Advertisements
Home

Rifle used in Dallas Ambush was a Common Antique SKS

Leave a comment

 

This is a fact the Obama Media will choose to ignore.

The ambusher of Dallas police officers used a common SKS rifle, not an assault rifle or an “assault weapon”. The rifle was considered obsolete in 1956.

Source: Rifle used in Dallas Ambush was a Common Antique SKS

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

 

Advertisements

Ohio Clerk Shoots 2nd Robber in Three Years

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

You would think the criminals would find a softer target.

Then again, they are criminals because they are not real bright.

Clerk says he didn’t want to shoot alleged robber photo

photo credit journal-news.com:

 

Grayson Matthews, above, has bad luck. He has had to defend the family convenience store twice. Once, back in 2011, he shot a robber who was pretending to have a shotgun. That guy was wearing a plastic bag over his head with eye holes cut in it. It must have been hard to see out of. From journal-news.com:

Matthews told the suspect he kept more money in his front right pocket of his pants. He showed Wright the money, switched it from his right to his left hand, and when Wright’s eyes followed, Matthews told him he kept $200 more under the counter.

That’s when he grabbed a .38-caliber revolver, fired three shots, at least one striking Wright in the left shoulder. Wright raced out of the neighborhood store, ran to a nearby residence and dropped the plastic bag and his weapon — later identified as a piece of aluminum — on the back porch.

Matthews seems quick thinking, and has tactical sense, but his luck changed yesterday, 13 December, when two other men attempted to rob the store. Matthews got into a gunfight with them. He almost certainly hit one in the head, while the other has not been arrested. No description of the suspects has been released.

Matthews was wounded, under the arm, which could be deadly or slight. He is reported to be in the hospital so it appears to be more than a “treat and release” type of wound. From wcpo.com:

Sgt. Ed Buns, spokesman for the Hamilton Police Department, said two men entered the store and tried to rob it.

Grayson Matthews, 53, was the clerk on duty when the suspects entered the store. Matthews told police several gunshots were exchanged between himself and at least one of the men.

In early 2012, Matthew’s father used a handgun to chase a robber, who had stabbed him, out of the store.

Matthew’s used a .38 revolver in the 2011 incident. It is not clear what type of firearm he used yesterday.

Luck plays an important part in gun fights, more than many would like to believe. Get in enough gunfights and your luck will run out. Training, good tactics, and good equipment can expand and extend your luck, but they cannot make you invincible and your luck infinite.

I pray that Grayson Matthew’s luck comes back, that his wound is not too serious, and that he completely recovers.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten, Gun Watch: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Would you Provide Security to a Disarmenter who Mocked You?

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.com.

Knowing everything that the poster knew I would have told her tough luck also.

If circumstances had been different I would have helped out.

 

 

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- A poster at opencarry.org, Southern Covenanter, recounts an ironic experience in Charlotte, North Carolina.

From opencarry.org:

I made it a point to stop and meet my parents for lunch in Pineville while I was passing through town, and after I left, I stopped at the QT on Woodlawn Road (right off I-77 where Woodlawn turns into Billy Graham Parkway) to gas up the Blue Bullet. This QT is in a somewhat sketchy part of town, so I was already on high alert when I pulled up to the pump. About the time I got the Bullet in park, I noticed three young men walking through the islands towards the store. One of the three was a younger white guy (about 6’1″, 175 lbs, and all tatted up) was shirtless, loud, high as a Georgia pine, and clearly acting aggressively. I took note of him, and strolled inside to pre-pay for my gas. Lo and behold, when I got inside, some yuppie soccer Mom type wear a “Moms Demand Action” t-shirt spotted me and the sidearm on my hip and immediately started ranting about how I was dangerous and scary, that my big, bad SigSauer made her nervous, how did she know I wasn’t going to shoot everybody in the joint, etc. I did my best to ignore her, hit the latrine, and came back out and paid for my gas.

While I was walking to the door, I noticed the doped up potential troublemaker was waving his arms around, beating on his chest and flinching at people like he was going to throw a punch while yelling, “I’ma f* you up! Y’all don’t want none!” and so on.

I walked out the door to head to the car, and when I did, the Mom’s Demand nutjob approached from my right and quietly asked, “Would you walk me to my car?”

My response: “I’m sure that loud mouth of yours will keep you safe.”

The shocked look on her face was completely worth it.

OC: 1. Moms Demand: 0.

The poster then goes on to explain that he briefly considered acceding to the request, but having information that the the local chief LEO was anti-open carry, and concerned that the clerk might misunderstand a “walk to the car” because of the previous rant by the woman, he decided against it.

Another poster mentioned that Moms Demand Action supporters have encouraged others to make, and have said that they would make, false 911 calls.

My instinct would have been to walk her to the car. People with phobias can overcome them with experience. However, I can easily understand his reluctance in the circumstances.

Definition of a disarmenter

c2014 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.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/would-you-provide-security-to-a-disarmenter-who-mocked-you/#ixzz3HnC76lP2
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

 

Florida Governor Signs Bill to Expand Stand Your Ground Law in the Sunshine State

1 Comment

This is from Guns Save Lives.

How long before the race baiter twins and the left start whining  about this law expansion is racist?

 

 

 

The media coverage given to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, and the attention paid to Florida’s “stand your ground” law, resulted in the legislature considering flaws in the law. They passed a reform bill that was signed by Governor Rick Scott yesterday, 20 June, 2014. From tallahassee.com:

The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state’s self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday.

The state mandatory sentencing law, the “10-20-life” law, was being used by some prosecutors to obtain plea bargains from people who had attempted to defend themselves, but had not shot anyone. The case of Marissa Alexander was one that caught the media attention. Marrisa claimed that she fired a shot that qualified under the “stand your ground” law, but a judge ruled otherwise. She faced a mandatory 10 years in jail.

The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the “stand your ground” defense, and not be subject to the mandatory “10-20-life” sentencing. A similar law was passed in Arizona to ensure thatthe defensive display of a weapon would be legal.

The vast majority of defensive uses of firearms involve the display of the gun without a shot being fired, so it makes sense to clarify that less than lethal defensive uses are legitimate.

The Arizona law was passed because one of the first prosecutions of a person who had a concealed carry permit, involved a permit holder who defended themselves by displaying their defensive firearm. The aggressors in the case had also called the police after being thwarted in their attack. It is not uncommon for criminals to use the criminal justice system as a means of revenge. They often understand the system better than most citizens, and how to manipulate it to their advantage.

Fortunately, in the Arizona case, there was a third 911 call that was independent of the two involved parties. It confirmed the version of events given by the permit holder, but was not revealed by the prosecution until just before the trial was to begin.

The aggressors in the incident were never charged.

The reform signed into law by Governor Scott has a good chance of saving lives. It confirms that citizens have the legal option of using the deterrent effect of a firearm instead of a black and white choice of no use of the firearm or full use of deadly force. In this, it conforms to reality. Firearms are used for deterrence by defenders about 1000 times as often as they are used to kill. Most aggressors do not want to be shot, and most attacks stop when a firearm is displayed. Ensuring that law abiding citizens have and understand that option is a good thing.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten of Gun Watch: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Police/Media Hoax on Jack in the Box Open Carry Story?

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

I will make a snap judgement on the police participating in this possible hoax.

As far as the media is concerned, I can see their involvement in a hoax to make gun owners look bad.

Time will tell.

 

Jack in the Box Guns

Jack in the Box Guns

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- The widely reported story that Jack in the Box employees locked themselves in the freezer because they feared open carry activists is almost certainly a hoax.  The event was reported to have happened at a Jack in the Box in the Dallas Fort Worth area.

This video report by NBC5 reporter Ken Kalthoff shows Irwin Harris saying that they entered the restaurant and were served without any fuss.  He said they ordered, received their food, and left.

The police told NBC5 that the employees then went into the cooler for protection.   That seems a little odd… lock yourself in the freezer *after* the armed men act politely, pay for their purchases, and walk out?   The only thing NBC5 has to show this is an email from the police.  The Jack in the Box people refused to talk to the reporter.

Open Carry Texas has more.  They requested the 911 calls to the police for the incident.   They say there was only one, and they put it on YouTube.  The caller simply describes the open carriers as casually walking, with one of them filming the others.  They also contacted Jack in the Box, where officials deny that employees were ever in fear of their life.  From the Open Carry Texas YouTube that includes the audio of the 911 call:

“Jack in the Box officials deny their employees were in fear of their lives or locked  themselves in a freezer.”

While I was not there, it certainly appears that we have another media frenzy against open carriers, that amounts to a hoax.   The idea that employees locked themselves in the freezer *after* the open carriers left, and were so scared that they never called 911, and even denied that it ever happened to their bosses, is simply unbelievable.

Can we believe that the police sent an unverified email to a media outlet…

It seems much more likely to me.

This can use a bit more investigation.   I would like to see the police email, and figure out where it came from.   Maybe a Jack in the Box employee jokingly made a comment to police that got blown up, but it seems very likely that fear and “locking in the freezer” never happened.
c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/policemedia-hoax-on-jack-in-the-box-open-carry-story/#ixzz31ilvQgxa
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

 

FL:Thoughts on Warning Shots From a Police Firearms Instructor

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

I am not a fan of warning shots as you stand a chance of killing

someone if the shot is not properly placed.

You also stand the chance of doing property damage.

Both cases open up the possibility of going to prison and a

major lawsuit.

Even police officers have errant warning shots.

My two cents worth is shoot the aggressor center mass and

continue shooting until the threat is stopped.

Dean Weingarten

                                          Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-  Florida is moving toward a “Defensive Display” law that includes the possibility of a warning shot or shots being acceptable as a part of self defense, if no innocents are injured.

Arizona passed a similar law several years ago after the aggressors in self defense situations were using the criminal justice system to have the defenders arrested on aggravated assault charges.  Arizona’s law does not include warning shots.

In the case that I know of, the aggressors were following the defender in a “road rage” scenario.  At one point, they pulled up along side of him, while traveling, and threw a beverage container at him with enough force that it cause a small cut.  When he stopped at a light, boxed in by traffic, two of them got out of their vehicle and started running toward him from a couple of cars back.  He held up his defensive sidearm for them to see, and they quickly stopped their aggressive actions and ran back to their vehicle.   Then they called 911.  He was also on  the phone to 911.  The police came to his house, and eventually arrested him (he thinks that it was because, under stress, he made a bad joke that offended the investigating officer).  He was going to trial, when the prosecution informed the defense that there was a third 911 call that confirmed the defender’s version of events.   The case was dismissed, but there was tremendous stress and expense involved.  The aggressors were never arrested or charged.

With the Florida law, the most contentious issue is that of “warning shots”.  Here is a discussion of the issue from a retired State Patrol firearms instructor.  I have edited it a little for spelling, with permission of the author:

I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.

More then one criminal assault has been stopped when it has become know that victim is armed.

Warning shots are a lot tougher because of the high probability of some thing bad happening.

When I was on my Department’s firearms and use of force committee, we had a long discussion on warning shots. Some were for forbidding them all together, some were for a more modest policy.

We were trying to determine if the policy should allow or forbid them. We decided the policy should read, that they should be RARE and INFREQUENT, based on the facts at the time they were used.

This was decided mostly on the facts of two situations where warning shots were used and the suspects were taken into custody after the warning shots without harm to the officers or suspects.

Having read the use of force reports and interviewing the officers I truly believe without the warning shots the officers would have ended up shooting both suspects.

It seemed clear that both of these suspects were trying to commit suicide by cop and the warning shots jarred them out of that line of thought and they surrendered because of the warning shots and not pressing forward with their attack on the officers that would have forced the officers to shoot them.

One was armed with a baseball bat the other was not armed, but kept making threats saying he had a gun and making movements like he had a gun and was going to use it.

Both warning shots were fired into good bullet stopping areas and there was no one else around.

Warning shots good, bad, or other wise, I guess one would have to take the totality of the situation into account before determining if they were justified or not and safely executed.

This summation of warning shots seems well thought out.   I have always taught a policy of *not* firing warning shots, but with the caveat the every policy has exceptions.   The idea that warning shots should be rare, but that each circumstance should be considered in the totality of the situation, appeals to me and to my understanding that each defensive shooting is unique.

In most situations, it is a better resolution to a situation if it can be resolved without having to shoot someone.

©2013 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.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/thoughts-on-warning-shots-from-a-police-firearms-instructor/#ixzz2qZmiuxTH
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

%d bloggers like this: