‘Stand Your Ground,’ Self-Defense and the Rhetoric That Emboldened Recent Shooters Pro-gun groups on the right have for years promoted the right to armed self-defense and warned of pervasive threats.
Gregory Kielma • June 18, 2023
Armed self-defense Good Read Tale a look
Pro-gun groups on the right have for years promoted the right to armed self-defense and warned of pervasive threats. Experts and critics say the recent shootings of innocent people are the consequence.
Ringing the wrong doorbell, pulling into the wrong driveway, accidentally getting in the wrong car: Mundane, everyday mistakes ended in the shootings of several young people – and the death of one of them – last month when the men on the receiving end of the errors reached for their firearms and decided to shoot.
The shootings captured public attention nationwide, breaking through the unfortunate white noise of pervasive gun violence for their brazenness and similarities. They have reignited the fight over so-called “stand your ground” laws expanding the legal protections around self-defense. And critics, too, have pointed to the incidents as the natural end result of a society flooded with firearms.
But experts and gun control advocates say the shootings are a symptom of a much broader cause: the proliferation of rhetoric on the pro-gun right and among conservatives in general about persistent, pervasive threats, danger and crime, and also of guns as the only means of personal safety against the criminals that lurk around every corner.
“For seven years, all of us here today have been engaged in an epic struggle against the corrupt forces and communist maniacs – and they’re all over the place – that are absolutely trying to destroy our country,” former President Donald Trump said this month in a speech at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting. “They want to take away your guns while throwing open the jailhouse doors and releasing bloodthirsty criminals into your communities.”
Wayne LaPierre, the embattled chief executive officer of the pro-gun organization, expressed similar sentiments.
“You don’t need the government to tell you the sky is blue, water’s wet or that you have the God-given right to self-defense,” he said.
‘This Could Happen to Anybody’
In Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, a Black teenager, rang the wrong doorbell on April 13 while trying to pick up his siblings from a friend’s house. The octogenarian homeowner inside the house shot Yarl in the head in what he said was self-defense, in an action prosecutors say had a “racial component.” Two days later in upstate New York, a car full of young people pulled into the wrong driveway while looking for another friend’s house. The homeowner shot at the car from the porch. Twenty-year-old Kaylin Gillis died. And just days after that, a man shot two teenage cheerleaders in Elgin, Texas, after one of them tried to get into his car by accident, thinking it was her ride. She realized her mistake, exited the car and tried to apologize. But the man opened fire. Yarl’s shooting made headlines in part because it highlighted issues relating to race, and public attention quickly turned to the other shootings in the days after. Though the U.S. experiences gun violence at the highest rate of any developed nation, the shootings broke through the news cycle in part because they easily inspired empathy.
Gun Control and Gun Rights Cartoons
“This could happen to anybody. I mean, there was a racial factor involved in at least one of these. But beyond that, it's just like, this could happen to me or this could happen to my kid,” says Michael Lawlor, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven and a former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. Lawlor, a Democrat, also served as the state’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy.
Focus turned, then, on Missouri’s “stand your ground” law, which is like a law of the same name that is in place in Texas. Gun rights advocates have pushed for years to enact the measures, which expand protections around the use of force when acting in self-defense. Under the law, a person has the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense anywhere they have a legal right to be, and without first retreating – in other words, using force does not have to be a last resort. The laws burst onto the public debate stage in 2012, when Florida police noted it as the reason they refused to arrest George Zimmerman, who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a Black unarmed teenager. Zimmerman was later charged and then acquitted.
New York has a similar, albeit more limited, law called the “castle doctrine” that allows for use of force by a person defending their own home – or castle, so to speak. And the passage of “stand your ground” laws has happened in concert with a focused emphasis by the pro-gun right on crime, threats, and self-defense. While promoting firearms as a tool for self-defense is not a new idea, the expansion of laws allowing for use of deadly force may contribute to a climate where gun owners are more ready to do so, says Matthew Lacombe, an associate professor of political science at Case Western University who specializes in gun politics, the NRA and political ideology.
“The NRA narrative that you might use guns for armed self-defense is not new. What is newer is liberalization of particularly state-level laws pertaining to how, when and why you can use lethal force to defend yourself,” Lacombe says.
The men who perpetrated the recent shootings will likely not be covered under such laws, Lacombe notes. But in a wider context, “it's probably the case that the general shift legally has encouraged more and more people to think about self-defense in these terms, encouraged more people to buy guns specifically for self-defense purposes, and in some ways emboldened them in terms of what they see as a reasonable use of them,” he says. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which has championed the laws, did not respond to a request for comment about the recent shootings and self-defense laws.
Politicians and advocates for more restrictive gun control laws have pointed the finger at “stand your ground” laws for such an embodiment.
“I think we now have a shoot-first, ask-later policy in this state – or at least that is what people have interpreted it to be,” Missouri state Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat, was quoted by The Kansas City Star as saying in the wake of Yarl’s shooting. Nurrenbern introduced a measure in the legislature earlier this year to limit the state’s law, but the bill went nowhere. The context around the laws, including a focus on firearms as a means for self-defense as opposed to other uses, Lacombe says, is critical for understanding what effect they may have on society.
“It's not just the laws, it's also the sort of marketing campaigns and rhetoric surrounding the laws, which I think have increasingly turned the gun-rights space into one focused on armed self-defense specifically, as opposed to other uses of guns,” Lacombe says.
Part of that context also includes a pervasive narrative pushed by pro-gun advocates and the NRA that has intertwined gun rights and core values like freedom, making expansive gun rights a core part of the conservative ideology – even identity. “Owning a gun isn't just having an object that you might use for recreation or self-defense, but it's more of a sort of symbol of who you are and what you stand for. And part of that relates to self-sufficiency,” Lacombe says of the narrative. “We think of self-sufficiency as being politically coded – you know, ‘I don't need handouts’ – but it's also in recent years come to even involve notions of protection.”
Fear and Freedom
Republicans have in recent years emphasized crime and threats in their electoral messaging around – a threat they say is posed by an “invasion” of illegal immigration, the threat posed by criminals emboldened by Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, the threat of eroding rights and norms.
“The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals and dangerous refugees that no other country wants,” Trump told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year. “If those opposing us succeed, our once-beautiful USA will be a failed country that no one will even recognize – a lawless, open-borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare.”
Trump is considered the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. His comments echo narratives threaded through many right-leaning news and commentary shows and other forms of media, as well as the electoral strategies of other candidates.
Fear is an old and effective political motivator, experts say, and that motivation was also on display at the NRA’s annual meeting earlier this month, with speeches replete with warnings about self-defense, crime and protecting freedoms from those who want to take it away by force.
“Threat is a pretty powerful motivator, so associating support for gun rights with addressing different types of threats is something that historically has worked pretty well for the NRA,” Lacombe says.
Lawlor, the criminal justice professor, and former state legislator, describes fear and threat as a “political business model” that shifts and changes in topic over the years but remains a pervasive strategy.
“In 2004, the presidential election was all about gay marriage. Right now, it’s all about drag queens. A couple of cycles ago, it was all about immigrant caravans. There is always something that can be that thing that everyone should fear,” Lawlor says. “And so, we're back to crime now. That's where we are now – that you should be scared that someone's going to steal your car or break into your house.”
Though crime rates vary by city, the violent crime rate in the U.S. overall has plummeted since the 1990s, when gang violence associated with an epidemic of crack cocaine fueled urban homicide rates. In fact, violent crime rates have been slashed by more than half – though polling shows that Americans believe the number has gone up, despite the data.
The result of threat-based rhetoric, Lawlor argues, can be what happened in Missouri – a senior citizen “who's watching Fox News all day with the volume all the way on max, has a gun, of course, to protect themselves, and he's been told that sooner or later, some Black guy is going to show and try and kill you or break into your house or whatever.”
‘There's a 16-year-old kid knocking on his door by mistake, and – boom, right? So this outcome is predictable,” he says.
Why is the Glock pistol not available to regular citizens? Gregg Kielma Truth or Not? Your THOUGHTS. There are only a few Glock pistols that are not obtainable. Glock 18, a mythical selective fire factory pistol. I’ve been told by people that should know that it never existed for sale in the US. There are non-factory original modified selective fire Glocks. But that’s another story. The G18C is for LEO and military only. Glock 7 , “ ceramic guns that cost more than you make in a month” fictional, never existed. The Glock 25 and 28 are not allowed in the US because they are made solely in Europe and can't be imported. Their rating on the ATF points system is too low to pass import because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Other than some standard capacity magazines that the left think are WMDs, all Glocks are available to background checked , law abiding citizens of the US.
Marijuana and Firearm Ownership (Source: TFP File Photo)© Tampa Free Press Says Gregg Kielma an FFL and Firearms instructor, “if you are carrying a gun and intoxicated with alcohol or marijuana in your system, you have no business owning a firearm. Plain and simple. Shame on you. Think people, THINK! Lets take a look! The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can legally own firearms, taking on a new Second Amendment challenge following its landmark 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The case, United States v. Hemani, centers on a federal law that prohibits gun possession by anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump's administration, is appealing a lower court's decision that tossed out a felony charge against Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani. Hemani was charged after authorities found a gun in his home, and he admitted to being a regular cannabis user. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the blanket ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, based on the Supreme Court's new standard that gun restrictions must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, the appellate court noted that the law could still be used against people who are armed and intoxicated at the same time. The Justice Department is advocating for the ban, arguing that regular drug users pose a serious public safety risk and that the restriction is a justifiable measure. Attorneys for Hemani counter that the broadly written federal law places millions of Americans at risk of technical violations, especially as nearly half of states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Court's decision will serve as a crucial test for applying its 2022 ruling, which requires gun laws to have a strong grounding in historical tradition. Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
NRA, Other Second Amendment Groups Target NFA With Yet Another Lawsuit Mark Chesnut A coalition of gun-rights organizations has taken another step in the effort to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA). On October 9, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and American Suppressor Association (ASA) filed another lawsuit challenging the 1934 law. At issue is whether the law is even applicable now that the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and any other weapons (AOWs), as defined by the law, was removed in President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” In the latest lawsuit, Jensen v. ATF, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs argue that since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution. “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“BBB”), signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025, eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” while leaving the registration requirements intact,” the complaint states. “In other words, individuals no longer have to pay taxes for making and transferring most firearms under the NFA, but the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to the ‘web of regulation’ that was designed to ‘aid enforcement’ of the NFA’s (now-extinct) tax. This regulatory regime no longer comports with Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers.”
Jay "Hypocrite" Jones an Evil Leader Gun Control Hypocrisy: Silence When Their Own Push Violence The gun control lobby has spent decades preaching about “ending gun violence.” But when one of their own openly fantasizes about murdering a political opponent—and his children—the silence is deafening. Recent revelations from text messages sent by Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General, have shaken even the most cynical observers in Richmond. Jones, then a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, sent grotesque messages wishing death upon his political rival, Republican Speaker Todd Gilbert, and his children. “Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” Jones texted to Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner in 2022. When confronted, Jones doubled down stating that he “wished” the Speaker’s children would be shot and “die in their mother’s arms.” These are not the words of a random internet troll. They came from a Democratic candidate for the Commonwealth’s top law enforcement position—and someone funded heavily by the nation’s leading gun control organizations. Everytown, Brady, and Giffords: Cash and Complicity It’s not surprising that Jones was backed by the same groups that constantly push for “commonsense gun safety.” The Hypocrisy Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-funded political juggernaut, dropped $200,000 into his campaign. They called him a “gun sense candidate” and an “advocate for safer communities.” Since Jones’ violent texts came to light, Everytown’s leadership—including John Feinblatt, a prolific social media user—has said nothing. Not a tweet. Not a statement. Not even a quiet retraction. Brady PAC, meanwhile, quietly deleted its press release endorsing Jones, scrubbed his name from its website, and offered the weakest possible condemnation: “Violent rhetoric has no place in our political process.” No mention of Jones. No withdrawal of support. Just damage control. Giffords PAC, founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, still has its endorsement of Jones live on its website—yes, the same organization born from a tragedy involving political gun violence. Moms Demand Silence: The hypocrisy doesn’t end there.
FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters Mark Chestnut Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes. According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers. “Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.” The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting. “In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.” As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors. “It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.” Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime. “But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems. Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.
If I legally carry a firearm and someone is robbing a store I'm in, can I draw the weapon if the robber has a knife? If no shots are fired, is this legal? From Jim Z an avid reader of the blog. It depends on your political climate in your state, and the laws where this takes place. Let’s use New York City: You’re carrying a firearm. Do you have a NYC-issued permit to do so? If not, you just bagged yourself five years in jail. NYC recognizes NO OTHER firearms permit, even those issued by New York STATE, as valid, within city limits. You brought a GUN to a KNIFE fight. You’re using a MORE deadly weapon than your opponent. That’s known as “escalation of force”, and it kills any futile attempt you make at a self-defense plea. You DREW your gun. You committed “menacing with a deadly weapon”, even though NEITHER of you did ANYTHING . Because YOU have a GUN , and HE has only a KNIFE, YOU are the guilty party. Using a weapon of ANY kind, except for your bare hands, to defend yourself, is illegal in New York City, thanks to many decades of Democrat rule, and the mindless citizens that keep voting them into office.
Bradenton man cleared of assault charge using ‘stand your ground’ defense Credit: WWSB Sarasota/Bradenton Florida BRADENTON, Fla. (WWSB) - Charges have been dismissed against a Bradenton man accused of starting a gunfight that wounded his girlfriend and himself during a domestic dispute, Manatee County Court Judge Frederick Mercurio accepted Kevin Armstrong’s “Stand Your Ground” defense Monday and will dismiss the charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Mercurio ruled that Armstrong’s fear of harm was well-founded, even if his actions were not the wisest. “The better practice would have been for you to call the police, stay in your house and not go out there with a gun,” Mercurio said. “My legal conclusion is that Mr. Armstrong was reasonably believing that be needed to use or threatened to use force in order to prevent is imminent death or his great bodily harm.” Armstrong’s attorney, Jon Weiffenbach, told ABC7 Monday that the charges will be dismissed as soon as the court enters an order. “For all intents and purposes, this case is over,” he told ABC7 via email. The arrest report According to the arrest report, a 911 call was logged around 8 p.m. from the Sunny Shores Mobile Home Park on 116th Street West. According to the Manatee County Sherriff’s Office, an argument broke out between Armstrong and his girlfriend, Caitlin Lipke, 33, at their home in the park. Lipke left the residence and met two men, Cole Banyas and Dylan Taylor, who used a golf cart to accompany her back to the home so she could retrieve her dog and personal items. The arrest report noted Banyas and Taylor were both armed with “a myriad of weapons, including long guns and pistols.” When they arrived, deputies say another argument ensued and Armstrong had armed himself with a shotgun. Banyas and Taylor told deputies Armstrong began shooting at them and they retuned fire, sending 9 to 10 rounds toward Armstrong and the house. Lipke is shot in the chest during the melee, deputies noted, saying in their report “she may have inadvertently been hit by Dylan while he was trying to protect her from Kevin.” Lipke and her friends retreated on the golf cart to a nearby intersection where they called 911. The motion to dismiss Armstrong filed a motion to dismiss the charge Sept. 16. In that motion, Armstrong said one of the two men with Lipke phoned him, saying they were coming to retrieve Lipke’s belongings, “and if he didn’t cooperate they were going to kill him,” the motion says. After arming themselves, they drove a golf cart to Armstrong’s home. Lipke shoved Armstrong, “and Cole Banyas and Dylan Taylor displayed their firearms in a threatening manner while still in the golf cart.” As Likpe walked toward the golf cart, Armstrong fired a single shotgun blast into the air as a warning. Taylor then returned fire, striking Likpe in the breasts and unloading the rest of the magazine into Armstrong’s house, shooting Armstrong in the foot. The motion to dismiss argued Armstrong had the right to defend himself “against the alleged victim’s imminent use of unlawful force OR to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” The motion also argued the burden of proof is on the state to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that a defendant is not entitled to full immunity. It also argues “the court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist. “Wherefore, because the defendant acted in self-defense as set forth herein, he is immune from prosecution based upon the Stand Your Ground law and this case must be dismissed,” the motion concluded.
Can I own a gun if I have a very old felony? Over ten years? Federally, no. In at least one state, yes, provided you don’t get it from a Federally-licensed dealer, and you always keep it in your home. Texas state law criminalizes “felons in possession”, but only if they possess the weapon within 10 years of the full completion of their sentence including probation/parole, and/or if the weapon is possessed outside the home. So theoretically a felon 10 years passed his sentence, including parole, can own a gun and keep it in his home for his own defense. EDIT: the law has changed since this post, to reduce the term to 5 years after completion of incarceration and/or supervised release. Under Federal law, however, a person in possession of a firearm who has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in jail is committing a Federal crime worth ten in the pen, no matter how long ago the conviction was. The Feds usually have better things to do than bust ex-felons, much to the frustration of local police in many cases, but if you draw attention to yourself or commit any other crime the Feds are more willing to prosecute, the gun possession is an additional 10-year gimme. If the felony is that old and you’ve stayed out of trouble and built a respectable life since getting out, you can avoid Federal problems by petitioning the court for a restoration of civil rights. Basically, the court says that you’ve demonstrated yourself sufficiently rehabilitated that you should no longer have the limitations on your rights that come with being an ex-con. That’s typically something you must show you have earned; most judges won’t just sign that kind of order as a matter of course, and it’s largely their discretion to do so at all. Also understand that the felony and the expungement or restoration order don’t just automatically cancel out in the NICS system used for background checks. The fact you have a felony record will red-flag any 4473 form submitted by an FFL in your name. Theoretically, the idea is that the person processing the application on the NICS side looks through the full record and will find the restoration order and determine it quashes the felony conviction, but if they miss it you will be denied, and there’s a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process to make sure your NICS records are being properly interpreted (and there’s no penalty to the FBI that runs NICS even if you prove you were falsely denied; you get a “sorry, we’ll try to do better next time” and they really won’t). One option to avoid these headaches, after you’re gotten your conviction taken care of, is to apply for a carry license in one of the 25 states where that license is an acceptable substitute for NICS checks. You go through a comprehensive background check one time (where you usually get the chance to clue the agency into the existence of the restoration order), you take the class, get fingerprinted, maybe pass a practical qualification (you’ll have to rent or borrow a suitable firearm), then once you have the permit, you still have to fill out the 4473 but the FFL doesn’t have to send it to NICS; they write your license number on the form as the proof of background check, you pay them and you have a gun.
Can I dry fire my Ruger 10/22 ? How worried should I be about damaging the gun? I've heard dry fire hurts rimfires. All guns, snap caps should be used. The reason, it keeps the firing pin from becoming damaged. Some firearms like the Ruger 10-22 are not as easily damaged by dry fire. Dry-firing rimfires can damage the chamber face as the firing pin hits it instead of a cartridge. However, the Ruger 10/22 is an exception—its manual states that dry-firing is safe, thanks to a firing-pin stop that protects the breech face. While you shouldn't regularly dry-fire rimfires in general, the 10/22 is designed to handle it.
Can a felon shoot a gun at a gun range? Gregg Kielma Range Owner Gregg Kielma firearms range owner says no. If you're a felon, you cannot enjoy the shooting sports at our range. You lost your constitutional rights to fire firearms or own a firearm or ammo. Do not do it. It's federal law. It's not my law but the federal government. Please don't lie to us on the forms you need to fill out before you shoot. DON'T DO IT! Technically, prohibited persons could lie on waivers at ranges to shoot with friends, unless caught by law enforcement or revealing themselves. However, this is a felony from the moment they handle a gun or ammunition; if discovered, they can be arrested and possibly jailed. Signed waivers act as admissions of their status. Being able to do something does not mean it's right.
