“Back Our Blue” Says the NRA While Putting “Our Blue” at Risk

In a current NRA video promoting its Back Our Blue–Cars for Freedom donation campaign, Wayne LaPierre says, “Our country’s law enforcement officers represent the best of American courage. Yet today, a deceitful media has put their courage under fire—making the job more dangerous for our police.”


No, actually it is the NRA that makes the job of police officers “more dangerous.”



Thanks to the open carry laws the NRA has successfully gotten on the books in many states, no one stopped police killer Gavin Eugene Long in Baton Rouge in 2016 even though police received a call about a suspicious person carrying a rifle. Open carrying was not unusual so law officers did not have “probable cause” to question Long. Long went on to shoot six police officers and three died. Backing Our Blue?


Thanks to open carry laws, a week earlier in Dallas, Micah Xavier Johnson drew no suspicion from authorities despite being clad in tactical clothing and armed with a rifle. He went on to kill five officers and injure seven others. Backing Our Blue?


(The NRA says such armed citizens have the right to “defend” themselves and others against “bad guys.” Why did none of the Dallas and Baton Rouge open carriers near the police shooter stop the murders? Weren’t they the “good guys with guns” who will stop crime that we always hear about?)


After the Dallas massacre, Police Chief David Brown said, “It’s increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over their shoulder and they’re in a crowd. We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”


Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle police department, agrees. When multiple people on a scene are openly carrying weapons, it is almost impossible to distinguish a law-abiding gun owner from someone who is about to commit a violent crime. It’s “extremely jarring and jolting” for cops to see a gun on open display, even if the law condones it, said Stamper.


“I wish more of our legislators could see past the ideology,” says Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn. “They have no concern about the impact [of open carry] in urban environments that are already plagued by too many guns and too much violence.”


The NRA has no remorse about how open carry laws facilitate police shootings. After the Dallas massacre of police officers, the NRA actually wrote that it would be “the greatest dishonor to their memory” to allow “the Democratic establishment” to pass stronger gun safety laws. Bereaved families would likely not have minded stronger gun safety laws.


A quick look at NRA history shows similar disregard for “Our Blue.” In 1980 and again in 2015, the NRA vigorously opposed a ban on “cop killer” bullets which are capable of piercing the light body armor typically worn by police; many types are readily available today. Now, the NRA is lobbying for lifting restrictions on silencers an unabashed pro-criminal action that will disable law enforcement gunshot detection and location systems.


No, it is not a “deceitful media” making the job more dangerous for our police––it is a deceitful NRA that does not “Back Our Blue” at all.


Is There Anyone Who CAN’T Buy a Gun in the U.S.?

The gun lobby loves the fact that the public quickly forgets mass shootings. Who, for example, remembers the Vegas shooting? It has been a whole six weeks. Who remembers the First Baptist Church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas? It has been a whole two weeks.


As long as the public forgets mass shootings (except, of course, victims’ families) no one asks why it is legal for someone to buy 33 guns in 12 months (the Vegas shooter) or buy guns despite domestic and animal abuse charges (the Sutherland Springs shooter).



An estimated 85 percent of all U.S. mass shooters are legal gun owners––the so-called “good guys” who laws should not infringe upon, say gun lobbyists. That is why when a terrorist opened fire at an Armed Forces Career Center and U.S. Navy Reserve center in 2015, killing four Marines and a sailor and wounding a police officer, the gun lobby tried to blame the murders on a “gun-free zone” instead of laws that let a terrorist buy guns.


They were wrong. Military Times reported, “At least two service members involved in the Chattanooga shooting were carrying personal weapons during the attack, in possible violation of current military rules, and unsuccessfully returned fire in an attempt to stop the homicidal gunman.”


That is also why when 18 police officers were shot in Dallas and Baton Rouge in 2016, the gun lobby refused to address the laws that let such murderers buy their guns legally despite clear red flags.


Existing laws allowed the 2015 Charleston, Roanoke and Umpqua Community College killers to buy legal guns. They allowed the 2013 Washington Naval Yard killer to buy guns legally. (Like other mass shooters, he had a military misconduct record.) Existing laws let Alice Boland, a suspect in a botched school shooting in South Carolina, pass a background check in 2013 despite being charged in 2005 with threatening to assassinate President George W. Bush. 


Is there anyone who can’t buy a gun?


Violent people legally buying guns is not a new issue. Headlines in Chicago in 1988 read “Laws Failing To Keep Guns Out Of Hands Of Disturbed,” and “Suspect Had History Of Bizarre Acts,” when Laurie Dann shot six students at the suburban Hubbard Woods Elementary School.


Dann had been investigated by authorities in three states for repeated threats to kill people and had even stabbed her ex-husband with an ice pick. Yet Dann had no trouble purchasing a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, telling the salesman that she needed it for self-defense according to published reports.


Ten years later, also in suburban Chicago, white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel went on a racist shooting spree murdering the African American Ricky Byrdsong, the former Northwestern University Men’s Basketball Coach, a 26-year-old Korean doctoral student and wounding nine Orthodox Jews and an African-American minister.


Smith was issued a gun owner’s ID card by the state of Illinois, which enables someone to buy guns, two weeks before the shootings. Illinois police said his background check did not reveal an order of protection filed by an ex-girlfriend. Smith also disseminated hate literature at Indiana University and officials say he was known for peeping into women’s windows and drug use which did not prevent his gun owner’s ID card.


In 2006 in Goleta, California, Jennifer San Marco killed six at a postal facility and a neighbor. The murderer was known for shouting furiously to herself, peeling off her clothes in random parking lots and kneeling in prayer by the roadside but passed her background check and bought a gun legally anyway…


“Criminals don’t obey laws” and “all we need to do is enforce existing laws” are the gun lobby’s two favorite mantras to stop new and better gun laws. Yet both are clearly lies and each new mass shooting refutes them.


Levels Of Stupidity: No Trump, “Hundreds More” Would Not Have Been Killed In Texas With Stricter Gun Laws

by Elliot Fineman
CEO – Founder
National Gun Victims Action Council


November 8, 2017


Always eager to discredit gun safety laws, pro-gunners generally utilize outright lies, made-up facts and delusional opinions. But Tuesday’s remarks by President Trump sank to a new level: outright stupidity.


Let’s see if we understand the facts correctly. (Excuse me for using facts––it is a hard habit to kick.) Of a congregation of about 50, according to the New York Daily News, 26 were killed and 20 wounded in this week’s horrific massacre at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. That leaves about four people who were unscathed.



LEVEL OF STUPIDITY ONE: President Trump said “hundreds more” would have died in the massacre had not the killer been confronted by someone with a gun. But only four were left unscathed—how can it be that “hundreds more” would have died?


LEVEL OF STUPIDITY TWO: Trump says a “very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck” saved lives. In point of fact, Stephen Willeford, (the “very brave person) was at home not in his truck when he heard gun shots and decided to intervene. Willeford said he loaded his magazine and hurried to the church where he saw the killer and exchanged fire as the killer was leaving the church. The shootout happened after the killer had already committed the carnage with the 450 bullets he shot. Rather than the “hundreds more” Trump said would have been killed, there were about four people left in the church uninjured. (Math is not Trump’s strong suit.)


LEVEL OF STUPIDITY THREE: When asked if he would consider “extreme vetting” for purchasing a gun, Trump said with such vetting “you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him and hit him and neutralize him.”


Let’s see. The shooter was not neutralized, he had already committed their heinous act. However, If we did extreme vetting of the First Baptist church shooter, we would have known that he escaped from a mental facility in 2012, that he had a history of domestic violence and animal cruelty and possibly we would have found out about his court martial in the Air Force. He would not have been allowed to buy guns.


Further—Trump seems to be suggesting that the “brave person” might not have passed extreme vetting in which case he would be a “bad guy” with a gun stopping a “bad guy” with a gun. If I understand Trump correctly, there is no point in denying anybody a gun because it takes either a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.


The levels of stupidity are mind boggling!!!


How can we do extreme vetting? We have done it quite successfully for machine gun private sales and transfers for many decades. I discuss extreme vetting as the basis for background checks in depth in a book I am writing that will be available by early spring.






“Function” Versus “Form”–Banning Bump Stocks



by Elliot Fineman

CEO – Founder

National Gun Victims Action Council


October 10, 2017



There is a lot of excitement today in the media and at a number of Gun Violence Prevention Groups though not at NGVAC. They are pleased to see some bi-partisanship support for banning bump stocks and to hear that the NRA has indicated it would support such an initiative. Many are pleased that any gun regulation at the federal level is being considered at all.


Bump stocks allow the conversion of semi-automatics––which can shoot 80 – 100 bullets per minute––to fully automatic which can shoot 600 – 800 bullets per minute. They are sold by gun dealers now—as are other devices that do the same thing. They are the most popular because they are the cheapest of the devices (costing between $100 and $200).


Actually, the NRA––which has blocked all gun safety laws for more than 40 years––has not suddenly become reasonable: it is up to its old tricks. The NRA has only agreed to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) review bump stock regulations to prevent a congressional vote on the record for any federal gun control regulation. (The NRA always promotes its irrational “slippery slope” argument i.e., if we ban bump stocks it is the first step to “taking your guns away.”)


There is another reason the NRA prefers to deal with the ATF rather than Congress. It was the ATF that shockingly ruled in 2010 that bump stocks are not covered by any gun regulation because they are “parts.” Moreover, ATF rules can be overridden by executive actions unlike congressional actions.


However, if the ATF does not act and the fate of bump stocks is in the hands of Congress, the NRA has a second trick up its sleeve. It will offer to trade its “leniency” on bump stocks for passage of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This shocking bill would let gun owners with concealed carry permits issued in any state—including states that do not require training or permitting as a requirement for carrying— legally carry their weapons in any state.


At NGVAC we believe the gun violence prevention groups should avoid arguments with the pro- gunners and the NRA about the construct (form) of the gun and how to prevent it from being converted to a fully automatic. These are trivial issues to debate and are completely beside the point as you can see in this graphic.




The law that is needed is: no one can have a gun––whether semi-automatic, assault weapon, sporting rifle, handgun etc.—

that can shoot more than 10 bullets per minute. It is the function of the gun not the form that makes it so lethal. This means magazines cannot exceed 10 bullets and a ban on possession or sale of any adaptive devices that expand the limit of 10 bullets per minute.


How can we get a magazine limit of no more 10 bullets per minute passed at the federal level? How can we ban any conversion devices? I discuss this in depth in a book I am writing that will be available by early spring.






Why Is this Sniper Weapon Still Legal?

October 5, 2017


It has been over three years since NGVAC called for banning of the sale of the Precision Guided Firearm (PGF) TrackingPoint. A smart scope military-style sniper rifle, TrackingPoint, allows someone who has never fired a gun before to hit a target the size of a soup can from 1,000 yards away—that’s 10 football fields or over half a mile. Until this weapon, only a few, elite, military-trained snipers could achieve this skill level.


Ads promise civilians “mission dominance, force multiplication, and remarkable battle overmatch in the war on radical Islamic terrorism.” They also show how the sniper weapon turns a 12-year-old girl “into a sniper.”



When we called for the ban, the TrackingPoint application was amazingly distributed by the tech giants Apple or Google. The CEOs of the firms did not respond to our letters about the dangers to public safety they were enabling by selling such ghoulish aps for TrackingPoint’s rifles.


While we did not hear from either tech giant, Anson Gordon, a spokesman for the TrackingPoint sniper weapon, called our action “a direct attack on our guns and our freedom,” adding “If we start banning technology like this, what’s next? What scope is next? What firearm is next? We have to stand together to prevent this kind of erosion of our constitutional rights.”


The pro-gun press got on the bandwagon defending the extreme sniper weapon with no defensive or sporting use with cries of “victimhood” and the “slippery slope.”


“And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions,” bewailed one blog!


“Your Hunting Rifle Is Next,” wailed a similar blog.


The Vegas massacre is only the latest example of a nation terrorized by snipers. In 2014, when sniper Eric Frein was at large in the Pennsylvania woods, schools were closed and parents were terrified about their children’s safety. Frein was sentenced to death for the 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack in which he shot and killed one State Trooper and seriously injured another.


In October, 2002 snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo kept the Washington region paralyzed for three weeks as they killed people who were pumping gas, shopping, walking to school, mowing lawns and going to restaurants. During the the Beltway sniper attacks, ten people were killed and three others critically injured in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.


The Vegas incident has opened a new chapter in gun violence and law enforcement. Outdoor events are especially in jeopardy. Why is the TrackingPoint sniper rifle with which criminals can easily target a Supreme Court Justice, politician or school bus driver from a half mile away, legal?


Are Groups Of White Armed Vigilantes Militias Or Racist Gangs?



by Elliot Fineman
CEO – Founder
National Gun Victims Action Council

 September 10, 2017

The hate groups that converged on Charlottesville last month––neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, white nationalists––were so well armed, they looked like an  invading army wrote the New York Times. “They had better equipment than our State Police had,” said Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.


These armed vigilantes invariably say they are militias exercising their Second Amendment rights not lawless, hateful gangs intimidating minorities. Yet, while they claim they do not intimidate minorities, the only place they ever seem to appear is in minority neighborhoods.


They impersonate police or military when in fact they are self-directed lawbreakers who feel justified in shooting anyone they––in their own minds––deem a “threat.” They want to serve as judge, jury and executioner.


Similar vigilante gangs were seen in Ferguson, Missouri in 2015 after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer in 2014. Members of the right-wing group Oath Keepers who say they serve “military, police, and citizens who pledge to fulfill the oath to defend the Constitution” (while they violate it) roamed the mostly black community with assault weapons.


If armed right-wing groups are “militias” to whom do they report? Who gives them orders and discipline? Who inspects and directs them? The Second Amendment clearly specifies a “well-regulated” militia which these self-regulated groups are not.


These unofficial armed groups are racist gangs symbolically trying to bring back the days of slavery when official state militias prevented slave uprisings. In fact, the only reason we have the Second Amendment was to enable the horror of slavery to continue.


Slavery was the heart of the economic life of the slave states—without forced labor their economies could not survive. The state militias were used to control slaves and to suppress rebellion. They employed brutal methods of terror such as murder and arson––methods which later would be adopted by the Ku Klux Klan. State militias were required because the slave population was such a large proportion of the total state population.


For example, as per the 1790 census, in Virginia slaves were 39 percent of the total population, in South Carolina 43 percent and in Maryland 32 percent.


Committing to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights removed the threat of Congress using its constitutionally granted power to disarm the state militias. This was the price that had to be paid for ratification.


Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, reminded the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Richmond in 1788 that “The militia were the last and best defense against slave insurrection.” 


Today’s white armed vigilante gangs are not patriots defending the Constitution or aiding law enforcement officers. They echo the horror of the slave state militias and eagerly carry on this racist tradition.







Is There a Gun Violence Tipping Point? No––History Shows It’s a “Tripping Point”

by Elliot Fineman



July 23, 2017


After every horrific mass shooting, Gun Violence Prevention Groups (GVPGs) and the general public express hopes that we have finally reached a “tipping point.” A point where gun violence has became so epidemic––so prevalent, so deadly, so over-the-top––that lawmakers will have to act. Certainly many thought after the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in 2011, lawmakers would act since one of their own was shot.




Giffords and 18 others were shot and six died during a constituent meeting at a Tucson supermarket parking lot by a legal gun owner, who was conceal and carrying because of Arizona laws. A month before the massacre, he passed a background check which allowed him to buy the 9-mm Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun used in the shootings. Being suspended by Pima Community College for mental illness and denied admission into the Army did not prevent him passing his background check.


The public, already shaken by the violent attack on lawmakers, was then sent reeling the next year––first by the Sandy Hook massacre and then the Aurora movie theater massacre. Neither were the “tipping points” the public expected and wanted.


On the contrary, history shows that what is expected to be a tipping point is actually a tripping point. Mass shootings make federal lawmakers more hostile to gun safety laws.


Consider this: After the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, both Senators in 17 states voted against Universal Background Checks (UBCs)–a background check for every gun sold. After the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, that number jumped to both Senators in 19 states voting against UBCs. And after the 2016 Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting–the deadliest shooting in U.S. history? The number jumped to both Senators in 23 states voted against UBCs––a 35 percent increase since Sandy Hook.


Even after the shooting at the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity a tipping point was not reached. Just the opposite occurred. The Congressional response was to pursue loosening the gun laws––allowing more people to carry in more places for self-defense. Despite the anecdotal claims and bellowing of the gun lobby and gun extremists, it has been proven over and over by rigorous studies that carrying a gun does not provide self-defense. If it did, no police officers would ever get killed. The element of surprise always defeats the gun carrier.



There are two things common to every mass shooting. First, the killer is almost always a legal gun owner who passed their background check despite clear signs of violent behavior or mental illness. And second, despite the horrific violence and the overwhelming desire of the public for gun safety laws, it is a certainty that the Congressional response will be to loosen gun laws. In gun “Wonderland” the tipping point always becomes a tripping point.


Arrested For Drugs, Harassment, Robbery, Sexual Assault and Worse But Allowed to Keep a Gun? Yes and He Killed With It Last Week

The triple murder in Gardendale, Alabama last week for which authorities blame Kenneth Lever barely made the news. Gun owners who get mad and kill their wives and other family members happen too frequently to rate headlines anymore.


But the case of Kenneth Dion Lever is grislier than most. In addition to charges of deviant sexual intercourse with a child, aggravated indecent sexual assault of a child, indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, corruption of minors and dissemination of explicit sexual material of a minor, the gunman also had a rap sheet that included arrests for drug possession, robbery and assault reports New York Daily News. Dana Lever, the gunman’s ex-wife had filed for an order of protection just months ago in December 2016.


Despite the order of protection police say Lever was laying in wait and ambushed his ex-wife, her sister Bonnie Reeves Foshee and her sister’s husband Don Austin Foshee, shooting them all fatally. Despite his charges and even time in jail, Lever still had his gun.


“It was obvious it was a well-thought-out plan,” said Gardendale police Lt. Bryan Lynch. “He came for that reason. We don’t know if he was targeting all three, or if that’s just how it happened.”


Why did Lever still have his gun? According to the York Daily Record/Sunday News, “In Alabama, if a judge finds that there was enough evidence of abuse for a permanent PFA [protection from abuse petition], a defendant can’t be in possession of a firearm.” But, under a temporary PFA order it is “not a requirement” for someone to give up his weapon and Lever was under a temporary order.


The lenient laws that favor domestic abusers over their families are common in the U.S. thanks to the gun lobby. Why should someone be denied his right to a gun for a “mere” misdemeanor of domestic violence Justice Clarence Thomas famously asked last year. The gun lobby works passionately under the radar for the “gun rights” of convicted felons, people charged with domestic abuse and people who have been hospitalized for mental illness. It also passionately believes people on the Terror Watch and No-Fly lists should be able to buy and own guns. We wish we were making this up.



We lay the three deaths of innocent people in Alabama last week by a perpetrator clearly intent of such violence at the feet of the gun lobby. The gun lobby places “gun rights” over the lives of innocent Americans and blatantly helps the criminals it says it is against.








Shoot the Left Wing Demonstrators Says the NRA…But Buy Our Insurance First


July 1, 2017


By now, most people have seen the creepy, menacing NRA ad by TV and talk radio host Dana Loesch. Over footage of street rioting, she intones:


“They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler…[they] smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness…The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.”


No wonder, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. tweeted “I think the @NRA is telling people to shoot us.”


This is not the first time the NRA has used images of rioting minorities and left wingers to grow members.


Ten years ago, an NRA brochure called “Freedom in Peril,” (pictured) leaked to the press, shows an Aryan nation under siege by “illegal alien gangs” and darker peoples and homeowners defending themselves by shooting from their rooftops.


The 27 page brochure attacked Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Michael Moore, George Soros, Rosie O’Donnell and even the United Nations. (“The U.N. represents the world’s wealthiest and most organized enemy of the very freedoms our nation offers to all. They’ve already been successful in orchestrating gun bans in once-free countries like England, Australia, Canada and South Africa.”)




At NGVAC we have pointed out for five years how the NRA plays both sides of the street—fighting laws to keep “bad guys” from getting guns and then yelling to the rooftop set “the bad guys have guns” to sell more guns.


Dana Loesch’s ad is another example of playing both side of the street. Before you shoot those demonstrators says Loesch in a simultaneous ad for Carry GuardTM, buy NRA insurance.


“The truth is, right behind your firearm, your second most important self-defense protection is a rock-solid carry policy,” Loesch says. “Today’s America is the most lawsuit-happy culture in the history of the world. And gun owners face the extra threat of widespread bias and misunderstanding. In this environment, if you are going to carry a firearm in self-defense, you have no choice but to find the strongest, most comprehensive coverage from the most trusted name you can find.”


After you shoot these demonstrators, the NRA’s Carry GuardTM will provide you “immediate access as needed to supplementary payments for bail, bonds, legal retainer fees, firearm replacement, compensation while in court, psychological support and cleanup costs,” says Loesch.


Yes, the same “clenched fist of truth” that is “freedom’s safest place” will also sell you insurance.


June 24, 2017



Elliot Fineman

CEO – Founder
National Gun Victims Action Council


Less than two years ago, attackers killed 89 at the Bataclan theatre in Paris and injured another 368 people. Donald Trump, Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, unable to wait for the three days of mourning then-President Hollande had called for, declared “if only the people in the theater had been armed things would have been different.”


While campaigning for the presidency, Donald Trump continued to blame gun violence on “gun-free zones.” For example, he said, the 89 who died in the Bataclan theater in Paris might be alive today if they had been armed. He did not explain how, in the dark, the thousands of people in the audience––having pulled their guns out––would know the good guys holding guns from the bad and not shoot each other or innocent bystanders. Nor did he explain how untrained carriers would shoot accurately when studies show that fully trained police officers in the U.S. miss seven out of 10 shots.


Now, after last week’s shooting of Republican members of Congress while they practiced for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity, the same ignorant and opportunistic talk is emerging. The problem wasn’t that a clearly unbalanced and violent person could legally buy assault weapons, the problem was baseball playing lawmakers were unarmed said both Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Tom Garrett of Virginia.




The gunman at the baseball practice carried a legally purchased 9-millimeter handgun and a SKS 7.62-millimeter semiautomatic assault rifle which he bought despite domestic and gun violence charges in his past and widely reported alcoholism. He was able to fire 60 shots before being subdued.


More than 200 rounds of ammunition and additional SKS rifle components were found in a storage unit the gunman had rented.


Like the Paris nightclub shootings, the carnage could not have been stopped by untrained, fearful lawmakers and their aids. In fact, two armed Capitol Police officers themselves were wounded and did not stop the gunman.


Recently, NGVAC tested gun carrier self-defense with 77 volunteers at the Prince George’s County police department in Maryland with Mount St. Mary’s University criminologist professors. Even with their guns drawn (so they would not lose time retrieving them from holsters), civilians, including highly trained ones, were unable to approach the accuracy and judgment of trained police officers in all scenarios.


Civilians were “killed” despite their weapons, failed to stop the bad guys and even “shot” at unarmed bad guys. Civilians didn’t even take cover reported the Washington Post on our research. “They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.”


To blame the baseball shootings from which Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana is still recovering on the baseball players being unarmed is an insult to the intelligence of the public and lawmakers. But it keeps the discussion away from questioning why unbalanced, violent citizens—intent on murder—can legally buy all the guns they want including military style weapons.


National Gun Victims Action Council