Home

Is Mitch McConnell The Reason We Don’t Have National Reciprocity?

Leave a comment

H/T  Bearing Arms.

As he is the Senate Majority Leader I would say Mitch The Bitch McConnell is the reason we do not have National Reciprocity.

One of the biggest items on the agenda for many gun owners is national reciprocity. The time for such a law has never been better, with the GOP holding both chambers of Congress, the White House, and a majority on the Supreme Court. It seems likely that national reciprocity needs to happen now or it may never happen.

However, despite passing in the House, there’s been no movement on the Senate’s version of the bill. Is Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to blame?

Some say he is.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 some 45 weeks ago. Three-hundred-and-twenty-three days have passed since the introduction of Senate Bill 446 on March 1, 2017. Nothing. You can thank Kentucky Republican and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell . . .

Perhaps there’s some other political calculus of which I’m not aware. Maybe Senator McConnell is waiting for the right moment to restore gun rights on the federal level. When would that be, exactly?

While we’re asking questions, where does Sen. McConnell stand on Americans’ Constitutional rights? Does he support the Second Amendment as writ, or did he swindle those Kentucky voters back in 2014 and the millions of NRA voters that poured their hard earned money into his campaign? We shall see.

Politics is a messy business, especially when you’re in leadership. There’s no point in bringing a law to a vote when you know it won’t pass unless you’re trying to make a point with it not passing. While Republicans control the Senate, they don’t have a supermajority. Perhaps McConnell is worried about Democrats filibustering the bill, thus bogging it down?

However, if that’s the case, then you might as well give up now. You’re giving Democrats the ground without there even being a fight. Democrats from pro-gun states won’t be forced to choose between party and their constituents, thus leveraging them to either vote for the bill or set the groundwork for a Republican to take that seat come next election. You’re just making it too easy for them.

But I can’t help but think McConnell’s been around too long for that to be the reason. He knows how the game is played, and he knows that even the bill being blocked can count as a win if you handle it right. So why the holdup?

Frankly, I haven’t got a clue. It does seem to boil down to McConnell not being as pro-gun as he claimed to be as Candidate McConnell. He was more than willing to take the NRA’s money as well as the money of legions of the NRA’s supporters for his campaign war chest, but now that it’s time for those contributors to get a little something back for their investment, McConnell doesn’t seem willing to deliver.

National reciprocity needs to be brought to a vote. Win or lose, gun rights advocates have earned the chance to see who really stands with us and to make ready to remove any politician who stands against us.

It’s on Senator McConnell to make that happen, so he needs to get to it. Otherwise, the only one being targeted by gun rights activists might just be him.

Leftists Are Just Dying For a Concealed Carry Holder to Make a Mistake

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

If the DemocRats take over the House and Senate I promise you they will do they Damndest to gut the Second Amendment.

President Ronald Regan once said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Democratic political strategist James Carville was a bit more pragmatic about it, saying, “The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage, and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.”

Lay out the silage they do and nowhere more so than in the field of the Second Amendment.

George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and a regiment of like-minded new world order propaganda hacks feed disinformation to their army of apparatchik who, with no critical thinking skills at all, spread the word. Currently, the hot topic is concealed carry national reciprocity. Clearly, to them, the concept of anyone being able to carry a gun anywhere is anathema to the very core theme of progressive liberalism: John Q. Public should not be allowed to own a gun, until he/she reaches the stature of Rosie O’Donnell – to whom such rules do not apply.

The One Thing the Anti-Gun Narrative Is Waiting For

What has torched me off most recently is a letter to the editor of Silicon Valley’s Mercury News titled “Just wait till ‘Good Guy’ with a gun kills innocent bystander.” This is typical liberalism – spread the gospel regardless of facts. In it, the writer expressed concern over what the author of a previous letter to the editor wrote, saying he “is more concerned with ‘bad guys’ packing heat than Joe Average with an out-of-state permit.” He then suggests, “It’s going to take some wannabe cowboy trying to be a hero and hitting an innocent bystander to demonstrate just how bad that can be. How many people have to die to defend the Supreme Court’s twisted version of our Second Amendment rights…?”

This is so wrong on so many levels and underscores the fact that anti-gun liberals truly have no clue. I tried to find a case where a concealed carry holder’s life was threatened, used his legally possessed firearm to defend himself or another, and accidentally shot an innocent bystander. I’m not suggesting it has never happened, but I sure couldn’t find an example of it.

Having said that, the far more important issue is the writer’s position that it is better to have an active shooter shooting innocents all around him than for someone with a firearm to try to stop his murderous shooting spree, because he might miss and hit someone else. So, to liberals, is it better for potentially dozens of people to die at the hands of some fanatic than allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm? Does anyone see the logic in that point of view? I sure don’t. If we fought wars with that attitude, we’d still have a British accent.

So, How Safe Are CCW Holders?

This raises the question of how safely concealed carry holders go about their daily business. When Illinois was the only state not to have concealed carry and the legislature was debating the issues of instituting it, a man told me he was very uncomfortable with the idea that he could be in a room with people carrying hidden firearms. I asked him if he traveled out of state very often, he said he did, and I informed him that he had already been in rooms with people carrying hidden firearms. It had never occurred to him.

Mainstream media anti-gun reporting notwithstanding, here’s what we know about concealed carry permit holders. A 2013 study looked into the effects of state-level concealed weapon laws on murder rates for the period 1980 to 2009. It found that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The chilling effect concealed carry has on violent crime is one thing, but the remaining question is how trustworthy are concealed carry permit holders.

study done by John Lott in 2016 found that it is very rare for permit holders to violate the law. There are about 12.8 million permit holders in the U.S., and Lott found concealed permit holders committed an average of 113 firearm violations per year during the period from 2005 to 2007. That’s .0009 percent of concealed carry holders commit a crime with a firearm compared to law enforcement firearm-related crime statistics at .02 percent. Overall, concealed permit holders are remarkably safe and law abiding.

Making a Difference

Finally, there is the myth perpetrated by the Left that concealed carry permit holders are delusional if they think they can intervene in an active shooter situation and stop the carnage. It took minimal effort to turn up ample situations where that exact scenario unfolded.

A 2015 Controversial Times article titled, “12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns”, underscores the positive effect associated with law-abiding concealed carry holders being armed everywhere they go. Had Mississippi’s Pearl High School allowed faculty to carry a concealed firearm, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick might have been able to save more lives. When Luke Woodham started shooting, Myrick ran to his car, retrieved his .45 caliber pistol and headed back into the school. He was too late to save two students lives and seven others from gunshot wounds, but he did prevent Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he’d planned.

The fact is that more mayhem is prevented by a good guy with a gun than is reported simply because stopping it before someone gets killed is never going to make the news. The fact that concealed permit holders are less likely to use a firearm in the commission of a crime than even law enforcement officials will never make the news, either; and the fact that they have stopped mass murderers from racking up a higher body count won’t be in national headlines, let alone the additional fact that they have a positive influence on the overall crime rate across the country.

Anti-gun progressive liberals never let the facts get in the way of their mission to disarm John Q. Public. You would do well to remember that in the next election.

Handful Of Guns Sold By Police Used In Later Crimes

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The Associated Press the leader in the realm of fake news want to make a mountain out of a molehill on the subject of guns sold by the police used in crimes’

The actual number of such guns used in crimes is 12 guns over seven years, or 1.71 guns annually. Let’s be generous and call it two guns per year, just for the sake of argument.

A gun dealer who follows all the laws and even his gut may well find out that a firearm he or she sold was used in a crime. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. After all, guns trade hands after the initial sale, so even if you do everything right, that gun might still be used for evil at some point down the road.

It’s not their fault in the least.

However, US News & World Report has a story where the Associated Press is absolutely losing their mind over a handful of guns that were used in crimes after being sold by law enforcement.

A yearlong Associated Press analysis found more than a dozen firearms sold by law enforcement agencies in Washington state since 2010 later became evidence in new criminal investigations.

Identifying guns sold by law enforcement and matching them to new crimes required extensive research and dozens of public records requests to individual agencies.

Using those records, the AP created a database of almost 6,000 firearms sold by law enforcement since 2010. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives declined to release tracking information on guns associated with crimes, so the AP collected that information from individual agencies and compared it with its own database to find firearms with matching make, model, caliber and serial numbers.

Below are details about guns sold by law enforcement that were later picked up at crime scenes:

More than a dozen guns sold by police since 2010 have turned up used in second crimes, they say. They only list 12, so I’m going to call it an even dozen guns that fall into this category.

Now, that’s 12 guns over seven years. I say seven because 2018 is so new, it would be unfair to count it as being part of these numbers, and I don’t want to be unfair now, do I?

That’s 12 guns over seven years, or 1.71 guns annually. Let’s be generous and call it two guns per year, just for the sake of argument.

That’s two firearms that police sell back to licensed gun dealers every year that turn around and are used in crimes again.

The total number of firearms sold.

Both the AP and the Seattle Times report that the total number of guns sold back to the public is “nearly 6,000.”

That suggests that a whopping 0.2 percent of those firearms sold were used for nefarious purposes a second time. Let’s also note that at least one of these nefarious purposes is a suicide, which really should nudge the percentage down a bit. After all, a suicidal person is still suicidal, regardless of whether they have a gun or gravity.

That means 99.8 percent of the guns sold back to the public are used for lawful purposes. I’m sorry, but the only time that’s not a great success rate is when you’re talking birth control and you suddenly find out you’re about to be a mama or a daddy. That’s about it.

Why hide the reality?

Why would the Associated Press try and hide the reality? Why not just report their findings and let us debate it out in the court of public opinion?

Because if the information is presented in the proper context they can see that it’s a nonexistent problem. While 0.2 percent is significant if you lose someone you care about to one of the 0.2 percent of firearms found to be used in crimes a second time, it’s not for most people. The probabilities of being impacted feel like they’re on par with being struck by lightning or hitting the lottery. It’s just not that big of a problem and most people can see that…if they’re given the right information.

So, the AP writer opted to downplay that.

I’m sure, if asked, they’d say it wasn’t relevant and that the story is really about the times they are used in second crimes, but that’s bull. The percentages weren’t included because then you could tell that it’s a non-issue.

That’s not what the media wants you to believe. They want you to be fearful. They want you to be scared. Scared people push lawmakers to do something. People who figure there’s not a problem, don’t.

This isn’t journalism, it’s activism. Plain and simple.

While I don’t have a problem with activist journalists, I do have a problem with them presenting themselves as unbiased when they’re anything but. They then pretend they only go where the facts lead, yet it’s funny how often we find facts that directly contradict their narrative.

Seriously, it’s not even that difficult most of the time.

(An earlier version of this article asserted the AP failed to note the total number of firearms sold. This, of course, was not accurate and the article has been changed to reflect this.)

Rant of the Week: A Gun Owner’s Wishes for the New Year

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

A very great rant.

I know, you’re supposed to make New Year’s resolutions, but the fact is I did that for the better part of 50 years and I don’t think I ever kept one of them. The problem is I can resist anything except temptation. So I take the road less traveled, and every year I come up with my New Year’s Wish List.

In no particular order, my 2018 wish list is:

World peace. Can’t we all just get along?

All golden retrievers will have happy, loving homes with lots of squeak toys and ample game birds to retrieve…

You didn’t think my list was really going to be that touchy–feely stuff, did you? I mean, I carry a gun everywhere I go, I don’t have a lot of faith in achieving world peace, let alone anything akin to it in Chicago. And let’s be specific about this, national concealed carry falls under the 14th Amendment. The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to give Congress the power to act against state infringements of national civil rights as recently explained in an article called “Congress should use constitutional power to force states to honor gun rights”.

So, without further ado, my real wish list:

Give John Q. Public the freedom to travel anywhere in the United States and be able to carry a really big gun with a large capacity magazine.

Have anti-gunners take that statute of a revolver with the barrel twisted into a knot that’s in front of the U.N. and stick it where the sun don’t shine. In fact, they can take the entire United Nations complex and stick it where the sun don’t shine, too.

And while we’re on the subject of the United Nations, they can also take their 348-page Agenda 21 and toss that away, as well. The United States is already full of liberal, anti-gun, freedom hating whackjobs; we’re all full up on stupidity.

Read my lips – they are not assault weapons! They’re not military weapons. They’re not automatic weapons. AR-15s are modern sporting rifles, and I don’t need to justify why I need them any more than dumb comedians can justify why anyone should give a damn about what they think about the Second Amendment.

Eliminate ATF entirely, or as an alternative, since that entire infrastructure already exists, change the mission of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives group to more in keeping with its name – such as a fraternity party planning operation.

Paul Kitagaki Jr./The Sacramento Bee via AP

 

Could ANTIFA wingnuts make up their minds and get this war they want to start? I’ve been practicing to the tune of about a hundred rounds a day nicely divided between carbine and pistol. The problem is I’ve been doing this for about two years since you first started whining like petulant children who don’t get a second container of chocolate milk before your nap. All this shooting is beginning to deplete my ammo supply. I’m down about 25 percent now. And by the way, would you please Google the definition of fascism – because what you’re doing is its definition.

And finally, for the love of all that’s holy, will the conspiracy theorists just stop? It’s embarrassing to truly intelligent gun owners. It isn’t theory, liberals really are conspiring to disarm you. It has nothing to do with the children or the victims of gun violence. Liberals don’t give a rat’s butt about innocent victims of violence. They step over victims of violence to get closer to the news camera, so they can talk about how much they care and if only we had one more gun law.

If they really did care, Bloomberg would be putting all that money and effort into real solutions rather than disarming law-abiding citizens. Open your eyes, when a truck runs over and kills a bunch of people and then liberals immediately say we need more gun control, they’re not in the least bit concerned about those victims. They want your guns, because an armed John Q. Public is the only real deterrent to an oppressive government. Law-abiding gun owners are the line of demarcation between a society of the people, by the people, and for the people and a totalitarian government.

You are the militia: Be armed, be trained and be ready in 2018.

 

Mother Of Dead Robber: ‘Why Did He Shoot Him Five Times?”

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I want to say to Cynthia Ruiz your son was shot five times because that is the number of rounds it took to neuterlize his threat.

I feel bad for Cynthia Ruiz. In addition to being a widow, she has now had to bury her son. It’s a horrible thing to lose one of your children, but she did.

However, I can only feel so bad for her. After all, her son brought this on himself.

Ruiz’s son, Andrew Herrera, was shot and killed when he tried to rob a Popeye’s Chicken in Texas. That’s when he came face-to-face with the state’s self-defense laws.

Now, Ruiz has questions.

 “Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

A police spokesman later said, “Here in Texas, if you’re in fear of loss of life, loss of property, you have a right to defend yourself.”

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

I hate to break it to Ruiz, but the reason the man shot him five times was simple. You shoot until there’s no longer a threat. The armed citizen judge there was still a risk to him and his family–and the word “family” means no self-respecting man is going to take a chance at that point–and kept shooting until there was no longer a threat.

Shootings aren’t like the movies or on TV. You don’t shoot to wound. A wounded person can still kill you. You shoot until the threat has been eliminated. If the first shot wounds them but they drop their weapon and surrender, so much the better for everyone, but only a complete and total idiot expects that to happen.

Herrera threatened the lives of human beings, and he paid a price for that. It’s a price that Ruiz is being forced to pay, which is a pity, but either she failed to teach him it was wrong to steal, or he failed to heed the lessons. Either way, he tried to rob a chicken place and came face-to-face with someone who was not going to be a victim.

Why was Herrara shot five times? Because he stood there, gun in hand, and threatened the innocent.

Ruiz contends that a second suspect who served as Herrera’s getaway driver claims the gun wasn’t loaded. To that I reply, “So what?”

If you point a gun at me, my family, or anyone else in my vicinity, I’m not going to assume that it’s unloaded. That is stupid, especially since one of the basic rules of firearm safety is to treat all firearms as if they’re loaded. For me, that applies to the one in the criminal’s hand. I’m going to act as if it’s loaded because the alternative is the loss of innocent life if I’m wrong.

Why did they have to shoot him five times? Because he was a threat, and common wisdom is to just keep shooting until he’s not a threat any longer.

If you want your kids to not be shot, impress upon them that this is what happens when you threaten people with a gun.

 

 

Op-Ed Claims Gun Control A Matter Of Officer Safety

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Like all editorial writers this writer is spewing all of the leftist garbage about guns and gun owners.

Most people are upset to learn of an officer being shot and killed. These are men and women who put their lives on the line day in, day out, with the intention to try and keep people safe. While the Supreme Court has ruled there is no obligation for them to do so, most officers really take the phrase “To protect and serve” to heart. Our world tends to be diminished when we lose someone like that.

However, it annoys me to no end when liberals try and use officer deaths to justify pet issues, like gun control. That’s exactly what an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun tries to do.

Although the number of police officers killed in the line of duty dipped last year, and it appears the same could apply to security officers, it’s clear that the glut of firearms in the nation has put them at extreme risk in carrying out their duties.

Meanwhile, it’s difficult for law enforcement departments to advocate for gun safety measures. Doing so raises the risk of upsetting some of their most ardent political supporters, who tend to be conservative/NRA types. It also can spark backlash from gun-rights zealots who see any move to increase gun safety as an attempt by the government — and its police forces — to take their weapons and subjugate them.

Witness what happened when former Dallas Police Chief David Brown, discussing the July 2016 attack in which five of the department’s officers were shot and killed, said Texas’ open-carry laws added to the difficulty of responding to chaotic situations. Right-wing critics said law-abiding citizens with guns weren’t the problem.

But Brown was right. Here’s what he said: “It is increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s (a type of rifle) slung over, and shootings occur in a crowd. And they begin running, and we don’t know if they are a shooter or not. We don’t know who the ‘good guy’ versus who the ‘bad guy’ is, if everybody starts shooting.”

The glut of guns, combined with lax regulations, puts all Americans in danger — especially police.

Except, they don’t. Not even close.

Chief Brown highlights one hypothetical scenario where there might be a problem, a scenario that just doesn’t happen. That’s why he was attacked.

However, this op-ed misses a fundamental point regarding firearms, a fundamental point that I repeat here so much that I feel like a broken record much of the time. Criminals don’t obey gun laws.

Stiffer regulations will not make officers safer. It’ll simply make the rank and file citizen less safe.

Regardless of what laws get proposed, criminals will carry their guns anywhere and everywhere they want to and won’t hesitate to take an officer’s life if they so desire. They are already breaking laws as an integral part of their chosen way of life. What’s one more criminal act?

Those are the people who gun down police officers.

Those are also the people who will victimize the newly disarmed citizenry. The people the police will then have to face, just like they do today.

The only difference is that the average American won’t have the means to protect themselves when the police can’t be there in an instant.

 

NY County Executive Bans Gun Sales On County Property

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I have noticed one thing whenever a politician using the opening line I am a strong supporter of The Second Amendment they going to prove they are liars.

The idea of a New York politician who hates guns is is only slightly more shocking than finding out about a fish that prefers water to dry land. It’s just not terribly surprising.

For one recently elected official, however, he wasted no times trying to establish his bonafides.

Democrat George Latimer took office Monday as Westchester County Executive and among the first order of business was to bounce future gun shows.

Latimer in November defeated two-term Republican incumbent Robert Astorino for the spot as head of the executive branch of the million-resident county in the Hudson Valley and his First Year Plan includes prohibiting gun shows from the County Center. The new county head said he felt having gun shows on government property did not reflect the community and signed an executive order this week temporarily banning future events.

“While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not believe that there is any proper role for government in promoting guns and gun paraphernalia,” said Latimer. “Additionally, the Westchester Gun Show has brought with it horrendous problems, including the availability of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia.”

According to local media, the last show held at the Center in early 2017 drew about 7,500 over two-days and a spokesman for then-county boss Astorino said the event was “well-run and well-attended.” The Democrat-heavy county legislature had previously voted 9-8 to ban further gun shows, a move Astorino vetoed, saying there was no basis for a restriction.

I do so love how he claims to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a pro tip for you. If you start off a sentence with, “While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” then you’re probably about to do something that shows that you aren’t.

While we can agree to disagree over whether a government should promote guns in any way, renting a space to someone doesn’t constitute “promotion” in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, I suspect Latimer is likely to find his county being sued rather quickly. Absent a problem stemming from gun shows, there’s no basis to ban them from county-owned property except personal politics.

Even the argument surrounding the presence of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia falls flat for one simple reason, these items are typically being marketed for historical reasons, not racial ones. Like it or not, both of these entities existed and there are people who are fascinated with the material culture of both armies for whatever reason. Since a Venn diagram of military history buffs and gun buffs would show a massive overlap, it’s not hard to understand why these items are sold there, especially since there are so few places that will sell either these days.

But it seems that Latimer, despite his claims of supporting the Second Amendment, is really just virtue signaling like so many of his fellow Democrats. From here, it looks like he wants all the other Democrats to know that he’s doing his part to fight gun owners.

If he wants to claim to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, then he needs to act like one.

When Self-Defense Use Of A Firearm Doesn’t Get Reported

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The underreporting of self-defense use of firearms does a disservice to gun owners.

On Wednesday, Erika posted a story about how many times a firearm was used to stop a crime in November. It’s an interesting post that shows a handful of the law-abiding people who use a firearm to defend themselves all the time.

However, it gives the count as 22 people. Is that right?

Yes and no. As Erika notes in her post, these are just the people who used a firearm in public. Those are the people who we know about.

What we don’t think about are all the uses that occur with almost no one being any the wiser. You see, there are countless cases of people being afraid for their lives and pulling a firearm, but it never shows up in any official statistics.

For example, take a man and a woman walking on a city street. It’s night and not particularly crowded, but fairly well lit and they believe they’re safe. Then a thug shows up with a knife, demanding their valuables. The man draws a 9mm handgun, causing said thug to recognize that he has committed the age-old sin of bringing a knife to a gunfight. At this point, the thug runs like Lena Dunham when someone yells “CAKE!”

Sure, the couple calls the police and a statement is taken. They might even catch the thief. But their defensive use of a firearm never shows up on official statistics.

Another example is the hunter who uses his deer rifle to scare off a mountain lion that threatens him in the woods. Or how about the father taking his kids for a walk when they’re menaced by wild dogs, prompting him to fire at them?

These are defensive uses of a firearm. These are all cases of an individual using a lawfully owned firearm to defend their lives or the life of another, yet it doesn’t make lists. In the case of those dealing with wild animals, it may never even be reported.

While the gun grabbers are very fond of claiming we should try gun control, citing, “if it saves just one life” as if it were some magical mantra, they forget that we need balance. What good is saving one life if it costs you two?

Yet every year, many times more lives are saved with guns than are taken with them. This is true with even the most conservative estimate of defensive gun uses, which claims only happens 108,000 times annually. And yes, that’s still almost three times more than the number of deaths attributed to firearms by anti-gunners, a number that’s artificially inflated by lumping suicides in with homicides and accidental deaths.

Most people who use a firearm defensively never show up in hard data. Yet there are far more of them every year that those who we lose to homicides. They’re never counted and easily dismissed by the anti-gun crusaders. That means we–and yes, I’m one of that number–owe it not just to ourselves but our fellow citizens to remind people that we exist, even if we never show up on such lists.

Progressives Freak Over Photo Of Armed Secretary Of The Navy

2 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not see a problem with the Secretary Of The Navy being armed in a war zone or as a matter of fact him being armed anywhere.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you were going to a war zone, even if it was unlikely you would be at any real risk, would you prefer to be armed while there?

For me, I’d rather not risk it.

Hell, I’d rather have body armor, a full loadout, and a battalion of Marines with me, but that’s just me. I’d be more than happy to settle with a pistol.

Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer apparently agrees.

Equipped with a sidearm, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer visited Marines and sailors at Camp Shorab, Afghanistan, to wish them a happy holiday season. (Sgt. Lucas Hopkins/Marine Corps)

Note the pistol on his leg.

Considering where he was, this seems somewhat prudent. I think we can all agree that the secretary of the Navy would be quite the catch for the Taliban, and Spencer would be unlikely to enjoy the experience, much less survive it.

But that doesn’t stop some supposed experts from not understand the move.

Barbara Starr is CNN’s Pentagon correspondent. You know, the person at CNN who you would think would be most likely to understand that people are still shooting at Americans over in Afghanistan?

Then again, this is CNN we’re talking about here, so I’m not that sure.

Starr wasn’t the only one who took issue with Spencer being armed. However, I’m left wondering how many of those would have been bent out of shape if Spencer had been appointed by a Democrat.

Of course, much of the kvetching about Spencer being armed is from people who also think you and I should probably be disarmed as well. They don’t think anyone not wearing certain uniforms (metaphorically) should have a pistol, as a general rule. Or a rifle. Or a shotgun. Or a slingshot. Or a blowgun. Or harsh language.

You get the point.

Here’s the thing, though. Spencer didn’t demand a firearm. It was offered.

Spencer was reportedly offered the pistol and ammunition from Marine commanders, according to a Navy spokesman cited in a San Diego Tribune report.

“He was offered the weapon to carry while he was traveling around [Afghanistan] and he accepted that offer,” the spokesman told The Tribune. “It was not something that he specifically requested and it was offered to everybody on the travel team.”

Senior military officials and VIPs are typically accompanied by an armed military personal-security detachment (PSD) or contractors for visits to combat zones. While it would not be out of the ordinary to see a uniformed senior military official carrying a pistol in a combat zone, as a civilian, some people viewed Spencer himself carrying a weapon as an unorthodox move.

It was offered to him for one simple reason. A bodyguard detail is only a handful of guys. If it gets to the point that the enemy is right there, they’ve already gotten through a bunch of good guys to get there. Do you really want to not have every trigger finger working at a time like that? Maybe it’s just me, but if I were there and offered a weapon, I’d take it.

It may be an unorthodox move, but it’s not a stupid one. The only dumb move would be to refuse a firearm when you’re going somewhere that people will want to cut your head off for publicity.

9-Year-Old Boy Takes On Thief With Pellet Gun

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This young man had more good luck in this situation than he will ever know.

 

The one thing any parent wants to know is that their child can take care of themselves in troubled times. We try to teach them how to call 9-1-1 and what to do in case of a fire. You do your best to make sure they know everything they need to know and you pray that it sticks.

For the parents of one nine-year-old boy in Indiana, that’s not an issue.

Kevin Cooksey and Kyle Sparling stopped by the One Stop as strangers for different reason, Cooksey needed ibuprofen for his wife and Sparling wanted Doritos. They didn’t know they’d end up leaving together and chasing after someone they say tried to steal both their cars.

“When I saw my truck door open, I was like, ‘oh my God, what am I going to tell my wife?’” said Cooksey.

That’s because Cooksey’s 9 year old son, Larry Larimore, was inside – with the engine running.

“I was thinking, I hope my son knew what to do in that situation,” said Cooksey.

“As soon as he opened the door, I got scared,” said Larimore. “So I pulled out the pellet gun and pointed it to his head.”

That scared the man enough to get him out of the truck, but then he ran into the next car down – Sparling’s black Trail Blazer, which also had its engine running.

The suspect decided not to risk it and instead stole another vehicle, eventually leading police on a high-speed chase that ended in a wreck.

Cooksey’s fear is understandable. After all, by the age of nine, they’re old enough to be left in a vehicle alone as a general thing. In an Indiana December, I’d imagine that the engine was left running to keep it toasty warm inside. While hindsight might tell you it’s a bad idea, plenty of parents do similar with no ill effects.

It was only this day that someone reportedly tried to get froggy and steal Cooksey’s car…only to find themselves face-first with an armed kid.

Yes, it was a pellet gun, but as we’ve seen before, it can sure look real enough when it’s pointed at you. That’s apparently what happened here, leading the alleged bad guy to relocate his person to another vehicle and skedaddle on down the way.

However, there’s a word of caution to be had here. Just because this worked, don’t assume that a pellet gun will always yield similar results. This was someone in a rush who didn’t want to take the chance. Banking on every bad guy not recognizing a pellet gun for whatever reason and feeling rushed enough to simply assume it’s real is akin to making your retirement plan completely dependent on getting the right six numbers on a lottery ticket.

In other words, don’t.

That said, it worked here, and it’s worth admiring the boy’s determination. There are a lot of adults who would be panicky about raising a weapon–even a pellet gun–on a human being. The fact that Larimore did means he’s someone who will have no problem protecting himself or others going forward.

I feel a lot better about today’s kids with stories like this, that’s for sure.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: