Previous Post
Next Post

“When somebody says a (good) guy with a gun can stop a (bad) guy with a gun, we remind them that’s there’s absolutely no evidence that supports that theory and that all of the evidence is actually contrary to that.” – Moms Demand Action Florida director Michelle Gajda, in Group fights gun proposals with two opposing sides in documentary [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Yes, they are. So are the good civilians who have stopped bad guys in the many wel–documented cases around the country.

      This woman is either delusional, a pathological liar, or both. Liberals are delusional, and anti-gunners rely on lies. Question answered.

      • She’s a power-seeker. She knows that an armed populace stands between her birkenstock-clad hippie foot and the collective face of America, and she can’t abide it.

      • I wonder if she also thinks that really unattractive, androgynous, overweight women “can’t be raped” because rapists wouldn’t attack unattractive, androgynous, overweight women.

      • I am a true living human being, I can witness to the fact that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. My family and I are still alive and not a scratch. I am one man with one gun, there were three bad guys with guns. In my yard, and not speaking English, I told them stop and identify, they no stop. I pulled gun, they leave.

  1. You go right on believing that. Until you get mugged or raped, of course. I had to shoot a man to save my life. Otherwise, I’d be dead. But that doesn’t bother you, does it cupcake? In fact, you’d probably be glad. Stuff it, you parasite.

    • They really don’t understand how offensive the garbage they spew is, do they?

      Just proves (yet again) one doesn’t have to be educated to have an opinion or be vocal about it.

      • “Scarecrow: I haven’t got a brain… only straw.
        Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven’t got a brain?
        Scarecrow: I don’t know… But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking… don’t they?
        Dorothy: Yes, I guess you’re right.”

        • Got a two year old daughter who loves to watch that movie so I have seen it about every day for the past 6 months. I absolutely love that line.

    • A similar situation happened to my mom when I was 11 years old. It left a permanent mark in my character, and if she didn’t use the knife she carried for self defense, I wonder if he would have stopped after only dragging her off and raping her. She did not come out unharmed by any stretch, but she did turn the tables and end the attack. A strong, tough, 5’4″, 120-lb. woman made a big impression on my life, I’ve no doubt you’ve done the same for a few young people. A few other pieces that set my character: the police asking my mom, “what are you doing out walking around at this hour?” It was 6:15 p.m.; when offered a ride to the hospital, she replied, “no, I’ve got kids, just take me home.” The reason she was out walking was we were flat busted and needed to try and borrow money from an old WWII veteran friend of the family, and neither of our households could afford a phone, so it was a 3-4 mile walk from our place to Van Ness in Fresno. (These were the risks and costs she was willing to incur for us.)

  2. “This expansion of Stand Your Ground would require prosecutors to prove their case twice. It would shift the evidentiary burden in the initial hearing to the prosecutors,” Gajda said.”

    I’m no lawyer and maybe the initial hearing is different…but hasn’t the evidentiary burden always been on prosecutors?

    • You are correct, sir. Hey, it’s only the foundation of our criminal justice system. I’m sure MDA would prefer the burden to always be on whoever did the shooting, whether the good guy or the bad guy.

    • If the burden was on the suspect then it wouldn’t be “innocent until proven guilty”. The prosecutor should be burdened when it comes to proving a person suspected of a crime is guilty. Then again it is people like this lady that are pushing the whole thought crime BS that they call “hate crimes”. As if to imply that an act is worse to the victim or society because the convict had bad thoughts.

    • In some jurisdictions, self-defense is an affirmative defense to charges of homicide. Meaning the person who is charged now bears the burden of proving it was self-defense.

      The State can cry me a river when laws “make it harder” to prosecute. Look at the case loads and funding of prosecutor’s offices vs. public defender’s offices and tell me that it’s hard to prosecute.

      • “In some jurisdictions, self-defense is an affirmative defense to charges of homicide. Meaning the person who is charged now bears the burden of proving it was self-defense.”

        It is my understanding (IANAL) that if the defendant in such places claims self-defense, it remains the duty of the prosecutor to prove it wasn’t.
        All the defendant need do is make the claim. And then defend it to the standard of reasonable doubt.
        Of course, he will need to be fairly within the realm of self defense once he makes the claim, but it is up to the prosecution to prove it wasn’t self defense.

        • An affirmative defense is a defense that the defendant has the burden to prove.

          I don’t think self defense should be an affirmative defense because one of the elements of murder is that the killing was unlawful. If the killing was in self defense, then it was not unlawful. If the issue is raised, and the prosecution does not prove the killing was not self defense, then the prosecution did not prove all of the elements.

          A mostly accurate description from Wikipedia: “An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, and the statute of limitations.”

          • “An affirmative defense is a defense that the defendant has the burden to prove.”

            Ya got me. So I looked it up.
            Actually, as I understand it, especially in a criminal case, the defendant only need present enough facts or ‘proof’ to place a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind.
            But, I was mistaken, yes. I was confused by my thinking of the fact that some places actually don’t even allow a self defense defense (from the department of redundancy department).

            • It gets pretty complicated. There are defenses and affirmative defenses. Sometimes defenses are called justifications. There are shifting burdens, e.g. one party only has to introduce evidence, then the other party must disprove those facts. There are different levels of burdens. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing, and reasonable doubt are just the most common.

              • “It gets pretty complicated. There are defenses and affirmative defenses. Sometimes defenses are called justifications. There are shifting burdens, e.g. one party only has to introduce evidence, then the other party must disprove those facts. There are different levels of burdens. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing, and reasonable doubt are just the most common.”

                This is why lawyers make so much money.

  3. “When somebody says a (good) guy with a gun can stop a (bad) guy with a gun, we remind them that’s there’s absolutely no evidence that supports that theory and that all of the evidence is actually contrary to that.”

    No evidence required; on it’s face this statement, as quoted, is simply true. A good guy with a gun CAN stop a bad guy with a gun. How often this actually happens is disputed, and probably can’t ever be known with any certainty. But given that, I’ll take the mere possibility of defending myself or others over no possibility.

    • I’m pretty sure these people do not actually want to know the truth, since it is directly counter to their primary argument against guns and therefore against their primary (Bloomberg) source of funding, but is it really possible that not a single person in that organization has ever heard of YouTube?

      I just did a quick YouTube search for the term “Defensive gun use” and got 143,000 videos in response.

    • I don’t think you quite understood what was quoted.
      She is saying there is no evidence to support the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
      But think for a second: who do these people call when faced with a bad guy (with a gun or not)? Good guys with guns (cops).
      You are right that no actual evidence is needed TO PROVE HER WRONG, because her own actions would prove her wrong.
      So the statement, as quoted, is false.

    • Watch the TV station video. She says, When somebody says a “BAD” guy with a gun can stop a “GOOD” guy with a gun. Then you know where her head is at.

  4. So because the MSM is in a tizzy over being called out for “fake news” and “alternative facts” I’m sure the true professionals over at WTSP quickly set this misinformed person straight. Maybe pulled up one of their stations own defensive gun use stories as evidence? No?

    As an aside I love how documentaries don’t have to educational or factual anymore. Its neat how they’re just propaganda films now.

    • Right after Trump was elected, “fake news” was going to be the next big thing in the MSM, and they were pushing it hard– right up until Trump called them out as spreading “fake news” at his first press conference as president, and then the term all but disappeared from the MSM.

      • Trump touted fake news himself before when it benefitted him, and indeed in at least one instance called for further investigation.

      • There was a alot of that going around yesterday because of Trump’s comment about Sweden having a problem with immigrants. The whole MSM and the Swedish ambassador were saying it was “fake news” because there was no terrorist attack in Sweden last Friday night–which is true enough, but Trump never said that there had been a terrorist attack. Rather, he was saying that these countries were having issues with refugees and a massive increase in criminal activity, and in particular rape. (In fact there are stories of Swedish police chiefs telling women that they should not go out at night alone. Ever.) What he said was true–but what the MSM twisted it into is absolutely false an a misrepresentation of what was actually said. Fake news strikes again.

        • Fake news is nothing new. The press has always done this. It’s either ignorance, stupidity, incompetence, or malice. Usually it is a combination.

          I stopped trusting the news when I was in elementary school. The news reported that the city manager had been fired. He was my best friend’s dad. He (the dad) is still my friend to this day. I know for a fact that he had not been fired. He quit. He was called in to help at least a couple of times every week. I doubt he would have gone in to help after being fired.

        • There is a video where a 60 Minute crew is out to defend the recent surge of Immigrants. As they were conducting their interviews they were attacked by them and had to run for their lives. All on camera.

  5. I’m sure a lot of the Moms Demand Action useful fools actually believe the BS. However, the leaders know the real agenda is to disarm citizens so they don’t have the tools to resist the “final solution” when the left takes over. Then it is too late for everyone.

    Be Prepared !

    • The more I think about her quote, the more it seems like she just doesn’t want for good guys to have guns. Period.
      You sure she’s just one of the useful fools?

      Also, wtf does she have against good guys?

    • Despite their nascent fascist tendencies, these people are not Storm Troopers nor do they have an army of SS-quality fanatics to back them up. If they really thought that they could disarms the populace and round them up for the final solution they forget that the world is wise to that sort of excess these days. They should also review the historical record of the Warsaw Uprising. Even crammed into a hell-hole ghetto in Warsaw the trapped Jews managed to collect enough weaponry to give the Nazis a very bloody nose and were eventually defeated by the expedient of completely obliterating the ghetto with artillery fire and air bombardment.

      Disarmed populace? Highly unlikely that is who these Progressive fascist fanatics will ever face no matter how many unconstitutional laws they pass.

      • Don’t sell these idiots short.
        All it takes to totally disarm (well, as far as legal ownership is concerned) the populace is to require registration of ALL guns, then make it illegal to transfer any guns. The penalty for not registering any gun will be severe; twenty to life, depending on the type of gun. California and a few other states have already started this process by requiring “assault weapons” to be registered.
        When gun owners die, their guns (they are registered, remember) go to the state.
        Within a couple of generations the people are disarmed. Except for the criminals.

  6. Hey, next time MDA does a March or protest, or whatever they call it, can we do an open carry March right next to them? I bet zero people get shot!

    • You are probably mistaken, but only because some of these mommies would call the cops and claim an active shooter. The wrong cop (as in one of the more overzealous ones) shows up first at the scene and immediately opens fire. Then what? These pathetic excuses for life are ultimately cowards, but boy do they love them some violence. Just as long as they can get the cops to carry it out for them

  7. Well then, let’s disarm the cops, since ‘all of the evidence is actually contrary to that’.

  8. How about when a bad guy with a gun kills another bad guy with a gun(for the right reason)? He should not be charged either.

    • It depends if tbe bad guy with gun is just walking down the street minding his own business and he defends himself with a gun then yes, he has exercised his moral right of self defense. However, if bad guy #1 shoots bad guy #2 who is trying to rip him off and leave him for dead during a drug deal than he is guilty of murder 1. Any death that occurs in commision of a felony is murder one. That means if two bad guys walk into the local stop and rob and try to stick up the place the surving bad guy gets charged with murder 1 when the good guy takes out his partner.

      • Real great, but gets more and more complicated, difficult to understand. How about, who cares? Step one is “shoot the mofo”, attempting to separate all those different variables promises to be impossible. Just let it go.

  9. What world is she living in,she just pays attention to thugs with guns in violent crimes but ignores law abiding ccw holders. Protecting themselfs family,and other citizens who need help.Learn this liberal lady the criminals dont give a shit about the law,thats why they are called criminals.

    • Not if she could remove all guns from earth, stopped the world mining metal, removed the trees so spears went away and crushed all the rocks into powder….then peace will settle across the land

  10. I had had to pull a gun on someone after he broke into my apartment and went after the girl I was living with…. in florida.
    As it turned out he had a rap sheet for multiple sexual assualts and robbery…. I was the good guy who stopped a bad guy with a gun.
    So yeah….. when you :
    A) are willfully ignorant of the facts, or
    B) just lie because the facts don’t suit your narrative,
    You are part of the problem.
    Take your million mom March for a long walk on a short pier.
    Or demand some action from your husband and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

  11. Some things can’t be measured so you need to look at the big picture. The gun crime rate is much higher in cities where it is difficult or almost impossible to legally carry a gun. The gun crime rate is lower where legally carrying a gun is easier. What can’t be measured is how many attacks don’t happen because of the possibility that the good guy may be carrying a gun.

    • She absolutely knows how to measure it. There are NO reports from criminals saying they didn’t rob or rape someone today because they might have a gun, so therefore the statistics are truly non-existent. Point proven as far as she’s concerned.

      • There actually are multiple reports from criminals to police that they traveled across state lines because they new that people were not allowed to carry in the neighboring state. (From Pennsylvania to New Jersey).

  12. Within that construct proves stupidity of a woman knows no bounds in surrendering to helplessness while enlisting hope as the measure of ones liberty.

  13. “When somebody says a (good) Socialist with a kind heart can stop a (bad) government with a police force, we remind them that’s there’s absolutely no evidence that supports that theory and that all of the evidence is actually contrary to that.”

  14. She is obviously deranged. Perhaps a few decades of three times daily ECT will help restore her to reality.

  15. According to Ms. Gajda, without guns the moon would be in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligned with Mars.

    • And love will steal the stars, this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

      Or something like that.

      • “Aquarius”?

        Don’t you mean “TyQuarius” and didn’t we exit THAT “age” on Jan 20th?

  16. Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

    Fact: Property crime rates are dropping (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) to the property crime rate.

    Fact: Every year 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.

    Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

    Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
    (Gun facts .Info)

  17. “Good” & “bad” are subjective terminologies. To these people the mere act of a “good” guy possessing a gun, ultimately makes them into a “bad” guy.

  18. Let’s change it a little to make it easier for her to understand:

    A bad guy with a gun is stopped by…:
    a) … gun control
    b) … running out of ammo
    c) … cooperation of the victim
    d) … a good guy with a gun

  19. The Hysterical Mother must be sooooo proud of her crafty, cat loving minion. You see, little Michelle named her pussycat “Good guy with a gun” and her kitty has never stopped a bad guy with a gun. So, technically she is not looking right into the camera and lying through her teeth.

  20. Maybe show her this:

    We can’t prove that dgu decreases crime rate but there is strong correlation. It does however provide evidence that destroys the argument that guns lead to more crime. It simply doesn’t add up anywhere.

  21. Somebody wake up Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan, Scipio Africanus, Duke Wellington, Admiral Nelson, Shaka Zulu, and General Patton: apparently we’ve been doing this whole “armed conflict” thing all wrong.

  22. I’ve got a long list of good gun guy stories, even so called mass murder that they like to talk about so much.i

  23. My daughter stopped a burger with a gun. She also had a trained dog take the guy down. Gaia will no doubt claim it was the dog, not the gun.

  24. It’s also cultural bundling. Example: you drive a Prius so you’re leftist, green, wear birkenstocks, anti gun, pro choice etc.
    Life isn’t that simple. But hey I’m scared of Zika virus so let’s kill all the mosquitos!
    Wrong answer.

    She doesn’t like guns. Yet in her liberal mind is ignoring that she’s afraid of inner city gangbangers coming after her. She thinks that thinking peace brings peace. It does actually, but the stick is necessary until we get there.

    She also has racist tendencies. She never started an organization decades ago to prevent inner city gun violence. It’s when, sorry folks, white kids get shot by mentally imbalanced white kids that our rights have to go in the trash.

    She thinks that gun owners are this one type of person who she is afraid of. Rural white male. Or, that anyone who doesn’t fit that stereotype but owns guns endangers her so they are “bad.”

    This unfortunately requires some inner soul searching. I know a doctor who has never had a drink that
    thinks that all cars should have breathalyzers. See? There’s enough crazy to go around.

  25. I guess she doesn’t know to stay away from absolute statements. They are a sign of inflexible thinking–but then, we are talking about some of the most zealous ideologues around.

  26. So what do Police, military, bodyguards, private security, and everyday citizens use, man? Harsh language???

  27. Shannon Watts says these things because the only people listening to her at this point are her echo chamber who already believe the same as her, and TTAG.

  28. I understand her campaign to disarm the “good guy.” Why no push to disarm the “bad guy?”

  29. These hens sell gun control. That’s what they do. Well goody for them. Let’s hope no meth-crazed freak starts kicking one of their doors down, finally gains entry and forces himself on one of them. (rape) It would be pretty clear to even the thickest skull among them that a gun would have ended his drug induced arousal.

  30. Wheres your evidence by unbias and peer researched sources? While ccw has exploded and citizens buy black rifles, all crime rates have fallen. Yes, there are gun deaths in the US. They arent a leading cause of death according to the CDC. Just cause you find it scary, doesnt mean you get to outlaw it. Youre more likely to be killed in a car accident going to starbucks than killed by a gun.

  31. The exact same thing could be said about gun control handily (if anything the exact OPPOSITE if you look at studies by the CDC and DOJ from Obama’s WH of all things) as studies have shown the AWB to be a failure and DGUs to be real.

    • “Arizona State Trooper Edward Andersson might disagree with her:”

      Tens of thousands of people, if not millions, disagree with her, including me.
      She really doesn’t care, because she’s a hoplophobe; facts mean far less than feelings to her.

  32. Well, this god guy with a gun has stopped a couple of bad guys, though they didn’t have guns. A friend once stopped a bad guy with a gun merely by making his own visible. And an acquaintance stopped a bad guy with a gun just by aiming and pulling the hammer back.

    I figure she must have had an itch on the back of her scalp, and took it for a thought, and that’s where this notion came from.

  33. Listen, you as a man would not be allowed to leave your house with your penis if that “Butch” had her say about it. That dike hair cut gives that away. It is just another case of left wing minded media looking for the story they want to clip and paste together! The media never air’s a story of a when (CPL) holder stops a crime; and they never will. “WE ALL KNOWS THE MEDIA AND THE LEFT LIES”. Otherwise they would air the same stories that “Cam & company” air every day on NRA TV. Cam calls his set “The deal of the day” where some hoodlum gets a free ride from the liberal courts; “Florida” and the second half is “The Hero of the day” where Cam tell of a good guy with a gun stopping a hoodlum!

  34. By her thinking,the police “the good guys”don’t need guns either? Let’s see who see call when she needs help. It bet not be a cop with a gun.

Comments are closed.