fake news
Previous Post
Next Post

By Lee Williams

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

The FBI found that while active shootings are increasing, they are not nearly the threat the Gun Violence Archive and the media would have you believe.

Here’s a breakdown of the FBI’s data for “active” shootings over the past five years:

■ 2016: 20
■ 2017: 31
■ 2018: 30
■ 2019: 30
■ 2020: 40

Here’s the number of “mass” shootings for the same timeframe from the Gun Violence Archive:

■ 2016: 382
■ 2017: 346
■ 2018: 337
■ 2019: 417
■ 2020: No data posted

The difference lies in the definitions.

According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:

■ Shootings in public places
■ Shootings occurring at more than one location
■ Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
■ Shootings resulting in a mass killing
■ Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
■ Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
■ Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects

Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:

■ Self-defense
■ Gang violence
■ Drug violence
■ Contained residential or domestic disputes
■ Controlled barricade/hostage situations
■ Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
■ An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril

By comparison, the Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, excludes nothing, even if the shooting is gang or drug related – the two main causes of most violence in the country today.

According to their website, the “GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter.”

“GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident,” their website states.

While this practice may be fine for GVA’s statistical purposes, their definition is almost never cited or explained in news accounts of mass shootings, and the public is intentionally deceived, as the mainstream media frequently quote the GVA’s numbers in their reporting.

Of the active shootings that occurred last year, the FBI found that “none of the total 40 incidents occurred in educational environments, health care facilities, or houses of worship.”

Twenty-four of the shooters were arrested. Six were killed. Seven committed suicide, and five remain at large.


The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Information, data, statistics are only valid when proving something I want to prove. All else is “junk science”.

    • I’ve never noticed how Gun Control zealots cook the books and use the acts of criminals to go after my Second Amendment Right. Why I am shocked…NOT.

      When you take a good long look at Gun Control and its racist and genocidal roots common sense says “Do Not put anything past Smiley Face Scumbags who run around promoting what is a confirmed diabolical racist and nazi based agenda.

      Gun Control is like a cancer. It’s starts out small and grows bit by bit until enough mass misery and death satisfies it. It then moves on to incubate in the minds of useful idiots until it reaches the numbers needed to bring it to life and relive its glory days.

      I see so called Gun Owners on other sites who say, I vote Blue because I do not want to be called a Fascist. Such politically inept imbeciles who vote Blue not only step on The Constitution of The United States they lint lick Gun Control Fascism, Communism et al. These blue gun owners vote for the very kind of Gun Control zealots who savor the thought of jack booted thugs storming their home to confiscate their firearms and if they refuse they get shot, imprisoned, etc. Gun Control threats are well documented and not to be ignored. Any vote for a democRat for any reason is a vote for the stench of Fascism, Communism, etc.

      Then there are the gasbags who say I’ve been hunting all my life and I do not need more than 10 rounds. Why Debbie if you cannot get it done in 10 rounds you cannot get it done. Well gasbag hunter you go tell that to the Slaves and Jews and everyone else who lived by the rules of those with much more than 10 rounds. I suggest gasbag hunters put themselves in the shoes of the deceased who unlike them actually know and understand up close and personal what Gun Control in any shape or form is.

      Gun Control zealots will say or do anything to advance their cause which of course is inherent with any racist and nazi based agenda. For far too long ignorance in this fight for freedom has kept the Second Amendment on the hotseat and made it the center of attention. It is way past time to glue Gun Control and all of its racist and genocidal baggage to the hotseat and b*tch slap it with its own filth until Gun Control is honestly seen as being no different than nooses, slave shacks, swastikas and concentration camps.

      Happy 4th of July.

    • Here is a recent story the media wasn’t willing to share;

      The United States (Media) ranks last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries.


      Another study finds the same conclusion;


      In all of the world, the U.S. media holds the distinction of ranking absolute last in trust.

      Funny how that didn’t make front page news (Or any MSM news).

      • I did see the srudy mentioned on multiple different shows on FOX.
        FOX is MSM.
        All the others are MoFoMedia

  2. Next I suppose you’re going to tell me that white supremacy isn’t really the main driver of violence in this country.

    • Hey Dude, might want to look at real statistics instead of what the fake news media tell you. 87% of all violent crimes are committed by blacks.

      • Most blacks seem to be white supremacists, that is, they do not believe a black person can possibly get ahead without the blessing of a white massa, or something, although white folk need no such assistance. If whitey will not hand them something for free, there is no way they could ever attain it.

        And perhaps you could describe just how white supremacy “drives” violence, that sounds like gibberish from here.

        • So is white supremacy a stable family, good education, positive work ethic, lack of criminal history, a good employment history? Then I’m guilty as charged and expected to atone for my historic crimes.

    • I could go into a long, scholarly dissertation about how the lingering effects of slavery, Jim Crow, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and other historical figures as well, white supremacy, White Castle, social injustice, systemic racism, and Republicanism have permanently tainted the psyches of everyone in this country who has darker skin pigmentation than Sherwin-Williams SW6364 (‘Eggwhite’), but it is best to cut to the end and just say, “YES! IT IS!”

      That saves a lot of argument. You racist bastidge, you.

  3. Shooting in Champaign, IL yesterday (Little Chicago). One dead, four wounded. All black on black. I’m sure that will be added to their “statistics.”

  4. “Next I suppose you’re going to tell me that white supremacy isn’t really the main driver of violence in this country.”

    Oh, boy. Too close to the edge to easily determine intent without the /sarc clue.

    Nicely done.

  5. Statistics without context are not information. They are data. Without context, data is easily misused or misunderstood. Add the context that there are somewhere between 500k and 2m defensive guns uses in this country each year. Then, further add the context that these defensive gun uses represent a good-guy preventing a bad- guy from killing or hurting someone. Now, we see that the supposed 400 mass shootings are less than a rounding error in the count of lives saved by guns each year.



    • “Statistics without context are not information.”

      So-called “journalism” has never been about truth, facts, and The American Way. One only need to study the remaining examples of “journalism” from our own history. “Journalism” is about heralding a viewpoint, proving a point, rallying the faithful, destroying the enemy, making money; i.e. politics.

      Just as with commercial television programming, actual fact was used to draw the reader to the publication by use of advertising (fact) to get the reader attentive to the biased messaging in the “articles” being presented.

      Believe half of what you hear, and none of what you see.

      • Sam I Am,

        Exactly so!!

        In this country we have gone far beyond yellow journalism. That was usually one newspaper distorting or faking news to suit its editor’s point of view. Today, we have rabid, froth-drooling, hate-spewing, treasonous mainstream media and tech conspiring and coordinating to have us all drink from a witches pot of septic putrification, which they ladle out as news but which is really a parasitic syrup meant to rot the brain and poison the soul.

        The media is the conspiracy. The media is the virus. The media is the four horsemen.

        But many of us are on to them. Eighty million of us voted for Trump because we did not drink from the ladle. The horses will stumble; the horsemen, will fall, and our ploughshares will grind them into the soil for the worms.

        • “Eighty million of us voted for Trump because we did not drink from the ladle.”

          And the other 80 million voted for Hidin’ Biden. With a near 50-50 split among votes, the smallest amount of leverage can destroy empires. When half the voters view the future one way, and the other half is diametrically opposed, where do things go from there?

      • Sam,

        Biden got, maybe, 50m votes. The rest were fake ballots and votes electronically shifted. We far out number the left. The only way the Dems got away with the steal is because the GOP did not want Trump, so, they collaborated.

        • Exactly right. Actually speaking, Biden actually received less than 40 million votes. Hard to believe that there are 40 million brain dead voters but just look at banana republic states like California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and the entire northeast and you can see that them lunatics will vote for a yellow dog if it is a trashy democrat.

        • “Biden got, maybe, 50m votes.”

          Using the voting data from 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, one must conclude that the voting pattern stayed pretty close, as to total votes, and the division. Which is why I arrive at a “near 50-50 split”. What we don’t know, is how many Dim votes were cast simply because Trump is boorish. How many were cross-over from registered Republicans and “other”?

          If “we” outnumber “them” decisively, how did we get here? Decades of massive, massive voter fraud?

          It is possible voter fraud swayed important, critical precincts, 30 million fraudulent votes is not supportable.

        • Sam I Am,

          “…30 million fraudulent votes is not supportable.”

          I know a couple of statisticians who will disagree.

          I do, however, respect your point of view.

        • Millions of votes don’t matter. The election was lost by less than 60,000 votes in a few key Democratic strongholds with some very shady practices that still haven’t been answered for and last minute rule changes, all of which made voting less secure.

        • the massive turnout for Trump seemed to unnerve the dems a bit…the plan had been for Joe to slide to an easy, early win…when that didn’t go according to script they had to resort to plan B..and find more votes somewhere…anywhere…and thus the controversy

        • How about this? The outcome of the election was decided well before November, probably sometime in October.

          The Dems knew exactly how many bogus votes they needed and pulled it off in November. Exact numbers aren’t important, Biden votes were added where needed. Judges were paid off and in the end it cost the Dems a BUNCH of money to steal the election. Video evidence be damned, we won’t hear the cases in a court.

          I know of ONE person who voted for Biden out of sheer greed because they owed a bunch in student loans. They got screwed on that one.

          When I asked them the simple question “Are you better off then you were 4 years ago” the answer was Yes but they would be better off if their student loans were forgiven.

          Now that gasoline is $3.50 a gallon as opposed around $2 a gallon when Trump was running the country like a business and not a politician, they might sell the new SUV they bought when Trump was the POTUS.

          It’s all going to come tumbling down and probably sooner then most realize.
          With Biden in office our country is on life support waiting for the plug to get stepped on and pulled from the wall. The country is unsustainable at the pace we are going and there is no safety net.

  6. I have an unorthodox view of the issue of “mass shootings”. I think it is counter-productive to argue that the phenomena is statistically UN-important. Instead, we OUGHT to argue that it IS a phenomena worthy of taking VERY seriously.

    The only issue at stake is the choice of our public and private responses. Should we make choices that are likely to make a difference? Or, choices that might make some of us to feel good withOUT any objective rational to expect them to WORK?

    Are our expectations of “working” specific to one particular aspect of the problem of interest? Or, are they general, solving several aspects of the problem?

    Our respective approaches, on the part of gun-controllers, objective researchers, and gun-rights advocates, is fraught with multiple problems. One is defining the problem; or, the suite of problems. We can’t begin to measure the problem(s) without defining it (them). Any definition is necessarily arbitrary; notwithstanding it’s usefulness. One definition is 4 dead, no counting of wounded nor those in jeopardy. But why count only the dead when those wounded are also casualties? Why count only casualties when the number at jeopardy is equally significant as a measure of the potential for harm?

    We include some scenarios and exclude others (same-place, closely-related places; family/stranger/gang; motivations, mental-illness, politics, and so forth.)
    This challenge: defining the problem – has no readily-apparent solution. It will be impossible to develop – let alone win acceptance of – statistical analysis when we can’t achieve a consensus definition of the problem. No statistical analysis can possibly lead to a consensus as to whether mass shootings is worthy of our consideration; or not.

    A second aspect of the statistical approach is that we are dealing with a problem of “small numbers”. Quite unlike suicides and one-on-one homicides, we don’t “enjoy” the statistical “embarrassment of riches” of tabulating large numbers of incidents with their respective diverse independent variables. So, when a statistical value changes from 1 to 2 or 10 to 20 or 100 to 200, we can recognize a dramatic 100% change. Yet, we can’t say whether this is really meaningful. Conversely, if suicides by gunshot or overdose changed from 20,000/year to 40,000/year we could be confident that such a change is really important to take notice of.

    Another problem, related to the small numbers issue, is the propensity for a significant change over an unforeseeable future. Suppose we’ve observed 20,000 gunshot suicides per year for a couple of decades. While the future can’t be forecast with great confidence, we may take some solace in our expectation that we won’t see 40,000 or 200,000 gunshot suicides next year.

    Were we concerned with deaths by drug overdose, we should realistically consider the possibility of a change from 20,000 to 40,000 year-over-year; probably not 20,000 to 200,000.

    With MASS shootings, NONE of this applies. There is no reason to hope that if we had 100 mass shootings in one year that we won’t have 200 next year or 1,000 the following year. We may have a stable domestic population of crazy citizens who are suicidal and have delusions of infamy of their prospective mass homicides. We can’t have that same confidence about IMPORTING aliens with different (political, religious, predatory, etc.) motivations.

    Prior to 9/11 we didn’t have much to worry about with respect to Islamic Jihad; but, now we do. So far, we don’t have much to worry about with respect to an invasion by a foreign power. But what if one or more drug cartels decided to establish control over an American region through mass shootings? Heretofore, we have had little reason to contemplate such a novel source of threat notwithstanding that we can now recognize Islamic Jihad as a threat.

    I propose that we PotG consider the foregoing and the implications for our contribution to the debate over mass shootings. Whether or not mass shootings are a small/medium/large threat today, we should consider the LIKELIHOOD that they COULD become a REALLY SERIOUS problem in the FUTURE.

    If we conclude that this likelihood is HIGH, then the issue America faces is: What could be done to mitigate the jeopardy?

    Clearly, gun-control is UN-productive. In fact, it’s COUNTER-productive! We can do absolutely nothing about mass imports of small arms (nor explosives nor biological or chemical weapons). Any foreign-based force wishing to perpetrate a suicide+mass-homicide in America WILL succeed in spite of the gun-controllers’ wet dreams. This is a HUGE gaping hole in our defense.

    Modest gun-control efforts (UBC, registration, licensing, etc.) won’t be effective against domestic criminals or crazies. This just can’t be made to work in America.

    If we reach a consensus that mass shootings are APT to BECOME a SERIOUS problem (even if they are a small/minimal problem today), then what can we do about them?

    We can shoot back!

    Therefore, if mass shootings are a problem, shouldn’t we be talking about implementing a plan which is apt to mitigate it? How will gun-control play a part?

    More GFZs? Fewer GFZs? Prerequisites to declaring GFZs?

    More border control? Less border control? Priority for surveillance of unlicensed gun imports?

    More restrictions on licensing carry in public places? Fewer licensing restrictions? Different criteria for dis-able-ing the right to arms? (E.g., does stripping Martha Stewart of her right to arms make us safer? Does dis-able-ing for life someone who suffered suicidal ideation make us – as a nation – any safer?)

    • {Mass shootings}

      “Instead, we OUGHT to argue that it IS a phenomena worthy of taking VERY seriously.”

      Indeed, point out the obvious, that the majority of it is black-on-black inner-city crime, and ask the hard questions of why isn’t that being addressed by anyone?

      Why do they continue to insist it’s an “Angry White Supremacist” phenomenon?

      • one:..it’s easier and far less risky to go after law-abiding gun owners..[just ask those ATF agents who were sent into Chicago!]…and two:.. there’s a broader agenda at work here..civilian disarmament is just one component

    • TL;DR, I also have a different view of “mass shootings”, they are rare enough to be considered part of the cost of actual, no-shit FREEDOM! As opposed to chasing our tails and waiting ready to accept all manner of loss of freedom in order to save a tiny few. It’s possible that I might be one of that tiny few, and my answer would be unchanged, yet some liberal pos would attempt to use my death as a reason to demand more freedoms be sacrificed. Our freedoms are indispensable, nothing else about us is. Are we all that terrified of a lunatic with a rifle? Shit, my year in Vietnam, every time I got in my aircraft and took off, somebody shot at me before I landed, and I went right on about my business. Mofos were shooting at me with ASSAULT WEAPONS (gasp!), usually full auto, should I go hide? We need to stop making excuses, and learn how to ask “so what?” a lot more than we currently do.

  7. MarkPA said, “Modest gun-control efforts (UBC, registration, licensing, etc.) won’t be effective against domestic criminals or crazies. This just can’t be made to work in America.

    If we reach a consensus that mass shootings are APT to BECOME a SERIOUS problem (even if they are a small/minimal problem today), then what can we do about them?

    We can shoot back!

    Therefore, if mass shootings are a problem, shouldn’t we be talking about implementing a plan which is apt to mitigate it? How will gun-control play a part?”

    Control efforts by the left only affect the law abiding citizens and do nothing to curb criminal activities. Instead of searching for ways to diminish the real cause, the left launches endless attacks on law abiding citizens and inanimate objects. Crime prevention is the best that can ever be achieved via any law. Crime stoppage will never occur as long as their are people roaming the earth.

    • “How will gun control play a part?” Be advised, buying guns to commit mass murder is hereby declared illegal, and also bad. You mustn’t. Took care of that, huh?

  8. Your comment is engaging; posing some interesting ideas. However…….(you knew there would be a “however”)

    The issue is singular, and simple to understand: “I feel unsafe because guns exist. The only way to make me feel safe is to remove all guns from society.” Against that, facts, data, statistics are ineffective at best, useless at worst. Using facts, data, statistics to counter an emotional premise is the logican’s version of a “feel good” response to a problem.

    In short, there is no persuasive response to emotion. Why? Because my emotions are more valid to me than are your emotions. In a battle of emotions, I win every time. If you manage a win, then my emotions gain more validity because of the unfairness of it all. You cannot win an emotional argument; you can only overwhelm and marginalize it.

    There’s the rub.

    • “In short, there is no persuasive response to emotion. Why? Because my emotions are more valid to me than are your emotions.”

      That works in our favor, since we are more apt to show up and vote on election day.

      Speaking of showing up on election day, Georgia’s new voting law means the STATE can take over in Fulton County (Atlanta) to oversee the vote count.

      Read all about it on the “Zero Hedge” :

      “Georgia Secretary Of State Seeking Election Takeover Of Fulton County: “Enough Is Enough””

      Georgia won’t be stolen next time… 😉

    • “I feel unsafe because guns exist. The only way to make me feel safe is to remove all guns from society.”

      I wholeheartedly agree! Of course, I don’t mean MINE. I NEED mine, in case somebody cheats. And somebody ALWAYS cheats. It’s like, there’s always somebody who doesn’t follow the rules, and doesn’t obey laws, and just messes things up for those good people (meaning ME) who can be trusted. ME, I can trust implicitly. You, not so much. I extend the courtesy of trust to my own circle, naturally, but I refuse to extend it to YOUR circle because I don’t KNOW you. Therefore, you are probably untrustworthy, and I can’t take that chance.

      THAT, by the way, is (with all due sarcasm) the essence of ‘gun control.’

      • “THAT, by the way, is (with all due sarcasm) the essence of ‘gun control.’ ”

        This is precisely why we must “re-imagine” law enforcement. So-called “gun control” doesn’t actually take anything away from you, indeed, it adds to your peace of mind, sense of order, assurance of safety, and saves you money (no need to spend money on consumables to maintain your firearm and/or skills). Not to mention that responding to conflict with people trained in helping people overcome frustrations, anger, and a sense of worthlessness.

        Why can’t we just all get along?

    • I feel unsafe because nuclear weapons exist…yet they’ve kept me safe for all of my rather lengthy existence….there’s the rub…

      • “I feel unsafe because nuclear weapons exist…”

        But we can’t remove all nuclear weapons from around the world; we can remove all guns in our nation. If criminals and potential criminals understand that an unarmed populace eliminates the need to use a gun to commit crime, gun crime will assuredly disappear. And if we remove all knives (other than standard table knives), criminals will have even less need to carry knives as a tool of crime. This is what re-imagining law enforcement is all about.

        Give Piece a Try.

        Any Peace but Katie’s Piece.

  9. “The difference lies in the definitions.”

    Meanwhile, people continue calling AR15’s assault rifles thinking these guns take clips.

  10. If we accept their definition of a mass shooting, then the vast majority of the mass shooters are African American gang members and drug dealers.

  11. Sam I Am said, “Because my emotions are more valid to me than are your emotions.”
    Arguing emotions is a frustrating and nearly impossible argument to win. Those who have emotions as a justification for a position taken in an argument completely ignore facts.

  12. “Those who have emotions as a justification for a position taken in an argument completely ignore facts.”

    Isn’t it more along the lines that emotions become “facts”?

    • Sam, yes indeed. Their emotions are, to them, “facts” and that is what makes constructive discussion impossible.

    • “You’ll never reason a man out of a position that he did not first reason himself into.”

      Someone said that or something like it.

  13. Geez. It’s almost like the media structures a narrative and repeats it in unison over and over as a means to control, sway and manipulate public opinion.

    But that would unethical. Next thing you’ll tell me is the media does this working hand in hand with large donors and political interests. Perhaps even foreign national corporations or foreign governments as a whole. Nah. That’d be CRAZY CONSPIRACY NONSENSE. I know for a fact Brian Stelter loves me and would only ever report the absolute true story of events supported by facts and data without coloring it with his own bias and prejudice or that of his employers. He told me so.

  14. Is there such a thing As Too Much Honest Truth About Guns? Based on my post being moderated and removed unnecessarily I think so, I know so. To whom it may concern, that is if there is a who and not some filtering program…If you are going to remove a post that I put time and effort in you have my e-mail so at least man-up and send a clear reason why.

    • Deborah, it happens to most of us with the new WordPress back-end they are using.

      They claim it’s being worked on…

      • @Geoff

        Have you had any issues with the e-mail notifications for articles you have commented on and marked the box for follow-up comments? For the last three or so weeks I have not been receiving notifications (I’ve done all the usual things: cookies, clear histories, restart desktop, etc with no improvement. It is frustrating to have to leave tabs open with the stories I am currently interested in following in order to view any additional comments (positive or negative).

        My second issue is the one you touched on: random “awaiting moderation” messages for innocuous postings…no vulgarity, no threats, no rants, no links in the text of the “moderated” posting to “trigger” the net nanny program.

        Call me a conspiracist…but, it seems to have gotten much worse since the migration to the new format and the new Word-Press programming. It’s almost as if the new owner of TTAG is actively trying to discourage comments thereby destroying the blog through passive-aggressive means.

        • You caught us. So I guess now you’ll find another site to post your (nonsensical) musings. And please take Geoff and IHAQ with you. Thanks 🙏!

        • @The Troll Manager

          My nonsensical musings are as valid as your nonsensical spite.

          Why are you so hateful? Where is your tolerance for diversity?


        • “It’s almost as if the new owner of TTAG is actively trying to discourage comments thereby destroying the blog through passive-aggressive means.”

          Could be. Could also be that the owner of TTAG doesn’t actually moderate the comments. Or could be that the owner of TTAG is bound by the rules of WordPress, who is moderating content. Or could be both.

          Send an email directly to Dan Z (he is not the owner), and ask he post an article explaining the moderation methods.

        • Old Guy, lower management types speak from a BM movement which is why their views tend to stink. While upper management accepts the fact of All Musings Matter.

        • @Sam

          I don’t believe for a moment that the current owner of TTAG is actively moderating comments. However, as the owner of a blog operating under Word Press, I can and do believe that he / she can set or request specific environments under the Word Press operating system. It is these specific environments that I question. Under the former format and the last owner, I did not have nearly as many issues with posting / tracking comments. It could be as simple as code that is conflicting under the new format resulting in random outages or taggings as “inappropriate” which default to the dreaded “Awaiting Moderation” response.

          I respect Dan, Jeremy, JWT, et al…however, they draw their livelihood from said owner and they may not wish to rock the TTAG boat to the extreme that I think it will take to straighten out the gremlins in the woodpile…

          I like TTAG. I like the news, legal notifications, DGU’s, product reviews, and opinions of the contributors (as well as the myriad of opinions / advice offered by the cognoscenti).

          In spite of it’s flaws, TTAG remains a trusted and valid source of information for all things firearm related….it’s just not as user-friendly as it once was.

        • I check all the boxes yet never get contacted about anything…does allow me to edit though…

  15. More people are celebrating Independence Day this year then they did last year. Yard parties and larger groups
    of people, larger events, and many
    activities planned. Evidently Americans have more to celebrate this year since Trump is not in office.

    • curious how that “Trumps” everything…including the apparent ineptitude of the current bunch

      • “…they had to resort to plan B..and find more votes somewhere…anywhere…and thus the controversy…”

        This is how empires end.

        “And you are there.”

    • That comment , ” more people are celebrating this year then last” was a twist on how statistics are constructed. Of course theirs more people celebrating this year then last. Last year we were all hiding from covid. Has nothing to do with Trump or theBiden.

Comments are closed.