The Obvious Message the Media Missed About Mass Murder

Some crazy young men committed mass murder. They might have been driven by a political cause, but maybe not. If they were like the other murderers we’ve studied, then they mostly killed to get media attention. The mainstream media looked at these atrocities and claimed the United States is filled with xenophobic, racist, gun-nuts, and all of us should be disarmed. The media was so busy promoting their talking points that they missed some significant events that happened after the attack. We are not who the media says we are, but the media can’t see us.

Here is what I saw. The concealed carry classes in El Paso, Texas were filling up. The reason for that is easy to understand. In contrast to what the media says about us, we are a peaceful people. We want to live and let live. That attitude changes when you shoot our neighbors. The murderer in El Paso walked into a shopping mall and started shooting people with brown skin. We all go to the mall at some time. We have friends of every color. That murderer attacked us.

Rather than avoiding the mall, we decided to protect ourselves. Rather than giving up our friends and hiding from the next murderer, many of us decided to go armed.

Gun ownership is fairly common in southwest Texas. What isn’t commonly knows is that Texas gun laws are fairly restrictive. Texans need a state permit to carry a firearm in public. You have to take a concealed carry class before you can apply for your permit to carry a firearm concealed in public. That is why the concealed carry classes filled up after the recent attack. Ordinary people wanted to be armed.

Think about what that means. We know the police can’t be there to protect us. We don’t want to be shot. We don’t want our family to be shot. We don’t want our neighbors to be shot either. We felt the obligation to protect ourselves, our family, and our neighbors…and we acted on those feelings. We changed our lives in many small ways.

Many of us went out and found a gun we liked and bought it. We also bought training on how to use it. If we already had a gun, then many of us realized it had been too long since we went to the range to practice with it. If we were already familiar with our firearms, then many of us wanted to carry our personal firearm in public. Perhaps our spouse has her permit, but that is no reason we shouldn’t get our permit as well. The person who already had a carry permit decided it was time to carry more often. People with a concealed carry permit and who carry every day wished they had been at the mall to protect their neighbors.

That is why the gun stores in El Paso were suddenly busy. That is why the shooting ranges in the El Paso area filled up. That is why the concealed carry classes in southwest Texas suddenly had more students. I talked to my friends who work in the industry and the central Texas gun ranges were busy too. Crazy busy.

Who are all these people who suddenly want to protect their neighbors? These honest gun owners are the people that the mainstream media, and some democrat candidates, said were founded in racism. That isn’t who we are. We’re outraged that someone would attack our neighbors.

The cops can’t stop it, but we can. Protecting our communities is the social change that the mainstream media can’t see. That social change is easiest to see right now in southwest Texas. I bet we are making similar decisions all across the country, but to a lesser degree. It is hard to be sure since concealed is concealed.

You see more than I do. Have you changed your habits or noticed a change in your area after these public attacks? Please leave a comment and tell us what you see.


A slow turning of people toward what shooters have been saying, it is not to be discovered by media for dissemination. The MSM is not noticing that London has more violent attacks than New York. England has outlawed firearms and are now trying to outlaw knives; a natural devolvement of violence. Soon it will be some other tool used by the same mind-set of violence.


I keep hearing about these polls, that 90% (or some unglodly high number) of Americans (including Republicans) want gun control. Where are these people? Because I have yet to meet one. You would think with that high of a number of people wanting gun control that I would know at least one of them. I don’t. The people I know are doing quite the opposite of wanting gun control, they are arming themselves and/or buying more guns. My boyfriend says the same thing about where he works (which is in the city) that they are arming or acquiring more too. And he works with quite a diverse group of middle income people (mostly minorities),

In Texas, I had to find a class which was about an hour and a half away from where I lived. Sign up, wait for the class, pay something like $150 or more (It’s been a while, I can’t remember) and do a classroom portion of the class, then a shooting/qualifying part of the class. I also had to go to my sheriff’s department and have them take my fingerprints. Then, I find out later that my prints were not accepted, so I had to make another appointment at another Sheriff’s department to have them electronically taken. Anyway, I believe the license was good for 5 years.
In Indiana, I went down to the local sheriff, filled out an application, paid something like $75, got my prints done, and that was it. Got my LIFETIME license mailed to me.

More people arming themselves are more people who are going to start paying attention to the second amendment, I hope. That’s more people who are NOT going to want to be disarmed now. These may just be new handgun owners, however, and might not necessarily be out buying semi rifles. But I am pretty sure that they will ignore the “No Guns” signs at the front of the stores and businesses too. I won’t let some politician or store owner determine my safety and fate.


you have to understand how these polls are asked or presented
prime example 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.that humans are responsible - it was a single group at a climate convention about humans causing climate change. It is also what question are used - Should we ban Assault Rifles to prevent gun violence - to the average person the correct answer would be yes, but the educated answer would be no, because it is such a small subset of a larger problem and the banning would not not have any significant reaction to violence in general.


They must be taking these polls at anti-gun rallies or something. I don’t think 90% of this country could agree on anything.


Here’s where our resident market researcher comes in. Me.

The “poll” in question was likely one or more than one of the following below and I go over what the results are from each point at the end.

  1. A very small sample size.

  2. A poll who’s targeted respondents were not genpop (eg. entire US).

  3. A poll who’s targeted respondents were identified based on profiling to be of a particular ideology.

  4. A poll where the questions were leading or not designed in a way to force respondents to answer an option that doesn’t represent their ideology.

  5. A poll where the person, group or company receiving the data chooses what data points / survey question’s data to exclude in order to build their results how they want it.

  6. A poll where the results are just flat out lied about and or is completely made up.

So here are the results of these…

  1. Having a small sample size means your data can get largely skewed pretty quickly with a small data set. For example if you poll 10 people and 4 of them choose an option, in this case lets say they choose to buy Pepsi you would say “40% of Americans want pepsi”. Now lets poll 5 people and 4 of them happen to like pepsi, you have the same number of pepsi drinkers but this second poll shows an 80% pepsi drinker %.

  2. In order for a poll to be conducted to reasonably classify “Americans want this” type of thing you’d need to send to genpop and have tens of thousands of respondents answering your poll. How I would run it and how only a tiny portion of our clients do it is pull in what we called “balanced” or “census” sample (sample = respondents). Put in a quota of the census demographic %'s for each demographic data point and then design the survey to have non-leading questions and a healthy set of questions/answers that will give proper results. This way when you reach each demographic quota you stop taking respondents in it. We usually will group states in industry establishes “regions” but you can separate them out by state you’d just need to increase your overall N (or survey completions) to account for the extra amount of sample invites to send to. The rest is boring technical crap I won’t bore you all with.

  3. This is an easy one. Every online market research company has a “panel”, this “panel” is essentially members or people who are on their panel to take surveys “they qualify for”. This usually means every panelist gets profiled. These are a series of questions they answer to fill out their bio and usually one of these profiling questions is political party affiliation. Thus one can design a survey to specifically “target” panelists who fall in to say the democrat party. This would skew any “genpop” study VERY BADLY and quite literally in this case would of shown that ~90% of “people” want gun control. If they didn’t target democrats they could of targeted people who didn’t have any outdoor activities selected as participating in on their profile such as; camping, hunting, target shooting, fishing and etc. This would likely remove a large portion of gun owners from the panelist pool.

  4. Picture this, you get a question in a survey that reads: “With the large amount of mass shootings in America would you support”
    *A gun confiscation
    *A gun buy back
    *Banning semi-automatics
    *More restrictions for owning guns
    *Better background checks

So in ^ this question there is not an option to answer “no more gun control/restrictions”, “remove all restrictions” or “none”. With this question’s answers you’d easily skew the data towards the result of “most Americans want more gun control”. You’d also likely have a high abandon / drop out rate with respondents closing the browser quitting the survey without finishing since there ARE those aforementioned missing answers.

  1. This one is what usually happens to the majority of polls quoted by anyone with a political affiliation or really anyone. Because everyone has bias in some form or another. If you had data that showed for instance: “80% of people surveyed wanted more background checks” and a question that showed “25% of people want more focus to be on mental health than on the gun”. The left-leaning anti-2A pollster or company receiving this data would simply just throw out the data from the second question. Thus showing their narrative that “most Americans want more gun control”. This is data manipulation 101 and the basic form of it, it does get more complicated but even the simple stuff is used by politicians and media outlets.

  2. This one is really rather self explanatory.

I could elaborate further but it would be boring. Just know, my job and the job of pretty much everyone in market research (and marketing) is to manipulate the data or provide the data for manipulation on the client’s end, lie or all of the aforementioned. I do and see this every day, this is why I 100% do not trust literally ANY “poll” unless I can get the raw unedited data (and survey questionnaire) myself for analysis. Period. Don’t believe ANY poll without at the minimum seeing the survey questionnaire / survey questions and how many people were polled / sample size.


That’s a lot of info. Thanks @Chuparosa
I have never been polled, nor anyone I know.
I do however, receive surveys and its almost impossible for me to answer them just filling in a bubble. I write all over that sucker before sending it back in. It might get thrown out when they see it, but hey, there’s no way I could stick to what was being offered. The choices were too narrow and limiting.

1 Like

and on top of it all the polls that are being recounted as fact start to loose that much like the “whisper game” - as it keeps getting used more and more of the original message is dropped or lost.


As long as your open end (or OE) text is not gibberish or profane it usually does get read and counted. The majority of the time OE’s are just there to verify you’re not BSing the survey and or aren’t someone looking to “game the system” for payment.

1 Like

Note to self: No profanity


Damn and Hell are ok and maybe a shit if it is in context. Just don’t say fuck, that’s an automatic disqualification. And so are snowflake melting comments about far left stuff like trannies and etc. Really anything that falls under an “-ism” or “phobia” to these SJW’s is bad news to use. Haha…