Crazy Things Pacifists Tell Me About Guns

1 Comment

H/T AmmoLand.

These people are a special kind of stupid.

Louisiana- (  I don’t mention being a gun owner to strangers.  Sometimes people find out, and the way they respond is remarkable.  I assume that they are sincere in what they say, but that assumption isn’t easy.

Their comments are more of a confession about themselves than an honest question about me.  I usually bite my tongue because of the social situation.  Then it occurred to me that other gun owners must be hearing similar comments.

I’ve kept my answers to myself, but now I’ll share them with you.

“I live on the safe side of town so I don’t need a gun for protection.”

I usually hear this from a well-to-do woman and it makes me smile.  Does she think criminals don’t have maps that show them where the rich people live?  Maybe she thinks criminals can’t drive.  The woman is obviously intelligent, but has a profound blind-spot when it comes to personal safety.  We didn’t meet inside her gated community, so why does she think she is safe everywhere?

“Guns aren’t the answer.”

Maybe guns are not the answer, but then we are certainly talking about different questions.  I assume the speaker knows that the police have firearms for personal protection.  The first person who told me to go armed was a police officer.  I listen to professionals.

“People don’t protect themselves with guns any longer.  That is just a fantasy from the old-west.”

This one perplexes me.  I assume they read too many cowboy novels but they stopped reading too soon.  They never learned the real history of our western frontier.  Also, the speaker never bothered to learn the facts about armed citizens who carry in public now.  Armed towns on the western frontier were safer than our large democrat-controlled cities today.  Ain’t that right, Marshal Dillon?

“Only the police should have guns.”

True, the police should have guns, but have you thought about what it is like to be a policeman?  Almost every policeman I’ve met told me to carry because of what they see every day.  Time after time, day after day, the police arrive too late.  They take reports from innocent injured victims.  That is a core part of their job and it has to hurt.  The police would much rather take your report that says you protected yourself and the criminal ran away.

“Only criminals have guns.”

This is really a statement about how narrow a group of friends the speaker has.  I’m probably the first gun owner they know… and there are a hundred million gun owners in the US.  To be fair, they probably don’t know anyone who owns a pickup truck either.

“You don’t need a gun.”

That is true.  I don’t.  I guess I don’t need toothpaste and deodorant.  I don’t need a fire extinguisher at home or a first aid kit in my car, but I have them..just like I have a firearm.

“My husband or wife has a gun, so I don’t need one.”

This comment makes me bite my tongue.  I’m thinking they volunteered to be the designated victim..or maybe the designated hostage.  Must be an interesting personal relationship they have with their spouse, but I don’t ask.

“Gun’s don’t belong in schools.”

Lots of things don’t belong in schools, but I’ve seen them.  Cuts and broken bones don’t belong in schools, but we have first aid kits on scene for a reason.  I won’t pretend that bad things don’t happen.  I won’t lie to make you feel better.  What exactly is your plan when you see more things you don’t want in schools?

“You just want to kill someone.”

This person obviously has no idea about the costs of threatening to use lethal force, let alone pulling the trigger.  Ignorance must be bliss.

“I couldn’t kill someone.

That is hard to believe.  Maybe the people who say this think they are gentle.  Would they really stand by and watch while their family is threatened or injured?  If I take them seriously, then either they don’t care about other people, or they look forward to seeing an innocent person hurt.   Has some village lost its sociopath?

“People like you shouldn’t have machine guns.”

I’ve fired a machine gun.  Not having automatic weapons hasn’t compromised my self-defense plans since I don’t feel the need to fight off a zombie horde tonight.

“Why do you want another tool that kills?”

I love this question.  I look around the room and see how many things I could use or improvise.  What can I say.  I’m an engineer so everything is a tool.

“You’re more likely to be hurt if you have a gun because the criminal will take your gun away from you.”

So you’re saying we’d be safer if we disarmed the police and gave guns to criminals?   That way the police would always have a gun when they needed it by taking the criminal’s gun!  It’s an interesting idea, but you go first and I’ll record the results from here.

I know I’m not alone.  You’ve heard similar things and you’ve thought similar things.  Thank you for sharing them.. here, and not saying them in public


The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.


Flagstaff Judge Rules Police Video of Suspect Inadmissible as “Prejudicial”

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

The only reason I can think of for this video being prejudicial is it showed the defendant was bloodied and afraid of being killed.

The video also showed the defendant was glad to see the police.

Photo Taken Days after the Shooting


Arizona – -( The trial involving the Flagstaff shooting of a mob of drunken fraternity members who attacked an 18 year old pistol owner, is almost over.

The shooting occurred in October of 2015.  As of 27 April, 2017, the jury is considering the case.

A motion for mistrial by the defense has been refused by the trial judge, Dan Slayton.  Slayton previously took the unusual stance of ruling the police video from the scene as “prejudicial”.  In the video, a bloodied and hysterical 18 year old, Steven Jones, tells the police how glad he is they are there, and he thought he was going to die.

Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”.

The defense cried foul. From

Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”. The defense cried foul. From

A Coconino County Superior Court judge Thursday morning denied a mistrial for prosecutor misconduct in the Steven Jones murder trial.

But he ordered that the jury be given an instruction about inaccurate statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument that would diminish Jones’ claims of self-defense.

Before the trial began, prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea convinced the judge to preclude statements Jones made to witnesses and police at the scene of the October 2015 shooting that left one student dead and three others wounded on the Northern Arizona University campus.

Immediately after the incident, Jones told another student that he acted in self-defense, and when he was in a police car after being detained, he was recorded on camera as saying, “Why were they going to hurt me?” and “I thought I was going to die.”

Consider if, in the police video, Steven Jones had said, “They were evil and deserved to die”. Do you think it would have been admitted as evidence? Want to take any bets?  Of course it would have been admitted, to show the shooters state of mind. But clear evidence of the shooter’s state of mind, taken minutes after the shooting, was excluded, because it favored the defense.
The jury has been out for about a day. It hasn’t turned in a verdict yet.  If it comes up with a guilty verdict, expect an appeal.
There is considerable punishment simply in the process.
The Coconino County Prosecutor’s office is the same office that prosecuted Harold Fish.

I do not know who the prosecutor in this case is, but Michael J. Lessler is the Chief Deputy Attorney in Coconino County. He is the prosecutor who was in charge of the infamous Harold Fish case. Lessler claimed, for example, that Fish’s use of a 10mm and hollowpoint bullet were somehow indications of malice.

An appeals court finally reversed and remanded Fish’s conviction in 2009. Harold Fish had been in prison for three years. The Harold Fish prosecution was so over the top, it resulted in the Arizona legislature making three separate changes in Arizona law, to stop the abuses obvious in the case, and to insure that Harold Fish was able to obtain a new trial.

Fish died not long after being released from prison.

The shooting was originally covered in the media as a “school shooting”. That was the take before details started coming out that indicated a self defense case.

Things like the shooter immediately surrendering to police, and thanking them for being there.  Things like being outnumbered by a mob of drunken fraternity members (all the people shot had blood alcohol far beyond being legally drunk, and traces of marijuana). Things like the Steven Jones having no alcohol or drugs in his blood. The person who was killed was shot at a range of two feet or less, as he was moving toward Jones.

News coverage today is far more even than it was in the early days after the shooting.

The verdict will be very interesting.

If the verdict is not guilty, will the LA Times will issue a retraction over its early coverage?

We will know the verdict in a few days.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Is People Profiling OK?


H/T AmmoLand.

Dr.Walter E. Williams correctly point out profiling is ok and useful.

Just like the profiling we need to do on everyone crossing our borders.

By Walter E. Williams
Editors Note: AmmoLand News welcomes Walter E.Williams to our growing list of the best and brightest conservative commentators.

USA – -( Profiling is needlessly a misunderstood concept. What’s called profiling is part of the optimal stock of human behavior and something we all do.

Let’s begin by describing behavior that might come under the heading of profiling.

Prior to making decisions, people seek to gain information. To obtain information is costly, requiring the expenditure of time and/or money. Therefore, people seek to find ways to economize on information costs. Let’s try simple examples.

You are a manager of a furniture moving company and seek to hire 10 people to load and unload furniture onto and off trucks. Twenty people show up for the job, and they all appear to be equal except by sex. Ten are men, and 10 are women. Whom would you hire? You might give them all tests to determine how much weight they could carry under various conditions, such as inclines and declines, and the speed at which they could carry. To conduct such tests might be costly. Such costs could be avoided through profiling — that is, using an easily observable physical attribute, such as a person’s sex, as a proxy for unobserved attributes, such as endurance and strength.

Though sex is not a perfect predictor of strength and endurance, it’s pretty reliable.

Imagine that you’re a chief of police. There has been a rash of auto break-ins by which electronic equipment has been stolen. You’re trying to capture the culprits. Would you have your officers stake out and investigate residents of senior citizen homes? What about spending resources investigating men and women 50 years of age or older? I’m guessing there would be greater success capturing the culprits by focusing police resources on younger people — and particularly young men. The reason is that breaking in to autos is mostly a young man’s game.

Should charges be brought against you because, as police chief, you used the physical attributes of age and sex as a crime tool? Would it be fair for people to accuse you of playing favorites by not using investigative resources on seniors and middle-aged adults of either sex even though there is a non-zero chance that they are among the culprits?

Physicians routinely screen women for breast cancer and do not routinely screen men. The American Cancer Society says that the lifetime risk of men getting breast cancer is about 0.1 percent. Should doctors and medical insurance companies be prosecuted for the discriminatory practice of prescribing routine breast cancer screening for women but not for men?

Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average. The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times greater among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Pima Indians of Arizona have the world’s highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as it is among white men. Using a cheap-to-observe attribute, such as race, as a proxy for a costly-to-observe attribute, such as the probability of some disease, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.

For example, just knowing that a patient is a black man causes a physician to be alert to the prospect of prostate cancer. The unintelligent might call this racial profiling, but it’s really prostate cancer profiling.

In the real world, there are many attributes correlated with race and sex. Jews are 3 percent of the U.S. population but 35 percent of our Nobel Prize winners. Blacks are 13 percent of our population but about 74 percent of professional basketball players and about 69 percent of professional football players. Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Women have wider peripheral vision than men. Men have better distance vision than women.

The bottom line is that people differ significantly by race and sex. Just knowing the race or sex of an individual may on occasion allow us to guess about something not readily observed.

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.

April 3 Media Update from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.


Doctors and Guns

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

USA -( Major news broke March 27 as “DRGO Releases Position Paper Supporting Access to Firearms Suppressors.”

The Hearing Protection Act is on the table in Congress, which is intended to reduce hearing loss from gunfire by deregulating suppressors from the 1934 National Firearms Act and promoting their wider use.

This summary of real, settled science is being distributed to Congressional offices for their reference during deliberations.

Download your own copy here.

Last week, DRGO received John R. Lott, Jr. Ph.D.’s latest update, saying in part:

“We have a lot of work to do . . . It will take some time and resources for us to respond to all the new studies that are coming out . . . Unfortunately, the CPRC is literally almost out of money. Donations have fallen off dramatically since the election . . . Right now I am not getting paid for my work. Our research assistants are still getting paid, but even that we can’t keep going for much longer . . . Any help would be greatly appreciated.”

We at DRGO are extremely concerned by what Dr. Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center is facing. We want to be sure that anyone who does not receive its newsletter is alerted to the threat to this central resource for pro-gun rights research and analysis.


About DRGO:

Founded in 1994, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership is a non-profit program of the Second Amendment Foundation. We are a nationwide advocacy and watchdog group of physicians and other health professionals who support the safe and lawful use of firearms. We endorse education, not restrictive legislation, to promote true gun safety. We insist that public interest decisions must be based on good science rather than agenda-driven propaganda.

DRGO members have testified to Congress and state legislatures, contributed to amicus curiae briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts, presented to medical societies and the public, and have written and been interviewed for many national media outlets. DRGO scrutinizes public health studies dealing with firearms ownership, use and misuse, and exposes spurious advocacy research that would undermine Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Medal of Honor Recipient Jumps On Grenade to Save Marines in Vietnam

1 Comment

H/T AmmoLand.

R.I.P. Marine PFC James Anderson Jr.    

Your bravery saved your fellow Marines.   

Vietnam War


U.S.A.-( This blog is part of a weekly series called “Medal of Honor Monday,” in which we’ll highlight one of the nearly 3,500 Medal of Honor recipients who have earned the honor of wearing the U.S. military’s highest medal for valor.

The next hero to be honored in our Medal of Honor Monday series gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, and it happened nearly 50 years ago to the day of this posting.

James Anderson Jr. was born in Los Angeles, California, in January 1947. He went to a local junior college for a year and a half before he decided that his real calling was with the Marine Corps. Within a year of enlisting, the private first class was sent to Vietnam.

Marine PFC James Anderson Jr.

On Feb. 28, 1967, Anderson had just celebrated his 20th birthday and his one-year anniversary in the Marines when he was put to the ultimate test.

Anderson was serving as a rifleman in Company F, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, in the Quan Tri province on Vietnam’s central coast. He and his platoon were on a mission to rescue a heavily besieged reconnaissance patrol when they came upon heavy fire in dense jungle northwest of Cam Lo.

The platoon reacted quickly and began firing back. Anderson found himself on the ground in a tightly packed group of Marines within about 20 meters of the enemy, firing back on them.

All of a sudden, a grenade landed within feet of Anderson’s head. Without hesitation, Anderson grabbed the grenade, pulled it into his chest and wrapped himself around it before it detonated.

Anderson’s body absorbed the blast. He was immediately killed. Thanks to his actions, though, the Marines around him survived with just minor injuries.

Most of us would never be able to understand that selflessness and self-sacrifice. Anderson’s extraordinary valor and the giving of his life to save the men around him can’t be overstated, and that’s why he received the Medal of Honor posthumously, Aug. 21, 1968. His parents accepted it for him.

Anderson was the first African-American Marine to receive the honor.

UNSNS Pfc. James Anderson Jr.

It wouldn’t be his last, either. In 1983, the U.S. Navy showed its appreciation for his gallantry by renaming a maritime prepositioning ship after him. The USNS Pfc. James Anderson Jr. was based in the Indian Ocean and carried equipment to support a Marine expeditionary brigade until 2009.

A park in Carson, California, was also named in his honor.


“Modernized” Undetectable Firearms Bill Would Outlaw Glocks, Many Rifles


H/T AmmoLand.

Senator Bill Nelson(D-Fl) is a fear mongering fool.

There is no such animal as an undetectable firearm.

Even with this 3D plastic guns you need a barrel,trigger assembly,a magazine and bullets all of which are mental.

Senator Nelson from Florida has filed a restrictive bill that would stifle innovation and experimentation, without significantly impacting terrorists or criminals. Interestingly, a complete exemption would be included for the U.S. government and agencies. The bill is titled the “Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act of 2017“.

Nelson mis-characterizes the state of the art with this falsehood:

“Thanks to advances in technology, anyone with a 3-D printer can simply print a fully-functioning firearm that can be snuck through a metal detector without being noticed,” Nelson said. “These guns pose a real threat to our safety and we need to be doing everything we can to keep them off the streets and out of the hands of those who wish to do harm.”

I would like to see Senator Nelson back up his claim with a demonstration.  Even the plastic replica found at the Reno airport, was detected because of the metal in the *ammunition*.  Even Defense Distributed used a metal firing pin in the design of its “Liberator” pistol.  Senator Nelson cited the non-firing replica from Reno in his announcement.

Both lawmakers cite an August incident where TSA Agents at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport found and confiscated a plastic gun from a passenger’s carry-on bag during screening. The gun, assembled using a 3-D printer, was found loaded with five live .22 caliber bullets.

The plastic copy was known to be a non-firing replica by August 9th.   From

One of 68 firearms discovered in carry-on bags nationally the week ending August 4, 2016, the TSA says it was a realistic replica, loaded with live ammunition.

The TSA says the passenger was offered the option of checking the item in carry-on baggage, but chose to leave it behind. The passenger was not arrested or cited, and continued to his flight with no impact to airport operations.

Nelson and Schumer’s statement was made in March of 2017.

Currently, the first part of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 is this:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm— (A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

The Nelson bill would change that paragraph to this, bold added for emphasis:

 (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm— (A) that, after removal of all parts other than a major component, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

If you remove *all parts* other than a major component, only a major component is left to detect.  Words mean things in the law, and the phrase in bold is not equivalent to “all parts other than all major components”, even though the difference is only two letters.

Such a requirement would outlaw all composite frames on the market today.  Glock frames and most Glock type frames would be outlawed.  Virtually all composite AR type lower receivers would be outlawed.  The law could be a sneak attack or simply a result of ignorance on the part of Senator Nelson and the other famously anti-Second Amendment co-sponsors.

It will be interesting to see if Senator Nelson uses images of the non-firing replica from Reno to bolster his bill.

It seems unlikely that Nelson’s bill will find much support in a Trump administration with a Republican Congress.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Another Bloomberg Mayor against Guns Arrested (Again)

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

This arrest will be a resume enhancement for Anthony Sliva because he is a DemocRat.  


USA – -( Adding to a long list of mayors supporting Michael Bloomberg’s citizen disarmament agenda who have been arrested for criminal activities, former Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva was taken into custody at San Francisco International Airport Sunday, KCRA News and other outlets are reporting.

“According to jail records, Silva was booked into San Joaquin County Jail on felony charges of money laundering, embezzlement by a public officer, grand theft and embezzlement worth more than $400,” the report notes. “His bail is set at $1 million.” [Log in to see inmate information.]

The charges add to a list of legal issues Silva’s conduct has placed him at the center of, including:

Silva “was arrested … for playing strip poker with minor and giving them alcohol while at a youth camp … [He] was … charged with one felony count of making an illegal recording and one misdemeanor count each of providing alcohol to a minor, cruelty to a child by endangering their health and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

A gun stolen from Silva’s house and used in the killing of a 13-year-old, and also involved in two other investigations, was not reported stolen until two months after the killing. It was the second gun stolen from his house.

When presented with fact that few people have one gun stolen from one home, let alone two from two different homes, his response was, “I know.”

The company they keep… [The GunMag]

His gun ownership and apparent carelessness in securing them are all the more damning because Silva, a Republican (like Michael Bloomberg when he ran New York City, and Sarah and Jim Brady), was a proud member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He’s also the latest in a long list of mayors accused over the years of crimes that have resulted in many convictions. So true to form, he joined with a “California Coalition” of Bloomberg mayors to urge Gov. Jerry Brown to sign so-called “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” into law. GRVO’s ignore due process and deny guns and the fundamental right to possess them to citizens who had not been convicted of any crime, but merely accused by “a family member or law enforcement, not even of being a danger, but of showing a subjective “substantial likelihood” of being one, as determined by the accuser.

If that’s the case, what is that person doing being allowed to wander unhindered among us, with free access to things like box cutters, fuel oil and fertilizer, and gasoline and matches? As demonstrated time and again, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

And anything less than full due process to establish that is unconstitutional and un-American.

It’s revealing how many who can’t – or won’t – control themselves are so bent on controlling the rest of us, and it’s telling how many of those gravitate to “public service.”

Is your mayor a member of Team Bloomberg, committing your citys support for disarmament without your consent? If so, what are you going to do about it?

Also see:Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors

Update:And Yet Still Another Illegal Mayor Against Guns

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: