The Facts That Gun Grabbers Can’t Wrap Their Minds Around

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Sheeple.

For as long as I can remember the gun grabbers have been manipulating the numbers to fit their agenda.

Then the gun grabbers go into the spin mode when they are called out on their lies.




It seems like there are irreconcilable differences between those who are pro-Second Amendment, and those who advocate gun control, and I think it goes beyond their personal beliefs. They think about the world in fundamentally different ways, which becomes plainly obvious when you see how these two groups compile data on homicides and gun ownership. Let’s take a look at how anti-gun folks see these numbers:

Higher ownership of guns in the United States has been linked to more violent crimes and overall homicides, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard University.

I was intrigued when I first read that. I don’t think it would change my overall position on the rights of human beings if this were true, but I’d like to know if the statistics I give readers are true or not, so I decided to read more into this study.

Firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in US states with the most guns versus states with the least, said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime, instead, we found the opposite,” Monuteaux told Live Science.

“This study suggests that it’s really hard to find evidence that where there are more guns, there are less crimes, but you can easily find evidence that where there are a lot more guns, there are a lot more gun crimes,” he said.

Numerous studies have found that gun ownership is directly associated with gun-related homicides, and homicide by gun is the most common type of homicide in the United States.

Boston University researcher Michael Siegel and colleagues found in a 2013 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that over 30 years, gun ownership levels correlated with firearm homicides, such that the higher the gun ownership rate, the higher the firearm homicide rate.

Do you see what they did there? At first, the article was about gun ownership causing violent crime. Then it shifts back and forth between that, and claiming that more guns cause more gun related crimes. I swear the next time I hear the words “gun homicide” “gun crimes” or “firearm homicides” I’m gonna scream.

That’s because gun control advocates can always find plenty of statistics that show higher gun ownership rates correlate with gun related crimes. Obviously, if you live in a state or country with an easy access to firearms, there will be more crimes committed with firearms. Human beings always seek out the most effective tools for the job, so they will always spring for best weapons they can get a hold of, regardless of whether or not they are criminals or law-abiding citizens.

But gun control advocates have a tendency to ignore overall homicides, and instead focus on homicides that are caused by firearms. When you do that, you’re missing the bigger picture. You’ll always fail to recognize that, while more guns equal more gun related crimes, they may also cause the overall violent crime rate to go down, a fact which has been proven time and time again.

Now it’s true that the Harvard study did claim to find a relationship between more guns and a higher overall homicide rate. I decided to look for another article that had more details on the study, which I did find. The researchers behind the study admitted that while there did appear to be a connection between more guns and more crime, they weren’t sure which came first. Do guns cause more crime, or does a higher crime rate cause people to buy more guns?

This reminds me of another falsehood that gun controllers fall for over and over again. They love comparing the statistics of criminal homicides and justifiable homicides. Criminal homicides account for many more deaths than the former, so they conclude that guns are much more likely to be used by a criminal to kill, then they are to be used by a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves. But there’s a serious problem with that conclusion.

As many of us now know, police departments in America are famously bad at reporting the number of “justified” homicides their officers commit. And apparently, they’re even worse at reporting justified homicides committed by average Americans. These numbers also don’t account for how often someone uses a gun to protect themselves, which don’t result in injury or death. It’s a number we’ll probably never know for sure, since some people probably don’t even bother reporting these incidents to the police.

So the next time you read about any study that draws a conclusions between gun ownership, crime, and self-defense, always read between the lines and dig a little deeper. The truth is often elusive.

– See more at:


New York Gun Grabbers Got The SAFE Act – Now They Want More

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

Will this be the tipping point for the people of New York or will they follow like sheep to the slaughter?


In 2013, New York passed the SAFE Act and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed it into law, even though it was a clear violation of the rights of the people. Now gun grabbers are back for more. Never satisfied, the state legislature is now eyeing more infringements upon the people’s rights.

Democrats Michelle Schmiel, Brian Kavanagh, Amy Paulin and Patrica Fahy took the time to speak to students about further gun control measures.

The Times Union reports:

Some of the proposals, such as a plan to mandate microstamping, which would put etched identifiers in shell casings, have been around for a while. Others, such as proposal put forth by Kavanagh and Democratic Sen. Daniel Squadron to treat .50 caliber guns as assault weapons, have recently been offered up but haven’t gotten out of committee in the Senate.

A proposal that would require gun owners to secure their weapons when children are around has been dubbed Nicholas’ law for Nicholas Naumkin of Saratoga Springs. The 12-year-old boy was shot and killed in December 2010 by a friend who was playing with his father’s unlocked gun.

Also being proposed is a law that would mandate inspections of gun dealers by State Police to supplement what Paulin, a Westchester Democrat, said are infrequent inspections by the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Now, understand that New York still has an incredible about of criminals who use guns unlawfully. Exhibit A of just how pitiful and ineffective the NY SAFE Act is, can be seen in the murder of two police officers by a Muslim jihadist back in December. But then silly Democrats claim that measures such as their gun control “laws” actually will prevent such crimes. They never do.

First, let’s take the issue of microstamping. Ruger was forced out of California for their ridiculous microstamping law. Other states were looking at losing gun manufacturers over microstamping, including New York and Connecticut.

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms reports on the problems with microstamping. He lists six issues:


  • Microstamping is not commercially viable. No manufacturing technology currently exists to impart these incredibly small unique codes on firearms.
  • Microstamping is easily defeated. These unique microcodes are easily obliterated by several passes with a metal file, or by swapping out inexpensive parts.
  • Microstamping is inconsistent. Variables in firearms and ammunition design keep codes from consistently being imprinted even in sterile, carefully controlled laboratory conditions.
  • Microstamping cannot survive the environment. Any amount of training or normal fouling accumulation in the action of the firearm can render the code unreadable.
  • Microstamping is fragile. Microstamping wears away easily, in just hundreds or thousands of rounds.
  • Microstamping is easily “spoofed.” Shell cases collected at firing ranges from microstamped guns can easily be salted at crime scenes, sending law enforcement on wild goose chases.

There are other issues from some of the proposals. Simply labeling a gun an “assault weapon,” does not make it so. If you buy into this kind of mentality, then what are you going to do when they’ve made their way down the path of referring to your Remington 30.06 as a “sniper rifle”? It will be too late. You will have already bought into that mentality and probably passed it on to your kids, who will easily fork it over to the Nanny State and once and for all be a slave to tyranny.

The .50 BMG rifles are not assault rifles any more than an Ar-15 or AK-47 is. It’s propaganda to sell the agenda, nothing more. At least Serbu Firearms took a stand after the SAFE Act was passed and refused to sell the New York Police Department their .50 Caliber rifles.

As for the ATF, well I’ve already written on that agency. They are simply unconstitutional. They should be defunded and eliminated from the bureaucracy of the federal government.

The firestorm that the NY SAFE Act brought forth resulted in the burning of gun registration forms by patriots, a veteran making a rousing speech claiming he had earned his rights in blood and those rights trumped anyone that is killed with a gun, as well as gun maker Kahr Arms leaving the state.

Not only that, but even New York sheriffs joined lawsuit opposing the NY SAFE Act. Clearly, this was not something the people wanted, but gun grabbers don’t care. They ram it through anyway.

What do you think patriots in New York will do if these people keep pushing them and infringing upon their rights while they are still armed? My guess is that I wouldn’t want to be the one on the enforcement end of any of their pretended legislation.

Grassroots versus gun grabbers: Planned October events show contrast

Leave a comment

This is from the Examiner.



Anti-gun Seattle Mayor Ed Murray yesterday sent e-mail invitations to an Oct. 13 gathering at a private Belltown residence that is doubling as a fund raiser and pep rally for big money supporters of Initiative 594, ironically the day after a Nevada newspaper declared in a Sunday editorial that it is time for “an honest discussion about guns in America.”

Opponents of the 18-pagegun control measure, who are planning an Oct. 18 rallyin downtown Seattle – Murray’s front yard, as it were – might contend that it is impossible to have an “honest” discussion with people backing I-594. Gun prohibitionists continue to portray themselves as underdogs when they have a $7 million advantage, and are asking $1,000 to co-host the Murray event, $500 to sponsor it and $250 to support it.

Nobody is asking for money to attend the Westlake Center Park rally. This is grassroots possibly at its finest, and there are already indications that some powerful speakers are lining up for the event; people who will explain what they believe is wrong with the billionaire-backed initiative.

By no small coincidence, there’s another anti-594 rally scheduled on the same day at about the same time, up near the Anacortes Flea Market at Highway 20 and Sharps Corner.

People who will attend either rally remember that Murray, as a state senator, sponsored SB 5737 in early 2013. That was the most recent attempt by anti-gun Democrats from Seattle to ban so-called “assault weapons,” and buried in its language was a controversial provision that would have allowed sheriff’s deputies to make annual unscheduled, warrantless searches of the homes of gun owners. When the Seattle Times exposed this provision and confronted Murray, the best he could muster was to admit that the provision “shouldn’t be in there” and was probably unconstitutional.

Gun owners remember that the search provision was quickly deleted, but by then the secret was out. That flap underscored why the firearms civil rights community opposes I-594. The Devil is always in the details, especially in a measure supported by the same people who wanted Murray’s gun ban to become law. Advocating gun bans is how Murray and his like-minded colleagues have come to be known as “gun grabbers.”

For a look at what grassroots is all about, check out the most popular firearms forums in the Pacific Northwest, and this Facebook page. The newest forum of the bunch is, a sharp-looking and admittedly conservative forum launched some months ago by an Oregon-based activist who welcomes intelligent conversation and is working hard to grow the site and expand his membership. and are also home to savvy firearms owners who have begun to stir like the proverbial sleeping giant that’s been disturbed and are warming up for a fight. They will have company from members at and, many of whom are already fully engaged in posting yard signs and bumper stickers, promoting fund-raising activities and firing up friends, neighbors and co-workers to vote in November.

Don’t overlook the hardcore Washington contingent at, a few of whom were in last Friday night’s KOMO Town Hall audience. Many of the “OC” bunch are seasoned veterans of the gun rights battle. While October is hunting season, the folks at and aren’t about to sit this one out in a tree stand or around a campfire while the elitist wine-and-brie crowd criminalizes the perfectly legal tradition of loaning or borrowing rifles or shotguns from hunting buddies, for a weekend or a season.

As for the Las Vegas Sun’s call for an “honest” discussion about guns, firearms owners are all for it and always have been. But they’re not going to be talked, or tricked, into surrendering their rights.

New Mexico: House Bill 44 Pre-Filed, Reincarnation of Gun Control House Bill 77

Leave a comment

This is from the NRA/ILA.

People of New Mexico wake up contact your State Legislators

 then make your opposition to this Bill known loud and clear.

The gun grabbers are not going away so be prepared to fight.

Anti-gun state Representative Miguel Garcia (D-Bernalillo) has introduced House Bill 44, legislation which criminalizes non-dealer firearm transfers at gun shows and takes the first step toward a universal ban on private gun sales, for the upcoming thirty-day legislative session that begins on January 21st.  This bill mirrors the version of House Bill 77 that was being debated on the floor of the state Senate when the 2013 legislative session was gaveled for adjournment before a final vote on the measure.

Although HB 44 contains language that would require improved reporting to the FBI of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms and protect against the development of any registry of lawful gun buyers by state or local agencies, make no mistake: gun control remains the centerpiece of this very flawed legislation.  This will be just the first step toward banning ALL private gun sales and transfers – in fact, that’s exactly what the original language of HB 77 did when it was introduced last year!  If enacted, gun control advocates will check this scheme off their list and they will move toward gun bans and magazine limits, just like in Colorado.

Additional reasons why you should be concerned about House Bill 44 are provided below.

We expect anti-gun activists and lawmakers to press for consideration of HB 44 during the thirty-day session, even though the state Legislature is limited to dealing with budget-related items or measures that receive an executive message.  That’s why it’s critical that you contact your state Senator and Representative, and urge them to oppose HB 44 and to focus instead on the state’s important fiscal matters.

Information on how to reach your state lawmakers can be found here.

If you are unsure who represents you, you may enter your address here to find out.

Why You Should Be Concerned About HB 44

  • This is just the first step toward criminalizing ALL private transfers of firearms; in fact, as mentioned above, the introduced-version of HB 77 in the 2013 session did just that.  No background checklegislation will ever be “universal” since criminals simply ignore the law.
  • It’s an ineffective crime control proposal.  In April of 2013, PoliceOne conducted a national survey of 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers of all ranks and department sizes on the topics of gun & crime control.  Nearly 80 percent said that a prohibition on private non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would not reduce violent crime.
  • Current laws are not being enforced.  According to a 2012 report to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t clear a background check.  Only 44 of those cases – or just .06 percent – were prosecuted.  Existing laws are not even being enforced and proponents are calling for expanding background checks to cover private firearms transactions.
  • Gun shows aren’t a source of crime guns.  A U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of committing their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends and family.”  This includes theft of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms and straw purchases.  Only 1.7 percent obtained a firearm at a gun show.
  • Most importantly, because a January 2013 internal U.S. Department of Justice memorandum summarizing so-called “gun violence” prevention strategies stated that the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on “requiring gun registration.”  Even though HB 44 currently contains prohibitions on the development of a state or local registry of gun buyers, supporters of the bill are likely to eventually claim the need to repeal these important protections in order to enforce its provisions.

%d bloggers like this: