Quote of the Day
DAY 9 of National Gun Violence Awareness Month. And today I want to talk to every person who has ever told a woman she does not need a gun.
It is a Friday night in December. Waco, Texas. You are alone. The neighborhood is quiet. And then your back door explodes.
Not a knock. A KICK. Two men. Masks. Already inside before your brain finishes processing what just happened.
December 12, 2025. Speight Avenue. We do not know her name — she did not ask for coverage. What we know comes from the police report and the emergency room records. Because that last part matters.
She fired approximately eleven rounds. The two men fled.
Twenty minutes later, a 32-year-old named Antonio Chavez was dropped off at Baylor Scott and White with a bullet in his forearm. He was already on the books for two violations of a protective order and continuous violence against family. The system had already met Antonio Chavez. The system had already given someone a piece of paper to keep him away. He violated it twice. Then he put on a mask and kicked in a woman’s back door.
His bond was set at $276,000. The woman was never charged. Because Texas law is perfectly clear about what you are allowed to do when two masked men kick in your door.
She had a gun. She is alive. Full stop.
Now the numbers. Because this is still a science classroom.
Women are seven to eleven times more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be murdered. Not safer with a gun — DRAMATICALLY safer. The University of Chicago — not exactly a right-wing institution — calculated that more relaxed carry laws between 1977 and 1992 would have prevented 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults every single year. John Lott found that when concealed carry laws were adopted, rape rates fell measurably, county by county, because predators respond to the possibility of an armed victim the same way every living thing responds to mortal risk — they avoid it.
The Supreme Court already told you in DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that the government has no legal obligation to protect you. The protective order Chavez violated twice was a piece of paper. The court issued it. The system recorded his violations. And on a cold December Friday in Waco, the piece of paper was nowhere in that room when the door came in.
The gun was.
The gun control crowd says they want women to be safe. Then they spend June trying to disarm the tool that makes women seven to eleven times more likely to survive an attack. Those two positions cannot coexist in good faith.
She did not ask to be a symbol. She just wanted her door to stay closed. When it did not, she handled it.
But what do I know — I am only a combat medic, a science teacher, and the father of daughters who will know how to handle it too.
…
Two protective orders. The paper did not stop him. What did? Tell me.
mike bski @BskiMike22802
Posted on X June 9, 2026
While a piece of paper will not someone from kicking in your door and doing violent things to you, it is not entirely useless. I would be willing to make a sizable bet that when the police and prosecutor were evaluating the situation for people to put in jail a piece of paper rapidly moved the woman to the, “You did good, but you might want to get some training so you can get better hits next time” category.'” The gun moved her to the “alive but seriously shaken” category when she was hovering over the “hospital or morgue” categories.
Do not ever forget that women safety numbers do not matter to the “gun violence prevention” advocates. Even worse is that they will use the shooting of Chavez in their statistics of “gun violence” which needs to be prevented. In their bookkeeping Chavez is the victim.
For those who doubt this notice that they never mention violence crime rates. They only talk about “gun deaths”, “gun crimes”, and sometimes “gun injuries.” There is a reason for this. They have to be deceptive in order to make the narrative work. Deception is part of the culture. Their culture cannot survive without it. Do not let yourself be fooled. Do not be a part of it. And remember Just One Question.
Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales was what did it for me. The cops did nothing to help the mother after her ex kidnapped her children. The next day some jackhole drove into the police station and started shooting. He was ventilated by the cops. In the back of the car were Gonzales’ three daughters. Murdered by their father with an assist from local law enforcement.
Denial of rights with no accountability leads in but one direction.
The police don’t protect people because they can’t. Everyone would need a personal bodyguard. Accountingfor 24/7 and sick leave etc, that wouldtake 4.5x the total population. You, like this woman are responsible for yourself.
” I would be willing to make a sizable bet that when the police and prosecutor were evaluating the situation for people to put in jail a piece of paper rapidly moved the woman to the, “You did good, but you might want to get some training so you can get better hits next time” category.’””
Pretty sure you would lose that bet, actually. In a case like this, in Texas (or most other states with an intact Castle Doctrine), the piece of paper makes no difference: they broke in the door, she shot them, no further facts required. At all. Could be The Obamasiah Himself In All His Glory, and if he broke the door in, well… she shot him, as she should. Don’t break in people’s door.
And they would already have advised her on the “shoot better next time” bit. Heck, they might advise of that even if the person entering had a really, really good excuse (they were drunk, and her house was both literally next door and used the same floor plan).
Well, all of that with the caveat “outside of the Austin Asylum”.
Now, in states *without* an intact and fully functional Castle Doctrine, you would stand a pretty good chance of winning that bet.