by -
2 305

Well, here’s something that you don’t see everyday: Anti-gunners acting in ways that defy any kind of logic or rational thinking.

Of course, I’m being sarcastic here. Any regular reader of this site knows that anti-gunners act in ways that make absolutely no sense. It’s utterly ridiculous, and this instance is no different:

People wanting to end gun violence want everyone to wear orange to end gun violence.

No, you didn’t misread that. They want you to wear orange because they believe that somehow, magically, wearing the color orange, instead of making people like prisoners in inmate jumpsuits, it will cause gun violence to go down. Dominique Hobdy tells us all the details:

The Wear Orange campaign kicked off in 2015, two years after the shooting and death of 15-year-old high school honor student and drum majorette Hadiya Pendleton on Jan. 29, 2013, in Chicago, Illinois.

Pendleton’s death was the catalyst for change, as her friends decided to band together and bring awareness to the issue and celebrate her life by wearing orange. Two years later the campaign is quickly gaining steam with the support of celebrities and giants in the fashion industry such as Donna Karan, Tom Ford and Zac Posen.

Now, I don’t want to mock the pain people who have lost someone to gun violence have felt and, very often still, feel, but are you seriously going to tell me that, by wearing orange, I’m going to make any difference at all as to whether another person dies because someone uses a gun with intent to injure or kill? How many times do we have to say it: the gun was only a tool, and the person who killed another person would have done it another way.

All wearing orange does is make these people easy targets for criminals without morality who decide they want some target practice on live targets.

If people really want to stop the madness of gun violence, the solution is not ridiculous protests. The solution is to become trained and knowledge about firearm usage and to start carrying to prevent amoral people from committing violence.

by -
6 543

You’re probably already aware of the rampant bias of people who advocate gun control, but you may not be aware of how that bias filters through to their research. Why don’t you know about this? Because, the fact of the matter is, if voters knew how they cherry-pick their numbers and come up with their ridiculous conclusions supporting their politically-motivated positions, then voters (even those that support gun control) would be much less likely to feel justified in their nonsensical anti-gun positions.

If you’re familiar with the research process, responsible (i.e. honest) research attempts to gain perspective and focus on the data that impacts the issue which they are studying. These honest researchers don’t try to make the evidence fit their positions; they allow their positions to be dictated by the evidence.

Unfortunately, many times researchers allowed themselves to be swayed by the money (Tom Vaughan, M.D. says their goal is “career advancement and research funding from wealthy liberals like Michael Bloomberg”). Vaughan describes a recent article referencing “research” from pro-gun control researchers this way:

In it, breathless researchers from Boston University trumpet their newly launched State Firearm Law Database.  The article is sure to appeal to the logic challenged, especially those who already suffer from full-blown hoplophobia.   Michael Siegel and Molly Pahn propose to examine “gun violence”—a nonsensical term beloved by the civilian disarmament crowd, as I’ve previously explained—and how it may seem to be affected by different regulatory schemes in various states. […]

The data they supply thus far is simply a state-by-state catalog of gun control legislation.  They misleadingly describe these as “gun safety laws”, but they are actually all restrictions on Americans’ Constitutionally enshrined right to keep and bear arms.  For example, their database would characterize the passage of so-called Constitutional Carry laws as a reduction in “policies to reduce gun violence”, while I would describe such laws as enhancing personal and public safety.

While such a database, constructed impartially, could be very useful, the authors reveal their strong anti-Second Amendment bias.  They have salted the article with a few facts, but they have also included several misleading statements as well as blatant lies, presumably to broaden its appeal.

For example, while they are correct in pointing out that there has been a recent (though fortunately mild) uptick in violent crime in the US over past two years, they ignore the preceding decades-long decrease in homicide and other violent crime since their peaks in the 1990’s.  But this selective reporting implies a sudden crisis, and therefore the urgent need for government intervention.  While this intentional omission is unprofessional, there is much worse in the article.  Two blatant lies are used in a ham-fisted attempt to discredit pro-gun legislation.

The first is a gross mischaracterization of what are generally termed “Stand Your Ground” laws.  Vilifying these has become a cause célèbre with the anti-gun crowd.  Siegel claims these laws “allow people to shoot other people as a first resort in public.”  This is of course an outrageous statement, and a lie of the sort that should discredit any university professor.

In reality, these laws are narrowly crafted, and their effect is to protect law abiding citizens from overzealous prosecutors who could otherwise charge them for “failure to retreat” when they are forced to use their firearms in legitimate self defense.  In 2004 then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of legislation strengthening Illinois’ long-standing Stand Your Ground statute.

The second outright lie in the article regards the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the protection it affords firearms manufacturers when their legally manufactured products are used in the commission of crimes.  After initially admitting that the law simply does exactly that, they falsely claim “no other consumer product manufacturer enjoys such broad immunity.”  As if Lexus could be held liable if one of their cars was deliberately driven into a crowd of people, or Stanley could be successfully sued when one of their hammers is used to bludgeon someone to death.

Now, if this kind of changing of context and outright law surprises you, well, you obviously haven’t been watching the mainstream media for news (probably a good thing).

The fact of the matter is that statistics show that where gun ownership is up, then overall violence, murder rates, and crime rates go down. So, what we need to do is to keep taking misinformation and putting it back into context so people can hear the truth.

by -
11 592

There is a thought that you won’t tend to hear mentioned in conversation or in the mainstream media because it makes people uncomfortable to think that someone, especially someone in power, may think this way. That thought is that politicians actually want more violent crime to occur.

If it sounds crazy to you, it’s because you aren’t someone who ever really wants to see someone else injured or killed, because you’re sane and well-adjusted to our society. But, if you understand the logic, you can’t help but think that it may be true. John Farnam lays out the logic for us:

Liberals covet ever-higher rates of violent crime for two reasons:

(1) Violent criminals represent a small minority whose political support, and votes, liberals openly solicit, and whose size and influence liberals thus constantly strive to increase. This is the reason liberals predictably make excuses for the behavior of violent criminals, insisting they are “justified” in committing crimes, and invent cynical terms, like “grievance-based crime” in order to rationalize evil behavior.

(2) Through violent crime, violent criminals intimidate and terrorize the rest of the population, generating demands for “increased protection,” which liberals are only too happy to provide, in the form of suffocating new restrictions on all of us who don’t commit crimes, and economic punishment of certain minorities who see through liberals’ cozenage and thus refuse to support them. Violent criminals hence do liberals’ “dirty work” for them.

The elimination of the private ownership of guns is thus the liberal “Holy Grail”.

See the logic? Now, maybe it’s true that most politically liberal politicians actually want to help people and their purpose isn’t to oppress people. Maybe that’s true. BUT, even if it is true, these politicians are the beneficiaries of the increase in violent crime that their crazy thinking causes.

And you know who loses? People like you and me who hope to God to never use our weapon against anyone else but know that the government can’t actually prevent violence, only clean up the mess afterwards.

by -
11 448

Ignorance. Ignorance about guns is the main cause of people’s fears about guns. And make no mistake about it: ignorance is rampant.

Case in point: A elementary and middle school in East Manatee, Florida were locked down recently because someone saw a history teacher bring in a replica of a flint lock rifle to show students. Keep in mind that this replica of a Civil War era gun does not work (i.e. does not shoot), and it’s muzzle loaded.

So, some ignorant person panicked and called 911. Over a muzzle loaded rifle. Daniel Jennings gives us more details:

Middle school principal Randy Petrilla said the incident was a misunderstanding.

“A teacher at our school brought in a Civil War era rifle for a demonstration in their class,” Petrilla told the Bradenton Herald newspaper. “This teacher had previously notified the school [resource officer] that he would be bringing the rifle to school. As he was bringing the rifle into the school this morning, someone saw him and reported it to law enforcement.”

Think about how ridiculous this is, how ignorant about weaponry that the caller felt seriously threatened by a weapon that you couldn’t load fast enough to get off more than a shot or two in the whole time that you used it if you were going to be psychotic enough to attempt a school shooting.

Now, granted, Nancy Pelosi would probably call it an assault weapon because you could swing it around to hit several people at a time with it than you could load it an fire it. Not that Pelosi’s ignorance is any justification, but she is a prime example of fear born out of ignorance.

If people want to stop being afraid of guns, then they need to get some training on how to use guns, how to care for them, how they actually work and what threat that they actually pose.

The problem with those pushing gun control is that they have no idea what they are afraid of. They are just terrified of a bogeyman in their own mind that they have labeled “guns.”

by -
1 527

A Bernie Sanders-supporting rapper goes on a liberal talk show. It sounds either like a set up to a joke or to a story from some anti-gun blowhard who has no idea what he is talking about, but, no, this is a true story. You may be pleasantly surprised about the outcome, though.

Comedy Central has a new talk show called Problematic with Moshe Kasher. Ryan Girdusky described it as “one of the countless comedy talk shows featuring a white progressive lecturing millennials about why conservatives are wrong.” Interestingly, though, on the May 16, 2017 episode, rapper Killer Mike told Kasher why he is a gun owner and a member of the NRA. Girdusky fills us in:

Mike said that he’s been using guns since he was a small child and that his grandparents owned guns in the Deep South to help fight against threats from the Klan. He even admitted he’s a member of the National Rifle Association. […]

The host was stunned and disappointed, trying to reason with the rapper “you’re a Bernie guy, you’re a progressive.”

“Human beings are complex, and in matters of politics, you go with the stronger lobbying group for the things that you f*cking want,” Mike said.

[MTV’s Ana Marie] Cox said that she was a gun owner and wanted some forms of gun control, especially on handguns. However, Killer Mike disagreed saying handguns were the most efficient way of self-protection.

Additionally, Piper Laurie Smith, a member of the Pink Pistols, a LGBTQAI pro-gun group said, “When seconds count, the police are often minutes or hours away. A 100-pound female has a chance against four linebackers if she’s carrying.”

Whether you agree with their politics or their lifestyle choices, Killer Mike and the Pink Pistols get it. Guns protect people from people who want to kill people, and the choice to have guns must remain available for all Americans.

by -
3 527

Anti-gunners say the craziest things. If they weren’t serious about the bizarre things they said, we could almost take it as comedy. Unfortunately, they really are serious.

Take, for example, the United Kingdom. You see, in the U.K., self-defense is essentially illegal. I’m not being sensationalist when I say this, nor am I exaggerating. J.D. Heyes explains,

As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government’s Police National Legal Database.

Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

The police answer:

The only fully legal self defence product… is a rape alarm.

Now, the site goes on to say that there may be other products, but those have yet to be fully tested and that “if you purchase one you must be aware… there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it’s [sic] contents and legality can be verified.”

To give you a little more detail: the police in the U.K. are serious about the necessity of approving what you can use to defend yourself. The New American gives an example of what can happen:

Real people have experienced the absurdity of such rules being enforced with diligence across the country. Three knife-wielding burglars [guns are illegal in England] invaded a home in England, tied up the family members and threatened to kill the father. One of the members managed to escape and get help. The family member and the helper returned and inflicted permanent brain damage on one of burglars — a criminal, by the way, with more than 50 previous convictions — using a cricket bat. Authorities arrested the defendants — the victims — and sent them to prison for more than two years. The attacker? He escaped punishment.

Now, in case you are someone who thinks that you can just scare away an attacker with a rape alarm, I would suggest that you stop and get a dose of reality before you or someone you care about gets hurt or killed. Someone will murder in their eyes is not going to stop because you scream or because of a rape alarm. And, while the police may be able to catch the person who assaulted/raped/murdered you, fat lot of good that does you after the fact.

See, one of the biggest problems that anti-gunners have is their belief that law enforcement officers actually stop crimes from being committed. But, if you think about it, this belief isn’t even logical. How can law enforcement officers stop a crime if they don’t know about it before it happens? They can’t, and that’s the reason why it’s vitally important for people here in the U.S. (and in the U.K., too) to be able to lawfully defend themselves from other people who are willfully breaking the law by physically assaulting another person.

So, I stand by my statement: anti-gunner thinking will get people killed, and that is why gun ownership cannot be restricted if people are going to be able to be safe.

by -
9 552

Background checks are a contentious issue. Anti-gunners want do a background check on everyone (and fail the check to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens’ hands). Many “moderate” gun owners still support background checks to prevent people with mental health issues or past history of real violence from being able to obtain a gun.

The problem, however, is that, even if background checks were able to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable or habitually violent people (which doesn’t appear to be the case), these background checks get abused and the information gets twisted and distorted for other purposes. Bruce Krafft gives a perfect example of how this, too often, works:

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office conducted an eight-month gun show investigation, uncovering “serious violations,” leading to ten arrests. This inevitably led the AG’s office to call for “a stronger law to hold show operators liable and increase penalties.”

That may sound reasonable, unless you dig into the meat of the story and discover that those “unlawful sellers” were actually show attendees, not dealers, and that the gun show operators had meticulously followed New York’s UBC law. They had signs posted at all entrances, at all ticket sale locations and at least four places within the show to make sure that everyone knew the law.

This is what I mean by [anti-gunners will] never [be] satisfied; even though show operators complied with every jot and tittle of the law, the AG’s office wanted to be able to criminally prosecute show operators for the unlawful conduct of their attendees. Think about that for a minute; this would be like criminally charging the Lipizzan Horse Show because a couple of their customers were caught violating the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act by sneaking a cigarette in the restrooms during a performance.

One of the major problems with universal background checks is that the data collected isn’t filtered for accuracy, isn’t taken into contextual consideration, isn’t vetted in any way. It’s taken at face value for the purpose of denying the Constitutional rights of people and, specifically, for abusing gun owners.

This is one of the many reasons that we must remain diligent about insisting on our full 2nd Amendment rights.

by -
2 516

Many people believe that statistics are the end-all-be-all way to settle an argument, that statistics are the “facts” that they can use to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that their point of view is the right point of view.

These people, obviously, have never heard the old joke about torturing the statistics until they give you the answer that you want. Unfortunately, in much of what passes for research in many areas, torturing statistics isn’t even worth the trouble. Sometimes these “researchers’ simply take the numbers out of context or conveniently ignore the data that doesn’t support the conclusion that they want. John Lott gives us a perfect example of this misuse of statistics in an piece for He writes,

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), the source of these claims, asserts that in the 10 years from May 2007 to April 2017, U.S. concealed handgun permit holders were responsible for 969 nonself-defense gun deaths (with any type of weapon, not just handguns).

Of these deaths, 314 were suicides and 17 were the result of accidental shootings. In all, 324 permit holders purportedly killed people.

Looking at the VPC numbers for 2016, they claim that 26 permit holders supposedly committed 29 homicides. With over 15 million permit holders nationwide last year, those deaths amount to 0.2 homicides per 100,000 permit holders.

However, there is an arrest and investigation virtually anytime a permit holder uses a handgun in a public place. Almost all of the 2016 cases are listed as pending, and most of the defendants will be acquitted on account of self-defense.

The tally of 969 deaths is the result of triple and even quadruple counting. […] The main problem [in the reporting in Michigan, for example] is that pending cases are counted in the same way as convictions. The Michigan State Police report the number of pending cases and convictions each year.

But since most cases never result in a conviction and many cases can be listed as pending for two or three calendar years, this results in massive over counting.

Lott continues,

Concealed handgun permit holders are also much more law-abiding than the rest of the population.

In fact, they are convicted at an even lower rate than police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, police committed an average of 703 crimes (113 firearms violations) annually from 2005-2007.

Take a minute to read those statistics again. You’ll begin to realize how easy it is for someone with bias to take raw data and misuse it, either intentionally or simply due to laziness about being accurate, to come to conclusions which simply aren’t true. If concealed carry permit holders are convicted at a lower rate than police officers, then that is just statistical proof that legal gun owners are the people that should have the guns.

And that is a conclusion based on statistics that you can depend on.

by -
16 773

Sometimes it seems that anti-gun politicians and district attorneys who act as their lap dogs have it in for law abiding citizens who carry their own firearms. And the reason that it seems that way is because it’s true.

Take, for example, the case of Arizona resident Steven Jones. Dean Weingarten writes,

Jones and two of his friends were attacked after midnight on Friday, October 9, 2015. Jones was sucker punched and chased toward his car. He retrieved a pistol and went back to aid his friends who were on the ground.

From that point, unfortunately, shots were fired, and one of the attackers was killed.

Now, if this wasn’t a horrible enough experience for Jones to go through (if you’ve ever been in combat, you know how traumatizing it can be to actually shoot someone, even if justified as self-defense), but Jones was smeared by those wanting to use this tragedy as a political maneuver for more gun control. Weingarten continues,

There is a clear political component of the prosecution and trial. The shooting was originally billed as another mass school shooting, with the “victims” lionized. The facts disclosed later, which bolstered the self defense claim of Jones, did not receive near the publicity. If Jones were found to be justified, it removes a reason to oppose Campus Carry.

So, Jones has a traumatic situation that he will have to work through and live with for the rest of his life, and, then, he gets smeared by the prosecutor who want to use Jones as a tool to try to yank guns off of college campuses.

While declaring this trial a mistrial is a good thing and, based on the information which we have, it looks to be the right thing, Jones will unfortunately have to go back to court for another trial in August.

.Just remember, folks, even though you’re the responsible one and you want peace, because you carry, you need to be aware of the potential fallout from using your weapon. Use it wisely.

by -
5 606

If you believe the mainstream mass media in America, you would believe that nobody ever needs a gun, and that, certainly, no one in a one of the liberal utopias which have strict gun control laws would want to endanger their own life by having their own gun for any reason.

If you believe that, though, you would be wrong.

The news media has a history of distorting the facts for their anti-gun agenda. For example, the New York Post ran an article on May 14, 2017 with the headline “People have stopped buying guns since Trump took office.” But, if you dig into the article, it actually states,

“In the five full months since Donald Trump was elected president, the FBI has undertaken 1.6 million fewer firearm background checks compared with the same period a year earlier, government statistics show, reflecting slower sales.” (hat tip to here for the source)

Now, to give even more perspective, these “slower sales” still equal 7 million firearms sold in a five month period. Seven million guns sold isn’t exactly a situation where people aren’t buying guns.

And to revisit our original point, people want to (legally) own firearms in politically liberal areas, too. For example, when you think areas buried under gun control laws, you probably think of California, New York City, Detroit or Chicago. However, a May 15. 2017 Associated Press article on says that “the number of firearm owner identification applications in Chicago doubled” in two years, and “[i]t’s on pace to surpass that this year [2017].” The article goes on to quote Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association:

“People are worried about protecting themselves in the Chicago area […]. People started seeing the value of a concealed carry license.”

So, next time that you read a news article saying the people don’t want guns or that people are happy and feel safe in areas with gun control, remember this post. The fact of the matter is that much of the media isn’t telling the truth about guns, but people, even in politically liberal areas, are starting to wake up to their need to be able to defend themselves.


0 133
The phrase ".357" has a certain connotation that goes along with it. Many people thing of it (as in ".357 Magnum") as a tough...