Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[gun safety]]>

Why asking if guns are in the house is rude and should end

by Leave a Comment

Parents want their children to be safe. I’m a parent. I get it. I truly do.

If your kid is going over to hang out with someone and you don’t know their parents particularly well, you’re going to have questions. You should.

One common concern among some is whether there are guns in the house.

While I could take issue with that being a concern, I won’t. After all, irresponsible gun owners may leave a firearm around and a curious kid could pick it up. Even if it’s not your kid doing so, they could still get hurt.

So yeah, I get the concern.

But a lot of people really think this is good advice:

“Do you have a gun in your home?”

It’s not an easy question to ask, and some parents may have difficulty bringing up the topic before a sleepover or play date, but it’s something every parent has a right to know — and the answer may save a child’s life.

Pennsylvania mom Kate Baer told TODAY Parents that gun violence is a topic she can’t let go of. The best-selling author said the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is never far from her mind, but it’s something she rarely discusses.

…

Baer, a mom of four, told TODAY that Moms Demand Action, founded by Shannon Watts after Sandy Hook, has been a tremendous help for people like her who need something to do with their grief.

“One of the things they talk about is having conversations before play dates about if there are guns in the house, and if so, making sure they are stored safely,” Baer said. “Yeah, it’s kind of awkward, but it’s also a pretty easy action step.”

Parenting expert Jo Frost, formerly of the television series “Supernanny,” agreed.

“Americans have a right to bear arms in the Second Amendment,” Frost said, adding that the issue is not a debate over personal views on gun ownership. “And parents have a right to ask questions.”

Oh, they absolutely have a right to ask questions.

But maybe taking your cues on which question to ask from a group whose end game seems to be effectively ending private gun ownership in this country isn’t the best option.

See, the question, “Do you have a gun in your home?” is a rather personal one. Especially in a day and age when a lot of people would like to make it illegal for anyone to have one and when gun owners are constantly stigmatized.

Asking that question is blunt, but more importantly, it’s rude as hell.

You don’t have a right to know whether I have a firearm or not. You have a right to know whether your child will be safe, but not what I own or don’t own.

Rather than asking if someone has a gun, it might be better to say something like, “I just want to make sure that anything dangerous like knives, guns, cleaning chemicals, etc are kept out of reach?”

Not only does that cover guns, but you’re also not actually asking if they have one. You’re covering a lot of bases–bases that should also be covered if we’re being honest because kids can hurt themselves with plenty of other things.

Couple that with instructing your child what to do if they do find a gun lying around–as well as what to do if one of their friends finds one and picked it up–and you’ve covered pretty much all the relevant basis without prying into the lives of someone else.

The truth is that many gun owners aren’t going to tell you they own a gun. It’s none of your business, for one thing, but there are also concerns about people knowing what we have. If gun confiscation ever becomes a thing, a lot of us would just as soon no one knew if we had a gun or not.

By asking that question, you’re prying into something they’re necessarily going to be honest about.

But by asking the question more broadly without delving into just one specific item, you cover the same basis without looking like a prying, nosy ass.

I know Shannon Watts thinks you should do things differently, but what else do you expect from the original Karen?

“Rust” armorer claims Baldwin skipped gun training session

by Leave a Comment

Alec Baldwin still hasn’t turned over his cell phone to authorities investigating the fatal shooting of cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the set of his movie “Rust” back in October, despite a valid search warrant for the device. Baldwin’s civil attorney claimed on Thursday that the phone “is being turned over this week,” which would indicate the sheriff will get the phone sometime today, but we’ll have to wait and see if that pans out.

Meanwhile, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the 24-year old armorer on the set of the independent film, alleges in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday that Baldwin skipped a firearms training session during the film’s production; one that directly related to the cross-draw he was supposedly practicing when his revolver fired.

The lawsuit says Gutierrez-Reed asked Baldwin to schedule the training on October 15, less than a week before the fatal shooting but she never heard back from the actor.

A lawyer representing Baldwin didn’t immediately respond Thursday to Insider’s request for comment. New Mexico authorities have issued a search warrant for Baldwin’s phone as part of their investigation.

Gutierrez-Reed’s lawsuit says she was not inside the mock church when Baldwin shot the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the afternoon of October 21 because she believed that no gun-related rehearsing was underway. The suit adds that she also knew the film set’s COVID-19 protocols advised against a large number of people crowding inside an enclosed space.

The lawsuit says no one called Gutierrez-Reed back into the church when Baldwin began rehearsing the scene, which involved a cross draw, even though her presence was required for any gun-related filming or rehearsing.

“Hannah did not see the weapon, nor did she have custody of it for approximately 15 minutes,” the lawsuit says.

Inside that 15-minute window, Baldwin began practicing a “cross-draw,” in which he would grab the gun from his shoulder holster with his opposite hand and withdraw it, the lawsuit says.

Hutchins also directed Baldwin to point the firearm in her direction during that window, the lawsuit says. It adds that Gutierrez-Reed would have never permitted Baldwin to point the firearm at Hutchins had she been inside the church.

Keep in mind, these are only allegations, and Gutierrez-Reed has faced her own allegations of impropriety since the shooting. The armorer also accused the company that supplied the firearms and ammunition to the set of mixing live ammunition with the dummy rounds that were supposed to be loaded into the guns before filming.

Still, I wouldn’t be shocked if the armorer’s allegation pans out, at least as far as the suggested training goes. While there are still a lot of questions that need answers, it’s been painfully obvious from from the get-go that several fundamental rules of firearm safety were broken that day, including Baldwin pointing his gun at Hutchins and director Joel Souza, who were standing directly behind the camera Baldwin was aiming at.

You always treat your gun as if it’s loaded, and you never point it at anything you’re not willing to destroy. Plain and simple, and yet completely disregarded by the cast and crew on scene that day. Honestly, I still don’t understand why the crew simply didn’t set up a monitor for Hutchins and Souza to look at that wasn’t directly in the sight line of Baldwin’s gun, which would have been the easiest way to ensure their safety.

With the criminal investigation still underway and the civil suits flying left and right, it’s impossible to know what the real story is at the moment, but maybe we’ll be able to learn a little more if Baldwin actually complies with the sheriff’s search warrant and turns over his cell phone this week.

Wisconsin GOP unveils bill to teach real gun safety in schools

by Leave a Comment

Democrats supposedly love the idea of “gun safety,” but a new bill in Wisconsin is about to put that love to the test. Republicans have introduced legislation that would require the state superintendent of schools to put together a curriculum for an elective course in high school to teach students actual gun safety, instead of preaching an abstinence-only “guns are bad” message.

The bill had its first public hearing this week, and Democrats are already coming up with lame excuses for their opposition.

Bill co-author Rep. Treig Pronschinske, R-Mondovi, said Wednesday the bill would lead to proper gun usage and fewer dangerous gun incidents.

“Critics of the bill have said that we should not educate kids on firearms because it could be dangerous,” Pronschinske said. “This is ridiculous. We educate youth on drugs and sex. We certainly don’t want kids to try heroin or to have unintended pregnancies. Education is key to safety and is almost in every aspect of life.”

In response, Rep. Dave Considine, D-Baraboo, pointed to the potential dangers of farming.

“The next thing I’m going to hear is that we have to offer farm safety and have tractors be driven around in a course at school to make sure farmers are safe,” he said.

I don’t see that happening, but what would be the problem if school districts did offer some hands-on experience driving a tractor as part of their agricultural education classes? I fail to see the issue with either Considine’s theoretical instruction or the optional class that would be created by this legislation.

And yes, the course would indeed be optional for districts, which could opt out by simply passing a resolution. No child would be forced to attend any gun safety course, but that’s still not enough for opponents.

Under the federal Gun-Free Schools Act, guns on K-12 campuses are prohibited and punishable by at least a one-year expulsion. Pronschinske said Wednesday, however, the class would use replica guns, not real guns.

Committee member Rep. Sondy Pope, D-Mount Horeb, questioned how the firearm course could be a semester long as the legislators suggested, and wondered why it would be a four-credit class.

“I just can’t imagine how an entire semester is spent doing this for credit. It just seems kind of ridiculous to me,” she said.

The good news for Pope is that she doesn’t have to use her imagination. She can simply look at Arizona law, where since 2008 school districts have been required to offer a one-semester elective course on gun safety. Here’s what’s covered:

1. Instruction on the rules of firearm safety.

2. Instruction on the basic operation of firearms.

3. Instruction on the history of firearms and marksmanship.

4. Instruction on the role of firearms in preserving peace and freedom.

5. Instruction on the constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms.

6. Instruction on the use of clay targets.

7. Practice time at a shooting range.

8. Actual demonstration by the pupil of competence with a firearm as defined in section 13-3101 by safely discharging the firearm at one or more targets.

That’s right. Under the Arizona law students actually spend some time on the range, which would not be the case under the bill proposed in Wisconsin. This law has been in place since 2008, and yet I’ve never heard of any issues whatsoever with the curriculum.

It’s time for Wisconsin Democrats to put up or shut up. They claim to be in favor of gun safety. They claim to support the Second Amendment. If either of those things are true than there should be no dispute over providing students with the option of receiving a solid foundation in how to be safe and responsible around firearms. The fact that the objections are so vehement and yet so frivolous speaks volumes about the real ideology and agenda of these anti-gun politicians.

Bureaucrats fiddle while Portland bleeds out

by Leave a Comment

Portland, Oregon was one of several U.S. cities reaching a grim milestone in 2021: a record-high number of homicides. The 90 murders in Portland was the most the city has ever seen in a 12-month period, shattering the previous record of 70 that was set back in 1987. The city’s political leadership has edged away from its “Defund the Police” mentality as the body count’s risen in recent months, but even with Mayor Ted Wheeler vowing to reconstitute (in a slightly reconfigured form) the police department’s gun violence prevention team, lengthy delays, bureaucratic snafus, and a lack of interest on the part of many officers has delayed the roll out of the specialized unit for months.

Similarly, while the city council has approved millions of dollars in spending for community violence intervention groups, it could be months before groups officials are ready to sign off on allocating funds.

Certain community organizations in Portland hoping to make an impact on the city’s surging gun violence will wait even longer to get money from the city as the Office of Violence Prevention sorts through 35 applications for just $600,000 in funding.

It’s been nine months since city commissioners approved over $4 million in grants for community organizations in Portland.

Most of that funding has been earmarked, however, $600,000 is left for what the city termed “new and emerging” organizations. The city is aiming to partner with groups that are working in Portland neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence.

… “I got to do it right. I got to make sure we’re giving this to groups that can do the work, and then I want them to be able to sustain this work,” Myers said.

Myers said the goal is to continue funding these community organizations on an ongoing basis, beyond the one-time funding approved in the city council ordinance. So far, roughly $1 million from COVID relief funds have been set aside to address gun violence.

There’s been a lot of talk from Portland city council members about “right sizing” the police force and ensuring public safety over the past few months, but not a lot of action. The Portland Police Bureau is still understaffed, to the point that they’re now trying to recruit unarmed “public safety support specialists” to handle lower priority calls because the city has become so overwhelmed with violent crime at times that the department has been forced to publicly acknowledge they can’t respond to every 911 call.

In fact, in a move that’s pure Portlandia, the city council last month authorized paying $1.3-million in grants to cannabis dispensaries that have been the victims of armed robberies.

“We want Oregon to become the leading cannabis ecosystem in the country, but we have many underlying vulnerabilities that need to be addressed this year for us to succeed,” said Meghan Walstatter, interim executive director of the Oregon Cannabis Association. “Cannabis-related businesses remain one of the few that did not qualify for COVID-related aid nor have the option to file for bankruptcy.”

In March, WW reported extensively on an alarming trend: Data from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission revealed that more than 100 Portland-area dispensaries had been robbed, burglarized or looted in the prior 10 months.

In its announcement on Wednesday, the Office of Community & Civic Life said those numbers have increased: Over 200 establishments have been burglarized, which reflects a 115% increase between 2019 and 2020.

You think the city will come up with a separate fund to pay off the victims of carjackings, home invasions, restaurant or convenience store robberies, or arsons? Yeah, me neither. But I do know that a big part of the left’s response to the out-of-control violence in Portland is going to be an increase in legislation aimed squarely at legal gun owners. As NRA-ILA pointed out recently:

A Portland-based gun control group is now seeking signatures to get two initiatives placed on the November 2022 election ballot. The first, IP 17, would require a police-issued permit for anyone seeking to purchase or acquire a firearm, including private sales and transfers. Besides a fee, photo ID and fingerprints, the applicant would have to provide proof of completion of an approved training course. Once issued, permits would have to be renewed every five years. This initiative would also ban the possession, use, purchase, manufacture, importation, sale or other transfer of so-called “large capacity magazines” (those capable or holding or being readily concerted to hold more than 10 rounds).

The second measure, IP 18, would ban the “future manufacture, import, possession, use, purchase and otherwise transferring of semiautomatic assault firearms” (as defined) and require owners of such guns to register them with police, or turn them in or destroy them.

Portland’s activists seem intent on doing virtually everything but focusing on the most violent and prolific offenders in the community, including further criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms. Because of those misplaced priorities (further exacerbated by bureaucratic incompetence), Portland’s record high homicides in 2021 could easily be surpassed this year.

Gift giving season and gun safety

by Leave a Comment

It’s that holiday season time of year again! For some sects, the holidays have already come and gone, for other’s they’ve yet to arrive. Either way, we’re looking at a time of the year when gift giving is happening, and with that comes some liabilities for us gun owners. I talked about some gift ideas the other week to help prime the thinking process on what to get those special shootists in your life. Once you’ve procured whatever items you may have bought, I’m going to assume you’ve got to hide it somewhere in the house. The gift giving season brings two things that can be rather hazardous; 1 – Prying eyes looking for presents and 2 – Company.

Most adults were children at one point. I say that because some of us are still there, but that’s a digression. For those of us that have taken on the adult role or are at least are pretending to have, a good many of said adults might be parents. Of those that are parents, a good many might be playing Santa. Depending on the age of the children and what they know, depends on how much weight one might put on this subject.

When I was a kid I don’t quite remember when I stopped “believing”, but I do remember at one point or another, with a sardonic eye wink, asking my folks “This from Santa or from you?” And they’d go “ugg”. They were made. Our attempts to capture the jolly ole St. Nick on video camera, that usually failed, were not for naught. There was that one year, to squeeze out a little more magic, we did catch Mr. jelly belly himself in the act of putting presents around the tree. What I do know is by the age of 9, just about ten, I was actively searching the house for Christmas presents. In particular I remember that age because my father had accused me of searching through his closet, and challenged me to answer why a camera was moved on the top shelf. I don’t know who moved the camera, but I sure did take the blame for it. Yeah, I did search his closet, but no, I did not touch the camera. Talk about dumb luck.

Why this is important has to do with how we may store our firearms. If we think our guns are safe and secure when they’re hidden, we’re wrong. Yes, we can teach our kids about firearms and firearm safety. But, if we’re hiding our firearms in places where if they’re found, there will be an element of novelty to it regardless. A friend of mine recounts a story of when he was a child searching for gifts, or just being nosey around the time of his birthday. He found a revolver between the mattress and box spring of his parents’ bed. He said “Oh, this is nice. It’s heavy. It must be for me for my birthday.” He talks about the shot he fired off with the gun pointed at his sister, “To this day, I don’t know how she did not get shot or killed. The gun was pointed right at her. We never found a bullet hole anywhere.” The point being, we need to be extra vigilant with how we keep after our firearms. The fact that we’re in prime season for snooping around is just a reminder.

Besides any little ones we may have in the home, visitors and guests might be swinging by for holiday gatherings. Now we’ve got to worry about everyone else’s kids, as well as everyone else. We’re assuming that adults are responsible and don’t snoop in other people’s things. We assume they won’t play with guns if they happened upon them. We can do that. I remember trying to buy a new medicine cabinet and telling a friend about the process. They’re hard to come by, at least they were when I was looking for one nearly a decade ago. She said to me “Medicine cabinets are just not a thing anymore. That depresses me because they’re not there to look through when visiting other people’s houses.” I’m sure she was joking, but like most jokes there might be some truth to that. If you have a shower gun, maybe don’t keep it in your medicine cabinet.

We have many options to handle the situation of firearm storage. This subject is a personal one and one that may come with statutory regulations, remember that. We might have legal responsibilities. We do have moral responsibilities. Seeing there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this subject, here are a few recommendations to consider.

  • The nightstand – No children? No visitors? No problem. Maybe your storage method is going to be the nightstand drawer. That’s for you to decide.
    Pros: Easy access Cons: Not secured at all. Not protected from fire.
  • The safe – You’ve decided you want to keep your firearms in a big locked safe. These are great options for both security and protection from fire (depending on the rating).
    Pros: Firearms secured from casual and even some aggressive attempts to gain entry. Controlled environment. Protects from fire. Cons: Heavy, expensive, and difficult to move. Depending on the grade, the sides can be easily cut open with easy to obtain battery operated tools from the hardware store if time allows. Not quick access and might be in a location out of the way.
  • Concealment furniture – You want your firearm nearby but you don’t want it in a box or safe that screams “I’ve got a gun in me!” There are all kinds of concealment options out there to take a look at. They generally offer quick access and keep the gun where you need it most.
    Pros: Concealed. Easy to access. Firearm would be close by. Cons: Might not be really secured if someone knows the access points. Depending on construction, easy to break-into. Not protected from fire.
  • Quick access boxes – If you want to keep your firearm locked up but loaded and ready to go, this might be for you. There are a multitude of quick access options out there that’ll help achieve a good middle ground when it comes to firearm storage.
    Pros: Firearm is secured and locked up. Gun can be accessed fairly quickly with practice. Cons: Boxes can easily be stolen if not bolted down or affixed to something solid. It does take practice getting into these boxes. Depending on features, technology might be involved and that can leave you vulnerable to malfunction and hacking. Might have no fire protection.
  • Cable/trigger locks – Most people that are keeping firearms for self-defense would employ one of the aforementioned options. Those that are not may utilize a cable or trigger lock to keep the firearm form being able to be fired.
    Pros: Inexpensive/free. Easy to install. Keeps firearm from being able to be fired. Cons: No protection from theft or fire. Cables are not difficult to cut off (ask me how I know).

These are just a few of the options out there to help gun owners store or secure their firearms. It’s up to you to decide what works best. Do your research to find out what products will work for you and if there are any laws governing how you store guns in  your jurisdiction. As we’re full steam ahead during the season of moving elves around and hiding presents, let us remember that some of the things we own might be hazardous (or embarrassing) if found by the wrong people. Things are stressful enough these days with the kids saying things like “Cocoa the Elf is just a toy!” Then you have to set up a new diorama that night, for the next day, just to prove he’s freaking magical. Forget about all the other things on our to-do lists. Stopping to give pause on this topic can be lifesaving.

For more information on firearm storage, or to find out where you can get a free lock, check out the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Project Childsafe program.

Holidays have you feeling down? Consider visiting Walk The Talk America’s page on anonymous mental health screening and checking out their resources page. Having suicidal thoughts? There’s always help at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-8255