Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  Welcome to the show. As much as it pains me to say it, mass killings are now a routine part of American life.
[00:08.000 --> 00:15.000]  Just a week ago, a mentally ill man walked into two businesses in Maine and killed 18 innocent people.
[00:15.000 --> 00:20.000]  Then there are the shootings that seem to happen almost every weekend when groups of people are out partying,
[00:20.000 --> 00:26.000]  get into a dispute, and then start shooting, often killing or wounding innocent bystanders.
[00:26.000 --> 00:33.000]  The Maine incident was the result of mental illness. The weekend shootings are something entirely different.
[00:33.000 --> 00:39.000]  This highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when we consider how to address the problem.
[00:39.000 --> 00:47.000]  It is incumbent upon us to look at these issues with brutal, emotionless objectivity. And that's what we're going to do today.
[00:56.000 --> 01:06.000]  Let's start with this. I'm a former United States Army Airborne Ranger. I am former law enforcement.
[01:06.000 --> 01:14.000]  I have performed high-risk felony warrant service. I've taught firearms, tactics, and use of force that have been a part of my life.
[01:14.000 --> 01:20.000]  I've taught courses such as advanced combat rifle and the vaunted handgun combat master program.
[01:20.000 --> 01:27.000]  I share that with you so you can determine whether my background lends itself to being able to speak authoritatively about violence and firearms.
[01:27.000 --> 01:35.000]  Today we're going to examine mass shootings, which should be more properly called mass murder events, from two different perspectives,
[01:35.000 --> 01:40.000]  one being mental illness, the other being something I call weekend party shootings.
[01:40.000 --> 01:47.000]  Let's begin with mass murders committed by those with a mental illness, an example of which occurred on the eve of the shooting.
[01:47.000 --> 01:52.000]  With a mental illness, an example of which occurred on the evening of October 25, 2023,
[01:52.000 --> 01:59.000]  when Army reservist and firearms instructor Robert Card walked into two businesses and murdered 18 innocent people.
[01:59.000 --> 02:08.000]  What makes this particular mass murder telling is that it was known for several months prior to the murders that Card was suffering from mental illness.
[02:08.000 --> 02:15.000]  He was hearing voices that weren't there, and the things those voices were saying were making him angry and violent.
[02:15.000 --> 02:21.000]  The military involuntarily committed him to a mental health facility for the purpose of evaluation.
[02:21.000 --> 02:23.000]  He was there for two weeks.
[02:23.000 --> 02:28.000]  Because of patient confidentiality, we don't know what the determination of Card's mental condition was.
[02:28.000 --> 02:31.000]  All we know is that after 14 days he was released.
[02:31.000 --> 02:37.000]  More significantly, six weeks before the shooting, friends and coworkers of Card reported to their supervisors
[02:37.000 --> 02:41.000]  they feared Card was going to snap and start killing people.
[02:41.000 --> 02:45.000]  If you're looking for the profile of a person with mental health problems,
[02:45.000 --> 02:51.000]  past violence tied to the mental health issues, and a reported concern about the person committing mass murders,
[02:51.000 --> 02:57.000]  all of those facts being in possession of the government, Card is the poster child.
[02:57.000 --> 03:03.000]  And the government did nothing meaningful or effective to stop Card from murdering 18 people.
[03:04.000 --> 03:08.000]  What if we put in place a nationwide program, federally funded,
[03:08.000 --> 03:14.000]  and using local and state law enforcement to place people like Card under constant surveillance?
[03:14.000 --> 03:20.000]  Such a program would require several thousand cops across the country to be trained in a very specialized manner,
[03:20.000 --> 03:29.000]  available to respond within hours, and surveil targeted individuals 24 hours a day, every day, for essentially as long as it takes.
[03:29.000 --> 03:32.000]  What would be the level of surveillance?
[03:32.000 --> 03:36.000]  Physical surveillance? Absolutely, because that would mean if the suspect begins killing people,
[03:36.000 --> 03:40.000]  the surveillance team officers are literally seconds away.
[03:40.000 --> 03:44.000]  Real-time monitoring of his computer, internet use, and cell phone?
[03:44.000 --> 03:53.000]  I think so, but that involves even more people because the surveillance team can't effectively surveil the suspect and monitor the technology side.
[03:53.000 --> 04:00.000]  Basically, we're looking at a variant of the fusion center dedicated to monitoring the online life of potential mass murderers.
[04:00.000 --> 04:04.000]  Those assigned to that task would not only need communication monitoring skills,
[04:04.000 --> 04:11.000]  but also sufficient mental health training to be able to discern if the suspect's mental condition begins deteriorating.
[04:11.000 --> 04:17.000]  If the target begins going downhill mentally, then a really ugly choice presents itself.
[04:17.000 --> 04:22.000]  Do you take him into custody and involuntarily commit him to a mental health care facility,
[04:22.000 --> 04:28.000]  from which he will inevitably be released, and the whole incredibly expensive cycle may end up repeating itself?
[04:28.000 --> 04:32.000]  Or do you tighten your surveillance, add more personnel,
[04:32.000 --> 04:38.000]  and try and catch him when he's about to murder people without letting him actually murder anyone?
[04:38.000 --> 04:42.000]  If you can pull that off, he'll be in prison for years.
[04:42.000 --> 04:48.000]  But, and this is a pretty huge but, what if things don't go as intended and the officers are, as an example,
[04:48.000 --> 04:53.000]  40 seconds late getting to him and in that 40 seconds he murders six people?
[04:53.000 --> 04:58.000]  If that were to occur, the agencies involved would be sued for millions of dollars,
[04:58.000 --> 05:03.000]  claiming the government knew he was going downhill and did not take him into custody.
[05:03.000 --> 05:10.000]  Then we get into the inevitable problem of the surveillance teams deciding that if they see the target exit vehicle holding a firearm,
[05:10.000 --> 05:16.000]  they're going to issue some perfunctory commands and open fire, thus assuring he won't be killing anybody.
[05:16.000 --> 05:20.000]  Do we look the other way because it is an effective and permanent solution
[05:20.000 --> 05:25.000]  assuring the mentally ill person won't ever kill any innocent people?
[05:25.000 --> 05:32.000]  I ask because if this program is put into place, as sure as I'm sitting here today, that will eventually happen.
[05:32.000 --> 05:35.000]  Let's say society opts for the monitoring program.
[05:35.000 --> 05:38.000]  When does the monitoring end?
[05:38.000 --> 05:44.000]  30 days? 90 days? 120 days? A year? Two years?
[05:44.000 --> 05:47.000]  If the assessment as the target is a threat to the community,
[05:47.000 --> 05:51.000]  but he can't be held for any significant length of time in a mental health care facility,
[05:51.000 --> 05:56.000]  how long does this insanely expensive surveillance continue?
[05:56.000 --> 06:01.000]  A rough estimate of the basic cost to properly surveil one person, as we've laid out today,
[06:01.000 --> 06:03.000]  is about a million dollars for six months.
[06:03.000 --> 06:08.000]  If we add in all the associated tangential cost, it's roughly 1.5 million for six months.
[06:09.000 --> 06:17.000]  If, in a nation of 334 million people, 700 targets are being monitored in this manner,
[06:17.000 --> 06:21.000]  that's more than a billion dollars every six months.
[06:21.000 --> 06:23.000]  Two billion dollars a year.
[06:23.000 --> 06:27.000]  Given the high cost, how much are two lives worth?
[06:27.000 --> 06:29.000]  Five lives? 20 lives? 30 lives?
[06:29.000 --> 06:37.000]  If we say the program will save 20 lives a year, that's 100 million dollars per life saved.
[06:37.000 --> 06:41.000]  Then we have the thorny question of what, precisely, triggers this kind of monitoring?
[06:41.000 --> 06:47.000]  If it is determined that a person does not meet the legal threshold for this type of highly invasive 24-7 monitoring,
[06:47.000 --> 06:53.000]  yet two months later he kills a dozen people, what then? Who's at fault?
[06:53.000 --> 06:59.000]  I ask because in America, someone other than the shooter always has to be blamed.
[06:59.000 --> 07:03.000]  What might the legal threshold for that level of surveillance look like?
[07:03.000 --> 07:08.000]  That's a critical question because in America, the government can't just place someone under surveillance
[07:08.000 --> 07:10.000]  because they think it's a nifty idea.
[07:10.000 --> 07:12.000]  That is called a police state.
[07:12.000 --> 07:17.000]  In America, there must be legal justification to place a person under surveillance.
[07:17.000 --> 07:21.000]  In this matter, I'm confident the courts would require the following elements.
[07:21.000 --> 07:27.000]  The person has previously voluntarily committed himself or was involuntarily committed
[07:27.000 --> 07:30.000]  under a presumption of being a danger to himself or others.
[07:31.000 --> 07:36.000]  If involuntarily committed, was held for longer than the legally permissible assessment period,
[07:36.000 --> 07:40.000]  which is commonly three days but does vary state to state.
[07:40.000 --> 07:47.000]  The person has been physically violent within the previous 12 months and that violence cannot reasonably be considered self-defense.
[07:47.000 --> 07:55.000]  The attending psychiatrist or psychologist signs a declaration that the earlier violence was due to a diagnosable mental condition or disorder.
[07:56.000 --> 08:02.000]  The attending psychiatrist or psychologist signs a declaration that based on his or her assessment of the patient,
[08:02.000 --> 08:05.000]  24-7 monitoring may be advisable.
[08:05.000 --> 08:10.000]  And lastly, affidavits are presented to the court by friends, family, coworkers, employers, etc.
[08:10.000 --> 08:13.000]  stating they are concerned about the person becoming violent.
[08:15.000 --> 08:22.000]  That's a high bar to meet, which it should be to place a person under such intrusive surveillance 24-7.
[08:22.000 --> 08:28.000]  As a nation, if we choose to go down that road, how effective can we expect it to be?
[08:28.000 --> 08:33.000]  I imagine it would be highly effective concerning those under surveillance.
[08:33.000 --> 08:39.000]  The real question is, after investing billions of dollars in this kind of national program,
[08:39.000 --> 08:44.000]  how about the mass murderers who don't meet the criteria so they are never being monitored?
[08:44.000 --> 08:49.000]  What happens when someone not under this kind of surveillance commits mass murder?
[08:49.000 --> 08:58.000]  That's an important question because probably 99% of mass shooters would not meet the legal threshold to be placed under that kind of surveillance.
[08:58.000 --> 09:02.000]  Okay, it's time for me to come clean.
[09:02.000 --> 09:08.000]  This whole discussion about a nationwide program of surveillance on those who meet a particular profile was a setup.
[09:08.000 --> 09:18.000]  My intention was to show how artfully such a program can be created, yet the program would reach virtually none of the people who commit mass murder.
[09:18.000 --> 09:27.000]  I put on this little ruse because such a program is something those who think government can and should solve such problems would gladly support,
[09:27.000 --> 09:31.000]  even though it would in reality be expensive and ineffective.
[09:31.000 --> 09:35.000]  There are people out there who, when they want the government to resolve a situation,
[09:35.000 --> 09:46.000]  will throw their support completely behind something that's expensive and ineffective because on an emotional level they feel something must be done.
[09:46.000 --> 09:52.000]  Then when it comes to mass murders, government is not the answer.
[09:52.000 --> 09:55.000]  So what is the answer? I'm going to share that with you in a moment.
[09:55.000 --> 10:04.000]  But before I do, I want to address another approach some people would like to see implemented, which is more gun control laws.
[10:04.000 --> 10:07.000]  Aside from gun control laws having never stopped a mass shooting,
[10:07.000 --> 10:14.000]  nearly all gun control laws are on the way out because of the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruin decision.
[10:14.000 --> 10:20.000]  The Bruin decision created something called the Bruin Test, requiring gun control laws to be, and I quote,
[10:20.000 --> 10:26.000]  consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation, close quote.
[10:26.000 --> 10:32.000]  Furthermore, those historical traditions must be from the nation's earliest years
[10:32.000 --> 10:37.000]  because the words of the Constitution mean what they were understood to mean by the men who wrote them
[10:37.000 --> 10:42.000]  and what the people of the states understood them to mean when they ratified the Constitution.
[10:42.000 --> 10:49.000]  There is a legal doctrine that says a determination as to the meaning and intent of any legal enactment is best determined
[10:49.000 --> 10:54.000]  by consideration of the views of those who lived during the time of the enactment and shortly thereafter
[10:54.000 --> 10:59.000]  rather than the views of those who lived decades or even centuries afterwards.
[10:59.000 --> 11:06.000]  In other words, the meaning, intent, and scope of the phrase right to keep and bear arms
[11:06.000 --> 11:13.000]  is presumed to be better determined from the writings and actions of Americans in 1791,
[11:13.000 --> 11:19.000]  the year the Bill of Rights was ratified, than the writings and actions of Americans 100 or 200 years later.
[11:19.000 --> 11:21.000]  Another way to look at it is this.
[11:21.000 --> 11:28.000]  Any laws restricting ownership, possession, or carrying of arms that would have been considered unacceptable
[11:28.000 --> 11:33.000]  and impermissible by Americans in 1791 or in the years immediately thereafter
[11:33.000 --> 11:38.000]  will not be considered constitutional today under the Bruin test.
[11:38.000 --> 11:45.000]  As you might imagine, the founding generation saw virtually any restriction on purchasing, possessing, or carrying of arms to be impermissible.
[11:45.000 --> 11:51.000]  So it's hard to see how any modern gun control law would survive a challenge under Bruin.
[11:51.000 --> 11:58.000]  And in fact, we've seen a slew of gun control laws declared unconstitutional in the 16 months since Bruin was decided.
[11:58.000 --> 12:04.000]  As more gun control laws are challenged under Bruin, the more will be declared unconstitutional.
[12:04.000 --> 12:09.000]  The bottom line here is that while gun control laws never had any effect on mass murders,
[12:09.000 --> 12:13.000]  such laws can no longer be enacted because they won't survive the Bruin test.
[12:13.000 --> 12:18.000]  Now, let's shift gears a bit and talk about what I call weekend party shootings,
[12:18.000 --> 12:22.000]  of which there seems to be a couple every weekend these days.
[12:22.000 --> 12:25.000]  The circumstances can differ, but essentially it goes like this.
[12:25.000 --> 12:28.000]  A group of people get together and go out partying.
[12:28.000 --> 12:34.000]  As the booze and drugs kick in, the shit talking begins with other groups of people who are also out partying.
[12:34.000 --> 12:39.000]  Around about two or three o'clock in the morning when everyone is seriously fucked up,
[12:39.000 --> 12:43.000]  the bar or club closes and the patrons pour into the street.
[12:43.000 --> 12:47.000]  Then the physical altercations begin.
[12:47.000 --> 12:53.000]  Someone is getting his ass kicked so he pulls a gun, or a buddy of the guy getting his ass kicked pulls a gun.
[12:53.000 --> 12:55.000]  Either way, the shooting starts.
[12:55.000 --> 12:59.000]  Oftentimes the people who are killed or wounded aren't even the ones fighting.
[12:59.000 --> 13:06.000]  They're simply members of the group or completely unrelated people who just happen to be on the street when the shooting started.
[13:06.000 --> 13:11.000]  This does not occur from mental illness like the mass shooters we've been discussing.
[13:11.000 --> 13:20.000]  These weekend party shootings occur because the guys who start shooting are cowardly little bitches who can't handle their business without a gun.
[13:20.000 --> 13:23.000]  They're just lowlife pieces of shit.
[13:23.000 --> 13:25.000]  Nothing more complex than that.
[13:25.000 --> 13:30.000]  We've discussed that the government cannot save you from mass murders.
[13:30.000 --> 13:33.000]  Can it save you from these weekend party shootings?
[13:33.000 --> 13:39.000]  Nope. If the government could stop these weekend party shootings, we wouldn't hear about them virtually every weekend.
[13:39.000 --> 13:48.000]  Where we find ourselves then is that the government is 100% powerless to stop either of these kinds of shootings that occur in public spaces.
[13:48.000 --> 13:57.000]  What both of these kinds of shootings have in common is that stopping them would require the government to somehow be omniscient about where and when these murders are going to take place,
[13:57.000 --> 14:02.000]  along with who will be committing them, and intercede before the murders occur.
[14:02.000 --> 14:06.000]  Not only is that an impossibility, but it's also not government's job.
[14:06.000 --> 14:12.000]  If you don't follow court cases pertaining to government, its duties, its legal limitations, and so forth,
[14:12.000 --> 14:24.000]  you may be surprised to learn that the courts have repeatedly held that police departments and police officers are under no duty to protect you.
[14:24.000 --> 14:33.000]  Given that reality, it's more than a little odd that it seems the vast majority of Americans find comfort in the false paradigm that the police will protect them.
[14:33.000 --> 14:45.000]  Even more odd is that no matter how many people are killed in these mass shooting events, the public's position, the public's expectations, the public's actions never change.
[14:45.000 --> 14:50.000]  There is literally no change in viewpoint expectations or actions.
[14:50.000 --> 14:59.000]  Whether one person is killed or 18 are killed, as was the case last week with Robert Card, or 50 are killed, as was the case in 2017 in Las Vegas.
[14:59.000 --> 15:04.000]  When I say the public's expectations have not changed, what do I mean by that?
[15:04.000 --> 15:09.000]  As the number of mass murders have increased, with the government clearly impotent to stop them,
[15:09.000 --> 15:15.000]  the public's perception remains that the government will get a handle on the situation.
[15:15.000 --> 15:26.000]  Somehow, 100% of the evidence shows that is an unrealistic expectation, yet for some reason the public clings to it. Why?
[15:26.000 --> 15:30.000]  Opinions vary, but I'm going to share mine with you, which is this.
[15:30.000 --> 15:42.000]  As long as people cling to the idea that the government is handling it or will handle it, then they feel alleviated from having to take any action of their own.
[15:42.000 --> 15:55.000]  Phrased another way, they are willing to continue in an emotionally comforting state of denial even if it means they die, their spouse dies, their parents die, or their children die.
[15:55.000 --> 16:02.000]  In their minds, any of those outcomes, or all of them, is preferable to taking action that would prevent those things from happening.
[16:02.000 --> 16:11.000]  After all, it's the government's responsibility to save their spouse, their children, or their parents. It is absolutely not their job.
[16:11.000 --> 16:14.000]  Isn't the modern American outlook great?
[16:14.000 --> 16:23.000]  Before I get into the issue of taking personal action, I want to address what I believe is the elephant in the room, the dirty little secret no one wants to acknowledge.
[16:23.000 --> 16:33.000]  The dirty little secret is that the vast majority of Americans don't care how many mass shootings occur or how many people die from mass shootings.
[16:33.000 --> 16:43.000]  The public's angst over these mass murders is feigned. In reality, no one gives a shit. The only reason people pretend to give a shit is the media told them they should.
[16:43.000 --> 16:50.000]  If they actually felt deep emotions about the situation, they take action to preserve their own life and the lives of their loved ones.
[16:50.000 --> 17:00.000]  But they don't. Because, despite the facade, on a scale of 1 to 100, the importance of mass shootings to them is a zero.
[17:00.000 --> 17:10.000]  In the last 10 years, 4,300 people were killed in mass shootings in the U.S. The U.S. population is roughly 340 million.
[17:11.000 --> 17:20.000]  That means, over a 10-year period, 12 one-thousandths of one percent of the U.S. population was killed in mass shootings.
[17:20.000 --> 17:30.000]  If we break that down to an annual number, then 12 ten-thousandths of one percent of the U.S. population were killed in a single year by mass shooters.
[17:31.000 --> 17:43.000]  Let's look at this from another perspective. In 2021, 300 people died falling off ladders, while 430 people died being killed in mass shootings.
[17:43.000 --> 17:52.000]  In a nation with a population of 340 million people, the difference between 300 deaths and 430 deaths is statistically insignificant.
[17:52.000 --> 18:00.000]  So let me ask you a question. When was the last time you saw a story about tragic ladder deaths appear in the media for days on end
[18:00.000 --> 18:06.000]  and advocacy groups speaking out about the need to stop the scourge of ladder deaths?
[18:06.000 --> 18:13.000]  Four times the number of people are murdered each year in the U.S. with knives that are murdered in mass shootings.
[18:14.000 --> 18:19.000]  When was the last time you saw a story about a knife murder appear in the media for days on end
[18:19.000 --> 18:25.000]  and advocacy groups speaking out about the need to stop the scourge of knife murders?
[18:25.000 --> 18:33.000]  My point is that the media has trained the American people to feign outrage and deep sadness for the victims of mass shootings,
[18:33.000 --> 18:40.000]  but not, as an example, for the victims of knife murders, which claim four times the number of victims each year.
[18:40.000 --> 18:45.000]  Now that we know government can't stop any of these shootings, what's the answer?
[18:45.000 --> 18:55.000]  I'm just going to throw something out. Perhaps Americans could learn skills that will save their lives and the lives of others.
[18:55.000 --> 18:58.000]  Yeah, I know. They won't.
[18:58.000 --> 19:07.000]  I love learning things, including skill sets that can preserve my life, the lives of people I love, and in the process put down an evil son of a bitch.
[19:07.000 --> 19:14.000]  That works for me. It's hard for me to relate to people who consider that kind of training and preparedness to be a drag.
[19:14.000 --> 19:23.000]  While I don't understand it, I acknowledge those folks are the vast majority of the U.S. population, and I am in a small minority.
[19:23.000 --> 19:28.000]  That reality further validates that Americans don't really give a shit about mass shootings.
[19:28.000 --> 19:34.000]  If they really cared about the consequences of a mass shooting, they'd take steps to protect themselves and their loved ones.
[19:34.000 --> 19:41.000]  But they don't, because the societal narrative that people actually give a shit about mass shootings is a media contrivance.
[19:41.000 --> 19:52.000]  The media says things like, as the nation mourns, when in fact no one is mourning because no one gives a shit, even the media doesn't give a shit.
[19:52.000 --> 19:59.000]  To the media, mass shootings are nothing more than an opportunity to increase ad revenue based on more clicks and views.
[19:59.000 --> 20:04.000]  Media outlets know that mass shootings are to the public like driving past a nasty car crash.
[20:04.000 --> 20:07.000]  People can't help looking to see what happened.
[20:07.000 --> 20:20.000]  The public is titillated by such things, and the media knows if they keep hammering those stories and falsely telling Americans how badly their fellow citizens feel about it, the ad revenue will come rolling in.
[20:20.000 --> 20:24.000]  It doesn't get any more cynical and manipulative than that.
[20:25.000 --> 20:31.000]  The bottom line concerning mass murders is no one is going to save you, most especially the government.
[20:31.000 --> 20:35.000]  Whether you live or die during such an event is up to you.
[20:35.000 --> 20:39.000]  Are you in possession of the tool to protect yourself and your loved one?
[20:39.000 --> 20:44.000]  Did you get necessary training to use that tool effectively?
[20:44.000 --> 20:52.000]  Have you worked through various scenarios in your mind so you have an idea in advance how you may want to play the situation if it occurs?
[20:52.000 --> 20:56.000]  If the answer to those is no, then you have two choices.
[20:56.000 --> 21:05.000]  Run away in panic mode, which may not save you because you can't outrun a bullet, or hunker down and pray the shooter doesn't notice you.
[21:05.000 --> 21:16.000]  Those seem like really pathetic options to me, though it's a mystery to me why anyone would put themselves in such a needlessly helpless position.
[21:16.000 --> 21:24.000]  I acknowledge it's the option for the vast majority of my countrymen that they appear to prefer.
[21:24.000 --> 21:29.000]  A moment ago I said the bottom line concerning mass murders is no one is going to save you.
[21:29.000 --> 21:32.000]  That's not completely true.
[21:32.000 --> 21:39.000]  You might end up being saved by someone like me who carries every day and is willing to put his life on the line to save others.
[21:39.000 --> 21:47.000]  An example of that took place in July 2022 when a murderer walked out of a mall bathroom and started killing people in the food court with a rifle.
[21:47.000 --> 21:55.000]  The shooter only fired for 15 seconds before being engaged by an armed citizen and killed.
[21:55.000 --> 21:59.000]  But in those 15 seconds, the shooter killed three people and wounded two others.
[21:59.000 --> 22:04.000]  Three killed in 15 seconds.
[22:05.000 --> 22:10.000]  Imagine what the numbers might have been if the armed citizen hadn't been present and willing to engage the shooter.
[22:10.000 --> 22:17.000]  While that story had about as positive an outcome as one can expect in such a situation, you'd be a fool to count on that.
[22:17.000 --> 22:20.000]  There are two reasons it's foolish.
[22:20.000 --> 22:25.000]  First, only a small number of active shooter events are ended by an armed citizen.
[22:25.000 --> 22:32.000]  If we limit the discussion to the shooting of random people in a public place, probably only 1% are stopped by an armed citizen.
[22:32.000 --> 22:39.000]  And that makes sense because I've estimated only 2% of the non-police, non-security public carry routinely.
[22:39.000 --> 22:46.000]  Yet even many of those folks have times when they don't carry, which reduces the number of armed citizens even further.
[22:46.000 --> 22:52.000]  As an example, a guy may carry everywhere on his own time, but not carry at work for fear of being fired.
[22:52.000 --> 23:00.000]  So if a mentally ill disgruntled employee starts shooting the place up, the man who would have been able to respond appropriately on his own time
[23:00.000 --> 23:03.000]  won't be able to stop the mass shooter at work.
[23:03.000 --> 23:09.000]  I've had people tell me they leave their gun in the car whenever a business has a no firearm sign posted.
[23:09.000 --> 23:16.000]  And that makes sense because the mentally ill mass shooter won't shoot anyone once he sees the sign.
[23:16.000 --> 23:24.000]  The bottom line is that at any given moment in any public place, probably less than 1% are carrying a firearm.
[23:25.000 --> 23:30.000]  Second, there are people who carry all the time but won't lift a finger to save you.
[23:30.000 --> 23:36.000]  Their justification for that is that if you are so lazy and irresponsible that you haven't prepared to save your own life,
[23:36.000 --> 23:39.000]  they aren't going to risk themselves for you.
[23:39.000 --> 23:45.000]  These folks illustrate the point that just because a man trains and carries doesn't make him moral or brave.
[23:45.000 --> 23:50.000]  For that sort of man, it's all about himself. It's about his own safety, not yours.
[23:50.000 --> 23:59.000]  Despite having the skills and tool to stop a mass shooter, this kind of person will literally watch one person after another being murdered and run away.
[23:59.000 --> 24:04.000]  If he doesn't consider it safe to run away, he'll hide and watch you die.
[24:04.000 --> 24:12.000]  He'll watch 10 or 20 or 30 people die and never act unless the shooter is about to find him in his hiding place.
[24:12.000 --> 24:23.000]  In fact, if it was 100 or 200 people being slaughtered, this kind of guy still won't engage the shooter because no one matters but himself.
[24:23.000 --> 24:30.000]  One such person recently told me he wouldn't act to save males from an active shooter but would defend women and children.
[24:30.000 --> 24:36.000]  And that's a lie to make him sound like less of a coward to other people.
[24:36.000 --> 24:42.000]  He has no idea if two seconds after he runs away, the shooter is going to kill a bunch of women and children.
[24:42.000 --> 24:46.000]  I'm not going to moralize about such a person. I'm sure you have your own viewpoint.
[24:46.000 --> 24:54.000]  I'll simply say I'd never count on that person to have my six because he's absolutely nothing wrong with running away whenever he feels like it.
[24:54.000 --> 25:03.000]  My point in letting you know such people exist is to make clear the responsibility really does fall solely on you, even when other armed people may be present.
[25:03.000 --> 25:17.000]  If we combine the fact that less than one percent are likely to be carrying with the fact that even some who are won't want to finger to save you, you can see why I see the dynamic as get prepared or perhaps get dead.
[25:17.000 --> 25:23.000]  Are Americans so timid they will not use violence to stay alive and protect the life of a loved one?
[25:23.000 --> 25:30.000]  Are they unwilling to use moral and just force to stop immoral and unjust force?
[25:31.000 --> 25:35.000]  Here's a true statement. The problem isn't that there are too many guns in our society.
[25:35.000 --> 25:41.000]  The problem is that almost no one wants to do the things it takes to be prepared for a violent encounter.
[25:41.000 --> 25:45.000]  We've talked about the fact that some mass murders are mentally ill.
[25:45.000 --> 26:03.000]  So here's a thought. Knowing these things occur and are increasing in frequency, is it not its own form of mental illness to remain in denial and not prepare oneself to survive, if not for yourself, perhaps for a loved one?
[26:03.000 --> 26:06.000]  I'll do a future presentation on exactly how to prepare.
[26:06.000 --> 26:16.000]  But for today, I'll simply say you should own a combat-grade firearm and train with it so under stress you can operate it efficiently and hit your target.
[26:16.000 --> 26:34.000]  Here's another thought to ponder. Since everyone knows these mass murders occur and that they are increasing in frequency, if you choose not to be prepared for such an occurrence and you get killed, is there any reason anyone should say anything other than, well, that's a shame, and move on?
[26:34.000 --> 26:46.000]  I mean, if you decided your life isn't worth investing some time and energy, as well as perhaps a wee bit of inconvenience carrying the right tool, why should anyone consider your death a big deal?
[26:46.000 --> 26:53.000]  After you set the value of your life at near zero, why wouldn't others honor your assessment?
[26:53.000 --> 27:02.000]  A moment ago I asked if Americans are too timid to defend themselves, to defend their rights, such as the right to return home alive from the grocery store or movie theater.
[27:02.000 --> 27:08.000]  I believe the evidence tells us the answer is yes. Americans are too timid.
[27:08.000 --> 27:15.000]  Let me share with you one reason, one experience that indicates that's the case, at least to me.
[27:15.000 --> 27:20.000]  Income tax shattering the miss has been out for almost 14 years.
[27:20.000 --> 27:24.000]  I don't know how many thousands of copies have been sold in that time, but I do know one thing.
[27:24.000 --> 27:38.000]  Every single person who has completed income tax shattering the miss knows for an absolute fact, balls to bone, that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary, hardworking Americans like you.
[27:38.000 --> 27:46.000]  Roughly 100 million Americans upon whom the tax has not been imposed file 1040s every year.
[27:46.000 --> 27:57.000]  So out of 100 million people, might one think at least a couple of million would have purchased and read income tax shattering the miss over the past 14 years?
[27:57.000 --> 28:00.000]  I certainly had that in mind when I wrote it.
[28:00.000 --> 28:12.000]  You see, I mistakenly thought all 340 million Americans would want to read it once the truth was laid out in an easy to understand manner, in a comprehensive compendium, complete with an exhaustive table of authorities and a thorough index,
[28:12.000 --> 28:18.000]  leaving the reader with 100% certainty that the income tax has never been imposed on ordinary Americans.
[28:18.000 --> 28:21.000]  I thought most of my fellow Americans were like me.
[28:21.000 --> 28:28.000]  They cared about their rights, whether it's the right to survive a mass murder attempt or their unalienable right to keep the fruits of their labor.
[28:28.000 --> 28:38.000]  Your unalienable right to the fruits of your labor is exactly and precisely why Congress can never and has never imposed the income tax on you.
[28:38.000 --> 28:44.000]  And this isn't some theoretical argument about your right to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor.
[28:44.000 --> 28:52.000]  The US Supreme Court has confirmed the right of the American people to keep 100% of the fruits of their labor in several decisions.
[28:52.000 --> 29:07.000]  And to repeat, it is because no government body in America, including the US Congress, has the authority to tax a right that Congress has never imposed the income tax on the fruits of your labor and never can.
[29:07.000 --> 29:17.000]  Americans falsely believe Congress has done that because they've been brainwashed for 60 years by a massive government disinformation campaign.
[29:17.000 --> 29:26.000]  I understand if the evidence that the income tax has never been imposed on you wasn't 100% rock solid, you wouldn't be inclined to stop filing and paying.
[29:26.000 --> 29:30.000]  And guess what? I totally agree with you on that.
[29:30.000 --> 29:36.000]  But here's the thing. It is 100% rock solid.
[29:36.000 --> 29:41.000]  So don't you owe it to yourself to take a look at the issue and see if it's true?
[29:41.000 --> 29:54.000]  I'm thrilled that thousands of Americans have read Income Tax Shattering the Mist and based on the indisputable facts they found there, many have safely left the government income tax scam behind.
[29:54.000 --> 29:58.000]  Safely means never hearing from the IRS again.
[29:58.000 --> 30:03.000]  It's not unusual for readers to promote Income Tax Shattering the Mist on their social media pages.
[30:03.000 --> 30:08.000]  On X, when telling people why they should read Income Tax Shattering the Mist, one gentleman said,
[30:08.000 --> 30:17.000]  I read this book cover to cover often. It's the key to your freedom, wealth, and prosperity.
[30:17.000 --> 30:22.000]  You can get Income Tax Shattering the Mist at drreality.news.
[30:22.000 --> 30:24.000]  I'll put the link down in the notes.
[30:24.000 --> 30:27.000]  While you're there, also consider picking up a copy of Body Science.
[30:27.000 --> 30:38.000]  Same story, massive government and industry disinformation has resulted in the American people being the most chronically ill society in all of human history.
[30:38.000 --> 30:44.000]  And that's been done intentionally in order to increase the revenue of certain trillion dollar industries.
[30:44.000 --> 30:51.000]  Body Science shows you how the scam has been run and then lays out the truth of how your body's physiology actually works,
[30:51.000 --> 30:55.000]  which is dramatically different than you've been led to believe.
[30:55.000 --> 31:01.000]  Government and industry disinformation is why over 70% of the U.S. population is overweight or obese
[31:01.000 --> 31:05.000]  and why we are the sickest people in all of human history.
[31:05.000 --> 31:11.000]  The good news is you can get deprogrammed from all that garbage simply by reading Body Science.
[31:11.000 --> 31:19.000]  The information is so compelling that it literally eviscerates all the inaccurate things you were told for the last several decades.
[31:19.000 --> 31:25.000]  To give you some idea of how readers react to it, it has never gotten anything less than 5 out of 5 stars
[31:25.000 --> 31:32.000]  and it is not uncommon for me to receive emails from readers telling me they believe Body Science saved their life.
[31:32.000 --> 31:36.000]  Also, by purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science,
[31:36.000 --> 31:41.000]  you help me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and thought-provoking presentations.
[31:41.000 --> 31:45.000]  Please share this presentation with everyone. Thanks for being here. Take care.
[31:49.000 --> 31:51.000]  Thank you.