Method For Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges – Shoot The Killer

by Alan Korwin

The Uninvited Ombudsman

Alan Korwin
Alan Korwin

PHOENIX, Ariz. -( Hard evidence — not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals — clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them — or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.

According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns.

Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the media consciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.

Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.

The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed “gun-free zones,” with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.

President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as “politicized.” He promised to “continue talking.”

More Background Checks

Further analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, has determined that background checks, or newly proposed additional background checks, recommended by Mr. Obama and others, would be pointless for people who already own guns, since they already own guns. The best estimates indicate this is about 100 million armed Americans.

Waiting Periods

And in other analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, waiting periods have no meaning whatsoever for Americans who already own guns, when they go shopping for guns, since they already own guns. That is also 100 million Americans.

Waiting periods have one additional drawback overlooked in mainstream reports. They require the public to trust psychotic individuals who wait five days to get their first gun, to remain calm for the balance of their lives. Somehow, the five-day waiting period doesn't seem like a long enough “cooling off” period, but this has not made it into nightly “news” reports, or the President's commentaries, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

The murderer in Oregon who sparked the recent repetitive debates owned more than a dozen guns, according to early reports, all legally acquired. While Hillary, Mr. Obama and others are still calling for more background checks, they have apparently failed to notice these obvious errors in their plan.

Only new, or “virgin” gun buyers would be affected, most of whom would pass checks anyway, according to leading experts and past experience. The point of adding even more checks, when current checks are not used to take criminals off the streets, was not clear as this report was prepped for release.

News” commentators have also failed to make this connection, so far, and have repeated the calls from politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are discussing background checks and waiting periods.

The role of ultra-violent body-rending video games, horrific grizzly blood and all gore movies on nightly TV and a debasement of popular American culture at every level has not figured prominently into the president's prolific pronouncements.

The public — not some famous vilified “the gun lobby” — rises up loudly to condemn the assault on their fundamental civil and human rights. This is the same 100 million armed Americans mentioned earlier. Some reports suggest it is “only” 80 million armed Americans. The NRA, often cited as “the gun lobby,” has only 5 million members.

Counter-Intuitive Man Says:

Referring to murderers as “gun men” is offensive to men, a violation of journalism ethics, due to its biased and prejudicial nature, and sexist.

Calling murderers “gun men” is virtually propaganda against men and firearms. It denigrates men, it is derogatory, defamatory and it is discriminatory.

What would media and pundits say if a woman was the criminal perpetrator?

The correct terms include murderer, killer, villain, criminal, assailant and perpetrator, without gratuitously singling out gender.

By using the propaganda term “gun man,” the media vilifies a tool they frequently demonstrate hatred for, along with men, which agenda-driven political groups seek to demean or belittle. That's simply wrong, and unethical.

Murderers should be called murderers, not gun men. This would help remove the glorification many mass murderers seek, which encourages others to copy their behavior.

By encouraging such behavior, the media shares responsibility for these acts, according to leading national experts, who are speaking out against such behavior in increasing numbers.

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Author of ten books on gun law.
Publisher, Bloomfield Press

P.S. My previous request to the President, to have him call me for common-sense solutions he is not getting from his side of the aisle, has gone unanswered so far. I patiently await. The ideas coming from the TV set are so off base it is hard to imagine they are actually on the air. Has anyone considered education in the schools yet? Schools are currently an empty hole of ignorance on the subject of gun safety.

Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website,, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit:

  • 9 thoughts on “Method For Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges – Shoot The Killer

    1. Good points. Although, I must admit, shooting the perpetrator has always been my first choice…for the “bad guy”, but somehow I have, also, always thought…that the action of doing that is just too much “common sense” for all the liberals and their small “bleeding hearts”.

    2. I retired from the Library of Congress a few years ago. Senator Feinstein had asked the Congressional Research Service, which is in the Library of Congress, to study the use of assault weapons in murders and mass shootings. The non-partisan CRS showed how the banning of such firearms statistically neither raised nor lowered such incidents. Feinstein simply buried the study, since it did not conform to her beliefs, and kept lying on TV. You really should ask for a copy of the report.

      1. Mr. Moore, how does one go about getting a copy of that report or has it been reprinted in another format ?

    3. I fully agree with you regarding the sexism.

      There’s an excellent Youtube vid that very clearly shows the way if a man does something bad his sex is mentioned, but if he does something good or is the victim of something bad, then he is identified merely by his job description or other sex-free term (sailor, plumber, staff, pedestrian etc)

      Found it:

    4. While you make good points, I believe I have a proposal which would work far better than anything others have proposed. It ALL starts with the Text of the 2nd Amendment which reads: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      The Key to this proposal is ” A well regulated Militia” is the very reason “the people” have a Right to bear arms.
      If each State formed their own State Militia, they could then require each Gun Owner to Register with the Militia, receive proper Training in Firearms by Professionals as well as be evaluated for Felonies, Spouse Abuse & Mental Illness.
      If every Citizen were mandated to undergo Registration & Evaluation. Those who are deemed unqualified can be removed from the Militia & therefore forbidden from possessing a firearm. Those found in possession of a firearm and is not registered with their State Militia shall be prosecuted. The only problem is with unregistered criminals being in possession of firearms. That problem can only be resolved if the punishment is so severe that it prevents criminals from ever obtaining a firearm. If that is Mandatory Life in Prison or even automatic Death Penalty without decades of appeals than that is what our Nation should impose.

      1. Sir,

        I think you fail to understand the true intention and understanding of the 2nd Amendment at its core. “Well regulated” didn’t mean then what “well regulated” is assumed to mean today.
        “Well regulated” back in the old days meant ‘well provided-for and supported’. The “militia” is US, as in “We The People”.
        Listen with an open mind.

      2. All able bodied adults are members of a “militia”. The “militia” and “the people” are indeed one in the same.
        Second, the idea of “well regulated” was understood in the common usage of the time to mean “maintained in good order and ready to use”. So, in the case of referring to a group of people (e.g. militia) it would mean that the gun owners were skilled, trained, practice often, guns in good order and ample ammo on hand. The idea of the local militia is that is created as needed, organized to meet the immediate need and disbanded when the need is over. Just as your neighbors ban to together when there is a local threat, like severe weather event, to help each other.

        Now, I think that a case can be made for mandated military service as part of the “required education” for all citizens. Part of that education is gun usage and gun handling.

        Now, when you start letting “government” select who is permitted self defense and who is not I have a problem. Not that I do not think there are “crazies” and “evil people” that have no business with any weapon, but I do not think any “government” employee or agency can be depended on to identify who is dangerous and who is not. People that commit violent crimes need to be identified and punished. They should be kept out of society until they are no longer a danger, be that a short period or the length of their life. I like the three strike idea.

        A felon that is punished should have full civil rights restored by some fair process over a reasonable period of time.
        Life long loss of civil rights only gives them on incentive to not continue a life of crime.

      3. Then how long would it be until progressive socialists infiltrated the hierarchy of the militia as they have government and academia? Next, there would be an increasingly shorter list of who could own firearms and which type, Your rights would be even more imperiled if your version of the militia prevailed.

    Comments are closed.