Most people who buy a gun for self-defense will never need to use it for that purpose. However, there are some unfortunate souls who do. They don't want to, and many are haunted by it, but they don't have a choice.
And gun control group Giffords apparently wants to put an end to anyone acting in self-defense.
It starts with that terrible Wall Street Journal piece I wrote about on Thursday.
Giffords, apparently, had...thoughts.
Stand your ground laws encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s a license to kill that makes all of us less safe.
— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) October 29, 2025
These legally sanctioned killings are on the rise and must be stopped. https://t.co/dpexy0JJSq
Now, even if you accept that Stand Your Ground lets people just claim they were afraid for their lives anytime they kill someone, it's hard to believe anyone could accept that all of these justified shootings are cases like that. After all, killing someone in self-defense has been around pretty much since the dawn of time. The only difference is in the kind of weapon used to do it.
And Giffords wants to put an end to all of these "legally sanctioned killings."
Let's understand that it used the word "killings" and not "murders," which suggests it isn't differentiating between people trying to play games with the law and those who legitimately acted in self-defense. Killings include all of them, and one could argue that because the good guys with guns weren't prosecuted, it was legally sanctioned.
In other words, yes, they want to stop all self-defense shootings. They want you to be defenseless, even if you have a firearm, because they expect you to just bow down before the criminals who illegally enter your home and want to do horrible things to you and your family before they take your belongings.
That's what they're talking about must be stopped, after all.
Of course, The Wall Street Journal piece was garbage. Giffords probably knows that Stand Your Ground laws aren't a license to kill – Lord knows they've been told often enough – but it's framing it this way because it doesn't want people protecting themselves. If people do that, then they aren't likely to support gun control, and Giffords is nothing if not consistent in its animosity toward the Second Amendment.
Look, some might claim I'm putting words in its mouth, but the truth is that it's knee-deep in pushing this misrepresentation and is trying to capitalize on it to push its own agenda. There's no "putting words" anywhere. It's clear what it wants to do, and what it wants will inevitably lead to people being unable to protect themselves with lethal force, particularly when nothing else will do the job.
I'm not making Giffords look bad.
Its insane take on self-defense and desire to see the American people suffer at the hands of the worst among us is what makes it look bad.
I'm just amplifying the signal for everyone to behold.
Really, I'm doing Giffords a favor, even if it doesn't like the results.