Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: ‘Expert’ Advice, Disarming Teachers and the NRA’s Silence

I think they mis-spelled ‘gun control advocate’ . . . The link between domestic violence and mass shootings, explained by a gun policy expert

According to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, a majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter. And research from Boston University shows that in states with more gun owners, there are more homicides — and women are more likely to be the ones killed.

To understand the link between mass shootings and domestic violence, I spoke with Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York Cortland and the author of several books on gun policy, including The Politics of Gun Control. Spitzer is a frequent commentator on issues related to gun control and mass shootings.

As is virtually always the case . . . FBI Report on Alexandria Quietly Debunks the Gun-Controllers’ Talking Points

Why does this matter? Well, because before they knew anything about the case, many in the press had reflexively tried to use the incident as an argument for stricter gun control.

The Atlantic’s David Frum, for example, immediately went on an error-laden tear about Virginia’s laws, which he considers to be too lax, and then took to proposing the sort of “common sense” reforms that the Democratic party has been so impotently trying to sell. But, as the FBI confirms, this reaction was an ignorant one. For a start, the guns weren’t bought in Virginia; they were bought in Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

And they weren’t purchased privately, illegally, or without attendant background checks, but “legally through federal firearms licensees” that are obliged under federal law to run checks. Moreover, Hodgkinson only got the weapons after he obtained an additional possession-and-purchase license (FOID) of the sort that more extreme gun-control advocates want to see made mandatory in all states.

Of course they did . . . CA Assembly Passes Gun Control Bill to Stop Teachers from Shooting Back

On Monday, lawmakers passed a gun control bill introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) to disarm teachers and staff who are currently allowed to carry guns for self-defense in California school districts. …

McCarty did not differentiate between guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens at schools versus guns in the hands of criminals who will attack regardless of gun-free policies. Moreover, he did not list one crime committed by an armed teacher or staff member in the five California districts that allowed such personnel to be armed for defense of themselves and their students.

On the other hand . . . US gun laws: Colorado to arm teachers in classrooms

Teachers are being trained to carry guns in classrooms in Colorado in order to protect children as part of a scheme motivated by a school massacre in 2012.

The three-day course, which consists of firearms and medical training, was launched on Tuesday in Weld County.

Seventeen members of staff who “would like to be considered armed first responders” have so far taken part.

The pilot programme will allow volunteers to enter schools with guns under US “concealed carry” laws.

American Tactical Offers Omni Hybrid 410

The American Tactical Omni Hybrid .410 shotgun is a gas operated, short stroke, balanced piston system designed to use 2.5 “.410 shells. It functions with a wide variety of .410 loads from bird shot to slugs.The complete rifle is built on American Tactical’s patented Omni Hybrid lower receiver with a six-position adjustable stock. The upper handguard will be a 13” free-floating Keymod rail. The shotgun will be available as both a complete unit as well as a separate upper receiver assembly.]

Shooting themselves in the foot…so to speak . . . The NRA Shuns a Second Amendment Martyr

The day after the shooting, the NRA said “the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated.” It promised “the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known.”

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You’d think “the nation’s largest and oldest civil rights organization” would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Your feel-good story of the day . . . Burglar shot to death by accomplice was released from prison in August

(James Robert) Young was trying to carry out a big screen TV and dropped it when the (homeowner) yelled at the men and they started to run.

The other (burglar) fired a gun back toward the house and hit Young, Davis said.

“I’d much rather see one burglar shoot another burglar than an innocent homeowner,” (Sheriff David) Davis said.

Young died in the threshold of the woman’s front door, Bibb County Chief Coroner Leon Jones said.



  1. avatar El says:

    What on earth is a “gun policy expert?” I don’t believe there is any such thing.

    1. avatar . says:

      Must be the five-dollar term for “anit-2A bullsh!t peddler.”

    2. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

      My favorite “gun policy expert” was back in the news yesterday. Here’s a quote from the story:

      “If you are not afraid of a gun, get one, become proficient, get a concealed firearms license and carry it. And if you need to shoot somebody, shoot them a lot,” [Sheriff Grady] Judd said.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Antigunner proficient in applying for grants.

  2. avatar The Rookie says:

    I have a hard time taking seriously any “expert” who wears a tie like that. I wonder if he’s wearing enormous shoes and hiding a bottle of seltzer behind his back?

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      I just figured he was repping for Southwest Airlines in that photo.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Hey I believe Jeronimo! should have been convicted but why is the NRA at fault? At least NRA mouthpiece Colion Noir spoke out. There are plenty of unanswered questions about Philando Castile too(drugged out,real CCL?) And I’m quite happy they helped elect Trump…but it’s just a 1st step.

    1. avatar Serpent Vision says:

      If nothing else, they are failing to make good on their statement that they’d have more to say.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        I can only imagine the discussions about any response.
        Castile did the wrong thing, from the cop’s view; he reached, when he shouldn’t have. If he had a real CCW license, he should have heard that when you let a cop know you have the license, then you WAIT for the cop to tell you how he wants to handle the situation. You do *NOT* simply reach for the gun. Or anything else, because that is very easily seen as reaching for a gun.
        But faulting a black man, especially when the case has been so publicly displayed in a truly horrendous fashion, is asking for trouble. It is tantamount to saying, “This is why blacks shouldn’t carry.”
        Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        1. avatar Josh says:

          Did you even watch the video before speaking? The cop said “don t move, roll the window down ” two conflicting statements after the victim told the officer he was carrying (something not disclosed usually if there’s malicious attempt being pursued) he was honest and forthcoming . The officer in question should be In jail for murder .

        2. avatar Serpent Vision says:

          NRA knew when the trial was, knew there would be an end result, and had plenty of time to prepare a statement trying to balance between being accused of being anti-law enforcement and being accused of being racist. The basic platitudes about supporting law enforcement and supporting armed citizens could have been written in advance, with just a tweak at the end depending on which way the verdict went. Not even making the effort makes them easy to accuse whichever way the decision went.

  4. avatar Hank says:

    Well, looks like the NRA has dropped the ball again. That’s twice in one week. First they ban 1911s and revolvers. Now they shun a case that really needs some pro 2A input.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m not entirely sure what the NRA ‘should’ be doing here. The officer in question was charged and a jury found him not guilty based on a lack of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        It is an opportunity for the NRA to use their media resources to acknowledge that mistakes were made by shooter and shootee, even if the law enforcement officer was not found to be guilty of a criminal act.

        Citizens have a right to bear arms and conceal carry. Better education to the masses on what to DO and NOT DO when approached by an LEO is a good start. Training LEOs on a citizen’s rights and avoiding a “shoot first” mentality at the first sight of a gun is another approach. The NRA is about education, so they should start there.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          I suspect the if the NRA launches a PR campaign suggesting that normal people (or CCW carriers) dress/act like whitemen/not POS gangbangers (washout the jerrycurl/get a haircut, learn to drive/no more 86 traffic tickets, stop smoking pot/and driving, stop running around with trash/hooker chicks) you STILL wouldn’t be happy.

          A Jury TRIED the case. Story is over even if the cop does look to have been triggerhappy.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          And Castile SHOULD have known better to reach for anything until told to by the police.
          I dunno why he reached, but he did. Maybe he slept through his class on concealed carry, maybe he was high, maybe he just forgot. We will never know. But we know he did reach, the cop told him several times to not reach, but he did, and he paid the price.
          No matter what the NRA or the court says, the cop will be faulted, another martyr for the blacks will be celebrated, and all of humanity loses.

        3. avatar The Punisher says:

          @Big Bill

          So I’m assuming that in light of the verdict here that an armed citizen can kill another citizen if they “reach” for something after calmly telling you they have a gun?

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “So I’m assuming that in light of the verdict here that an armed citizen can kill another citizen if they “reach” for something after calmly telling you they have a gun?”

          You can assume anything you want, except that I said anything that resembled that.

        5. avatar Serpent Vision says:

          “Castile SHOULD have known better to reach for anything until told to by the police.”
          -Officer did not ask for his license?
          “I dunno why he reached, but he did. Maybe he slept through his class on concealed carry”
          -Seems to hold the armed citizen to a high standard of conduct based on a cursory CCW class (not even required in many states), but not hold the officer accountable after however much training he had to qualify. Mr. Castile could have made better choices, but it is the officer’s responsibility to control the situation, not the suspect’s.

        6. avatar Big Bill says:

          “-Seems to hold the armed citizen to a high standard of conduct based on a cursory CCW class (not even required in many states), but not hold the officer accountable after however much training he had to qualify. Mr. Castile could have made better choices, but it is the officer’s responsibility to control the situation, not the suspect’s.”

          I agree.
          Because the LEOs evidently thought they were approaching an armed robbery suspect, a felony stop instead of a brake light stop probably should have been done.
          Most events with truly bad outcomes are the result of more than one bad decision.

  5. avatar great unknown says:

    Not renewing my NRA membership this time around.

  6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘(James Robert) Young was trying to carry out a big screen TV and dropped it when the (homeowner) yelled at the men and they started to run.’

    They should have just gone to Walmart. Big screen TVs there are cheaper than a Starbucks anymore.

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    Burglar shot by other burglar. Ouch.

    No matter what your line of work, the statement “friendly fire isn’t” is always true.

  8. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Charles C.W. Cooke should, even thorough he is a Brit, be considered a bona-fide U.S. national treasure.

    Yeah. He’s *that* good.

    (I believe he is in the process of attaining U.S. citizenship…)

    1. avatar Matt in Texas says:

      Everyone reading this should listen go him and Kevin Williamson’s podcast today (Mad Dogs and Englishmen), he is one of the clearest and most concise rhetorical minds on our side:

      1. avatar million says:

        Thanks for posting. I didn’t know those two teamed up for a podcast.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    What do you bet, that with the revolving door court system, the shooter will get a plea for something like crim neg homicide and only do a couple of years.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    “James Robert Young was trying to carry out a big screen TV and dropped it . . . . The other (burglar) fired a gun . . . and hit Young.”

    I don’t blame the shooter. He went to all the trouble of committing a burglary for a crummy TV and his partner dropped the TV. He dropped the freakin’ TV! And you know that sumbitch is totally ruined now.

    I would have shot the bastard too.

  11. avatar Kendahl says:

    Didn’t anybody watch the dashcam video of the Castile shooting? The pictures don’t show anything but the sound track does. Initially, officer Yanez sounds relaxed about Castile’s being legally armed. Then, the tone of his voice changes to alarm and panic as he orders Castile, “Don’t pull it out.” What did Castile do to prompt the change? It’s entirely possible he acted innocently but thoughtlessly, not considering how it would look to Yanez. If I found myself in Castile’s position, I would tell the officer exactly where my gun was located. If compliance with his orders required me to reach anywhere near it, I would warn him about that and seek confirmation that he wanted me to proceed anyway.

    The trial transcript is a public document. I’m sure someone will go over the testimony and publish his findings. If the prosecution and defense did their jobs, the transcript will cover the incident in fine detail.

    1. avatar Mike in OK says:

      From what I saw there was fault by both parties. Castille opens with “I have a gun” instead of “I have a CCL” or something along those lines. And then the cop was just way too quick to shoot. In OK we are required to notify the cops we have a ccl and a gun if we have to deal with them. The only time I had to deal with one I led with “I’m required by law to inform you I’m a concealed carry permit holder and I’m armed” as I was handing him both my DL and CCL. No problem. Might have gone differently if I had said “I have a gun” and then started reaching in my pocket.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Two people made errors in that interaction.
        But…the LEOs errors were greater, and the LEO was the one whose actual job was to manage such interactions safely, the other guy was one who got thrown into the interaction unwittingly, and his fatal mistake was to obey the LEO’s orders to
        1. Produce his license, and
        2. Not go for his weapon.

        Was the LEO criminally liable for being a giant fuck-up of lethal magnitude?
        Not beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jury, but IMO yes by a preponderance of the evidence. That’s why he was dismissed from his job but is not a convict.

        Could the whole thing have been avoided by simply yelling “freeze”, or “don’t move”?
        Maybe, maybe not. But if Castile had been ordered to stop moving, he at least could have been killed for disobeying orders instead of for obeying them if he continued to reach for his license.

        1. avatar Sian says:

          I’m willing to accept that Yanez was not criminally liable. It’s a close thing, because he made many awful mistakes on the stop.
          A ‘felony’ stop (Castile vaguely matched the description of a robbery suspect for a case the officer was on) that was handled like a traffic stop.
          Officer Yanez clearly becoming rattled when informed by Castile that he was armed, giving unclear and seemingly contradictory instructions, and ultimately being very quick to go to shots fired, without seeing a weapon. (His partner never so much as cleared leather in the incident)

          Did Castile make some mistakes, possibly due to being impaired? Certainly. But his biggest mistake (And I hate even going there but in this case it seems to be true) is being Armed While Black, which clearly seems to have set Ex-Policeman Geronimo Yanez on edge.

          The civil liability, due to inadequate training, is 100%.

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          Sian: Was Erik Scott executed for walking while white, or was he executed because his SWATter pointed at him and yelled at the cops?

          Was Castile executed for driving while black, or for driving while meeting a BOLO description, or for driving in the presence of a fraidycop? Without sufficient proof otherwise, I’ll go with the fraidycop theory. Never give a yellow bellied chickenshit a badge and a gun.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          ” and his fatal mistake was to obey the LEO’s orders to
          1. Produce his license, and
          2. Not go for his weapon. ”

          Number 2 in your list of fatal mistakes is in error. If you look at what’s actually going on instead of taking sides (in your case, Castile’s side), you see that from the LEO’s perspective, Castile was reaching for something, after he said he had a gun. Cops are understandably concerned when they know a person has a gun, and then starts reaching,and DOES NOT STOP when ordered to stop, which we clearly see is what happened.
          So No. 2 is just wrong.
          And No. 1 certainly wasn’t a fatal mistake, and in fact is required by law, if I’m not mistaken.

        4. avatar Donny77 says:

          @Big Bill If there were stats on this, I’d bet the number of cops killed by people who told them they had a gun is near zero. On the other hand, people who reached for a “wallet” and produced an undeclared firearm are more likely the ones who shot cops. So why are cops understandably concerned when someone declares they have a weapon? I personally don’t understand that logic.

    2. avatar bobo says:

      Castille from the evidence I have seen so far?? he was so stoned he did not understand the cop and acted as such—

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        If by “evidence”, you mean “the only thing the defense attorney could say in an effort to blame the victim”, then yes.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        Is there a link to an autopsy report that shows he was DUI?
        I don’t know, just asking.

  12. avatar Mark N. says:

    “Burglar shot to death by accomplice was released from prison in August”

    Well, that is hardly surprising. Most prisons let you out when you are dead. Kinda stinks the place up if they don’t.

  13. avatar Mark N. says:

    McCarty’s bill wasn’t actually aimed at disarming teachers and staff, although admittedly it will have that effect. Rather it was a follow on bill to one passed a year and a half ago that banned CCW holders from carry firearms or ammunition onto school campuses without approval of the school superintendent. Five districts granted blanket permission. McCarty was pissed, and decided to take away the schools’ discretion in such matters. Police officers–and even retired police officers–are exempt.

    McCarty’s true goal is to make it next to impossible to obtain a CCW in the state of California. A resident and former Sacramento county superintendent, he got into a war with the County Sheriff over the sheriff’s “shall issue” policy, contending that too many permits were being issued. His cohorts tried to clip the sheriff’s budget, and the sheriff merely moved money around to keep the program in place. Now this. IN the meantime, he authored a bill calling for an audit of the CCW issuing systems for LA, San Diego and–of course–Sacramento, the only purpose of which is to find enough evidence to justify a massive increase in CCW issuance fees, because, he says, the tax payers should not have to shoulder the cost of people getting CCWs, because, after all, carrying guns is a bad thing and someone must put a stop to it. His crusade has been helped along quite a bit by the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion in Peruta v. San Diego that there is no constitutional right to a concealed carry permit. (Peruta is on the Supreme Court docket calendar for tomorrow, and we will know by Monday if cert was granted, denied, or continued to next term, as tomorrow is the last session before the summer recess.)

    1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

      Personally I would agree with the ninth circuit Court under the condition that if CCW requires a permit.
      Open carry does not.
      A right doesn’t require a licence.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        If it’s truly a right, then what business does the government have in telling you *how* it can be exercised? The 2A doesn’t contain any reference to concealed or openly carried arms. If you’re OK with requiring a permit for concealed, as long as open is permitless, would you also be okay with requiring a permit to state your thoughts and opinions on the internet, as long as no permit was required to write them on Post-It notes? Is it okay to require a permit to attend a Catholic church or synagogue, as long as you don’t need one to go to a Lutheran or Baptist church?

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Personally I would agree with the ninth circuit Court under the condition that if CCW requires a permit.
        Open carry does not.
        A right doesn’t require a licence.”

        Wow. Circular logic at its best.
        Since it requires a license, it must not be a right. Why does it require a license? Because it’s not a right. Why is it not a right? Because a license is required. Why is a license required? Because it’s not a right.
        I’m getting dizzy.

  14. avatar Binder says:

    Getting and illinois FOID card is about as easy as can be, go online and fill out the form, pay $10 for ten years and wait 30 days or less for it to show up in the mail. Yes it is a infringement, but other than costing $10, it is about as hard as registering to vote. The added benefit is gang members can determine if they can pass a background check before even showing up at the gun store.

  15. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    What’s up with Quasimodo The School Teacher in the picture for Colorado teachers being able to pack heat?

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    That “expert” has the same crazy eyes as Lanza, Loughner and that joker movie theater guy.

  17. avatar vanareb says:

    Why is it that people only seem to trust the jury system when they agree with their verdict?
    They heard all of the testimony, reviewed all of the admissible evidence and reached a unanimous decision.

    Our system of justice isn’t perfect because it permits imperfect people to become judges, attorneys, cops, witnesses and juries. In act it is the worst in the world except for every other country in the world.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Assemblyman Kevin McCarty is the devil. He is the worst kind of human being. McCarty, Gavin Newsom and Mr. Nicki Stallard deserve each other.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email