I have been writing about. Here are links to some of my latest pieces:
Since we are talking gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook, how about we talk a little media control? The Sandy Hook murderer was a disturbed young man, but being disturbed doesn’t mean they are stupid or irrational – at least not irrational within the confines of their own mind.
As part of a “conversation” about what to do in response to mass shootings, I’ve written on a series of myths about defensive gun uses. I’ve covered The Training Myth, The Myth of the Imperiled Bystander and The Myth of the Confused First Responder. They’re intended to answer objections posed by some of my friends who are, to some degree, anti-gun. We’ll see how that works out.
Among the many imagined scenarios for those who object to arming citizens in facilities attractive to spree killers is first responders not knowing the good guy from the bad guy. This is indeed possible, but like most of the objections raised by promoters of gun free zones, unlikely. Here’s why . . .
When someone suggests eliminating gun free zones like schools and shopping malls, one of the imagined scenarios that prompts people to shriek and hike up their skirts is the specter of innocent bystanders being hosed down with lead. Like most such things, this is not a real-world eventuality.
One common objection to armed citizens being welcomed into what are now designated “gun free zones” are fears that a lack of training will put that person and those around him or her at risk.