26 December 2017
HuffPo asks gun owners why?   Gets same answers regardless of race
"When you start paying attention to the Second Amendment, you start having more of a value for all of the other amendments."   Those same people will start getting more involved in politics and show up at school board meetings to talk with their city councils.
23 July 2016
Bloomberg associate reveals their ultimate intent
Not "commonsense", but taking away all guns - anti-freedom
, anti-right to self-defense
20 December 2016
Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action caught lying during testimony
6 December 2016
Michael Bloomberg spends many millions fighting for gun control. The results? Not so much.
Bloomberg spending on gun control is an order of magnitude above spending by the NRA against it. Votes show the majority does not agree with him.
2 December 2016
Why Texas gun laws protect students from OSU-style attack
13 November 2016
Guns, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people's lives.
4 October 2016
Strict gun control laws did not stop this robbery in Paris
1 October 2016
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
- Attorney General Janet Reno
23 September 2016
The evidence just keeps piling up - unfortunately, like dead bodies
Chicago - Murder and Mayhem
How strict do you have to make your laws before you get
that it is just not working?
Or is your real agenda just to grab ever more power - a wannabe dictator, controlling the lives of millions?
16 September 2016
A gun is an excellent means of self-defense; of leveling the playing field against a gang or even a single person who is bigger, stronger, or who has any other advantage.
The evidence is incontrovertible.
Seen the news lately?
Australia - gun-control failure, and better-armed criminals
Confiscating guns from owners misses the point that criminals do not obey the law. If gun-control is imposed with the goal of keeping guns away from criminals, then gun-control is an absolute failure - even in a country like Australia, with no national land-borders. Criminals will always get guns.
Making it harder for the law-abiding to buy guns - through "waiting period" delays or other restrictions, misses the point that most criminals use stolen or illegally-obtained guns. Such laws have no effect on the actions of criminals, except to encourage violent assault without fear of being stopped by their intended victims.
As with "gun-free" zones, gun-control laws are something the criminally-minded ignore with impunity. Gun-free zones should be abolished.
LGBT - Not the First Group To Act In Their Own Defense
Ex-slaves were encouraged to arm themselves after the Civil War, as a defense against lynchings by the KKK and other like-minded people. Now, after the killings in an Orlando bar, another group realizes that acting in your own defense saves lives, is very moral and very right.
This clearly shows that guns support freedom
, not just from an oppressive government, but also freedom from the violent attacks of other people who hate them.
The Center for Disease Control researched gun use
On President Obama's order, the CDC did the research, and the answer was unexpected. The number of times a gun is used for self-defense or in the defense of another outweighs by several orders of magnitude the occurrences where a gun is used to commit a crime. The gun is one of the best safety devices available.
Different sources disagree on the exact numbers, but between 360,000 and 1,200,000 people are defended and saved through the use of a gun each year from murders, rapes, and robberies, vs. the approximately 6,000-10,000 people killed with a gun (30,000 if you include suicide). Taking away guns would increase the frequency of successful crimes by orders of magnitude.
The numbers are very clear: deterrence works. In the last twenty-five years, Americans have been buying more guns, and the use of Concealed-Carry Permits has increased exponentially.
At the sane time, the number of murders has been declining. Coincidence? Perhaps, but any polling and discussion with convicted criminals on motives and methods reveals that they search for vulnerable, easily-assaulted victims; criminals shy away from those they suspect are well-armed. Kennesaw, Georgia, is a stereotypical case-in-point: the City Council passed an ordinance requiring every house to be armed with a gun. If it were tested in court, the legality of such an ordinance would certainly be questionable. But criminals do not initiate test-cases. They simply look elsewhere for victims. Crime is absent in Kennesaw. Deterrence works.
The solution is not more laws. The solution is better general education, better training in the handling and use of guns, better teaching of morals and ethics (in churches and
in schools), and better diagnosis and treatment for mental illnesses.
Criminalization and Black Markets
The creation of gun-control laws has two rarely-mentioned results.
1. Turning law-abiding, tax-paying citizens into criminals. Connecticut is the latest example, where an estimated 110,000-120,000 people own AR-15-style rifles - "assault rifles" to the Connecticut legislature, which passed a law requiring the registration of such guns. Only 10,000 owners complied. With a single stroke of the pen, more than 100,000 people in Connecticut - law-abiding, tax-paying citizens - have become overnight felons, criminalized by the heavy-handed, sledgehammer-and-blowtorch actions of a Constitutionally-illegal legislature.
Some of those new felons will realize they must move their dealings to the black market, increasing their interactions with truly-violent criminals. That occurred during Prohibition, when the law-abiding went to criminals to buy what should never have been made illegal in the first place. Prohibition just created a disregard for the law per se; the same has been repeated in Connecticut. The use of force does not legitimize a law; the use of force destroys the law, and with it a culture.
2. The growth of black-market activity. Black markets are ever-present. They are minimal in a free country, but the more restrictive and oppressive a nation's laws become, the greater is the growth of the black market. A black market says more about the destructiveness of a government than it does about criminal activity.
The next time you are with a group of people, imagine having to explain to them that, because of the gun control which you advocate, twelve
of them will be dead unnecessarily; twelve lives will be lost. Explain to twelve families that their happiness will be forever shattered; that personal loss and enduring mental trauma will be theirs to experience for the rest of their lives - because you
decided they should be left defenseless against criminal attack. Explain to twelve out of every fourteen you see, that they
will be dead, because of your
desire for gun control. Explain to twelve of the fourteen why it is that you have any justification for determining that they will die.
It ought to be a simple
challenge to the President, to governors, to people like Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, and to lawmakers generally: to all who favor gun control, to remove the people who guard you. Lead by example. Prove by your own actions that what you advocate actually works
. Or are you to afraid to practice
what you preach, and leave behind the 24-by-7 armed guards? Are you afraid to admit that you think of yourself as some kind of "elite", above other people, and want to be treated as a special exception?
Is life really more dangerous when many people own guns?
Compare the U.S. to Great Britain, where guns are severely restricted.
Britain proves gun control does not work!
Compare the U.S. to Europe. Much of Europe lacks the safety of the U.S. - despite Europe's more oppressive political environment and severely-restrictive gun laws.
"Womens' Rights" become a farce without the right of self-defense.
Who are the players? What are the stakes?
Those people who are well-meaning, however misguided or not, who advocate waiting periods, etc., play into the hands of those who would use those restrictions to increasingly make it more difficult to buy, own, use, and carry guns. Government regulation of guns can only have one ultimate end-result: criminals with guns, while the law-abiding are defenseless and helpless victims, and an increasingly oppressive government.
In some states, such as South Carolina, the state has a limited time period to respond with a background check. Beyond that, a gun can be sold without the check. But in states with no expiration, the purchase is deliberately delayed ad infinitum, as a means of furthering an anti-gun agenda; i.e., abrogating individuals' right to own a gun.
New Jersey provides an excellent example of just such a government. Ask Carol Bowne
As is the case in South Carolina, the onus should be on the government to take timely action, and should not be detrimental to the rights of individuals.
Yet South Carolina is not without fault, either. Concealed Carry Permits are typically issued only at the very end of the legal period of time allowed by legislation.
No government is immune from using the laws in the ways it sees fit. Thus the U.S. has a Consitution which is above the government, untouchable by it, which limits its powers. Contrast any other government in the world, and the level of freedom of its subject population, to see the difference.
Just look at the list of those who have supported the right to bear arms, vs. the list of those who have opposed it, and the motivations become crystal clear. Would-be dictators, tyrants, and killers want you to be disarmed.
Concealed Carry Permit Holders
In my experience, people who possess a Concealed Carry Permit as a group are uniformly the most calm, level-headed, no-nonsense, responsible, and courteous people it is possible to meet.
That should really come as no surprise. They have dedicated themselves to possessing overwhelming deadly force, in the name of the protection of their loved ones, friends, people generally, and themselves.
They know they must be aware of bystanders who might get hurt if they should choose to fire that weapon. They must carefully thread the legal issues surrounding their choice to carry.
At the same time they must be continually-vigilant of the people around them, and conditions generally, to avoid and prevent danger from occurring. They must be ready to stop someone who has the intention of causing harm, and they must assure that their own weapon remains safely under their own control.
They are aware that, whatever they may be doing, they must maintain a continual readiness. Having chosen to be able to carry, they also must consider the potential personal and emotional consequences of failing to carry. The choice they have made engenders a sobering responsibility.
That reflects their training in obtaining their permit.
Safety in the Work Environment
The following was sent to the HR department where I work. I urge all companies to consider a plan such as I describe below.
Security and HR --
Having viewed the Active Shooter "safety" video, with its "Run, hide, fight" theme, and based on my knowledge of this subject, I have grave concerns regarding the safety of our personnel, given the videos content and suggested procedures.
The recommended approach to handling and resolving an active-shooter situation is incomplete. In terms of the potential for the loss of human life, actual incidents demonstrate that the suggested approach is severely inadequate.
In the U.S., most states provide commonly available Concealed-Carry permits for citizens. Such permits generally involve significant training in gun safety, use, and legal issues in a defensive situation.
Applicants wishing to obtain a concealed-carry permit typically must submit to both state and Federal background checks and fingerprinting. Experience has shown that the vetting is fairly rigorous: the percentage of permit-holders who carry out illegal actions is virtually non-existent, well below the norm for the general population.
Where possible, the establishment of a building defensive team consisting of volunteer concealed-carry permit holders should be implemented. Implementing such a program would require the establishment of an appropriate business policy, and might also include additional training and qualification. I would also suggest that for best results in an active-shooter situation, as well as to minimize the discomfort of those uncomfortable around guns, the existence of such teams should not be advertised, and the names of team members should definitely not be disclosed.
As an example, in our building a team of four or five members, whose desks are widely-dispersed, could have a substantial impact in reducing the tragedy of an active-shooter situation.
The presence of concealed-carry personnel at the site of a shooting can make a substantial difference:
- With none present, the average number of dead per incident is 14.3;
- With a permit-holder present, the average number of dead per incident is 2.3.
Not having concealed-carry personnel on-site condemn on average a dozen people to be dead who would otherwise survive.
The inadequacy of the Active Shooter training video is demonstrated in that simple fact: a dozen people alive, vs. a dozen people dead; a dozen legal liabilities, or none. The lives of twelve people - and their families' happiness - will continue or be unnecessarily cut short, depending on whether a defensive team is present in an active-shooter scenario.
As has been noted both generally and by law-enforcement personnel specifically, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
While the video's contents make sense as far as they go, "Run, Hide, Fight" is not a reasonable safety process in an active-shooter situation. I would ask that you consider the means described above to institute what is literally an order-of-magnitude improvement in this life-or-death safety process for employees.
I would be happy to discuss options in more detail, at your convenience.
This was one of the responses:
Having an active response team in all company locations is the best practice. At some point in time (now is preferred), we need to push this up the food chain and have it considered/re-considered by whomever it takes to bring some light on this. The position that running and hiding or as a last resort sticking a pencil in the eye or throwing a stapler at an active shooter is simply a coward's way of dealing with a very, very real issue
- the advised approach will guarantee more dead employees. Our company dropped the ball on this once before and the result was a number of dead employees in one of our plants - it appears they didn't learn a thing (bet they built more fences and made sure everyone was wearing their badges). I know of one corporation in our area that has implemented the exact plan Scott states below and the employees could not BE MORE APPRECIATIVE
. To them, it was a signal that their managers truly cared about them and not the politically correct approach (e.g., "If we do allow a gun in the building, someone might get hurt."). I hope that this can be forwarded to those who may be able to bring some courage to this decision process - our options are to wait until several are blown away or do something now - again, it is time to face the reality that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" and to understand that what Scott stated is ABSOLUTELY correct - the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. We should understand nothing more than the fact that the movie theatre shooter in Colorado drove about eight miles to find a theatre that did not allow guns
. Most of the public does not know that he passed up numerous theatres that did allow concealed carry (Gee, wonder why he would do that?). I know people don't like the cliches and they especially don't like them when they speak the truth but here is another - the most dangerous place on earth is a "Gun Free Zone". We are sitting ducks and when it happens, the blood will brushlimbaugh.com" ta
Again, I urge all companies to consider such a plan.
Go to top