Skip to main content
Liberty Watch Home Page
Swap Shop
Recent Shows
Climate Change
Classic Older Archive
2020 Election
Bad PR
Purpose of Government
America's Fabric

  • Classes held once
          a month, midle week of month 
  • Custom classes available
  • $80 if you come to me 
  • $90 + travel if I come to you
  • State gets $60 for permit
  • Renews every five years
  • No gun registration on permit
  • CCW 

    Arizona & U.S. Laws For CCW Class 2024                                                                                                   1

         13-401. Unavailability of justification defense; justification as defense

    A.   Even though a person is justified under this chapter in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

          13-403. Justification; use of physical force

    The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

    1. A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.

    3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a place where others are assembled or on a common motor carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force if and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to maintain order, but such person may use deadly physical force only if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

    4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon that person to the extent reasonably necessary to thwart the result.

    5. A duly licensed physician or a registered nurse or a person acting under his direction, or any other person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, may use reasonable physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized and lawful form of treatment which is reasonably adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if:

    (a) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision except as otherwise provided by law; or

    (b) The treatment is administered in an emergency when the person administering such treatment reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.


         13-404. Justification; self-defense

    A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

    1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or 2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or 3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

    (a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates his intent to do so, reasonably  
        believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

    (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


         13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force                                                                                                          

    A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

    1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under 13-404, and:

    2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.


         13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

    A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.




          13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises                                                                  2

    A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.                                                                                                                       

    B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

    C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.


         13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

    A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.


    10 crimes that MAY justify deadly force:

             13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

    A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

    B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
    C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to        prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

    D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.


    13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

    No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to
    the provisions of this chapter.


    13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

    A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

    B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant
    to this section.

    C. For the purposes of this section:

       1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

       2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.






    13-419. Presumptions; defense of a residential structure or occupied vehicle; exceptions; definitions             3

    A. A person is presumed to reasonably believe that the threat or use of physical force or deadly force is immediately necessary for the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421 if the person knows or has reason to believe that the person against whom physical force or deadly force is threatened or used is unlawfully or forcefully entering or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in the person's residential structure or occupied vehicle.

    B. For the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421, a person who is unlawfully or forcefully entering or who has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in a residential structure or occupied vehicle is presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm to any person who is in the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

    C. The presumptions in subsections A and B of this section do not apply if:

    1. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the residential structure or occupied vehicle, including an owner, lessee, invitee or titleholder, and an order of protection or injunction against harassment has not been filed against that person.

    2. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used is the parent or grandparent, or has legal custody or guardianship, of a child or grandchild sought to be removed from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

    3. The person who threatens or uses physical force or deadly physical force is engaged in an unlawful   
    activity or is using the residential structure or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

    4. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used is a law          
         enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a residential structure or occupied vehicle in the
         performance of official duties.


    D. For the purposes of this section:                                                                                                  

        1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.                                          

        2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons
             or property.


    13-421.  Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition                                                                      

    A.  the defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a
         reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the
         use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

    B.  this section does not apply to a person who:

         1.  intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

         2.  uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as
             defined in section 13-901.03.

    C.  This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the
           threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

    D.   For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

         1.  verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

         2.  exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to
              protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical

         3.  placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of  
                containment or transport.


    13-1201. Endangerment; classification

    A. A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of
           imminent death or physical injury.

    B. Endangerment involving a substantial risk of imminent death is a class 6 felony. In all other cases,   
           it is a class 1 misdemeanor.


    13-1202. Threatening or intimidating; classification

    A. A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct:

    1. To cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another; or

    2. To cause, or in reckless disregard to causing, serious public inconvenience including, but not limited to,
         evacuation of a building, place of assembly or transportation facility; or

    3. To cause physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another in order to promote,          4
         further or assist in the interests of or to cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in a criminal
         street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise.

    B. Threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that
          it is a class 6 felony if:

    1. The offense is committed in retaliation for a victim's either reporting criminal activity or being involved in an
         organization, other than a law enforcement agency, that is established for the purpose of reporting or
         preventing criminal activity.

    2. The person is a criminal street gang member.

    C. Threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 felony.


    13-1203. Assault; classification                                                                                                    

    A. A person commits assault by:                                                                                                                    

        1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or                            

        2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or

        3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

    B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1
        misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault
        pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to
        subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.


    13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition                                                                             

    A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203
         under any of the following circumstances:

        1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.

        2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

        3. If the person commits the assault by any force that causes temporary but substantial  disfigurement, 

             temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part.

        4. If the person commits the assault while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or while the

             victim's capacity to resist is substantially impaired.

        5. If the person commits the assault after entering the private home of another with the intent to commit it.    

        6. If the person is 18 years of age or older and commits the assault on a child who is 15 or under.

    7. If the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 and the
         person is in violation of an order of protection pursuant to section 13-3602 or 13-3624.

    8. If the person commits the assault knowing or having reason to know that the victim is any of the following:

        (a) A peace officer, or a person summoned and directed by the officer while engaged in the execution of any
             official duties.

        (b) A firefighter, fire investigator, fire inspector, emergency medical technician or paramedic engaged in the 
             execution of any official duties, or a person summoned and directed by such individual while engaged in
             the execution of any official duties.

        (c) A teacher or other person employed by any school and the teacher or other employee is on the grounds of
              a school or grounds adjacent to the school or is in any part of a building or vehicle used for school
              purposes, any teacher or school nurse visiting a private home in the course of the teacher's or nurse's
              professional duties or any teacher engaged in any authorized and organized classroom activity held on
              other than school grounds.

       (d) A licensed health care practitioner who is certified or licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 15, 17 or 25,
            or a person summoned and directed by the licensed health care practitioner while engaged in the person's

            professional duties. This subdivision does not apply if the person who commits the assault is seriously
            mentally ill, as defined in section 36-550, or is afflicted with alzheimer's disease or related dementia.

       (e)  A prosecutor.

    9. If the person knowingly takes or attempts to exercise control over any of the following:                                

        (a) A peace officer's or other officer's firearm and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a 
               peace officer or other officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10, subdivision (a),
               item (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of this subsection and is engaged in the execution of any official duties.

        (b) Any weapon other than a firearm that is being used by a peace officer or other officer or that the officer is 
              attempting to use, and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer or other
              officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10, subdivision (a), item (i), (ii), (iii),        
               (iv) or (v)  of this subsection and is engaged in the execution of any official duties.


     13-1301. Kidnapping Definitions: In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:                      5         
    1. "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor, descendant, sibling, uncle or aunt, including an adoptive
         relative of the same degree through marriage or adoption, or a spouse.

    2. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, without legal authority, and in a manner
         which interferes substantially with such person's liberty, by either moving such person from one place to
         another or by confining such person. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by:

         (a) Physical force, intimidation or deception; or

         (b) Any means including acquiescence of the victim if the victim is a child less than eighteen years old or an
             incompetent person and the victim's lawful custodian has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.


     13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classifications                                                                                         

    A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or
         oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.

    B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant
        to section 13-604.01. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony.
        Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is the minor's
        parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian or foster parent and the convicted person is not eligible for
        suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically
        authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.


    13-1406. Sexual assault; classification; increased punishment

    A. A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual 
         contact with any person without consent of such person.

    B. Sexual assault is a class 2 felony,


     13-1410. Molestation of child; classification

    A. A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to
         engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child under fifteen.

    B. Molestation of a child is a class 2 felony that is punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.          


    13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification                                                                                                                                         

    A.     A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

        1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the 
            owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

        2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards 
            or rolling stock of a railroad company.

    B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.                                      


     13-1503. Criminal trespass in the second degree; classification

    A. A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or
         on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.

    B. Criminal trespass in the second degree is a class 2 misdemeanor.


     13-1504. Criminal trespass in the first degree; classification

    A. A person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly:

        1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure.

        2. Entering or remaining unlawfully in a fenced residential yard.                                                                        

        3. Entering any residential yard and, without lawful authority, looking into the residential structure               
             thereon in reckless disregard of infringing on the inhabitant's right of privacy.

        4. Entering unlawfully on real property that is subject to a valid mineral claim or lease with the intent to hold,
             work, take or explore for minerals on the claim or lease.

        5. Entering or remaining unlawfully on the property of another and burning, defacing, mutilating or otherwise
             desecrating a religious symbol or other religious property of another without the express permission of the
             owner of the property.

        6. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a critical public service facility.                                                  

    B. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 1, 5 or 6 is a class 6 felony. Criminal
          trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 2, 3 or 4 is a class 1 misdemeanor.


     13-1506. Burglary in the third degree; classification                                                                                  6

    A. A person commits burglary in the third degree by:

        1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential
              yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.

         2. Making entry into any part of a motor vehicle by means of a manipulation key or master key, with the intent
               to commit any theft or felony in the motor vehicle.

    B. Burglary in the third degree is a class 4 felony.

     13-1507. Burglary in the second degree; classification

    A. A person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential
            structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.

    B. Burglary in the second degree is a class 3 felony.


    13-1508. Burglary in the first degree; classification                                                                                           

    A. A person commits burglary in the first degree if such person or an accomplice violates the provisions of     
         either section 13-1506 or 13-1507 and knowingly possesses explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous I
         nstrument in the course of committing any theft or any felony.

    B. Burglary in the first degree of a nonresidential structure or a fenced commercial or residential yard is a class 
           3 felony. It is a class 2 felony if committed in a residential structure.


    13-1704. Arson of an occupied structure; classification

    A. A person commits arson of an occupied structure by knowingly and unlawfully damaging an occupied
          structure by knowingly causing a fire or explosion.

    B. Arson of an occupied structure is a class 2 felony.                                                                                    


    13-1902. Robbery; classification

    A. A person commits robbery if in the course of taking any property of another from his person or immediate
         presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to
         coerce surrender of property or to prevent resistance to such person taking or retaining property.

    B. Robbery is a class 4 felony.


     13-1903. Aggravated robbery; classification

    A. A person commits aggravated robbery if in the course of committing robbery as defined in section         
          13-1902, such person is aided by one or more accomplices actually present.

    B. Aggravated robbery is a class 3 felony.


    13-1904. Armed robbery; classification

    A. A person commits armed robbery if, in the course of committing robbery as defined in section 13-1902, such person or an accomplice:

    1. Is armed with a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly weapon; or

    2. Uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or a simulated deadly weapon.
    3. Takes possession of or attempts to take possession of a deadly weapon.

    B. Armed robbery is a class 2 felony.


    Offenses related to not telling the truth to police:

    13-2409. Obstructing criminal investigations or prosecutions; classification

    A person who knowingly attempts by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats   
        of force to obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of
        any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury or who knowingly injures another 
        in his person or property on account of the giving by the latter or by any other person of any such information
        or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury is guilty of a class 5 felony, except that it
        is a 3 felony if the person commits the offense with the intent to further or assist a criminal street gang.





    13-2703. False swearing; classification                                                                                                                7

    A. A person commits false swearing by making a false sworn statement, believing it to be false.                 

    B. False swearing is a class 6 felony.

     13-2704. Unsworn falsification; classification                                                                            

    A. A person commits unsworn falsification by knowingly:

        1. Making any statement that he believes to be false, in regard to a material issue, to a public servant in          
            connection with an application for any benefit, privilege or license.

        2. Making any statement that he believes to be false in regard to a material issue to a public servant in
            connection with any official proceeding as defined in section 13-2801.

    B. Unsworn falsification pursuant to paragraph 1, subsection A, is a class 2 misdemeanor. Unsworn falsification
         pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 1 misdemeanor.


    13-2907.01. False reporting to law enforcement agencies; classification

    A. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly make to a law enforcement agency of either this state or a political
          subdivision of this state a false, fraudulent or unfounded report or statement or to knowingly misrepresent a
          fact for the purpose of interfering with the orderly operation of a law enforcement agency or misleading a
          peace officer.

    B. Violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.


          13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification                                                                                          

    A.  A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or

          person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

         6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

    B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony.


         13-3005. Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications

    A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either:

        1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes,
            employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof.

        2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs,
            procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion.


     13-3101. Definitions

    A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
         1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use. The term includes a firearm.

         2. "Deface" means to remove, alter or destroy the manufacturer's serial number.

         4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will
               expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.
               Firearm does not include a firearm in permanently inoperable condition.


     13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

        1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in  
            or on a means of transportation:

            (a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in 
                   section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

            (b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer
                  asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

         2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his    
              immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or

         3. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, except that if the     
              violation involves dry ice, a person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly possessing the

              dry ice with the intent to cause injury to or death of another person or to cause damage to the property of
              another person; or

    4. Possessing a deadly weapon or prohibited weapon if such person is a prohibited possessor; or



    5. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor; or                                                                 8
    6. Defacing a deadly weapon; or

    7. Possessing a defaced deadly weapon knowing the deadly weapon was defaced; or                                

    8. Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense included in chapter   
        34 of this title; or



    9. Discharging a firearm at an occupied structure in order to assist, promote or further the interests of       
         a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise; or

    10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and
          carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or
          the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the
          operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon
          pursuant to section 13-3102.01; or

    11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a
          deadly weapon; or  
    12. Possessing a deadly weapon on school grounds; or

    13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a
          deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person; or

    14. Supplying, selling or giving possession or control of a firearm to another person if the person knows or has
          reason to know that the other person would use the firearm in the commission of any felony; or

    15. Using, possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon in furtherance of any act of terrorism as
          defined in section 13-2301 or possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon knowing or having
          reason to know that it will be used to facilitate any act of terrorism as defined in section 13-2301.

    B. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to:

         1. A person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person or
              that person's parent, grandparent or legal guardian.

         3. A firearm that is carried in:

            (a) A manner where any portion of the firearm or holster in which the firearm is carried is visible.

            (b) A holster that is wholly or partially visible.

            (c) A scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible.
            (d) Luggage.

            (e) A case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a
                 storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.

    C. Subsection A, paragraphs 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this section shall not apply to:

         1. A peace officer or any person summoned by any peace officer to assist and while actually assisting in the
             performance of official duties; or

         2. A member of the military forces of the United States or of any state of the United States in the
               performance of official duties; or

         3. A warden, deputy warden, community correctional officer, detention officer, special investigator or   

              correctional officer of the state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections; or

         4. A person specifically licensed, authorized or permitted pursuant to a statute of this state or of the US.         

    D. Subsection A, paragraphs 3 and 7 of this section shall not apply to

         1. The possessing, transporting, selling or transferring of weapons by a museum as a part of its collection or
              an educational institution for ed. purposes or by an authorized employee of such museum or institution, if:

             (a) Such museum or institution is operated by the United States or this state or a political subdivision of 
                   this  state, or by an organization described in 26 United States Code section 170(c) as a recipient of a
                   charitable contribution; and

             (b) Reasonable precautions are taken with respect to theft or misuse of such material.

         2. The regular and lawful transporting as merchandise; or                                                                       

         3. Acquisition by a person by operation of law such as by gift, devise or descent or in a fiduciary capacity as
              a recipient of the property or former property of an insolvent, incapacitated or deceased person.

    E. Subsection A, para 3 of this section shall not apply to the merchandise of an authorized manufacturer    
         of or dealer in prohibited weapons, when such material is intended to be manufactured, possessed,
         transported, sold or transferred solely for or to a dealer, a regularly constituted or appointed state, county or
         municipal police department or police officer, a detention facility, the military service of this or another state


         or the United States, a museum or educational institution or a person specifically licensed or permitted        9
         pursuant to federal or state law.

    F. Subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section shall not apply to shooting ranges or shooting events, hunting
         areas or similar locations or activities.

    G. Subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section shall not apply to a weapon described in section 13-3101,

         subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), item (v), if such weapon is possessed for the purposes of       
         preparing for, conducting or participating in lawful exhibitions, demonstrations, contests or athletic events
         involving the use of such weapon. Subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section shall not apply to a weapon if
         such weapon is possessed for the purposes of preparing for, conducting or participating in hunter or firearm 
         safety courses.

    H. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to the possession of a:

        1. Firearm that is not loaded and that is carried within a means of transportation under the control of an adult
             provided that if the adult leaves the means of transportation the firearm shall not be visible from the
             outside of the means of transportation and the means of transportation shall be locked.

        2. Firearm for use on the school grounds in a program approved by a school.

        3. Firearm by a person who possesses a certificate of firearms proficiency pursuant to section 13-3112,
            subsection W and who is authorized to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the law enforcement officers
            safety act of 2004 (P.L. 108-277; 118 Stat. 865; 18 United States Code sections 926B and 926C).

     I. The operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the employee of the operator or sponsor or 
         the agent of the sponsor, including a public entity or public employee, is not liable for acts or omissions
         pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section unless the operator, sponsor, employee or agent
         intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

    J. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer
        may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.

    K. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 15 of this section is a class 2 felony.
        Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 9 or 14 of this section is a class 3 felony.
        Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 3, 4, 8 or 13 of this section is a class 4 felony.
        Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor
        unless the violation occurs in connection with conduct that violates section 13-2308, subsection A, paragraph 5, section 13-2312, subsection C, section 13-3409 or section 13-3411, in which case the offense is a class 6

        felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 1, subdivision (a) of this section or    
        subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under
        subsection A, paragraph 1, subdivision (b) of this section or subsection A, paragraph 10 or 11 of this section 
        is a class 1 misdemeanor. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section  
        is a class 3 misdemeanor.

    L. For the purposes of this section:                                                                                                            

        1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention
             or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense

             has been or is about to be committed.

    2. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a
           political subdivision of this state.

    3. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a
          public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event

          does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.

    4. "School" means a public or nonpublic kindergarten program, common school or high school.

    5. "School grounds" means in, or on the grounds of, a school.

    13-3102.01Storage of deadly weapons; definitions

    A. If an operator of a public establishment or a sponsor of a public event requests that a person carrying a
          deadly weapon remove the weapon, the operator or sponsor shall provide temporary and secure storage. 
        The storage shall be readily accessible on entry into the establishment or event and allow for the immediate
           retrieval of the weapon on exit from the establishment or event.

    B. This section does not apply to the licensed premises of any public establishment or public event with a
         license issued pursuant to title 4.

    C. The operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the employee of the operator or sponsor or
          the agent of the sponsor, including a public entity or public employee, is not liable for acts or omissions

          pursuant to this section unless the operator, sponsor, employee or agent intended to cause injury or was  

          grossly negligent.

    D. For the purposes of this section, "public establishment" and "public event" have the same meanings 
          prescribed in section 13-3102.


          Federal Laws on weapons misconduct:                                                                                                              
    18 USC Sect 922 (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or 
          that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable

          cause to believe, is a school zone.

         (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

             (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

             (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone      
                  is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires 
                  that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
                  subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

            (iii) that is—  
                 (I) not loaded; and  
                 (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

            (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

            (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the     
    individual or an employer of the individual;

            (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or                                                   


            (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of 

                   gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized
                   by school authorities.

    (3)  (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless
                disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or

                 that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.

          (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—

                (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

                (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in     
                      the program;

                (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and 
                       the individual or an employer of the individual; or

                (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

       § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or
                 other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall 
                 be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. 
    d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—  
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or
              other lawful purposes.


    13-3107. Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions                                          

    A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality  
         is guilty of a class 6 felony.

    B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous
         offense is alleged & proven pursuant to section 13-704, subsection L, section 13-604 applies to this offense.

    C. This section does not apply if the firearm is discharged:

         1. As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.

         2. On a properly supervised range.

         3. To lawfully take wildlife during an open season established by the Arizona game and fish commission and 
              subject to the limitations prescribed by title 17 and Arizona game and fish commission rules and orders.

              This paragraph does not prevent a city, town or county from adopting an ordinance or rule restricting the  
              discharge of a firearm within one-fourth mile of an occupied structure. For purposes of this paragraph, 
              "take" has the same meaning prescribed in section 17-101.

        4. For the control of nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United
              States fish and wildlife service.

        5. By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.

        6. As required by an animal control officer in the performance of duties as specified in section 9-499.04.

        7. Using blanks.

        8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101.

        9. In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would
               believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the
               circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.

    D. For the purposes of this section:

        1. "Municipality" means any city or town and includes any property that is fully enclosed in the city or town.

        2. "Properly supervised range" means a range that is any of the following:

           (a) Operated by a club affiliated with the national rifle association of America, the amateur trapshooting  
                 association, the national skeet association or any other nationally recognized shooting organization, or 
                 by any public or private school.

           (b) Approved by any agency of the federal government, this state or a county or city within which the range
                   is located.

           (c) Operated with adult supervision for shooting air or carbon dioxide gas operated guns, or for shooting in
                  underground ranges on private or public property.


        13-3108. Firearms regulated by state; state preemption; violation; classification; definition                          

    A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, a political subdivision of this state shall not enact any    
        ordinance, rule or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, 
        gift, devise, storage, licensing, registration, discharge or use of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or

        ammunition components or related accessories in this state.

    B. A political subdivision of this state shall not require the licensing or registration of firearms or ammunition or
        any firearm or ammunition components or related accessories or prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or
        transfer of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components, or related accessories.

    C. A political subdivision of this state shall not require or maintain a record in any form, whether permanent or
        temporary, including a list, log or database, of any of the following:

        1. Any identifying information of a person who leaves a weapon in temporary storage at any public         
            establishment or public event, except that the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event
           may require that a person provide a government issued identification or a reasonable copy of a government       
           issued identification for the purpose of establishing ownership of the weapon. The operator or sponsor shall  
           store any provided identification with the weapon and shall return the identification to the person when the 
           weapon is retrieved. The operator or sponsor shall not retain records or copies of any identification provided
           pursuant to this paragraph after the weapon is retrieved.

        2. Except in the course of a law enforcement investigation, any identifying information of a person who
            purchases, sells or transfers a firearm, unless the transaction involves a federally licensed firearms dealer.

        3. The description, including the serial number, of a weapon that is left in temporary storage at any public
             establishment or public event.

    D. A political subdivision of this state shall not enact any rule or ordinance that relates to firearms and is more
         prohibitive than or that has a penalty that is greater than any state law penalty. A political subdivision's rule or
         ordinance that relates to firearms and that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than state law, whether
         enacted before or after the effective date of the amendment to this section, is null and void.

    E. A political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or regulation limiting the lawful taking of

         wildlife during an open season established by the Arizona game and fish commission unless the ordinance,
         rule or regulation is consistent with title 17 and rules and orders adopted by the Arizona game and fish
         commission. This subsection does not prevent a political subdivision from adopting an ordinance or rule

         restricting the discharge of a firearm within one-fourth mile of an occupied structure. For purposes of this

         subsection, "take" has the same meaning prescribed in section 17-101.

    F. This section does not prohibit a political subdivision of this state from enacting and enforcing any ordinance or
         rule pursuant to state law or relating to any of the following:


         1. Imposing any privilege or use tax on the retail sale, lease or rental of, or the gross proceeds or gross     12
             income from the sale, lease or rental of, firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components
             at a rate that applies generally to other items of tangible personal property.

         2. Prohibiting a minor who is unaccompanied by a parent, grandparent or guardian or a certified hunter
             safety instructor or certified firearms safety instructor acting with the consent of the minor's parent,
             grandparent or guardian from knowingly possessing or carrying on the minor's person, within the minor's

             immediate control or in or on a means of transportation a firearm in any place that is open to the public or  
             on any street or highway or on any private property except private property that is owned or leased by the
             minor or the minor's parent, grandparent or guardian. Any ordinance or rule that is adopted pursuant to
             this paragraph shall not apply to a minor who is fourteen, fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age and
            who is engaged in any of the following:

             (a) Lawful hunting or shooting events or marksmanship practice at established ranges or other areas 
                   where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited.

             (b) Lawful transportation of an unloaded firearm for the purpose of lawful hunting.

             (c) Lawful transportation of an unloaded firearm for the purpose of attending shooting events or           
                   marksmanship practice at established ranges or other areas where the discharge of a firearm is not 

             (d) Any activity that is related to the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products, poultry  
                   products or ratites or storage of agricultural commodities.

    3. The regulation of land and structures, including a business relating to firearms or ammunition or their      
        components or a shooting range in the same manner as other commercial businesses. Notwithstanding any  
        other law, this paragraph does not authorize a political subdivision to regulate the sale or transfer of firearms
        on property it owns, leases, operates or controls in a manner that is different than or inconsistent with state
        law. For the purposes of this paragraph, a use permit or other contract that provides for the use of property
        owned, leased, operated or controlled by a political subdivision shall not be considered a sale, conveyance or  
        disposition of property.

    4. Regulating employees or independent contractors of the political subdivision who are acting within          
        the course and scope of their employment or contract.

    5. Limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves except:

        (a) As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.

        (b) On a properly supervised range as defined in section 13-3107.

        (c) In an area approved as a hunting area by the Arizona game and fish department. Any such area may be
              closed when deemed unsafe by the director of the Arizona game and fish department.

        (d) To control nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish
              and wildlife service.

        (e) By special permit of the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision.

        (f) As required by an animal control officer in performing duties specified in section 9-499.04 and title 11,
             chapter 7, article 6.

        (g) In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would
              believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the
              circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.

    G. A violation of any ordinance established pursuant to subsection F, paragraph 5 of this section is a class 2
         misdemeanor unless the political subdivision designates a lesser classification by ordinance.

    H. For the purposes of this section, "political subdivision" includes a political subdivision acting in any capacity


        12-781. Transportation or storage of firearms; motor vehicles; applicability

    A. A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity shall not establish, maintain or enforce  
        a policy or rule that prohibits a person from lawfully transporting or lawfully storing any firearm that is both:

         1. In the person's locked and privately owned motor vehicle or in a locked compartment on the person's
             privately owned motorcycle.

         2. Not visible from the outside of the motor vehicle or motorcycle.

    B. Any policy or rule that is established or the attempted enforcement of any policy or rule that is in violation of
         subsection A is contrary to public policy, is null and void and does not have legal force or effect.

    C. This section does not apply if:

         1. The possession of the firearm is prohibited by federal or state law.

         2. The motor vehicle is owned or leased by a public or private employer or business entity and is used by an
              employee in the course of the employment, unless the employee is required to store or transport a firearm

              in the official discharge of the employee's duties or if the public or private employer or business entity   is       13
              consents to the transportation or storage of the firearm.

        3. The property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity provides a parking lot, parking 
              garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles, that:

          (a) Is secured by a fence or other physical barrier.

          (b) Limits access by a guard or other security measure.

          (c) Provides temporary and secure firearm storage. The storage shall be monitored and readily accessible
               on entry into the premises and allow for the immediate retrieval of the firearm on exit from the premises.

        4. The property owner's, tenant's, public or private employer's or business entity's compliance with this
             section necessitates the violation of another applicable federal or state law or regulation.

        5. The property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is a nuclear generating station
              that provides a secured and gated or fenced parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for
              parking motor vehicles and provides temporary and secure firearm storage. The storage shall be readily
              accessible on entry into the premises and allow for the immediate retrieval on exit from the premises.

        6. The parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles is on an owner       
             occupied single family detached residence or a tenant occupied single family detached residence.

        7. The property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is a current United States
             department of defense contractor and the property is located in whole or in part on a United States military
             base or a United States military installation. If any part of the property is not located on the United       
             States military base or United States military installation, the property shall be contiguous with the
             base or installation.

         8. The property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity provides alternative parking in a
             location reasonably proximate to the primary parking area for individuals who desire to transport or store a
             firearm in the individual's motor vehicle and does not charge an extra fee for such parking.


      13-3112. Concealed weapons; qualification; application; permit to carry; civil penalty; report; applicability

    A. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a person who
         qualified under this section. The person shall carry the permit at all times when the person is in actual

          possession of   the concealed weapon and is required by section 4-229 or 4-244 to carry the permit. If the
          person is in actual  possession of the concealed weapon and is required by section 4-229 or 4-244 to carry
          the permit, the person shall present the permit for inspection to any law enforcement officer on request.

    B. The permit of a person who is arrested or indicted for an offense that would make the person unqualified
         under section 13-3101, subsection A, paragraph 7 or this section shall be immediately suspended and
         seized. The permit of a person who becomes unqualified on conviction of that offense shall be revoked. The
         permit shall be restored on presentation of documentation from the court if the permittee is found not guilty or
         the charges are dismissed. The permit shall be restored on presentation of documentation from the county
         attorney that the charges against the permittee were dropped or dismissed.

    C. A permittee who carries a concealed weapon, who is required by section 4-229 or 4-244 to carry a permit and

         who fails to present the permit for inspection on the request of a law enforcement officer commits a violation

         of this subsection and is subject to a civil penalty of not more than three hundred dollars. The department of
         public safety shall be notified of all violations of this subsection and shall immediately suspend the permit. A
         permittee shall not be convicted of a violation of this subsection if the permittee produces to the court a
         legible permit that is issued to the permittee and that was valid at the time the permittee failed to present the

         permit for inspection.

    D. A law enforcement officer shall not confiscate or forfeit a weapon that is otherwise lawfully possessed by a

        permittee whose permit is suspended pursuant to subsection C of this section, except that a law enforcement

        officer may take temporary custody of a firearm during an investigatory stop of the permittee.

    E. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to an applicant who meets all of the following conditions:

        1. Is a resident of this state or a United States citizen.

        2. Is twenty-one years of age or older.

        3. Is not under indictment for and has not been convicted in any jurisdiction of a felony unless that conviction
            has been expunged, set aside or vacated or the applicant's rights have been restored and the applicant is
            currently not a prohibited possessor under state or federal law.

        4. Does not suffer from mental illness and has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a

             mental institution.

        5. Is not unlawfully present in the United States.



        6. Has ever demonstrated competence with a firearm as prescribed by subsection N of this section and        14
            provides adequate documentation that the person has satisfactorily completed a training program or
            demonstrated competence with a firearm in any state or political subdivision in the United States. For the
            purposes of this  paragraph, "adequate documentation" means:

            (a) A current or expired permit issued by the department of public safety pursuant to this section.

            (b) An original or copy of a certificate, card or document that shows the applicant has ever completed           
                  any course or class prescribed by subsection N of this section or an affidavit from the instructor,
                  school, club or organization that conducted or taught the course or class attesting to the applicant's
                  completion of the course or class.

            (c) An original or a copy of a United States department of defense form 214 (DD-214) indicating an
                 honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions, a certificate of completion of

                 basic training or any other document demonstrating proof of the applicant's current or former service in
                 the United States armed forces as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 5 of this section.

            (d) An original or a copy of a concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or a license as prescribed by

                  subsection N, paragraph 6 of this section.

    F. The application shall be completed on a form prescribed by the department of public safety. The form shall
        not require the applicant to disclose the type of firearm for which a permit is sought. The applicant shall attest
        under penalty of perjury that all of the statements made by the applicant are true, that the applicant has been
        furnished a copy of this chapter and chapter 4 of this title and that the applicant is knowledgeable about the
        provisions contained in those chapters. The applicant shall submit the application to the department with any

        documentation prescribed by subsection E of this section, two sets of fingerprints and a reasonable fee  
        determined by the director of the department.

    G. On receipt of a concealed weapon permit application, the department of public safety shall conduct a check

         of the applicant's criminal history record pursuant to section 41-1750. The department of public safety may

         exchange fingerprint card information with the federal bureau of investigation for federal criminal history
         record checks.

    H. The department of public safety shall complete all of the required qualification checks within 60 days after  receipt
         of the application and shall issue a permit within fifteen working days after completing the qualification  checks if

         the applicant meets all of the conditions specified in subsection E of this section. If a permit is denied, the     
         department of public safety shall notify the applicant in writing within fifteen working days after the completion of all
        of the required qualification checks and shall state the reasons why the application was denied. On receipt of the   
        notification of the denial, the applicant has twenty days to submit any additional documentation to the department. 
        On receipt of the additional documentation, the department shall reconsider its decision and inform the applicant   
        within twenty days of the result of the reconsideration. If denied, the applicant shall be informed that the applicant    

        may request a hearing pursuant to title 41, chapter  6, article 10. For the purposes of this subsection, "receipt of the   
        application" means the first day that the department has physical control of the application and that is presumed to   
        be on the date of delivery as evidenced by proof of delivery by the United States postal service or a written receipt,     

        which shall be provided by the department on request of the applicant.

    I. On issuance, a permit is valid for five years, except a permit that is held by a member of the United States armed  
        forces, including a member of the Arizona national guard or a member of the reserves of any military establishment   
       of the United States, who is on federal active duty and who is deployed overseas shall be extended until ninety days   
        after the end of the member's overseas deployment.

    J. The department of public safety shall maintain a computerized permit record system that is accessible to criminal    
        justice agencies for the purpose of confirming the permit status of any person who is contacted by a law   
        enforcement officer and who claims to hold a valid permit issued by this state. This information and any other     
        records that are maintained regarding applicants, permit holders or instructors shall not be available to any other     

       person or entity except on an order from a state or federal court. A criminal justice agency shall not use the   
       computerized permit record system to conduct inquiries on whether a person is a concealed weapons permit  holder
       unless the criminal justice agency has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying a  concealed weapon   
       and the person is subject to a lawful criminal investigation, arrest, detention or an  investigatory stop.

    K. A permit issued pursuant to this section is renewable every five years.                                                  

    M. The department of public safety shall suspend or revoke a permit issued under this section if the permit holder    
         becomes ineligible pursuant to subsection E of this section. The department of public safety shall  notify the permit    
         holder in writing within fifteen working days after the revocation or suspension and shall  state the reasons for the   
         revocation or suspension.




    13-3884. Arrest by private person  A private person may make an arrest:                                                           15

    1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the   
        peace, or a felony.

    2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested
        has committed it.


    13-3889. Method of arrest by private person

        A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the
        cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately

        after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has    
        opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.  


    13-3900. Duty of private person after making arrest

        A private person who has made an arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the
        nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest was made, or deliver him to a peace officer,

        who shall without unnecessary delay take him before such magistrate.


    What Will Happen After A Defensive Shooting

    By Ed Santos, The Shooting Channel

    What to expect after you have defended yourself.                                                                           

    Having taught over 16,000 concealed carry students and been involved as an expert witness in numerous shooting cases, I am always surprised by the concealed carry shooters lack of understanding of the post shooting process. Sadly, this lack of knowledge is often due to an incomplete presentation offered by the CCW instructor or is further perpetuated by the no training requirement found in some states.                                                                                                           

    Don’t misread my intention here; I am not advocating any training requirements that would even in appearance approach any form of gun control. However, if you carry a firearm, or any weapon for protection, and you are not aware of the elements necessary to prove innocence in one’s defense, you are at great risk of losing your freedom and all the material things you have worked hard to attain.

    Before I get into the particulars of a post shooting incident, I want to make it clear that I am not offering legal advice in this article. I am not an attorney and the purpose here is to make the reader aware of the typical sequence of events that take place after someone is shot. This info is presented in general terms and may differ from your particular state’s rule of law. It is merely presented with the intent to inspire the reader to be sure of the laws and procedures that may impact you if you have to shoot someone in your defense or the defense of the innocent.

    There is no easy way out of the emotional barrage after a self-defense shooting incident.

    From a sequence perspective, the following steps are typical in most states:

    Shots Fired

    911 Call

    First Responders

    LE Supervisors

    Detectives – Some Jurisdictions ADA responds

    Investigation / Questioning

    Prosecutor Determination

    Trial Phase


    Appeal Process

    Civil Trial


    So let’s assume you have no choice but to shoot an attacker to protect yourself.                                     16

    Bad Guy Down; you made the decision that shooting your attacker was appropriate, necessary and the correct thing to do. Under the level of stress you will be experiencing it is important that you make sure the threat is truly over. Do not expect the bad guy to immediately fall and or stop trying to hurt you. Be sure the threat over. Attacker down, but are there any others trying to hurt you? Assess everyone and surroundings. Be sure to check your six. Holster only when you are safe and it is appropriate.

    Are you injured? Be sure to feel yourself and be sure there is no blood on your hands. Your adrenaline and other physiological aspects you are experiencing may very well block out your pain from injury. Is anyone else hurt? Any collateral  damage to the people around the incident? Is it even safe to remain?
    Throughout all of this never lose sight of the fact that You Are The Victim.


    After the threat in neutralized,  call 911 immediately

    The 911 call. The first words out of your mouth should be the location. This is critical in case your   connection is lost. You may realize that you are back in the fight and have to lose contact with the 911 operator. If you have not provided the location there will be no one coming to help you.  Remember you are the victim, so provide the minimal amount of information. I addition to your  location, provide the need for police and medical. Tell the operator you were attacked and someone has been shot. I would not say much more than that. Identify yourself and give a discription of what you are wearing etc.

    Do not get too involved with this call and say too much. There will be plenty of opportunity for you to articulate your actions to the police when you are in the presence of your attorney.

    Remember the police are not your friends or your enemy. They are just trying to do their job, which part of, is to determine what happened and if a crime has been committed.

    medical may not approach the scene until Law Enforcement clears it and determines it is safe.


    Law Enforcement Arrives. They are on scene and they make contact with you. They begin to preserve the scene, assess the injured, identify and collect evidence, talk with witnesses and so on.

    Medical Arrives. Their primary concern is the patient. They will try to preserve evidence and the integrity of the scene. In some cases they may remove the victim before police complete their investigation if the person shot is still alive.

    LE Supervisors Arrive. The crime scene will be secured and a crime scene perimeter entry point along with an access log will be stablished. The Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains may show up. A shooting incident is a serious call for all involved. This seriousness often brings out the “brass” to make sure all procedures are followed and the investigators have all the resources necessary to properly process the crime scene. Don’t let all these supervisors make you nervous.

    At the crime scene a great deal of effort will be dedicated to gathering evidence and documenting all the elements as the first responders found it at the time of their arrival. Of course, the reason for all this is to find out what happened and determine if a crime has been committed and to what extent those present were involved.

    The Interview Room. A small room often thought of as an interrogation room designed to shift the power in favor of the investigators. Be respectful of the process and the police who you are dealing with. Remember you are innocent, the investigators just don’t know it yet. They will, but for now the process is slow, intimidating, embarrassing, and often out of your immediate control.


    Ask for your attorney as soon as possible. It is your right to have an attorney present when questioned 17   about the incident. You need to protect yourself from both the criminal and civil process. Speaking to the investigators without an attorney first hearing and approving your answers can be extremely dangerous.

    The investigators will form opinions based on fact. This is an often overlooked principle when lay people discuss events surrounding an incident and form their public opinions. The professionals will analyze the totality of their findings and come to an educated decision as to what transpired based on the facts of the investigative efforts of the entire investigative team.                                                    

    If the police arrest you. You will typically experience one of the following three scenarios. The prosecutor’s office may not agree or support the charges as presented by the police. If they decide not to pursue charges, you are released. You post bond (bail). You stay in jail and LE will transport you to arraignment.

    Police submit a report to a prosecutor which will notify them of the arrest and their charge sheet. The prosecutor’s team will review all the evidence. Basically they are determining, based on the evidence presented, if they can win the case. If they agree with the charges a felony or misdemeanor determination will be made. They may decide to file on all or a few of PD (Police Department) charges. They will often add additional charges they feel are appropriate.


    An Attorney is your advocate guiding you through a daunting and confusing legal system.

    Generally this will all take place within 48 hrs of the in-custody time. In most cases, weekends, public holidays and court holidays do not count in the 48 hour timeline.

    The first appearance before a judge will be when you can expect to hear the charges against you. This will be told to you on the record by a judge. The judge will also read you your rights as they relate to the charges and notify you of your access to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney the court will provide one to you free.

    You will then enter a plea. Typically you will plead Not Guilty – which is you saying that you did not commit the crime with which you are charged. You might plead Guilty – which is you admitting you did the crime as charged. In this case the judge finds and enters the conviction in record.

    After you enter a plea the judge will either release you to your own recognizance and provide a specific date and time to return to the court or hold you. The judge may also decide to set bail. In this case you will be returned to jail until bail is made. The judge could also refuse to set bail. If he refuses bail you will be incarcerated until a verdict in the case is established.

    It’s possible that you may be arrested and arraigned. Be prepared. Based on arraignment the prosecution and defense exchange information. This process is also known as discovery. You may be limited on seeing all the discovery information but not the lawyers – as officers of the court they are required to protect the identity of witnesses. In my opinion, this may be the best reason to have a lawyer represent you. With an attorney representing you at least someone on the defense team will be privy to all the discovery and can defend you accordingly.

    Pretrial motions are conducted and decided. You are able to change your plea at any time. During this phase of the process, the judge and lawyers may discuss resolution options. A plea bargain offer may be made at this point. Your attorney will present you any pretrial options and offer suggestions with regard to your decisions at this time.

    Jury or Court trial? Most defendants choose a jury trial of their peers. In some cases the defense will request a Court trial. It has been my experience that your attorney will have a definite opinion and subsequent recommendation for you in this regard. However, the decision is ultimately yours. My opinion;


    listen carefully to your attorney.                                                                                                                  

    The Trial Process starts with jury selection and then opening statements. Each side will have an     opportunity to present evidence, hear and challenge witness testimony and then progress to closing arguments. The number of days to hear the case will depend on the complexity of the prosecution and defense cases.

    After closing arguments, the jury will be given their instructions by the judge. This is always an area that concerns me as the judge certainly sets the stage for the jury through these instructions. The outcome of the trial is now in the hands of the jury. The jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the facts presented and what we call the doctrine of a reasonable and prudent person’s interpretation.

    A Not Guilty decision is an acquittal. The arrest still shows on your record.

    To CLEAN YOUR RECORD – If wrongfully arrested, you must have a hearing before a judge to determine factual innocence. It is much harder to prove factual innocence than prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If found Guilty the judge will enter the finding of guilt for the record and begin the sentence phase of the process.

    The Appeal is NOT A NEW TRIAL. So many people believe an appeal is another chance to plead their case. Not so. The applet court does not decide the facts of the case. For an appeal you are basically saying the trial court made legal error. You may also say there was not enough evidence for verdict rendered.

    If you are arguing Mistakes of Law, then a hearing will be held and both sides will present their positions. The court can decide if any trial errors prejudiced (hurt) your case and act accordingly. The appeal process typically has timelines and deadlines that must be followed.

    The Civil Case — Hang on it is coming!! But that is the subject for a future discussion.

    I hope you found some of this information helpful.
    I hope you will discuss any questions with an attorney who can provide specific detail for your particular laws and local court procedures.  Be Safe…Ed


    Ed Santos is author of the books “Rule the Night Win the Fight” published 2008 and his latest “Low-Light Combatives” published 2013. He is the Owner/Founder of Center Target Sports, Inc. and Tactical Services Group. He teaches advanced firearm skills and Low-light training around the world and can be reached at


    If you are new to guns, this is a good video to watch:


    Tueller Drill (21 Foot Example):

    What really happensin a gunfight?

    Proactive awareness in transitional spaces:


    Physical precursors of violent behavior:

    How To Tell A Slanted Tale – Part One


    By Charles Heller
    For JPFO


              The Columbia Journalism Review convened on April 6, 2021, a summit of journalists
    from the New York Times, the Washington PostThe TraceThe Guardian and others to
    detail “what we can do about reporting on [so-called] gun violence.”

              CJR boiled down six essential pledge elements that comprise the “CJR Gun Violence
    Coverage Commitment.” CJR hopes to convince news people across the country to sign on.
    As a career print and radio journalist and editorialist, I would never sign the Commitment. 
    Why not?  Because the Commitment contradicts journalism’s purpose.

              My journalism career started in 1973 when I was managing editor of my high school
    paper (circulation 7000).  I worked in the news and features departments of the Chicago
    for a year and a half, then studied journalism at Northern Illinois University.  I
    later moved to Arizona, where on radio for 23 years I have been covering news and
    interviewing in-depth authors, attorneys, and experts in various fields.


              Concerning issues involving firearms, I’ve been a state-certified instructor in
    Arizona’s concealed weapons permit program, and am a co-founder of Arizona’s main
    self-defense civil rights lobby, the Arizona Citizens Defense League.


              From a firearms-literate journalist’s perspective, let’s examine the CJR Commitment’s
    first three pledges.    


    No. 1. We pledge to cover gun violence like the unfolding health crisis it is.


    Gun violence in America is an epidemic, killing 100 people every day. Rather than cover it
    as a series of dramatic, but unrelated, news events, we will provide sustained, thorough
    coverage of the causes … and the solutions seriously being considered to contain it.


              Let’s establish a first principle of journalism, its purpose.  Journalism is supposed to
    provide observed facts within a framework of objective reality.  The “coloring” of facts to
    subtly shift opinion is not journalism – it is known amongst professional journalists as
    “framing bias.”  Such bias slants the news via a filter distorted by the view of the reporter
    or organization. Framing bias is unvarnished intellectual dishonesty.

              When this pledge uses the term “gun violence.” it engages in framing bias. In fact,
    there is no such thing as a “violent gun.” Therefore, there is no such thing as “gun violence.”
    There certainly is criminal violence, but that is not the conclusion the CJR is pushing
    people to reach.

              Contrast how media covers deliberate violence done with automobiles. When has
    any media outlet reported on “automotive violence?” How about violence committed
    while intoxicated? What media outlet has reported on “alcohol violence?” Certainly,
    we have heard of “gang violence” (an accurate term because gangs actually do it). 

              So-called “gun violence” is actually criminal violence.  Tying “guns” to violence
    is a framing bias designed to make the audience dislike and distrust the ownership of

              CJR’s statistic, “Gun violence in America is an epidemic, killing 100 people every
    day,” is more framing bias. Sixty-seven percent of deaths by gun in the U.S. are actually
    suicides. Suicide is tragic but it is not “gun violence.” Conflating the two statistics is
    simply dishonest reporting, intentionally biased to instill distrust about civilian gun

              CJR’s claim that violence done with guns is a “health crisis” is also deceptive. 
    It is a violence problem. Dubbing certain kinds of violence a “health crisis,” is an
    intentionally dishonest framing of the issue. It is mendacity masquerading as journalism.
    It is prevarication for a purpose.






    No. 2. We pledge to allocate the time and resources needed to cover this


    Gun violence is a constant through line of American life. It can impact any of us, at any
    time. But newspaper resources treat it like a rarity. We will re-prioritize gun violence in
    our newsrooms, carving out… time, staffing, education tools, and budget to make
    comprehensive gun violence coverage a reality.



              Translation: “We at CJR are going to let our agenda drive our reporting.” Readers,
    do you want agendas, or news? The two tend to be mutually exclusive.



    No. 3. We pledge to acknowledge and address racist coverage.

    Coverage of gun violence in most American media ignores the disproportionate impact
    on communities of color; it treats shooters and victims differently, depending on their
    race; it foregrounds the narrative provided by law enforcement. We will put an end to
    this practice, including more often highlighting the voices of people in the communities
    most affected, and standardizing the terms and definitions used in our coverage.


              This pledge raises one of the main issues of criminal violence. Data shows criminal
    violence disproportionately affects the lower socio-economic sectors, coinciding largely
    with areas populated by people of color. The media conceals the fact that only 75 counties
    of the 3054 counties in the U.S. actually have a violence problem, which is largely due to
    gang and drug related violence, committed largely by people of color against people of
    color. When have you heard the media report that?


              Journalism needs to return to fundamental fact reporting and truth telling.  “News”
    media should:


              (1) Report the facts in an unbiased way. Ditch the idea that “if it bleeds, it leads.”

              (2) Fairly report positive as well as negative uses of guns, especially the defensive
                      uses of guns.

              (3) Clearly separate opinion from fact, and clearly state the source of facts and the
                     sponsors of organizations being sought for facts. Operations like “The Trace”
                     are not journalistic in nature, but are agenda driven.

              (4) Commit to reporting stories based on the contents of the facts, not the colors
                     of the people involved.

              (5) Inform the public that the police are under no duty to protect the individual citizen.        
            . Dial 911 and Die (  A
                    responsible media must inform the public that self-defense an individual

              (6) Stop sensationalizing violence. Sign on to the “Don’t Inspire Evil” (D.I.E.) Initiative,
                     and do not publicize the names of criminal perpetrators. 

    Stay tuned for part two of this article.


    In Liberty,
    Charles Heller
    Host, Liberty Watch Radio
    AM 1030 KVOI Tucson
    Former Executive Director, JPFO
    Co-Founder, Arizona Citizens Defense League



    Link to CJR pledge:

    Senator Pierce,

    I’m writing on behalf of the Board and members of the Arizona Citizens Defense League in response to a note you have apparently been sending out regarding your vote on HB 2320 (Rep. Brenda Barton, LD-6) during the Senate Committee of the Whole hearing on March 30, 2015. Given your contention that we are “sending out incomplete information,” we feel it necessary to address your assertions in detail, and to inform you that this response will be shared publicly.

    As you should be aware, HB 2320 would have exempted those with a valid permit issued pursuant to ARS 13-3112 from being disarmed in a public establishment or event unless the establishment or event screened for weapons, and was equipped with accessible storage.

    Under current law, all a public establishment or event need do to ban the carrying of firearms is post “No Firearms” signs and provide readily available storage.  This has had the perverse effect of disarming the law-abiding while allowing those with no respect for the law to remain armed at will. Under the proposed bill, CCW holders’ firearms couldn’t be banned unless conditions were met that actually ensured that an armed person could not enter undetected. If we truly want to keep weapons out of public buildings, we should do something more than post a sign and pretend that criminals pay attention to it.

    The Joint Legislative Budget Committee analysis that you are selectively quoting from is very clear that “the bill may increase agency costs if it chooses to ban firearms …” Please note that JLBC said “may” and “if”, where you specifically choose to misquote them and say “would have” instead. Please see the attached actual copy of the JLBC Fiscal Note, with the pertinent sections highlighted for your convenience, as proof of who is correct in their assertions.

    AzCDL has maintained from the bill’s introduction that there is no mandate imposed on any agency or political subdivision, but rather a simple choice. If these public institutions choose to forbid CCW permit holders from carrying their self-defense tools, then they should install proper security measures to ensure that anyone carrying a weapon is kept out, especially the bad guys. We have also acknowledged that doing so would come with a cost. However, simply taking down the ineffective signs and allowing CCW permit holders to carry unmolested would not cost a dime. As you can see from the actual language of the JLBC analysis attached, they agreed. As they plainly state in the highlighted portions, the cost would only be incurred if an agency chooses to ban firearms.

    Research by Dr. John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that CCW permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of society (see “Guns and the New York Times: Why shouldn't Americans be able to defend themselves?”), even more so than police officers, representing just a tiny fraction of criminal offenses. Like police officers, they are far more likely to obey the law than society at large. Here in Arizona, with 231,931 active CCW permits as of 3/22/15, only 3402 (1.47% of active) have been suspended, and only 1165 (0.50% of active) revoked, since the inception of the CCW permit program on 9/8/94 (source: Note also that these numbers do not reflect either potential later reinstatements or total number of permits issued. In short, they appear to be worrying about the wrong people.

    You and your GOP colleagues who joined you in voting with the Democrats against this simple choice should have been fully aware of this information. You were informed via multiple communications from me, and by several hundred emails from AzCDL members (our system has recorded over two hundred sent to you from your district alone). The fact that you chose not to listen to your constituents, and then tried to hide behind a clear misrepresentation of a legislative staff analysis, does not then become a reason to cast aspersions on a group that works hard every day to represent their interests.

    As to your assertion that this bill was not supported by NRA, a brief perusal of the Arizona State Legislature Web Application System’s Bill Status Inquiry page for HB 2320 shows Daniel Reid, NRA-ILA’s Arizona State Liaison, signed in FOR the bill, as well as Todd Rathner, also signed in FOR on behalf of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA’s official Arizona state affiliate. Todd, as you are probably aware, is also a member of NRA’s Board of Directors. That information took just seconds for me to pull up on the Internet, and I’m not even a Senator. I will leave it to them to discuss with you to what degree they supported the bill, and your resulting vote, when it comes time for them to rate the legislature.

    Last, but certainly not least, is the question of your AzCDL membership. Our records show that your Basic Annual Membership expired this past October. Your voting history, and the fact that you are currently the only member of the Republican caucus with an “F” rating from AzCDLPAC (although, given the recent course of some of your colleagues, you may have some company soon), coupled with your obvious dissatisfaction with our position on bills like this one, leads us to believe that it would be best for all concerned if we did not accept any further renewals from you. All things considered, you need not be concerned with identifying yourself as an AzCDL member any longer.

    As always, we are available to answer any questions or address any other issues you may have. Thank you for your time and attention. Best regards.


    Dave Kopp

    Arizona Citizens Defense League
    P.O. Box 10325
    Glendale, AZ  85318

    Here I am with one of my favorite concelaed weapon pieces, the Browning Automatic
    Rifle. Note that this machine gun requires a nomex glove for heat protection.

    My last concealed weapon permit class was working on an ankle holster for it....

    I walked liked Chester Goode in Gunsmoke with it on, but hey, concealed is

    Now the more astute of you looking at this will notice that I am in a WWII era
    military uniform top and helmet.

    1) I'm not that old.

    2) I was not ever in the military, and don't want to suggest that I was. This was
    part of a rental program that used to exist at Desert Trail Training Facility in
    Tucson. The idea was to demonstrate experientially the uniform and weapons
    of the day.


    I teach the concealed weapons permit clas at Second Amendment Sports in Tucson, 520 325 3346
    to register. $80 pr student.

    Letters from true "Gun Nuts"

    (Those are folks who hold the crazy notion that banning any tool makes us more safe.)

    ---------- Original Message ----------
    From: Mike Flannery <>
    Subject: Gun bill information
    Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:23:13 -0400

    You are absolute pond scum for deliberately starting a campaign of misinformation.
    You have managed to feed your need for firearms by deliberately torpedoing a bill THAT WOULD
    Good job you self serving SOBs.

    Mike Flannery

    Dear Mike -

        Thanks for letting us know your feelings. You might consider some anger management.

        We are not pro-gun, but pro-rights. We even support your right to say hateful things to us.

        We hope that if your child is ever threatened by an evil doer, one of us good guys is around with a
    gun to save him or her, because it does not appear that you would be equipped for the task.

        Saving even one child, Mike, is worth it.

    Charles Heller
    Liberty Watch Radio

    ---------- Original Message ----------
    From: darren To:
    Subject: gun issues  Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:51:50 -0700

    What a group of red neck gun nuts…I some hope someone shoot you whit one of the gun that you saved.

    You are just evil and should be removed from the planet….what is wrong with you in the head..

    The last thing we need is more guns..

    Maybe it because your fat ass can physical defend yourself , so you have to have a gun…

    Darren -

        I'm sorry, but I do not have a context for what you are talking about. What is this in regards to?

        If you answer, please do so over a copy of this whole discussion string, so that I can maintain
    context. Remember that everything you send me is in the public domain.

    Charles Heller


    Jannine Noton" 
    Sat, Jul 21, 2012 05:22 PM

    Once again like Christmas, some kid with a credit card and a subscription to a gun magazine has decided to load up
    and make the news. At such times, there's a casualty we seldom consider: the way the broadcaster's  voice sounds
    too practiced, the way the grief spilling out of the survivors sounds too familiar, the way that the stupid smirks on these
    murders' faces, start to run together. But James Holmes' victims didn't die because of "fate," or as "part of God's
    unfathomable plan," but rather, because in America, a man can order up 6,000 rounds of ammunition as easily as a
    box of nails, because in America, we believe that making it hard to buy a weapon of mass murder, puts an unnecessary
    burden on guys who wanna shoot geese.


    On the talkshows today and tomorrow, we'll be told that such tragic deaths help remind us that we never know how
    much time we have left on Earth. That's wrong. Such tragedies should teach us that owning weapons of mass murder
    and massive amounts of ammunition is, by nature, a crime against humanity, as sick and twisted as owning child
    pornography. These deaths should finally teach us that a man who owns such tools of mass destruction is not out
    to improve his marksmanship skills, but plans to fantasize about and practice and possibly prepare for the act of killing
    dozens of people.  Holmes' victims are not dead because of some sad twist of fate, but because Americans haven't
    learned that the desire to purchase such weapons is akin to the desire to purchase your very own Auschwitz Gas
    Chamber or Mediaeval torture device.


    Owning such weapons, together with thousands of rounds of ammunition, is not sport. It's a mental illness. And the
    fact that we all know someone who has such weapons displayed on the wall or hidden away ready for action, does
    not make it any less of an illness. Possessing devices that can quickly murder dozens of people is as vile as owning
    magazines that encourage sex with children, and should be treated as such, as a sick perversion. What will prevent
    similar horrors in the future?


    Calling out the NRA spokesmen you'll hear on the news over the next few days, the ones that say making loaded
    military-grade weapons illegal is wrong, because  the crooks will get them anyway. Honestly, that makes as much
    sense as saying that crack cocaine should be legal, because people who want it will get it anyway. But instead,
    we'll listen and say, "Oh, he makes a good point."


    So, are we really sickened and saddened by the death of so many young people at a movie theater?  Or do we
    regard their deaths as a fair price to pay for a man's right to parade around like Rambo in his skivvies?

    In any event, the men you hear today on the news justifying such "rights", are as much a menace to society as
    justifying owning kiddy-porn because the person might not do anything bad.  In fact, the pro-gun arguments you
    hear today will only accomplish one thing: make certain that future James Holmes will have a smooth path from
    thought to plan to action.   

    Jannine -

         You mention that "in America, a man can order up 6,000 rounds of ammunition as easily as a box of nails.."

        That may be true, but why would one want so few? Really Jeannine, most of us "serious" gun owners have way
    more than that. Really, that's only a few ammo cans, after all. Over 5 billion rounds of ammo are purchased a year
    by American gun owners. A very small percentage of that gets any criminal use. It's the second largest sport by
    dollar volume in the country, bigger even than golf.

        Isn't it interesting that the exact same weapons are those that can be used to stop a murderer like that, but when
    it happens, as it does quite often in America, you are silent about it?

        Why is it that the police show up with the exact same weapons, but you do not decry their ownership of them?
    Why is that? Could it be that you don't trust the vast majority of us who do not misbehave with them?

        You equate the ownership of such weapons with the ownership of the tools of mass murder, that "...the desire
    to purchase such weapons is akin to the desire to purchase your very own Auschwitz Gas Chamber...."

        As executive Director of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, I can tell you that the oposite is true.
    Had more of us been armed and used those arms in response to the Nazis, less would have died. It would have
    cost the opressors too much.

         Look at the 1943 Warsaw uprising, where only 9 men held off the SS for over 40 days with only a few small
    arms. Eventually, with that small start, the uprising grew to 750 men and women.

        No Jannine, what killed those people was one evil man. What contributed to that murder, was the disarmed
    victim zone in which they died. Had even one patron of that theater been armed and trained, the massacre could
    have been stopped.

        It is neither lawful in the US to disarm law abiding citizens, nor is it practically possible to do so. All restrictions
    on any form of ownership do, is make less likely an armed response. What a shame you don't get that.

        I have a suggestion for you. Go get some great training on how to handle the exact weapons that this killer used
    to make his mayhem. When you are proficient with them, write to me and tell me if you could have stoped him if
    you were trained and equipped to do so.

        Keep in mind that all communication with me is public, unless otherwise noted.

    Charles Heller
    Executive Director
    Jews For The reservation of Firearms Ownership
    Host, America Armed & Free
    AM 1030  KVOI Tucson


    Gun Control Fact and Fantasy

    By J. Vanne

    "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
       -    Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 4 BC ¨C 65 AD

    ¡°¡°Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms¡±
        -  James Madison, considered the father of the US Constitution

    "[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
    -Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

    ¡°During World War II, six million Swiss had guns and six million Jews did not.¡±

    ¡°¡­sort of like the people who repeat foolish slogans like "guns kill" ¨C as though guns sprout little feet when no one is looking and run around shooting people all by themselves.¡±
         -  Doug Casey, financial columnist

    ¡°The horrifying truth is this: we live now in a culture that not only does not respect life, but discards it like trash ¡ª not only at the beginning of life, but also at the end, and every place in between. What has happened to us?¡±
         -  Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra

    ¡°¡­we¡¯re also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced that¡¯s a good thing, and that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a gun, should have a gun in his house.¡±
          -   Bill Ayers, leftist activist and confidant of gun control happy Barack Obama, in A Strategy
    To Win
    , appearing in NewLeft Notes,  September 12, 1969



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The utterly horrific Colorado and Connecticut shootings are still being processed, as I write, into the collective conscience of America. First, clearly the care for the wounded and survivors must be paramount for everyone. Let us all labor with one goal to that end at present. Once this is over, however, there will be time for reflection on what has caused tragedies such as these, and others. Here are some preliminary thoughts ¨C that join my thoughts and prayers for the victims - that may be worth reflecting on in the months ahead:

    Is it guns, or people, that kill? As the old saying goes, Teddy Kennedy¡¯s cars have killed more people than all the guns of 99.999% of all gun owners in America.  And this true around the world.  My brother lived in ultra-safe Switzerland for years. Why is Switzerland so safe? Is it because guns are outlawed?


    Wikipedia notes: ¡°If you were a Swiss man, you would be a soldier as well. Every able-bodied Swiss man must go to the army in Switzerland for 90 days (Rekrutenschule-Ecole de recrue) and then every 2 years until the age of 42, he must return for practice for 19 days. This allows the government to raise an army of 400,000 men, fully armed, within 24 hours, as every soldier has an assault gun in his house, complete with ammunition.¡±¡°; moreover, ¡°Each individual is required to keep his army issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm SIG 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56/48 rounds 9mm¡­)
    http://en/¡±Switzerland which has had three times the gun ownership as, for example Germany, has also had a much lower murder rate. And statistics like this ring true throughout the world. A short 3 minute video is here, for those that wish to see a short report on the Swiss and their guns

    Thomas Sowell notes countries with stronger gun control laws than the US, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico (Mexico basically bans firearms completely, yet has a higher gun homicide rate than the US), have much higher murder rates, while there are many countries with high rates of gun ownership but low murder rates, such as Israel, New Zealand and Finland. In fact, in Mexico, the murder rate is  22.7 murders per 100,000, whereas the global average is ~7 homicides per 100,000, and the gun happy US is 4.8 murders per 100,000. is correct - the US, which has the widest gun ownership in the world, is below the worldwide average in homicides. Of course,  in the US, approximately 90 million legal owners of guns, owing 300 million firearms;murderedzero people last year. Contrast that with the approximately 170 million Prof. R.J. Rummel of Univ. of Hawaii, in his book Death by Government, says were killed in the last century, the majority of them after their governments disarmed them (St¨¦phane Courtois, author of the highly regarded Black Book of Communism estimates 94 million were murdered by Communists alone).  An hour long, very sobering summary video documenting what happens when the population has their weapons removed can be found at  Or perhaps one might wish to contrast this to the 32,000 people who lost their lives ¨C including thousands of youth ¨C in car accidents last year (see or to get the latest exact figure). And for those of you who correctly answered the  ¡°cars are necessary, but guns are not¡± objection, a gold star, for indeed you are correct ¨C an armed population, as the Founding Fathers repeatedly noted, is the sine qua non of a free country and a free population. As the saying goes, ¡°Free men have guns; slaves do not.¡±


    So, how effective is firearms control? In gun-control happy Chicago ¨C which has banned guns for all practical purposes - the city has become the leading ¡°alpha¡± city for gun murders in the world. 2012 ended with around five hundred murders in the city. sixty of which were children! In fact, ¡°gun free¡± Chicago had more murders than the entire nation of Japan in 2012. For comparison, drug war ridden Mexico City has 8.0 murders a year per 100,000 population, Moscow 9.6, Sao Paolo 15.6 and Chicago 19.4.  Similarly, Washington DC, which has banned concealed carry since 1975, has one of the highest rates of murder in the U.S. And of course, one might also have the temerity to ask why there are no theatre, mall or school shootings in Israel, where a goodly percentage of the population is armed, including fully automatic weapons.

    (Picture from )

    As a matter of fact, Dr. John Lott spoke on the Piers Morgan show shortly after the Connecticut school shooting, and noted that since 1950, in almost every public mass shooting in which three or more people died occurred, it was in a setting where guns are banned, such as schools. Of course, relative to the Sandy Hook tragedy, Connecticut already had banned "assault weapons," and the Newtown school was already a gun free zone.There also already is a total ban on guns in the possession of mentally unstable in Connecticut. A lot of good that did.  And if the shooter didn¡¯t get it from his mother in this case, do you really think he wouldn¡¯t have gone to the black market to get one, or turned to other tools, such as the bombs the leftist Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh used? On a personal level, when I was a student teacher in Illinois, a young high school student set a bomb right outside my classroom ¨C it was found before it went off, but could have killed many, many students if it hadn¡¯t been found in time. Are we next going to ban intelligence so that people can¡¯t make bombs out of various materials? As a matter of fact, perhaps we already have banned intelligence ¨C or at least wisdom ¨C from our schools. But that is a story for another day¡­. along with conducting research correlating the number of school shootings with the number of teachers having sex with their students.


    Meanwhile, hidden from public view by a leftist media, school shootings are indeed occurring in countries with strict gun control. Former psychology professor and Army Ranger Lt. Col. David Grossman noted in Dec., 2012, on his Facebook site at, that gun control poster child Germany has had two mass murders in their high schools that had body counts surpassing those at Columbine, while Dunblain, Scotland had a massacre in a kindergarten class, and just down the road from where I used to live in Alberta, Canada, the town of Taber experienced a school massacre. Of course, handguns are outlawed in Canada. Finland has had three school massacres, and of course there was the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway, which also has restrictions on gun ownership.And if it isn¡¯t guns, it¡¯s knives. Grossman notes in gunless Belgium, a sicko dressed as the Joker from Batman got into a day care centre and hacked a dozen babies in their cribs.If leftists want schools and other areas as ¡°gun free zones,¡± perhaps we should make those who created gun free zones liable for the murders that occur there? And may we ask why government buildings in Washington DC are ¡°gun free zones¡± ¨C except that the ¡°let them eat cake¡± ruling class gets armed security everywherethey go in the town (not to mention exemption from ObamaCare).

    The top ten school massacres are listed here, for your reference:, the worst being the Beslan school massacre in Russia, with 386 dead, and over 700 injured by Chechen militants. However, as I don¡¯t want to be an Islamophobe, please strike this one from the record. In the US, one of the first US school massacres occurred, as Mark Steyn notes, on July 25,1764, when ¡°¡­four Lenape Indians walked into a one-room schoolhouse in colonial Pennsylvania and killed Enoch Brown and ten of his pupils. One child survived, scalped and demented to the end of his days¡± (no assault rifles were recorded as being used in this attack); and the worst massacre in a US school occurred May 18. 1927,in Bath, Michigan, when school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe used a bomb to blow up the Bath Consolidated School, killing 44 people, including 38 children. Again, no assault weapon was used.


    Then there is the post-Sandy Hook Bill Clinton statement: ¡°Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005. Half of all of them in the history of the country.¡± Leaving aside the definition of what ¡°is¡±  is, what are the actual facts?  Unfortunately ¨C similar to the ClimateGate revelations ¨C someone actually did the research in a 2007 book entitled Mass Murder in the United States¡± A History, authored by Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Dept. of Corrections. Here¡¯s what Duwe found, as summarized from


    In the past 100 years, there have been 156 mass killings where at least four people were killed publicly with a firearm in under 24 hours, where the killings did not include robbery, drugs or gangs. As of Jan., 2013, there have been 32 mass public shootings since Clinton¡¯s assault weapons ban expired on Sept. 13, 2004, with seven in 2012.  Here is the tally by decade:

    1900s : zero
    1910s: 2
    1920s: 2
    1930s: 942
    1940s: 8
    1950s: 1
    1960s: 6
    1970s: 13
    1980s: 32
    1990s: 42
    2000s: 28
    2010s (three years): 14

    Data from, using data extracted from official police reports to the FBI,  shows mass shootings in the US over the past 30 years have not increased. (See or as below)

    Of course, the vast majority of these were not committed with semi-automatic rifles

    On the other side of the equation, in 2008, the isolated Harrold Independent School District in Texas, noting the damage done in the Columbine shootings, among others, decided the 20 minutes it could take police to arrive could lead to a horrific disaster, trained school staff were allowed to carry firearms in school.  The result? Dead students? Mayhem?  Actually¡­ nothing, except a safe school. School district superintendent David Thweatt simply stated¡°We¡¯re the first responders. We have to be. We don¡¯t have 5 minutes. We don¡¯t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell¡± if the school was attacked.

    And then there is the issue of ¡°never let a crisis go to waste¡± again, per Rahm Emmanuel. Is it really guns, or is it rather the gun grabber agenda? If the former, why no comment from the leftist media that every month after the Sandy Hook shooting, on average 40 juveniles will be murdered with something other than a rifle? Or doesn¡¯t that meet with the agenda du jour? (And I¡¯m just waiting to hear some leftist claim that rifles cause global warming!)


    Could it be, as former gun control advocate turned gun rights supporter Dr. John Lott of Univ. of Chicago maintains, in his eponymous book More Guns, Less Crime, that we are safer with more guns? The young boy who drove off two home invaders in Houston in 2012 ¨C reported at Houston¡¯s KHOU TV ¨C with his father¡¯s AR-15 ¡°evil¡± assault rifle would certainly agree And certainly, a single trained concealed carry theatre-goer in Aurora, Colorado massacre could have put an end to the rampage much earlier, with significantly less loss of life. As Exhibit A: scarcely one week before the Colorado tragedy, a similar situation had an opposite ending in Florida, where 71 year old Samuel Williams stopped an armed robbery when two masked men entered the Palms Internet Cafe around 10 p.m. Friday, July 13, 2012. Make your own conclusion from the surveillance camera, which captures it all: Exhibit B: Scarcely a month after the Colorado theatre shooting, on the opposite side of the country, an Orange County, CA. jewelry and coin dealer thwarted and armed robbery ¨C and possible employee deaths ¨C by defending herself with her pistol. Video surveillance footage at And as if this wasn¡¯t enough, the Oregon Clackamas Town Center Mall mall shooting ¨C which was overshadowed by the Connecticut school shooting a few days later ¨C was stopped by acitizen, Nick Melti,  exercising his right of concealed carry. Full details of this incident ¨C not reported by the lamestream media ¨C are at  At this of overkill (pun intended), here¡¯s another video of a 65 yr. old woman thwarting FIVE armed robbers with her pistol in her store:, it turns out that the leftist Mother Jones article claiming to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years, which concluded ¡°In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun,¡± is an outright lie in even the most recent Oregon episode. Worse, we don¡¯t know what might have happened if there had been an armed individual as some of these mass shootings, such as in the Aurora, CO. shooting. And as Ann Coulter pointed out in an article shortly after the CT shooting, found at  Mother Jones, in typical leftist fashion¡°¡­reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn¡¯t stopped.¡±  Don¡¯t try this trick in a stats 101 class, or you will be flunked. Coulter¡¯s article provides some extremely enlightening examples of mass murders stopped by an armed bystander: 

    ¨C Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, same week as the CT shooting: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. (More details on this theatre-shooting-that-wasn¡¯t because the shooter was stopped by someone with concealed carry  is at )

    ¨C Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I¡¯m excluding the shooters¡¯ deaths in these examples.)

    ¨C Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

    ¨C Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates ¡ª as well as the ¡°trained campus supervisor¡±; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

    ¨C Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman¡¯s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

    ¨C Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. (Coulter neglected to cite some other cases, such as the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., or the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO., where armed volunteers stopped the mayhem immediately.

    Not included in Coulter¡¯s article was a shooter who opened fire two weeks after the Sandy Hill massacre. Unfortunately, he did it in a place where people were armed ¨C the Gloucester Township Police HQ ¨C and, while people were wounded, no one was killed except the shooter.

    There¡¯s one more gunman incident Coulter also missed: On Aug. 29, 2010, and armed gunman, Thomas Richard Cowan,  entered Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN., and pointed his gun at the head of the school principal. This may well have ended up another Sandy Hook event ¨C except for the fact that a Sullivan County Sheriff¡¯s Deputy, Carolyn Gudger,  was stationed at the school, and confronted the gunman with her own gun. Cowan retreated from this confrontation, and was later killed when he pointed his weapon at other police who had arrived since the initial confrontation. No Sandy Hook here. That¡¯s because there was armed resistance.

    The Marc J. Victor article cited elsewhere in this paper adds several more incidences to the list above, where an armed populace prevented a Sandy Hook massacre. Victor cites  a 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, MS., stopped when the vice principal retrieved a handgun from his truck; a 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun; a 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard; a 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter; a 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened; a 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two co-workers who carried concealed handguns. What part of ¡°guns saved lives¡± don¡¯t leftists get?

    Let me answer the question above, if I may. Here¡¯s what leftists don¡¯t get ¨C and which illustrates they really don¡¯t ultimately care as much about each precious life lost at Sandy Hook as they do their precious agenda (and yes¡­ please do use your best Gollum voice from Lord of the Rings when you say the word  leftist ¡°precious agenda¡±; and no, our guns are not precious to most gun owners ¨C rather, our freedom and liberty are precious, and guns are simply a guarantor of that). One story ¨C which represents thousands of other unreported stories every year - with the headline of Woman Hiding with Kids Shoots Home Intruder Multiple Times, illustrates the point very simply: A quick pr¨¦cis of the story will suffice. ¡°A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday¡­ The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar. But the man eventually found the family. ¡°The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he¡¯s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,¡± Chapman told Channel 2¡¯s Kerry Kavanaugh. The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved¡­¡±

    Pam Loman of Shawnee, OK. went through the same experience a few weeks later, scaring off three men trying to break into her home. reports: ¡°She was cleaning her home on Friday when a man knocked on her front door, while two others stayed in the car. When she did not answer the man resorted to banging on the door. Mrs. Loman got scared and went for her gun.¡°So my instinct was to go get a gun. I don¡¯t know why, I never in my life felt like I needed to go get a gun,¡± said Mrs. Loman. She had both hands on her .32-caliber pistol when the man knocked down her door. ¡°And just all of a sudden, with one kick, he knock the door completely in. The frame came flying down. Things came flying everywhere,¡± she said. ¡°And he saw that I had the gun, and he grabbed the door handle and pulled the door shut.¡± Mrs. Loman said if he did not run away and came into the house she would have shot him.¡±

    Thankfully, something like the above would never happen to Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Shumer or any of the Hollywood glitterati, as they generally are surrounded by guards, who are often armed.In fact, Obama signed a bill Jan., 2013 that rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. The bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars will have Obama (and other presidents)  protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.  During an ABC Nightline interviewrecorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability ¡°to have men with guns around at all times,¡± in order to protect his daughters. (see ) The Sidwell Friends school attended by Obama¡¯s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all time ( ). Of course, the NRA suggestion of arming trained school staff for the poor unwashed masses has been derided by the elite.

    Below: Sidwell Friends, another gun free school ¨C NOT!

    Sen. Diane Feinstein, who wants ¡°Mr. and Mrs. America¡± to ¡°turn in¡± their guns,(see where she states this ) admitted to availing herself of concealed carry for her own protection at one point ¨C see . Of course, gun control nut NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg has armed bodyguards at all times.

    And let¡¯s not forget the ever hypocritical  gun controller Michael Moore, who also maintains armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New York¡¯s JFK airport back in 2005.,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3 . Yes, this is the selfsame Mikey Moore who owned shared of Haliburton (see Peter Schweizer¡¯s book Do As I Say, Not as I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy) and has both an extremely expensive penthouse in NY, as well as a massive, multimillion dollar mansion on Torch Lake, MI., as seen below. 

    In contrast to the heavily defended Sidwell Friends school, or the latte leftists protected by gun toting guards,  the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures ¡ª the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); the Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); a public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls). Personally, I slept through junior high arithmetic¡­ but even I can do that kind of math.

    And here¡¯s one more question: What if it is not ¡°only¡± a half dozen people killed, but rather something like the horrific Beslan School massacre in gun control-happy Russia in 2004? 334 people were slaughtered ¨C over half children ¨C by Chechnyan Islamists. Good thing everyone in the school was unarmed ¨C right?

    One might consider ¨C dare I quote him? ¨C Michael Moore, in perhaps the single lucid comment of his entire career. Regarding the Sandy Hook massacre, he wrote in the Huffington Post: ¡°The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds ¡ª i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work.¡±  Of course, Moore goes off on another deranged tangent after this, but in this case he actually got one paragraph right. And perhaps, with the direction our society is going, a properly secured firearm on school premises, wielded by fully trained school staff, may be what is needed. Why should there be a wait be for the police to arrive as more death occurs? As you may know, Mr. Moore protects himself with ¨C you guessed it ¨C armed guards.

    Dr. Lott, the former gun control advocate turned gun supporter, documents many thousands of similar situations, but here is one woman, in her own words, discussing after the fact how her gun saved her life: As a matter of fact, Gun Owners of America, at, cites statistics indicating guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense, or around 80 times a day (other statistics estimate this number could range as low as 1.5 million, but either number is a lot!). This includes 200,000 women a year using guns to defend themselves against sexual abuse. As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the police (1,527 vs. 606).Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives ( ).  And what happens when people are not able to arm themselves? Just ask the citizens of Hungerford, England, where twenty years ago Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree, killing 16 people. As no one in the town was armed, he took over eight hours before anyone with a firearm was alerted and able to stop the rampage. While Obama used children a stage props, including plaintive letters from children asking him to ban guns in his January, 2013 anti-gun smoke and mirrors anti-gun sales pitch, he forgot to discuss Kendra St. Claire, who used a gun to protect herself from a home intruder,  mother who shot an intruder to protect her two young sons, or an 18 year old widowed mother who shot two intruders to protect her baby.



    Importantly, Dr. Lott is not alone in his opinions on gun control. As David Kupelian writes at , during Jimmy Carter¡¯s leftist tenure, he also tried to push through draconian gun control laws. And what better way to do so than by funding a massive four year study at Univ. of Massachusetts, conducted by Drs. James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly, under the auspices of the National Inst. of Justice ¨C supposed to be the most comprehensive study on the subject ever done. The study came out in in 1981, in three volumes, entitled ¡°Under the Gun.¡± This work is available to the gun grabbers, but unfortunately they aren¡¯t going to read it any time soon, as the Cliff Notes version of the study is as summarized by co-author Wright, ¡°Gun control laws do no reduce crime,¡±and the authors, who started out as gun control advocates like Dr. Lott, ended up like Dr. Lott, changing their minds .(Dr. Lott himself has stated ¡°Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes things worse.¡±) A slightly longer Cliff Notes version of the study was rendered by David Kopel, co-author of the law school textbook ¡°Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.¡± Says Kopel ¡°Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America¡¯s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.¡±  Some of the findings of the study included:

    -          The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.

    -           Detroit¡¯s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.

    -          Washington, D.C.¡¯s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation¡¯s capital.

    -          Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored ¡°more gun control¡± were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.


    Would you like an eyewitness account of someone who was in a shooting, and saw her parents killed because she was restricted from carrying a gun to protect herself? Watch Dr. Susan Gratia explain her personal experience, before the U.S. Congress, of being defenseless in the face of an attacker speaking of women, why is there a war by the left on women when it comes to guns? In 2012 CBS news reported "female participation in target shooting in the U.S. has nearly doubled in the last decade, growing to nearly five million women since 2001." Only leftists treat women as stupid. . Women know what the left is doing to this country, and by extension, their safety. And women are voting with their feet ¨C by running to the nearest gun store and learning how to shoot. But gun grabbers don¡¯t seem to care one whit about the women they want to disarm. But I guess that is¡­ you know¡­. the leftists¡¯ war on women.  They talked about it a lot during the fall, 2012 campaign. Only now it appears they must have been referring to their own war against women.

    The unfortunate thing about the Colorado shooting is that, while Colorado has concealed carry laws, the theatre where the shooting occurred was a gun free zone- despite what Roger Ebert fallaciously stated in the New York Times (as a matter of fact, Warner Houston at wrote in 2009 that an Alaskan member of a gun owner¡¯s message board had wanted to enter a Cinemark theatre, but was refused entry because it was gun free zone). So, what about other locales in Colorado where concealed carry isallowed,and a shooter began a rampage?  We have exact, historical records: In Dec., 2007, five people were shot (two killed) when gunman Matthew Murray, packing a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, attacked the New Life Church in Colorado Springs (he had gone to another site previously, killing two, while wounding others). This might have been a tragedy similar in scope to the recent Batman movie shooting ¨C except that the gunman was shot by church security office Jeanne Assam with her personally owned concealed weapon. Similarly, on April 22nd ¨C scant months before this tragedy, and also in Aurora, CO. ¨C a convicted felon shot and killed the mother of the pastor, Delano Stephan of New Destiny Christian Center as the service was ending. We don¡¯t know how far this could have escalated ¨C as the shooter was shot and killed by someone with a concealed gun. (See

    Incidentally, Aurora, CO., where the tragic Holmes shooting occurred, has some of the most strict gun laws in the state, including:

    ¡¤                     ¡°Dangerous weapons¡± including firearms prohibited.

    ¡¤                     Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.

    ¡¤                     Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.

    ¡¤                     Unlawful to carry concealed ¡°dangerous weapon.¡±

    ¡¤                     Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.

    ¡¤                     Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant.

    ¡¤                     Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

    ¡¤                     Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

    Of course, all the explosives in Holmes¡¯ apartment were ¡°illegal,¡± too. And in Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza had already broken 41 laws when his shooting stopped. Apparently adding a 42nd law will make all the difference?

    Dr. John Lott also discussed the Aurora theatre killing, stating ¡°There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July. Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn¡¯t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn¡¯t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.¡± What is it about facts like this that leftists don¡¯t get?

    One state to the west, Utah, saw a similar situation where on Feb. 12, 2007, Muslim Sulejman Talovic, who told his girlfriend the day before his rampage that his martyrdom would be ¡°the happiest day of his life,¡± opened fire in the crowded Trolley Square mall, killing five. Unfortunately for Sulejman, there was was an armed bystander, off-duty Ogden policeman Ken Hammond. Officer Hammond pinned down Talovic ¨C preventing futher deaths - until a SWAT team arrived and provided the martyrdom Talovic wanted. Hammond was credited with saving ¡°countless lives¡± ¨C something, unfortunately, the gun free zone in Aurora, CO. did not experience.

    And regarding the limited bullet magazine issue, a few points need to be made. First, it is common knowledge that ¡®stopping power¡± with certain calibers is questionable. William Levinson, in Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine, in American Thinker, Jan. 3, 2013, notes this was learned by the US Army in the war in the Philippines during the early 1900s, when more than one dead US soldier was found with an empty gun by his side, a head split open by a machete, and a dead adversary not too far away who had laterbled to death. The issue caused the Army to change calibers to a .45 caliber. Of course, not everyone carries, or is able to carry or use, something so big and powerful, and what is carried may not be able to ¡°convince¡± a determined attacker who is, say, hopped up on PCP.(See for a full rendering of the drugged up attacker issue ¨C perhaps multiple attackers!)This also assumes accurate shooting ¨C something people struggle with in the best of times under perfect training conditions with a stationary target!  I personally have a neighbor, an ex-Marine and former Illinois state trooper, who related the story to me of one policeman who was shot through the heart ¨C and of course died ¨C but before dying was able to continue his return attack on the assailant and take him out. This same state trooper related to me, personally, a situation where an armed attacker was engaged in a gunfire exchange with multiple police in a Chicago area firefight, and despite being hit many times, continued to resist. He was finally jumped by the police and subdued ¨C but still lives today. This is with trained police shooters! Levinson, outlines in detail the reasons for a larger capacity magazine, including failure to stop the aggressor and multiple aggressors ¨C such as a home invasion scenario with four or five gang bangers. Then there is the suicide case cited by Col. Jeff Cooper, where ¡°the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him." Perhaps in the Hollywood movies, one shot is placed perfectly every time. But if so, perhaps we should require the Learjet leftists of Hollywood to have their armed guards have pistols with only one shot. And we should also ask why the police get to defend themselves with multiple bullet magazines, but the average citizen cannot. As William Levinson asks in, if it is true that ordinary citizens have the basic natural right to self-defense, then they ¡°have a legitimate need for the same kind of weapons that are available to police officers. If a police officer or a civilian has to use a firearm for any non-sporting reason, he or she must use it for exactly the same application: self-protection against one or more violent individuals.¡± What is so difficult to understand about this?


    Thus, it appears George Washington had it exactly right, when he said ¡°Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people¡¯s liberty teeth and keystone under independence¡­ from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable¡­ the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference ¨C they deserve a place of honour with all that¡¯s good.¡±And another extremely explicit quote from Washington about the real purpose of arms: ¡°A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.¡± James Madison felt similarly, stating in the Federalist No. 46, in 1788¡°"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."And George Mason, in a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 state "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

    Yet another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Washington and Madison, saying "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."Jefferson also noted "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ¡­ it is their right and duty to be at all times armed ¡± and ¡°The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.¡±

    Now, if you are concerned these might have been the only two founding fathers in support of the right to bear arms, I direct you to, where you will read over a dozen other quotes from founding fathers strongly encouraging the right to bear arms, including George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia¡¯s Convention to ratify the Constitution, 1788 writing¡°I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,¡± and Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788 penning ¡°To preserve liberty, it is essential that that whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.¡±  Noah Webster himself wrote in his ¡°An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, in 1787,"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."And of course Patrick Henry hit the nail on the head when he stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" And Henry may have well sounded the same rallying cry today that he did over 200 years ago, when he asked ¡°Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?¡± A very instructive 10 minute YouTube of Founding Father quotes on guns can be found at

    The Founding Fathers knew ¨C and as was expressly stated in the Constitution ¨C that our rights come from the Creator, not government. And because this is so, government cannot rescind them from the common man. That is, unless, the government is of, perhaps, the National Socialist persuasion ¨C in which case you would find laws like the Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons found at

    Even in modern times, Ronald Reagan understood the issue, stating "The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed¡±and ¡°There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government." (This is the same Reagan that reminded us that ¡°"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions" and ¡°When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. ... I do not believe that [our nation's leaders] have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us. But this does not mean that such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years, is always ripe for a 'man on a white horse.' A deterrent to that man, or to any man seeking unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless."

    But let¡¯s leave Reagan behind as another conservative leftists hate. So¡­ how about Hubert Humphrey, Democrat vice president under LBJ. Here¡¯s his thoughts on guns: "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

    In our present day, fellow conservative Allan West concurred with Reagan, noting ¡°An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.¡± Columnist Christopher Brownell summarized both West¡¯s and Reagan¡¯s sentiments by stating¡°Turning men into slaves is not love. But that is what gun control is all about: turning men into slaves. Love for mankind is not in taking care of him, but in letting him be free to take care of himself. With gun control, liberals want to take away the means for men to preserve their liberty."  But perhaps the pithiest comments came from Sen. Rand Paul, who ¨C when asked about Obama¡¯s gun control laws by CBN ¨C simply stated ¡°I¡¯m against having a king.I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that¡¯s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch¡±and Gov. Rick Perry, who said ¡°Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror. ¡°There is evil prowling in the world ¨C it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.¡±

    Now¡­ as you reflect on these quotes, call to mind quotes of gun control fanatics like Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Communist ¨C NY) who told a reporter: ¡°the state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence.¡± Of course, Nadler did not define what ¡°legitimate violence¡± is, or who gets to define it,  or in what circumstances it is defined. The truth is, as Bob Livingston states, ¡°When the state has ¡°a monopoly on legitimate violence,¡± Americans are no longer citizens; they are subjects. Americans will not become subjects.¡± It is for precisely this reason that writer Robert Anderson wrote in Gun Control and Political Correctness  ¡°Citizen gun ownership is ultimately a form of "insurance" for a future, unknowable risk. Switzerland, as well as our own country, has acknowledged and practiced this form of "insurance" for a long time. We all know gun ownership by citizens can impose heavy costs, but they are costs dwarfed by the greater horror of millions of future citizens being denied any means to defend themselves against an evil government slaughtering them with impunity.

    But¡­ just in case you are a leftist who ¡°doesn¡¯t get it,¡± let me add a few more Founding Father quotes for your reading pleasure: Richard Henry Lee wrote "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them¡±; Samuel Adams stated "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms¡±; Patrick Henry added ¡°"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" And finally, Thomas Jefferson stated, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government¡­When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    You will note that the Founding Fathers envisioned the ownership of guns not just for hunting, or self-defense, but also to protect against tyranny. British General Howe disarmed Philadelphia in 1778, and his counterpart Gen. Gage had done the same the previous year in Boston. Tench Coxe, a lesser-known Founding Father discussed this very issue in an article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1778, stating: ¡°[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.¡± Are we really that much more removed from the danger of tyranny today than back then? And if you answer in the affirmative, on what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Certainly, modern writers like Edward Abbey, who wrote ¡°An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny¡± echo exactly what Founding Fathers like George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the United States Constitutional Convention, who once made the following thought provoking statement, stated about arms allowing us to resist tyranny:  ¡°[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.¡±

    The truth is, as Tim Young states in Personal Liberty, that ¡°The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now. I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in the Civil War; we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then. But you can¡¯t closed-mindedly say that the 2nd Amendment was for limited weapons. It just wasn¡¯t. It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.¡±

    In fact, one Tienanmen Square survivor, who emigrated and moved to the US,   had virtually the exact same words to say about guns, freedom and liberty as those ¡°dead white guys,¡± the Founding Fathers. His six minute address is at at, or, to summarize his salient points:

    ¡±The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.¡±

    Chinese patriots in Tiananmen were crushed by ¡°AK-47¡äs¡± because they could ¡°not fight back¡± as they ¡°were not armed.¡±

    The argument ¡°that a man with a rifle has no standing against the military technology and machine of today¡± is ridiculous. 20,000,000 residents of Beijing would have quickly proved that wrong had they been armed in 1989.

    ¡±When a government turns criminal, when a government turns deranged, the body count will not be 5, 10, or even 20. It will be in hundreds like Tiananmen Square, it will be in the millions¡­

    ¡±When a government has a monopoly on guns, it has absolute power.¡±

    ¡±When a government has all the guns, it has all the rights.¡±

    ¡±To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.¡±

    Here is a man we must listen to, unless we want to end up like oppressive China ourselves.

    And let¡¯s examine one case where guns ensured justice that will set the leftist gun grabbers¡¯ hearts a-twitter ¨C the 1964, desegregation of the Jonesboro High School in Louisiana. Authorities resisted the desegregation, including the use of fire hoses and similar on black citizens. Things did not look positive, until four regular, everyday-type black men with shotguns showed up. No shots were fired, the mob melted away, the authorities retreated, and the kids went into the school without incident. These men called themselves the Deacons for the Defense ¨C an armed citizens¡¯ militia in the town, which also protected black citizens from the Klan, and which spread throughout the south.  Previously, the black citizens who were unarmed could not protect themselves, nor go to the voting booths without fear and engage in their Constitutional rights to vote. The right to bear arms allowed blacks to protect these rights, and even. ML King even hired the Deacons to protect marches. A short video on this topic is found at

    One final point about armed citizens. People like Piers Morgan continually make what they think is the clever point about the fact that we don¡¯t allow people to purchase tanks or 50 caliber machine guns to defend themselves from government tyranny. The answer? It is true that society has decided that people should not be able to arm themselves with an Abrams tank, or F-16. But, despite all the technological advances since the Constitution was written, society still believes the core idea of defense against potential tyranny applies. As noted by the Chinese dissident above, a mass number of armed citizens would indeed be able to turn back a modern army ¨C unless that army was prepared to level a whole city.  

    Essentially, the argument for allowing citizens AR-15s is the concept first advanced by France with its Force de Frappeor Force de dissuasion.A brief history lesson is in order regardingthis, as it is directly applicable to the question Piers Morgan just doesn¡¯t get. In sum, after Charles de Gaulle¡¯s return to power in 1958, he was concerned that the US would not protect France from a Soviet invasion ¨C by the 1960s, the US was knee deep in Vietnam, and besides, why would the US risk America for France? As Wikipedia notes ¨C and is critical to the discussion here ¨C ¡°The strategic concept behind the Force de Frappe is one of countervalue, i.e., the capability of inflicting to a more powerful enemy more damage than the complete destruction of the French population would represent. The enemy, having more to lose, would therefore refrain from proceeding any further. This principle is usually referred to in the French political debate as dissuasion du faible au fort (Weak-to-strong deterrence) and was summarized in a statement attributed to President de Gaulle himself:

    ¡°Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.¡± Similarly, General Pierre Marie Gallois said "Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities"and French Admiral de Joybert in his book La paix nucl¨¦aire (1975), simply put it this way ¡°Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and cause the devastation that you know. So, renounce your endeavour and let us stay good friends.¡±

    The above, along with the facts that the AR-15 has indeed been used multiple times for home defense (as noted in this paper), and is almost never utilized in crimes,is the answer why we should allow so called ¡°assault rifles¡± to the public.


    Of course, some readers won¡¯t like the Founding Fathers (no tolerance for ¡°dead white guys¡± that gave the world the best ¨C if not perfect ¨C example of a free country ever in the history of man) or intimating that the Obama¡¯s government isn¡¯t perfect. So I then refer you to politically correct exhibit B, from Mahatma Gandhi¡¯s, own mouth: ¡°Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.¡± Or exhibit C:  As a former policeman commented to me, ¡°Can you trust the United States government...sure, just ask an American Indian.¡± Let¡¯s not forget exhibit D, either, from the Dalai Lama in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001: ¡°If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.¡± I will intentionally omit mentioning that the Obama administration¡¯s drone attacks have most likely killed many more innocent children than the Sandy Hook shooter ¨C that will be something you, yourself, can investigate (but to help you you can start with this story ¨C which you never read about in the MSM ¨C that killed children, just like Sandy Hook: ¡°The villagers who rushed to the road, cutting through rocky fields in central Yemen, found the dead strewn around a burning sport utility vehicle. The bodies were dusted with white powder ¡ª flour and sugar, the witnesses said ¡ª that the victims were bringing home from market when the aircraft attacked. A torched woman clutched her daughter in a lifeless embrace. Four severed heads littered the pavement.

    ¡°The bodies were charred like coal. I could not recognize the faces,¡± said Ahmed al-Sabooli, 22, a farmer whose parents and 10-year-old sister were among the dead. ¡°Then I recognized my mother because she was still holding my sister in her lap. That is when I cried¡±- full story at Apparently certain ¡°collateral¡± damage is OK?) By one account, as of Jan. 2013, in Pakistan alone, nearly 900 civilians have been reported killed, , including 176 children reported killed.

    And then there is the petition from women in India, per the Times of India, where females in this country are demanding  gun licenses from the licensing department of the Delhi Police, particularly  after on brutal gang rape occurred in Dec., 2012. See, ¡°Delhi Women gun for Licenses; Rape Triggers Big rush to Acquire Arms,¡± at So much for the ¡°dead white guys¡± canard.

    And I ask you this: What sorrow has anyone in the Obama administration offered for the hundreds of Mexicans who were killed by the Fast & Furious scandal ¨C for which Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent facts from coming out? Any comment on the young Mexican beauty queen, Maria Susana Flores Gomes, pictured here, who was killed by the Obama administration¡¯s Fast and Furious guns?

     Any word from the gun grabbers on this story below, which came out  right after Sandy Hook on 10 January, 2013: with nary a peep from the left:

    The ¡°Obama administration defended agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency¡¯s use of force against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters of Thomas and Rosalie Avina. The ¡°excessive¡± force included putting a gun to the youngest girl¡¯s head. Attorney¡¯s for the Obama administration defended the actions of the agents arguing that ¡°the DEA agents¡¯ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances.¡±  The sound from the left on this one? Crickets.

    On the other hand, multiple genocidal dictators have stated their love for gun control. Here¡¯s a few: From Joseph Stalin, who established gun control in 1929: ¡°If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.¡± The USSR murdered around 61 million; Mao stated ¡°War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.¡± Mao may have murdered around 20 -30 million ¨C and, like all other tyrants,  he never did put down the gun. Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said: ¡°The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let¡¯s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.¡± Idi Amin, who established gun control in 1971, killed a ¡°mere¡± 300,000 (remember, to leftists, Stalin¡¯s dictum is sacrosanct: ¡°The death of a single person is a tragedy; the death of million is a mere statistic¡±).  And then there is the ¡°Hero of Waco,¡± Janet Reno, who betrayed the real goal behind the incrementalists, by stating ¡°Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Prohibition of firearms is the goal.¡±

    Heck, even the hacker group Anonymous has come out against Obama¡¯s gun control by stating: ¡°Throughout history, authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take people¡¯s firearms and control their population. This is exactly what Adolf Hitler did to disarm the German people and look at the atrocities his administration did. Obama has been working hard to try and ban all semi-automatic weapons and shot guns while at the same time increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have.¡±


    And exactly how is the Obama administration going to enforce their gun laws? Hire Janet Reno to come back and conduct a thousand Wacos around the country? And what will they do with states, such as Wyoming with its Firearms Protection Acts, which is a law being introduced that would arrest any federal agents who try to enforce Obama¡¯s gun laws? (see ). In any event, as Awr Hawkings notes, in Nancy Pelosi¡¯s rush to jam Obamacare down America¡¯s throat, she, along with Obama,  apparently forgotSenate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c ¨C slipped into the bill to the bill to buy off the NRA during that fight. Specifically, this section states that the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition." So one more avenue is closed.

    But to return from this issue to the present - what about concealed carry? Statistics from the recent past show states that passed concealed carry reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5% and robbery by 3%. Florida, which passed concealed carry in 1987, saw its higher than average homicide rate drop 52% during the following 15 years after passage, to below the national average. You are correct that correlation is not causation, but concealed carrydidnot result in chaos, as the left stated would surely happen. In fact, the average Floridian is more likely to be attacked by an alligator than by a concealed carry holder. After the law was passed, per David Kupelian, ¡°eight of Florida¡¯s 10 largest cities experienced drastic decreases in homicide rates from 1987 through 1995: Jacksonville, down 46 percent; Miami, down 13 percent; Tampa Bay, down 24 percent; Orlando, down 41 percent; Fort Lauderdale, down 53 percent; Hollywood, down 30 percent; Clearwater, down 21 percent; and Miami Beach down an incredible 93 percent.¡± As of mid-2011, there are 2,031,106 concealed carry permits issued in Florida and the last time I checked, there were zero shootouts at the OK Corral over the past two and half decades in Florida, other than ones conducted by gangs using illegal weapons. Indeed, as US Senator Orrin Hatch stated, ¡°The effect of that legislation on state crime rates has been astonishing. The predictions of the gun-control advocates were wrong, flat wrong.¡±

    And coming from a totally unexpected quarter, the Sacramento Bee ¨C out of socialist California ¨C noted in a Dec. 30, 2012 article that even as gun dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year ¨C as opposed to 350,000 in 2002 ¨C ¡°gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California¡­ During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health. Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.¡± Here are the graphs from the Bee:

    As a matter of fact, the US. Dept. of Justice, in its (admittedly dated) publication, ¡°The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, Research Report July, 1985,¡± stated that 60% of felons they surveyed agreed that ¡°a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun¡±; 74% agreed with the statement ¡°one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime¡±;  and finally, 57% of felons agreed that ¡°criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into police.¡± A more recent survey found that of male felons in 11 state prisons across the USA, 34% had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their crime; 40% of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential victim had a gun; 69%of felons knew other fellow criminals who had been scared off or captured by an armed victim, and 57% of felons polled agreed that ¡°criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.¡± Interestingly, another study about guns and felons, cited at, found that, from the result of interviewing more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide, almost 80 % of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases."

    And as long as we are talking stats, presumably 100% of the felons surveyed didn¡¯t like the grub where they were incarcerated.

    Statistical comparisons with other countries also show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms.

    Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime and violence 989,883 times annually ¨C generally against criminals who have no problem acquiring guns illegally. A recent nationwide survey of almost 5,000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5 percent of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually. During the Clinton era, the Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves.  Newer studies all point towards a figure of 2.5 million ¡ª that¡¯s the new number for how many times Americans defend themselves from violent criminals each year.  And when it comes to women, the old Jimmy Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually successful. Today¡¯s statistics show each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselvesfrom a sexual crime or abuse.

    Meanwhile as gun sales climb to record highs - 47% of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, and given that many gun owners have multiple guns, there may be more guns now than Americans -  2010 FBI data shows violent crime continuing to fall ( ) in the United States, with homicides dropping out of the top 15 causes of death in the country. These statistics undermine a favorite argument of anti-gun groups that ¡°more guns equal more crime.¡±Rather, the reverse is true. As Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel noted, ¡°These statistics vividly demonstrate that the lawful possession and use of firearms by law-abiding Americans does not cause crime¡­There have never been more firearms in civilian possession in the history of the United States, and crime, including homicide, continues to decline throughout the country.¡±


    The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, per with 5% of the world¡¯s population owning 35¨C50% of the world¡¯s civilian-owned guns, so it must have the highest death by firearm rate, right? As a matter of fact, if one looks at all 178 countries in the world at the Small Arms Survey website, the US is #28. Not in the top ten, not the top dozen, not the top twenty or even twenty five. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime can also be examined to verify this data, at, with a shorter summary of this data found at the UK Guardian¡¯s website at . As Yogi Berra might have said, ¡°Who¡¯d a thunk the UN would ever support gun ownership!


    But if you need the gun ownership vs. violent crime  condensed into a simple graph, here it is, courtesy of :


    The truth is, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The truth is, that the Colorado shooter would still have found ways to get, or make weapons, even if they had been made illegal (certainly, Timothy McVeigh and the leftist Unibomber found a way!). The truth is if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat. The truth is that one never sees gun murders at gun shows, where guns are seemingly every two steps one takes. And finally, the truth is that, as Stephen Dubner wrote, ¡°far more children die each year in swimming pool accidents than in gun incidents.¡± Truly, if America bans¡¯ guns, then the criminals would buy guns just as easily as they now buy illegal drugs or fake IDs. And of course, simple historical lessons like the prohibition era are totally lost of the gun grabbers. While background checks are presented as a cure all by Obama, the truth is that his executive orders will not ¡°keep guns out of the hands of criminals by strengthening the background-check system.¡± Rather, people with ill intent won¡¯t be walking into a gun shop anytime soon and submit to background checks ¨C they will just go to the black market. Background checks are fine insofar as that goes, but to present them as a cure-all is a fraud.  Besides, as a video from Defense Distributed recently showed the world, it won¡¯t be long at all before people can simply print their own 30 round magazines in their local 3-D printing (see for more information.)


    As a matter of fact, as Thomas Sowell points out in his article Invincible Ignorance, gun control apologists are easily disproven by a number of easily verifiable facts: Gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban, but urban areas have a higher murder rate; legal gun ownership is higher among whites than blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks; and most tellingly, gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, but the murder rate went down. And while liberals crow that England has stronger gun control laws than the US, with a lower murder rate, a mere scratch beneath the surface exposes serious flaws in the gun grabber argument. Long story short, England has had a lower murder rate than the US for two centuries, and for the bulk of that time, the laws did not differ. In fact, Sowell notes in the mid 1900s, one could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked, while New York, which had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, had several times the murder rate of London. In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London, but by 2000¨C after stringent gun control laws were put in place ¨C there were over one hundred times as many armed robberies. Sowell concludes by noting ¡°Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.¡±The short Sowell article can be found at And one point Sowell left out: if it is true that ¨C as the left posits repeatedly ¨C drug control doesn¡¯t work, why would gun control be any different?  With the 300 million guns in the US, how effective would confiscation be? The reality is that there will be plenty of guns left ¨C but only in the hands of criminals.  But of course, gun confiscation will not work -  even law abiding citizens indicated in a poll that 2/3rdds of them would not comply with an order to turn in their guns. In a Fox poll of  of U.S. voters, question 46 in the survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there was a gun in the household.  Of the 52 %  said yes, someone in their home owned a gun . But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: ¡°If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?¡± The response: 65 percent reported they would ¡°defy the law.¡±

    And gun control happy England had also best not call the kettle black. While the numbers are probably massaged lower than they really are to make things look better, the UK has had a very troubling 77% increase in violent crime recently, with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents ¨C while what we consider crime ridden South Africa has ¡°only¡± 1,677. Is CNN¡¯s Piers Morgan listening? And if so, is he intellectually honest enough to address these facts?

    If not, the UK¡¯s Telegraph let all the cats out of the bag in a July, 2009 article, entitled UK is violent crime capital of Europe, found at . A few salient facts from this article by Richard Edwards, the crime correspondent for the paper: since around the time of England¡¯s gun ban, there has been a 77% increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses. In 2007, there were 927 murders (apparently, it¡¯s ¡°gun murders bad, all other murders good¡± to the left), and 5.4 million crimes in total. In 2007. The Telegraph reported ¨C from figures cited from Eurostat, the EU¡¯s database of statistics ¨C that from 1998 to 2007, ¡°crime in the UK had increased from 652,957 offenses in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007. In other words, with over 2,000 crimes per 100,000 population, the UK ¨C per the Telegraph ¨C is the most violent place in Europe. Interestingly, Japan ¨C which is also disarmed ¨C has a massively lower homicide rate, according to the UN statistics cited at In fact, for Japan, with a population of around 130 million,total homicides were 506, while the UK, with 53 million people ¨C less than half that of Japan - had 722 homiicides, per the most recent data. I.e., England has about three times the murder rate of Japan. Clearly, there are other factors at work.

    And one more truth for your consideration. Less than 48 hours after the Colorado theatre shooting, Mexican ¡°coyote¡± (illegal alien smuggler) Ricardo Mendoza-Pineda lost control of his Ford F250 pickup on Hwy 59, just outside the town of Golidad, TX., and struck two trees, killing 15, and injuring eight. One of the dead was an eight year old girl. ; this tragedy killed more human beings than the Colorado theatre shooting, but was buried in the back pages, and I am sure you never heard of this incident. As asked: ¡°Does a mass killing have to be in a hail of bullets nowadays to make the news. And illegal is illegal¡­ and this happened during the commission of a crime, just like Colorado. Die by the gun, or die by the wheel, you¡¯re still dead, and dead because of crime.¡±   The reality is that gun control is on an agenda by the political left, which is why you never heard about this mass death.


    The truth about gun ownership creating more safety is practically illustrated in Kennesaw, GA ¨C where gun ownership is mandatory for every head of household, per ordinance [Sec 34-21], which states: (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.¡±

    Kennesaw ¨C contrary to what the gun grabbers would have you believe - is not the Wild West, but rather was voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation¡¯s ¡°10 best towns for families.¡± ( The city website also claims Kennesaw ¡°¡°has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County¡± ¨C this in one of the most populated counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesawhad only one murder, in 2007. In contrast, gun-free New York Cityin a recent 25-year period had more than 15,000 murders ¨C 2, 245 in 1990 alone (see ¨C in contrast to Kennesaw, Georgia¡¯s one. Yes, these are different cities and not the exact same timeframes ¨C but fifteen thousand to one?? I, for one, am not going to even bother with doing the math for this. In 2012, Georgia had a crime rate of 4,043.8 per 100,000 population, while Kennesaw had a crime rate only 61% of that ¨C and the violent crime rate was even less. Per here is what comparative violent crime rate is for Kennesaw:

    The real truth is that it is the inter-generational socio-pathology that the left has created that has created this society of killers and psychopaths as PatriotPost has illustrated at Across the western nations, stories such as the following in the Five Minute Forecast abound (this story is set in France, but it could be anywhere from Fort Worth to Philadelphia): A ¡°client was recently telling me about her niece, who has had three children, each from different fathers. She now has a new benefit-scrounging live-in lover. In addition to his own benefits, she provides him with free housing (which he won't get independently) and pays him 500 Euros a month of her 1500 Euro state handout, to try, out of pathetic desperation, to persuade him to stick around. They plan a fourth child, quite openly for additional revenue generation purposes. Meanwhile the first three play truant and run free, mostly to avoid being hit by this 'stepfather'. They are feral¡±(emphasis mine).

    And it¡¯s not just France. Moving across a continent, an ocean, and a culture, James Cook of Investment Rarities discusses how the nanny state is destroying a complete value system ¨C resulting in extreme violence. Cook states:

    ¡°At one Minnesota reservation mothers tell their daughters to expect to be raped and to keep quiet about it. At South Dakota¡¯s Pine Ridge reservation, population 40,000, there are 3,000 child abuse cases each year. In addition there are 20,000 arrests each year, one for every other person. A tribal officer reports, ¡°We pick up a guy for some alcohol-related offense and are out of town for an hour taking them to jail, and in the meantime people are here clubbing and stabbing each other. Indians were once the most self-sufficient people on earth. For thousands of years they experienced none of the behavioral pathologies present on today¡¯s reservations. What changed them? The government began to support them. They no longer had to make their own way. Idleness and boredom were powerful incentives to mischief. If our government had never given them a penny they would have left the reservations behind and been fully integrated in our society often reaching the upper levels of achievement¡­¡±

    As the family recedes (or is shoved by politics)  into the background and the nanny state takes over, personal responsibility is destroyed, consciences are seared, and ¨C as shown above ¨C violence increases. As Cook summarizes the issue by stating ¡°Sometimes it seems easier for a Muslim terrorist to leave his religion than a liberal to see the obvious mess they are making of our country¡­If you care about people don¡¯t give them money they didn¡¯t earn. It does not rescue them from poverty, it enhances dependence and encourages dysfunction. It is the most destructive social force on earth.¡±Evidence of cultural degradation?  Here¡¯s a few headlines from the post-Thanksgiving ¡°Black Friday¡± sales: ¡°Gang fight at Black Friday sale¡±; ¡°Shots fired outside Walmart¡±; ¡°Customers run over in parking lot¡±; ¡°Men steal boy¡¯s shopping bag¡±; and ¡°Shopper robbed at gunpoint outside Best Buy.¡¯

    As a matter of fact, a very convincing case can be made that much of the cause of ¡°gun problems¡± is really caused by the dissolution of the family, as written about in Ruth Dafoe Whitehead¡¯s seminal work on this issue, Dan Quayle Was Right ( This, mes amis, is what really lies beneath the issue of violence, similar to the unseen part of an iceberg. To wit: As Off the Grid News points out in 2012, ¡°Since the year 2000, there have been twenty-six cases of mass murder (four or more victims) in the United States, as opposed to twenty combined during the 1980s and 1990s. And before the 1980s, mass killing sprees were actually quite rare in this country, usually averaging no more than one or two per decade.¡± (see Time Magazine lists the top mass shootings of the past 50 years at You will notice the gradual increase over the years in frequency of these atrocities.In fact of the top twelve incidents, seven have occurred since 2007. And the top five prior to 2012? Except for Columbine in 1999, the top five were April 16, 2007, Feb. 14, 2008, April 3, 2009, and Nov. 5, 2009 (see ).

    Indeed, African-American Walter Williams writes  in Are Guns the Problem, ¡°When I attended primary and secondary school ¨C during the 1940s and '50s ¨C one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.¡±  What has changed since William¡¯s early days? He cites statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, where ¨C in 2010 ¨C there were 828,000 non-fatal criminal incidents in our schools, including almost a half million thefts, 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. As well, 145,100 public school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 threatened. In a similar article, Williams also writes: "Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. ... For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives ... have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus. ... Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. ... The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society."   The war by the leftists¡¯ on moral values and absolutes is captured precisely by Williams in the above. .

    And besides, if ban on alcohol didn¡¯t work, the ban on marijuana never worked, the ban on illegal immigrants didn¡¯t work, why would banning guns be followed ¨C and by criminals to boot?

    Dr. Pat Fagan diagnoses the problem exactly ad Williams does, writing at"The real work of reducing violent crime is the work of rebuilding the family. Institutions in the community, such as the church and the school, have demonstrated their importance in helping to restore stability. Government agencies, on the other hand, are powerless to increase marital and parental love; they are powerless to increase or guarantee care and attention in a family; they are powerless to increase the ability of adults to make and keep commitments and agreements. Instead, thanks to policies that do little to preserve the traditional family and much to undermine it, government continues to misdiagnose the root cause of social collapse as an absence of goods and services. This misdiagnosis is government's own contribution to the growth of crime. Having misdiagnosed, it misleads.

    The cause of violent crime isn't gun policy--it's family policy. And until Americans step back and examine the real problem, the President will continue exploiting these tragedies to accomplish his ultimate goal: expanding government at the expense of personal freedom.¡± Fagan also notes:

    • Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
    • High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
    • State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
    • The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
    • The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
    • The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

    African-American columnist Larry Elder, in his Gun Culture' -- What About the 'Fatherless Culture? goes even further, discussing race and the absence of fathers in the black family (the problem which is also increasing in other races ¨C and in fact, many don¡¯t even see  this as a problem!).Elder says the face of gun violence is not Sandy Hook, but Chicago. Half of the gun murders each year involve both black killers and black victims, mostly in the city and ¨C tellingly ¨C gang related. It has been a half century since Daniel Patrick Moynihan The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. When he wrote this, 25% of blacks were born out of wedlock, and it was a national scandal.. Today? That number is 72%,of blacks,  36% of white children and 53% of Hispanic children born outside of marriage. Elder quotes Rutgers University sociology professor David Popenoe, who wrote "Life Without Father" in 1996,¡±where he describes the ¡®massive erosion¡¯ of fathers in America. Popenoe concluded that boys raised without fathers were more likely to have problems with drugs, alcohol, behavior and social interactions. Several studies during the '90s found that disruption in family structures was a predictor of children's gang involvement¡±. How many of these mass murder types came from broken homes? Elder concludes with the story of Tupac Shakur, who stated before his death, "I know for a fact that had I had a father, I'd have some discipline. I'd have more confidence."  He stated he hung out with gangs because he wanted to belong to a family structure, and it offered structure, support and protection -- the kind of thing we once expected home and from a father. In the old days, we had both fathers and lax gun laws in the culture, with almost non-existent mass shootings. Today we have no fathers and much stronger gun laws that back then. You do the math.

    The above notwithstanding, who is committing the mass of gun murders, statistically speaking? Another interesting question, which again should be laid at the feet of the left, who have caused this situation, too. The fact of the matter is that, as WND reports at, according to the FBI, it is criminal street gangs ¨C usually made up of illegal aliens ¨C that are acquiring the high powered, military-style weapons to take on both the public and the police.  WND reports¡°Criminal street gangs are responsible for the majority of violent crimes within the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs, according to a 2009 report by the Justice Department¡¯s National Drug Intelligence Center , or NDIC.¡±  Judicial Watch at to the exact same conclusion. And if you are thinking Mexican drug cartel involvement, you are exactly correct. Unfortunately, the NDIC  was one government programme (perhaps the only one!) Obama didn¡¯t like, and the NDIC was shut down June, 2011, with their reports completely scrubbed from the Justice Department¡¯s website. (So much for that ¡°transparent government¡± promise, yet again!) The FBI reported in 2011 there were 33,000 gangs, with 1.4 million members in street, prison, motorcycle and other types of gangs. One study in Virginia found that 90% of perhaps the most violent gangs, the MS-13, are illegal immigrants, while USA today ¨C quoting 1 million gang members in 2009 ¨C revealed at that up to 80% of crime is committed by gangs. The Dept. of Justice website at is a good place to start your own research.

    A few random examples are instructive:  In San Francisco an MS-13 gang member murdered a father and son with an assault weapon because their car blocked his from making a turn. In Los Angeles an MS-13 member just released from prison murdered a high school football star as he walked home from the mall. In Maryland a 14-year-old honors high school student was shot to death on a crowded public bus by an MS-13 illegal  Salvadoran alien. And I am positive you have never read of a single one of these incidents, unless it happened locally.  Where is the outcry to ¡°save our children.¡± Oh¡­ wait. Illegal aliens are simply ¡°undocumented,¡± and part of the privileged group, so issues like this are not reported.

     But illegal alien or not, fatherlessness draws boys to gangs.  Does Tupac Shapur¡¯s quote above, about an absent father, start to ring any bells?

    Off the Grid News attributes mass murders  to psychiatric drugs, as do people like Dr. Ignatius Piazza, founder and director of Front Sight, but ultimately, this may boil down to the same issue, as the destruction of the family leads to psycho-social pathologies, which are often, in turn, treated by drugs. As if on cue, Dr. Joel Rosenburg notes in his Flashtraffic email that violent crime in the United States has surged by more than 460 percent since 1960 ¨C you know¡­ since the sexual revolution, no fault divorce, swinging/wife swapping and a decade later abortion - began in earnest.Yet, violent crime in general is down the more recent decades(the early 1990s)¨C perhaps attributable to the aging population ¨C but this is at the same time gun ownership is skyrocketing, as noted above. This may well prove the point: gun ownership isn¡¯t the central issue in these mass murders ¨C rather, psycho-social maladjustment is. The problem is not guns; rather it is the absence of moral conscience ¨Caided and abetted by a corrupt, leftist Hollywood, and the lack of intact, nuclear families. As the UK¡¯s Guardian reported Dec., 2012, at , a dad is the tenth most popular Christmas wish for children in the UK, while in the US, one in three children live without their father, as the number of two-parent households have fallen by 1.2 million over the past 10 years. An interactive map of the US, showing where fathers are most absent, can be found at If one can read, one should be able to understand what the above means, and how it impacts everything ¨C including the increase in mass murders.

    As CS Lewis warned us decades ago in The Abolition of Man, "We make men (and now boys) without chests (hearts, morals) and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate, then bid the geldings be fruitful." Maybe we shouldn¡¯t be so surprised at the mass killings and violence our young men are perpetrating. One random headline illustrates the issue - the day I edited this paper, several news outlets reported this story: Woman set on fire in L.A. as she sleeps on bench (

    Don¡¯t believe that the dissolution of the family is an issue? In Society Muck Up: Why 6-Year-Old Girls Want to Be Sexy, Regis Giles cites studies indicating ¡°Most girls as young as 6 are already beginning to think of themselves as sex objects, according to a new study of elementary school-age kids in the Midwest.¡± Story at ( 6 year old sexual objects? Really? If you think this is ¡°normal¡± or ¡®OK,¡± or think this will lead to well-adjusted young women (in this case) Isuspect there is a ¡°Yes we can¡± chant in you need to be at.

    Meanwhile, the organization Childhelp, which assists children affected by violence released a report stating that 3.3 million reports of violence, affecting over about 6 million children are received annually. Every day in the country more than five children die for reasons related to violence.  14% of men in U.S. prisons have experienced childhood abuse, as well as 36% of female prisoners.

    In 2011, BBC conducted an investigation and discovered over the last 10 years, over 20,000 children have died in the U.S. in their own homes at the hands of family members. Perhaps outrage over Sandy Hook ought to be replaced by outrage over what the left has done to our families.

    Still not convinced? Still blaming guns? Try this on for size: There is a video game, Kindergarten Killer,that you, dear reader, can play. Here is the description of the game:

    ¡°As a hitman for hire, you were recently given orders to take out the headmaster of a kindergarten school. Your job is to not ask questions, so you carry on with the job and head to the school. One thing leads to the next and you accidentally kill a teacher. The kids saw it and they get riled up. The children rise up in arms and open fire at you at every chance they get. But despite everything that happened, your target still roams alive so you head back to the office and kill your target before heading back to the office. Enjoy a crazy shootout in Kindergarten Killer.¡±There are hundreds of other, similar games out there. Did the Connecticut shooter play them? Had he watched ¨C and been desensitized ¨C by the garbage Hollywood puts out? It has been said a child growing up in the US today will see 16,000 murders and 20,000 acts of violence before he reaches age 18. Why has no one in the media been asking questions on this issue nature, rather than just focus on guns themselves?

    Ben Stein summarizes the issue of the Sandy Hook mass shooting at, stating ¡°I read that the killer was socially awkward (putting it mildly) and ¡°reserved.¡± I know what that often means. He spent much of his miserable life playing shoot ¡¯em up video games on line or on machines. I see a troubled young man doing that often. Up close and personal. In these games, the ¡°player¡± just spends his whole day attempting to exercise and exorcize his loneliness and low self-esteem by shooting imaginary creatures and creating damage all day long. At a certain point, just ¡°killing¡± on the console blurs into doing it in real life. ¡°Killing¡± is just what the kid does all his life. How much of a stretch is it for him to shoot into a movie theater or a political gathering or a kindergarten in ¡°real life¡±if his life is so pitiful that he does not know what¡¯s real and what is not? If you are looking for a villain, try shoot ¡¯em up games.¡±

    Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Grossman, the famed author of the highly acclaimed ¡°On Killing,¡± a heavily referenced, Marine Corps commandant required reading, historical study on training U.S. soldiers to learn to kill has some observations about our video violence saturated society. In a Human Events article at, Grossman notes that we can understand mass murders the same way we learned to increase the firing rate for US infantrymen from 15-20% in World War II to 90% or better in Vietnam, by using one simple explanation: Skinnerian, operant conditioning ¨C or put more baldly, simply desensitizing soldiers to taking a human life. Examples of this would be shooting life-like figures, or using rhythmic shooting exercises, etc. Grossman¡¯s thesis is that today we are doing the same to our young with our video games, as well as (leftist!) Hollywood movies and TV. The Human Events article noted in 2000, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry made this joint statement for a Congressional health summit.

    ¡°At this time, well over 1,000 studies, including reports from the Surgeon General¡¯s office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations¡ªour own members¡ªpoint overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,¡± they wrote. ¡°The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.¡±

    Grossman has a more recent book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, that explores this issue more fully. Says Grossman ¡°The killers, they all had one thing in common: they dropped out of life, and they immersed themselves in the culture of violence.¡± Ring a bell for anyone?  And regarding the video angle, he adds ¡°No one should be talking book banning. The research doesn¡¯t support that. What the research tells us is we¡¯ve got to stop violent visual imagery inflicted upon children and we¡¯ve got to treat it like automobiles, or firearms, or sex.¡± Grossman adds that we also restrict things such as tobacco, pornography, and alcohol by age, as  children are not yet physically or mentally mature enough to deal with these things safely. If we don¡¯t, Grossman warns : ¡°This generation is going to give us evil like nothing we¡¯ve seen before, Grossman said. ¡°Sandy Hook is just the beginning.¡±

    To which I add: Just don¡¯t tell Learjet leftists of  Hollywood any of the above ¨C they are too busy making good money off all of this, while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over massacres while going everywhere with armed bodyguards and full time security around their mansions.


    As the Illinois State Rifle Asociation notes, the Sandy Hook CT. shooter, Adam Lanza, not only came from a divorced family, but was ¡°apparently a mentally ill young person whose wealthy family insulated him from reality until he decided to create his own reality ¨C at the expense of more than two dozen innocent people. Laurie Higgins in the Illinois Family Association concurred with this report, noting that Lanza¡¯s father (as well as an older brother) left when Adam was 16, and remarried a few years later. Reportedly, Adam Lanza had no contact with his father or brother since 2010. How did this affect Adam, and why is this not part of the ¡°national debate¡± on violence?  Even more importantly, a few days after the shooting, it was reported that Adam Lanza was on a violence-linked anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt, as reported at or The Fanapt story was later retracted, but family friend of the Lanzas, Louise Tambascio, stated during an interview with 60 Minutes that ¡°I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn¡¯t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.¡±  Tambascio also told ABC News, ¡°I knew he was on medication, but that¡¯s all I know.¡± Lanza¡¯s old babysitter, Ryan Kraft, also went on record as stating Lanza was taking medications of this sort early as age 10. Maybe it¡¯s time Obama had a national discussion about his cronies and lobbyists in Big Pharma, who seem to push kids into the latest drug du jour at the drop of a hat? Or doesn¡¯t that fit his political agenda and his ¡°never let a crisis go to waste¡± attitude?It is already on the labels themselves that drugs, like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin are causing people to commit violent acts. Read the documentation in the drug packages, or online, yourself ¨C it¡¯s right there in black and white. The top ten psychiatric prescription drugs linked to violence ¨C as listed by Time Magazine - in a Jan. 7th, 2011 article at  - are the antidepressant/anti-anxiety drugs desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), venlafaxine (Effexor), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), sleep aid Halcion, ADHD drug Strattera, several brands of amphetamines used to treat ADHD, the anti-malarial Lariam, and the anti-smoking medication Chantix. See also Of course James Holmes in the Colorado massacre was also on psychotropic drugs. Yet a further analysis of the association of prescription drugs with violence and shootings, from Brandon Turbeville, is at, while internationally known psychiatrist Dr. David Healy agrees with the summary that these drugs cause violence ¨C a  Cliff Notes version of Healy¡¯s sentiments is simply this: Psychotropic drugs ¡°prescribed for school children cause violent behavior,¡±  while a non-Cliff Notes, detailed version of his rationale behind this may be found at

    If anyone is wondering why the US leads in school gun murders, perhaps you might want to explore the relationship between drugging our kids and violence. Note that not only are school gun murders up, but youth suicides are up dramatically was well. This shouldn¡¯t be surprising, of course, as both are cut from the same cloth ¨C disinhibition, messing with brain function, disturbing the level of self-control, and more. Granting that correlation is not causation, Dr. Bertram Karon from Michigan State Univ. notes the US has six times as many children on Ritalin, around four million, as any other country, and all of France only has 8,000 kids, in total, on Ritalin, while his home city of Lansing Michigan, alone, has around that many. In fact, the US accounts for around 90% of Ritalin prescriptions in the world.

    We must fully consider the question of Todd Walker in his article, found at ¡°Can prescription drugs cause you to kill someone?¡±  And the answer is ¡°Absolutely¡±, per Dr. David Healy, author of Phamageddon.and quoted in the paragraph above. ¡°Violence and other potentially criminal behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicine¡¯s best kept secret¡­Want to find out if the drugs you or a loved one are taking might cause violent behavior? Enter the name of the drug over at the Violence Zone. Even if it¡¯s ¡®just a pill¡¯ to help you quit smoking, side effects can be deadly. Don¡¯t expect to hear about this on major media outlets. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping journalists inline.¡±

    David Kupelian at WND also documents a horrifying number of shootings associated with psychotropic drugs at, including not only Columbine killer Eric Harris, who was on Luvox, but also: Patrick Purdy, who killed five children and wounded 30 in 1989, who was on amitriptyline and Thorazine, Kip Kinkle, who killed his parents, several classmates, and 22 other fellow students, who was on Prozac and Ritalin; the 1988 Winnetka, IL. shooting by Laurie Dann, who killed one and wounded six while taking Anafranil and lithium; the 1997 Paducah KY school shooting by Michael Carneal, who shot and killed three while on Ritalin; the 2005 Jeff Wiese shooting, which killed nine and wounded 5 on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, which occurred while Wiese was on Prozac; the 1989 shooting of 20 co-workers, killing nine, by Joseph Wesbecker in Louisville, KY, while he was on Prozac ¨C and which Eli Lilly settled a  lawsuit by survivors; a 1996 shooting of his father by Kurt Danysh while on Prozac; or the horrible case of a mother one town over from where I currently live, Naperville, IL., who killed all five of her children while on antidepressant Effexor. The case of the Virginia Tech murder of 32 people by Cho Seung-Hui may also have been prescription drug related, too, as Kupelian discusses in this article. As if further evidence were needed, the Luvox label itself state that 4% of children in one study went manic ¨C out of control behavior.

    To what degree is the ¡°prozac-ing¡± and ¡°ritalin-ing¡± of our young contributing to these shootings?As noted above, these prescriptions state on their warning labels that violent behavior is one possible outcome of taking their drugs. Yet, there is nary a peep from the media. Why? Jason Charles the Truth Alliance notes ¡°At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. There have been 109 wounded and 58 killed. Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (five of them) or psychologist (two of them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published." Details of this issue are at CCHR, )

    Not to push the issue, but, as Obama has said, we must ensure a school shooting like Sandy Hook never happens again, so let¡¯s examine some other gun and non-gun related violence related to psychotropic prescription drugs like Zoloft, Prozac, and the like. The list is not pretty:

    Per, ¡°There have been 31 school shootings since Columbine, in which Eric Harris, age 17 and Dylan Klebold, age 18, killed 12 students and one teacher, and wounded 23 others. An assault weapon ban (1994-2004) was in effect at the time. Harris was known to be taking Zoloft, then Luvox. Klebold¡¯s medical records have never been made available to the public.

    A website called SSRI Stories( )has compiled a sortable database that lists over 4800 incidents of suicide, violent crimes and other incidents between 1988 and 2011, including school shootings that involve people that were prescribed SSRI medications. Here is a short list of a few more school shootings(see for more details) that involved SSRIs:

    ¡¤                     Steve Kazmierczak, age 27, inexplicably went on a shooting rampage on Feb. 15, 2008 in a Northern Illinois University Lecture Hall before taking his own life. He had been on Prozac, Xanax and Ambien, but had stopped taking Prozac a few weeks before the shootings. Toxicology reports showed traces of Xanax in his system. Five dead, 20 wounded.

    ¡¤                     Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather¡¯s girlfriend and many fellow students in Red Lake, Minnesota on March 24, 2005. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

    ¡¤                     Cho-Seung-Hui, age 23, showed signs of anger before he went on a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus that ended only after a police officer shot him dead. Officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho¡¯s effects, but no details of his treatment or the medications have been released to the public. 33 dead, 17 wounded.

    ¡¤                     Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky on Dec, 1, 1997. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded.

    Not mentioned in this article is Jared Loughner, whose aberrant psychological state has been amply chronicled, including one email by fellow student Lynda Sorensen, who emailed her friends  ¡°We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird.¡± Loughner was just been a ¡°regular¡¯ drug user, of course.

    Of course, violence involving SSRIs does not always involve firearms:

    ¡¤                     Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic¡¯s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

    ¡¤                     Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil). After five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

    ¡¤                     John Odgren, age 16, stabbed a 15-year-old student to death at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in MA on Jan. 19, 2007. Odgren was being treated for Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression and anxiety. The defense said changes in Odgren's clothing habits, as well as changes in his sleep and speech pattern, may have indicated a problem with his medication that could have lead to a manic, paranoid state.

    The list of incidents like the above on SSRI stories is seemingly endless and all of the circumstances are different except for one ¨C all of them involve a mentally ill patient on some sort of SSRI medication. Some have claimed that up to 90 percent of school shootings have involved a shooter on prescription medications ( ) While that is impossible to verify without the release of medical records in all cases, enough have been confirmed to establish a link between SSRIs and violence, especially when the black box warnings on the medications mention the potential.¡±

    Maybe we need to ban SSRI¡¯s to stop the slaughter? Martha Rosenburg at cites a number of cases that would certainly support this, as does Jeanne Lenzer in the  BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), which refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices which states: ¡°It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ¡®serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.¡¯¡± Have we really come full circle to the point where we now accept again Stalin¡¯s dictum that ¡°a single death is a tragedy, but a million is just a statistic?¡±  That we are comparing the death of 20 innocents to 128,000 ¨C many of whom are children ¨Conly makes Stalin¡¯s statement slightly less apt.

    An exceedingly important article by Lawrence Hunter in Forbes, entitled Psychiatric Drugs, Not a Lack of Gun Control, Are the Common Denominator in Murderous Violence, is found at In this article, Lawrence discusses a large body of evidence from peer reviewed publications, such American Journal of Psychiatry, The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Forensic Science, discussing this very issue.  Lawrence also cites the article School Shooters Under the Influence of Psychiatric Drugs, found at, , which found that between ¡°2004 and 2011, there were 12,755 reports to the U.S. FDA¡¯s MedWatch system of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,231 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 2,795 cases of mania and 7,250 cases of aggression. Since the FDA admits that only one to ten percent of all side effects are ever reported to it, the actual occurrence of violent side effects from psychiatric drugs is certainly nine or ten times higher than the official data suggest.¡±

    An eight minute video on the subject is here for those who prefer a YouTube presentation on the topic . As psychiatrist Peter Breggin observes in the video: ¡°One of the things in the past that we¡¯ve known about depression is that it very, very rarely leads to violence. It¡¯s only been since the advent of these new SSRI drugs that we¡¯ve had murderers even mass murders taking these antidepressant drugs.¡±

    The question is this: Instead of Piers Morgan, Obama and Joe Biden taking the NRA to task, as Lawrence points out, why hasn¡¯t the White House asked the heads of the pharmaceutical companies to the White House to discuss the issue? After all, aren¡¯t the kids worth it?

    Lawrence concludes by asking some very perspicacious questions:

    Why aren¡¯t there bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures to tighten down on the indiscriminate, unmonitored use of these killer drugs?

    Why is the government still suppressing information about the shooters¡¯ psychiatric drug use at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech?

    Why is the government turning America into a police state in the name of protecting us against nonexistent ¡°reefer madness¡± while it turns a blind eye to the real, deadly med madness created by psychiatric drugs and the uncontrollable violent rages they produce in some people?

    Could it be there is a quiet conspiracy afoot among pharmaceutical companies, the government and the gun grabbers to make Mr. and Mrs. Gun Owner of America the patsies for the violence and to blame lone-wolf violence on guns rather than psychiatric drugs?

    Could it be that power-hungry politicians and gun snatchers are out to exploit rare tragedies such as Sandy Hook and use the blood of innocent children to scare America into giving up its constitutional rights to own and bear arms and use them as a deterrent against tyranny?

    Could it be that big pharma is today¡¯s big tobacco?

    Could it be there is an intentional effort underway in the centers of power in Washington, DC to hide the truth from the American people about the strong connection between psychiatric drugs and violence and to protect the pharmaceutical companies from civil and criminal charges for their responsibility in these heinous crimes?

    Could that be the explanation for why there continue to be lawsuits against gun manufacturers ¡ª not for defects in their products but rather for the misuse of their products by drug-addled individuals ¡ª and why there are few lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for the obvious flaws in their products, which are producing violence and mayhem?

    Could it be the Gun Control movement is simply a blind; just an effort by the triple alliance of left-fascists, big-government politicians and big-pharma prescription-drug dealers to dose and oppress the American people in the name of public safety, ¡°officer safety¡± and social order?

    The fact is, the kinds of guns used by mass shooters are far less relevant than the kinds of drugs they were prescribed.

    Another possible reason why mass shootings are occurring more frequently is that the left has destroyed the last vestiges of personal responsibility honour and respect; while so-called ¡°Hollywierd¡± pushes filth, violence and the demeaning of fellow humans down the throats of the vulnerable young and the easily suggestible - as they, themselves, make millions on the Faustian bargain.

    Here¡¯s one story that came out one month after Sandy Hook:  Four Young Adults ¡ª One the Son of a Police Sergeant ¡ª Lured Two Friends to a House, Robbed and Strangled Them and then Played Video Games (See or details on this horrific one). No shooting, no mass press coverage. Police Chief Mike Trafton said: "This is one of the most brutal, heinous and upsetting things I've ever seen in my 27 years of law enforcement." However, it is very indicative of what is happening to the culture, be is prescription drugs, the dissolution of the family, the reduction in religious faith, and more.


    There is a place for psychiatric drugs. However, there is not a place for wholesale, mass drugging of our children. But, if we are to ban guns instead of drugs, may I humbly suggest that we also ban hands and feet, as well as knives (and let¡¯s include butterknives ¨C you can never be too careful¡­ and besides, someone might sharpen one with a whetstone). Within a month of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, nine people were killed and others wounded in a knife attack in China (see -this is a different Chinese knife attack from the one that occurred the same week as the Connecticut shooting, where around two dozen were stabbed). There are a multiplicity of fatal knife attacks I could choose from in the US, but a recent one of note was in Flint, Michigan, where five were killed and eight injured by a knife wielding assailant. And race-baiter Al Sharpton has already indicated knives are a possible target for the U.S. ¨C hear him say so himself at Of course, once we are done banning knives, perhaps we can ban vehicles, too. In case you don¡¯t remember, there have been mass killings with cars where people drove into crowds in both NYC and Chapel Hill,  NC., just to name a couple. The fact of the matter is, that, per the FBI, the number one weapon used in homicides is a baseball bat; in 2005, there were 445 murders with rifles, but 605 with hammers and clubs; the next year the figures were 438 and 618 respectively, and this trend continued through 2011 with 323 murders committed with a rifle, and 496 with hammers and clubs (and I am omitting the other years for brevity¡¯s sake, not to play the usual leftist game of leaving out inconvenient facts, such as what Al Gore does with his faux global warming charade). correctly concludes from this that ¡°if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.¡±

    And one more point: a handful of men with no guns, only boxcutters, murdered over 3,000 people over a decade ago, and Timothy McVeigh before that murdered hundreds with no guns in Oklahoma City. Maybe we should be banning other implements and materials!


    As notes, in 2010 alone, 742 people were killed by hands or feet, with 540 people killed by blunt objects. (and let¡¯s not forget the 82,724 people who died last year as a result of FDA approved drugs).There were similar statistics for 2011 from the FBI: Out of approximately 8,500 gun related homicides, only 3% used rifles of any kind. Knives killed 1,694, blunt objects a few under 500, and hands and feet 728. In 2010, only 0.1% of all gun homicides involved five or more victims.Even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence admits that, since 2010 up to the time of the Connecticut shooting, a grand total of 35 people had been killed in 9 separate incidents in which an assault weapon was involved (even if the gun was not the murder weapon). There is very little evidence the assault gun laws will actually do anything, as prior to the federal assault weapon ban, the type of firearms banned were used in 2% of gun crimes (and these were mostly pistols), per a National Institute of Justice study found at . Similarly, FBI statistics show that rifles of any kind are used in just 3% of murders. Regarding the assault gun ban, University of Pennsylvania criminologist Christopher Koper and his co-authors concluded, ""Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.¡± Too small for ¡°reliable measurement!?¡± 

    Here are the 2011 statistics from the FBI page itself:


    And, as a matter of fact, as Natural News points out about automatic weapons, they ¡°¡­ are highly regulated, extremely expensive ($15,000+) and VERY difficult to acquire. They're also extremely rare and have NEVER been used in any school shooting in America. Just to acquire an "automatic weapon," you must go through extensive background checks and fingerprinting. You must apply to the federal government (ATF) for permission, then wait six months or longer to be "approved" by the ATF.¡± Per this article, an ¡°assault rifle¡± must have a selector switch between single, three round burst, and full auto fire. Importantly, not a single of the civilian AR-15s actually have these features, and thus there are virtually no ¡°military¡± assault rifles on the street today.  Besides, the military seldom uses automatic fire themselves, as it is generally is not of value by virtue of being inaccurate. If you would like a factual description of what an assault rifle is, see the article by former peace officer Earl Griffin at  Meanwhile, the whole ban on high capacity magazine to prevent mass killings is a logical non-sequitur. Why? Because the average reload time on an AR-15, or similar, is two seconds. Most mass murders take minutes, or more.  In the case of Sandy Hook ¨C if in fact the gunman really did use the assault rifle as claimed and fired 150 rounds ¨Che obviously changed his 30 round magazine at least four times, and only stopped when armed police closed in on him.  Worse, if the shooter is carrying multiple guns, they simply swap guns and reload when possible. In other words, the Feinstein law banning high capacity magazines will do zilch. Except take away on one more liberty. If you wish to verify how quickly it takes to reload, see the videos at or

    But here is a question for you: As columnist Jacob Sullum writes, if  large capacity magazines are not useful for self-defense or defense of others, why not impose the same limit on police and bodyguards? And if the capacity for additional rounds do provide more protection, why should law-abiding citizens be denied that protection?  The reality is that a larger magazine allows a defender to engage multiple assailants ¨C not uncommon in today¡¯s gang filled world ¨C in a situation where there often can be ¡°the fog of war.¡±

    In any event, the assault rifles the left wines about ¨C which only fire one bullet per pull -  means they are no more automatic their a ¡°standard¡± pistol which does the same thing. Of course, the Feinstein amendment rushed to ban cosmetics like pistol grips, which Ben Crystal points out are about the same thing as banning car spoilers to stop car accidents. And, oh yes ¨C as of 2009, an average of four children under age 14 were killed every day, with 500 injured. A total of 31,000 people in total were killed. No frantic outcry from the media there.

    One more word needs to be said re. assault rifles. According to the FBI¡¯s CIUS report on Murder Victims by Weapon, the grand total of firearms used in 2011 to commit murder was 8,583  (see ). Of the 8,583 murders, only 323 rifles were used, or 3.76% of the total, of which only a portion of that 3.76% were ¡°assault rifles.¡± Too small for reliable measurement indeed.

    Perhaps, if the gun grabbers really want to keep us safe, they could ban the FDA with the tens of thousands who have died from their sanctioned drugs.(Now you know why Dr. Marcia Angell, MD., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stated ¨C regarding the FDA and the like - in the New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009: ¡°It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.¡±)It is not the point of this article to take issue with the FDA, other than to question the association between massacres not of guns, but rather of psychotropic drugs. And I am not alone. Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health a dozen years ago published Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US., in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Starfield's documented how 225,000 Americans die from iatrogenic causes ¨C including 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery, 7,000 per year due to medication errors in hospitals, 20,000 due other hospital errors, 80,000 due to hospital infections, and 106,000 due to negative drug effects. Should we count the dead in Aurora and Sandy Hook among those deaths? Other doctors may concur, such as Dr. Joseph Mercola who cites  a study by Dr. Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto who concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. Mercola also cites anarticle authored in two parts by Gary Null, PhD, Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Debora Rasio, MD, and Dorothy Smith, PhD, with similar conclusions.

    The upshot? Intellectual honesty, as well as respect for the dead, demands that we examine all possible causes of these massacres. But, of course, that would not match with the agenda of the left and the gun grabbers.

    But lets leave the drug angle behind. There are other bad reasons behind the gun controllers. One reason for guns is that ¨C contrary to the leftists¡¯ fondest wishes, mankind is fallen. As Jeff Jacoby has noted ¡°[Wars are not] caused by nuclear missiles, or al-Qaeda terrorism by box cutters. We fool ourselves if we imagine that by fixating on missiles and box cutters we can avoid reckoning with the cruel side of human nature. ... The desire to believe ... that 'people are truly good at heart' is powerful. Sadly, history refutes the idea that human nature alone will make a good world. Controlling bad things may sometimes be prudent. But it is above all by controlling ourselves -- by fortifying the better angels of our nature -- that the struggle against evil progresses."


    Then, there is the legal side of the equation. Columnist Harry Binswanger lays bare the intellectual and legal fraud behind the gun grabbers by noting: "[T]he government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force.¡± And in any event, guns are already one of the most heavily regulated products in America. As if that has done a lot of good!

    But, what do the ¡°professionals¡± say about strong gun laws and the reduction of firearm homicides? Attorney Marc. J. Victor summarizes it succinctly at , noting ¡°In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control analyzed ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition of firearms, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. After their analysis, the Centers for Disease Control concluded there was no conclusive evidence that any gun control laws reduced gun violence. Foreign researchers have also come to the same conclusion. In Australia in 2008, a peer reviewed study at the University of Sydney reached virtually the same conclusions as both the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control. Gun control measures simply do not reduce gun violence.¡± 

    And as we discuss ¡°professionals,¡± what does the FBI say? In their ¡°Uniform Crime Reports, found at,  in 1992 the US had a  violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000, with a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 9.3 per 100,000. When you consider the numbers, we are talking an extremely small percentage. 20 years later ¨C and with the large increase in the number of guns ¨C what was the same rate at the end of 2011? Well, if you listen to the leftist media, your answer will be wrong. According to the FBI site above, the violent crime rate dropped to half of what it was in 1992, or 386.3 per 100,000 in population (vs. the 2.034 in gun control nirvana England). Similarly, murder dropped almost 50% to 4.7 per 100,000. Ever hear anyone news outlet broadcast that after a shooting spree?  Of course, this same report illustrates it is certain urban areas ¨C in most cases the cities having the stricter gun control laws such as Chicago ¨C that have the higher murder rates.

    One twist to the gun control cities needs to be noted, however. Washington DC instituted strict gun control several decades ago. Here is how that played out:

    Compare the chart above to the National Inst. of Justice chart below, which graphs the whole of the United States. :

    Did the handgun ban in D.C have any significant effect, compared to other states that did not? Look at the two blips in the graphs, and draw your own conclusion. But if you need help. Jeffrey Shapiro at, in his article ¡°What I saw as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C.,makes me wary of strict firearms laws,¡± at ,noted that the DC ban on firearms in 1976, which even prohibited people from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense, had ¨C surprise, surprise ¨C unintended effects.  Violent crime increased rose after the ban was enacted, with homicides going from 188 in 1976, to 369 in 1988, to 454 by 1993. Correlation is not causation, it is true. But if you wish to take the risk, good luck to you. Even worse, the D.C police department was mandated to create a special ¡°Gun Recovery Unit,¡± which meant the police were forced to spend resources checking otherwise law abiding citizens with meager returns for the investment. In 1997 Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit and re-assigned them to patrol duties.



    On a broader level, as noted above, guns also have historically ensured American freedom, both from internal tyranny as well as external invasion.  Bill Bonner wrote ¡°When King George sent troops to put down the revolution a letter appeared in the London paper. It came from a man who had lived in the colonies. He told his countrymen that if they were shipping out to fight the Americans they should be sure to write their Last Wills and Testaments before they left. Because the Americans all had guns and knew how to use them.

    And King George wasn¡¯t alone: Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief, Imperial Japanese Navy, killed in action, April 1943, reportedly said ¡°You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.¡± And now you know why, perhaps, after the Sandy Hook shooting, China called for the American population to be disarmed, just like the Chinese population is, in a Xinhua article entitled Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for U.S. Gun Control (really, China? Tell us more, then, about your enforced abortion policy against women who do not want it after they have had a single child).  This is the same China where the founder of the current government, Mao Zedong, stated ¡°political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.¡± (Full quote is All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.¡±) The Chinese fellow below was lucky. Estimates of the death toll at Tienanmen Square in 1989 of people who weren¡¯t so lucky range from several hundred to several thousand. No one really knows, as the socialists running the government wouldn¡¯t release the figures.

    But, assuming guns, themselves,  are the problem, let¡¯s look at the government, and all the assault weapons and ammunitionit has assemble just in the past year: In April 2012, the DHS purchased 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets, which Natural News says is enough to wage a seven year war with the American people. The purchase order is here, for your own examination . DHS then went on to purchase another 750 million more rounds of ammunition as well, in addition to the following ¡°goodies¡±:Over 1 million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo ( you know¡­ the  Adam Lanza Connecticut shooting rounds); over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo; 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo); over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo);

    66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds); over 2 million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel); 0ver 4 million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel); over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP); Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62x39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

    See further detail.  Question: What is behind this? The DHS does not fight foreign wars ¨C it only operates in the U.S. Worse, hollow point ammunition is banned by the Geneva convention,and not used by the U.S. military, per In total, 1.6 billion rounds were purchased in just 2012 alone, meaning every single man, woman and child has five bullets with their name on it. So, if guns are the cause of crime, well, I¡¯ll let you draw your own conclusions. Of course, the leftist media has said little to zilch about all of this. (And yes, I realize we are talking government here, so many of the shooters may well be horribly inept ¨Cbut still¡­ 1.6 billion bullets?!)

    Ah, but you say¡­ ¡°this is the government with the guns, so it is OK.¡± The reality is that those who maintain this have neither listened to the Founding Fathers¡¯ statements noted above, nor have they still, after 2,000 years, answered the question the Roman satirist Juvenal posed: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the guards, or more colloquially, who controls the controllers)?   Perhaps some of the 500 TSA (as of 2011) agents who have been arrested for stealing passenger goods could answer that question? And this number is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as, for example, a 2008  investigative report conducted by Pittsburg¡¯s WTAEstation found that despite over 400 reports of baggage theft, about half of which the TSA reimbursed passengers for, not a single arrest had been made. Of course, the TSA does not, as a matter of policy, share baggage theft reports with local police departments.

    OK, you say¡­ ¡°but gun control - it¡¯s for the children.¡± To whichI only ask, which children? The 60 children who were murdered in gun-free Chicago in 2012, as noted above? The ones the left has zero compunction about leaving trillions and trillions of dollars of debt to pay off? The ones that escaped partial birth abortion? The kids that currently have one trillion dollars in student debt, all so the their Marxist professors can retire at age 52, after having every summer off and only twenty hours of contact time, or less, with the students each week?


    But what about other countries? I¡¯m glad you asked!

    For England, as the article Barbarians Within the Gates, Part III, Schwarz Report, Oct. 2011, p. 5 noted, ¡°The UK¡¯s ban on handguns in 1997 ¡°¡­did not stop actual crimes committed with handguns. Those crimes rose nearly 40% according to a 2001 study by King¡¯s College London¡¯s Centre for Defense Studies, and doubled by a decade later, according to government statistics reported in the London Telegraph in October 2009.¡±Joyce Lee Malcolm corroborates this information a Dec. 26, 2012 article at , nothing that ¡°Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people.

    But, as they say in the Ronco commercials ¨C Wait! There¡¯s more! Summarizing from, the UK¡¯s Home Office Statistical Bulletin, which provides crime figures for England and Wales, ex Scotland and Northern Ireland (which thus skews the numbers slightly down) show that in 2011, there were 762,515 violent crimes in a population of 56 million, including approximately 125% more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does ( ) and 133% more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does ( ). In sum, there were 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 population  in the UK ¨C or 3.5 times the rate of the U.S. The UK murder rate is lower, at 1.3 per 100,000 population. However, it is not noted what weapons are using to commit murders or violent crimes in the UK. The net of this is that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime than armed Americans, and that more guns do not mean more violent crime.

    Two charts on rape and assault victims in Piers Morgan¡¯s safe, merry olde England, cited from are shown below:

    Ben Swann of Fox News also concentrated on this UK gun issue when he addressed the Piers Morgan/Alex Jones debate of early Jan., 2013. Morgan incorrectly cited 35 gun deaths in UK in 2011 vs. 11,000 in the US. Not true at all. FBI crime stats show there were 12,664 homicides in the US., with 8,583 were firearm related, not 11,000. Of those, 400 were listed as justifiable killings by law enforcement, 260 in the same category by private citizens. England does have a lower homicide rate, but with a population of 62 million, the UK actually had 59 homicides in 2011. Adjusted for population, that would equate to roughly 300 or so murders. But that¡¯s basic math, which you cannot expect the left to do.  The reality is, that as Dr. John Lott has noted, ¡°the overall number of gun murders in Britain being low does not prove that the gun ban worked, considering that the figure was already comparably low BEFORE the ban as well, i.e., the ban did not cause a decrease in gun murders, even according to the official numbers.¡±In a nutshell, as notes, ¡°¡­gun murders in Britain being low does not prove that the gun ban worked,considering that the figure was already comparably low BEFORE the ban as well, i.e., the ban did not cause a decrease in gun murders, even according to the official numbers.¡± See Even more importantly, the anti-gunners in general have no clue that, as Lott states, ¡°¡­total homicides are the most important concern, rather than how a homicide was committed.¡±

    Worse, the violent crime rates are most likely under reported (gotta them tourists pouring in, y¡¯know!). The UK¡¯s Independent reported a few years ago that there may be up to 2 million violent crimes ¡°missing¡± from the official data!  .  See also the very enlightening article at that has a very highly documented discussion on the massaged UK crime rate numbers. Even more disturbingly, in the most recent report I have, 2006, there was one knife crime committed for every 374 people, while in the US it was one gun crime for every 750 people the same year. As Bob Livingstone points out, ¡°In other words, a person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in the United States.¡±There. Does that make you feel more safe?

    Still, what of the delta between the US and UK murder numbers? Do fewer guns mean less crime? But you know the answer to this. The UK has the second highest overall crime rate, the fifth highest robbery rate, the fourth highest burglary rate, in the EU and ¨C most importantly ¨C England has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000, far ahead of even South Africa at 1,609 per 100,000. The US has a rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 ¨C not even in the top 10.(See Telegraph article The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S at And Piers Morgan wants us to be more like the UK? The US has the world¡¯s highest gun ownership rates, so it should have the highest gun murder rates, correct? Actually, Honduras, Jamaica and El Salvador, along with 24 other countries. The US ¨C with the highest gun ownership rate - is #28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 population. The full story is at which also references sources for this data at the Fox19 site. Of course, England has always had a much lower gun crime rate ¨C even before the gun control implementation ¨C which the gun grabbers never mention. Also not mentioned is the fact that gun crime has almost doubled in England since the gun ban went into effect.

    But, just for good measure, England has proposed a 10 year sentence for possession of ¡°any knife with a blade more than three inches long¡± (I literally have no idea if this includes butterknives!). When researchers from West Middlesex University Hospital found that kitchen knives were used in as many as half of all stabbings, the BBC reported on the move to ban kitchen knives, stating ¡°¡°The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault ¨C but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs. In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like ¡®cutting into a ripe melon.¡¯¡± Another UK paper, the Inquisitor, justified the band by invoking Middlesex again, stating  ¡°¡°A West Middlesex University Hospital group contends that violent crime is increasing in Great Britain and kitchen knives are used in approximately half of all stabbings. The team claims that many of the knife attacks are impulsive acts and that a kitchen knife is too convenient of a weapon.¡± No word yet if England has banned running with scissors or people using pencils with sharp points. And it is singularly unfortunate that England did not think to ban knives like ones under the current ban one thousand years ago during the Viking invasions (¡°I¡¯m sorry Mr. Svensson, but before you do any looting, raping or pillaging, you¡¯ll have to check your blades in with the customs officials¡­ Next in line!!)

    Across the English Channel, Holland¡¯s draconian gun laws certainly haven¡¯t helped ¨C witness the recent report at , entitled 7 Killed 15 Wounded in Dutch Mall. And of course, across the border and going back a few decades to Germany,  Nazi guns laws against Jewish firearm owners 60 years ago, as Stephen Halbrook has written, ¡°played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime¡± (a full rendering of Nazi gun control laws, including ones against the Jews, is found at As if any further clarification were needed, Hitler himself stated in 1935 ¡°For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead." (Note: the authenticity of this quote is debated, but certainly captures Hitler¡¯s zeitgeist, as the Nazi gun control summary at points out).  And just for good measure, Hitler later added after his conquests ¡°The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own downfall."  The experience with Hitler outlined above was anticipated by the wisdom of the Second Amendment, which declares: ¡°A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.¡±This right reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny, which was not recognized in the German Reich ¨C and led to a holocaust. One would do very well to google the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare to the United States Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as more recent laws. But I¡¯ll leave that sobering research to you.

    Perhaps one might care to examine Russia, which also has relatively strict gun control laws, under their Federal Weapons Act of 1996 (see Did their laws prevent the 2002 theatre siege by Chechen militants, which over one hundred killed? See or YouTube at if you need to refresh your memory of this atrocity. But Russians, have lived through what happens under a tyranny. This is why Pravda published an article by Stanislav Mishin in Dec., 2012, entitled ¡°Americans, Never Give Up Your Guns.¡± See for the story, but here is one critical takeway from it: ¡°Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.¡± Mishin concludes his article by noting the real agenda of the left, both in Russia and elsewhere: ¡°Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.¡± In fact, this reflects precisely what Joseph Stalin said: ¡°If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.¡± But let¡¯s leave the 61,911,000 dead under Soviet tyranny and move on to other countries¡­

    Per the UN, gun controlled Mexico has a homicide rate of 22.7 per 100,000, while the ¡°gun happy¡± US rate is 4.8 ¨C and significantly, the global average is 7 homicides per 100,000.

    In Australia after they banned guns in 1997, armed robberies went up 69%; assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders up 19% and home invasions up 21% (except the Australian government still refuses to define what a ¡°home invasion¡± is (no word if they have defined what the meaning of ¡°is¡± is, either).Full details at or see article by attorney Marc J. Victor at the Joyce Lee Malcolm WSJ article cited above, she also addresses Australia, which implemented draconian gun laws over a decade ago. The result? According to Malcolm, ¡°¡­ the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%. According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms. In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.¡± Malcolm concludes that the gun laws of England and Australia have not made the population any noticeably safer nor prevented massacres. A revealing six minute video of this imbroglio can be found here ¨C armed robberies up 69%, home invasions up 21% (except they are still debating on what a home invasion actually is!)... and more.  Of course, the Aussie laws did chew up a cool half billion dollars in taxpayers¡¯ money ¨C exactly similar to the Canadian experience noted a few paragraphs below.

    Ann Coulter ¨C working off yet another inane NY Times article entitled ¡°More Guns = More Killing,¡± particularly has fun with the goofy leftist commentary on gun control in Australia by noting that ¡°according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 ¡ª right after the gun ban was enacted.¡±  Meanwhile, Coulter notes while suicides by firearms dropped after the ban, so did suicides by all other means.  (And you are correct, no one on the left appears to have done the math on that one, either. Apparently banning guns stopped people from doing a Marilyn Monroe or jumping off the local bridge.) But¡­ as you might expect with the left, it gets worse, and Coulter nails it: After the ban on guns in the Oz, ¡°accidental deaths¡± by firearms  skyrocketed, despite mandatory gun training requirements for those few remaining souls who owned guns. As always, the legerdemain of the left factors in again, as until a coroner certifies a death as suicide, it¡¯s categorized as ¡°unintentional.¡± So, Coulter summarizes, either mandatory gun training led to more gun accidents ¨C an abject failure of big government ¨C or suicides are being counted as ¡°accident.¡± As Al Gore might say, how convenient. Coulter article is found at

    Could the Australia legerdemain get any worse? Mais oui! Unknown to the left, there are things called ¡°control groups.¡± Coulter¡¯s article simply went and found a country unknown to liberals¡­ New Zealand. Similar demographics, similar history, similar socio-economics (and after sharing a house while doing graduate work with a massive cadre of both Kiwis and Aussies, no, I am not dumb enough to confuse the two). Here¡¯s the basic math that even a junior researcher should have found: Mass murder in Australia, from 1980 up to 1996 was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000; the Kiwi rate was 0.0050 per 100,000. Australia, as noted, banned arms in 1997, and ¨C viola! There were no more mass shootings subsequent to that! Not mentioned, of course, was that fully armed New Zealand has also has not a single mass murder either since 1997.  So much for research integrity from the Gray Lady of New York ¨C with apologies to Walter Duranty¡­ or not.

    Indeed, it is true, as one internet wag put it:
    Government regulating housing = people ended up losing their houses.
    Government regulating commerce = people ended up losing their jobs.
    Government regulating firearms=?
    Do the math yourself¡­..

    Moving to Jamaica, which instituted total gun control in the 1970s, this country has had one of the highest murder rates in the world for many years, according to the U.N. ¨C approximately 60 per 100,000 population. Only El Salvador and Honduras, as noted above, have higher murder rates in the world. But it gets even more embarrassing. Fareed Zakaria ¨C he of plagiarism fame ¨C pulls off a Piers Morgan disinformation gambit in his Aug. 2012 Time Magazine article, where he claims the gun homicide rate is 30 times that of England or Australia. Summarizing from Henry Percy¡¯s ¡°Gun Violence in America is Off the Chart¡± article in American Thinker, here are several issues: Why does Zakaria cite gun murders instead of total homicides? Does it really make that much of a difference, Percy asks, is someone is killed with a gun or a blunt instrument? ((Well, at least tom was murdered with a blunt instrument rather than a gun¡­¡±) Actually, quoting from the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, conducted by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the total  homicide rate for the US was 4.1 times that of the UK, and 4.5 times that of Australia. Not ¡°30 times.¡± But close enough, I guess, for the leftist media. Overall, the U.S comes in a paltry #99 worldwide ¨C 5.4 homicides per 100,000 -  with over half the countries of the world having a higher homicide rate ¨C even though the US has the most guns per person in the world.  Mexico is 2.4 times greater than the US, and Brazil 4.2 times greater. And most likely, the numbers around the world are under-reported, as there are not centralized databases, people may not report murders to corrupt police, or countries may not want to scare away tourists.  Another question Percy raises: Mr. Zakaria found a ¡°blindingly obvious causal connection¡± between easier access to guns and homicides. Perhaps so ¨C if you are part of the leftist media that cannot do statistical analysis. In 2009, Washington DC ¨C which still has stricter gun laws ¨C had a murder rate of 24.2/100,000, while ¡°Live Free or Die,¡± open carry without license/concealed carry license for $10 New Hampshire¡¯s rate was 0.9. Gun loving states like Idaho and Utah have rates not much higher, while socialist, gun control-freak Illinois has a rate 9 times that of New Hampshire. .

    But let¡¯s look at another socialist ¡°country¡± ¨C the blue states in the U.S. As the Canadian site The Poog notes at, in an interactive chart titled Crime vs Gun Ownership, produced from a site called Data Masher, Poog lists the top 15 rankings states and notes that they are all - based on the last 4 elections ¨C states that are blue (4/4), light blue (3/4) and purple (2/4) - i.e., Democratic states. In the table below, Poog then adds in parentheses, the state rankings in terms of number of guns purchased based on background checks by the FBI as presented by the Daily Beast.¡± (There is no data available for Illinois or California so gun stats for Chicago and Los Angeles are not captured.)

    1. Massachusetts (blue) (46)
    2. New Jersey (blue) (50)
    3. New York (blue) (48)
    4. Hawaii (blue) (49)
    5. Maryland (blue) (45)
    6. Delaware (blue) (43)
    7. Connecticut (blue) (19)
    8. Iowa (light blue) (31)
    9. Michigan (blue) (37)
    10. Nevada (purple) (32)
    11. Rhode Island (blue) (47)
    12. Ohio (purple) (39)
    13. Florida (purple) (42)
    14. Minnesota (blue) (22)
    15. Pennsylvania (blue) (25)

    Poog concludes that ¡°11 of the 15 are solidly Democratic based on the last four elections, three are 50/50 and one is mostly Democrat (3/4). The heavy concentration is in the Northeast   When we look at the number of guns purchased by state there is a curious inverse relationship. The top six ranked states in terms of gun crime were in the bottom eight ranked states in terms of number of guns purchased.¡± So, it appears that Democrats less guns, but use them to commit more crimes!

    Closer to home, as a dual US/Canadian citizen, who has spent half my life in both countries, Canada very strict gun control legislation. From having a very close friend having a neighbor murdered right outside her front door, to my brother in law telling me about a knife murder at a mall down the street, to the week we moved from Canada, when someone with an illegal gun committed murder on Elgin St. in Ottawa, the whole gun grabber thing is a disaster in Canada. The results of strict Canadian gun control laws?

    On Jan. 13, 2011 the Ottawa Citizen, even acknowledged that Canadian gun legislation is an abject failure:

    ¡°As strict as Canadian gun laws appear, they do not prevent the movement of illegal firearms in or out of this country, nor their possession, and only cover those firearms that have been registered. Last year, Canadian police services reported some 8,000 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide ¡ª a rate of almost one person per hour victimized by violent gun crime. On average, more than 1,200 Canadians are killed and more than 1,000 injured with firearms each year.¡±

    And if you thought the Representative Giffords shooting in Arizona was bad (and it was!) in 2006 a Canadian gunman uploaded pictures of himself posing with a rifle. He bragged on his blog that he loved the Internet game based on the Columbine shootings. One day he decided to stop playing. He went to a Montreal college and, when all was said and done, he killed one person and seriously wounded another 19 before he shot himself.Less than 10 days after the Colorado theatre shootings, Toronto had a shooting that killed two and wounded 21 (; in turn, this had been preceded a month  earlier by a Toronto mall shooting at the Eaton Centre, which killed one and injured seven ( The stories in Canada go on, but I won¡¯t.

    Canada¡¯s stringent gun laws, in the form of Bill C-68, apply to handguns and rifles. This has been universally acknowledged as an abject failure, including over $1 billion dollars lost on something that didn¡¯t work. Here¡¯s the details:

    There are nearly 7 million registered long guns in Canada. Since 2003, when mandatory long gun registration was introduced, of the 2,441 homicides in Canada, less than 2% (47 to be exact) have been committed by those registered guns (figures cited from Canadian Centre of Justice Statistics). According to Statistics Canada, in 2008 there were around 23,500 victims of violent crime committed with a knife, with homicides and attempted murders about 1/3rd of such incidents (cited from Lawyers Weekly, 21 May, 2010). No word yet whether leftists will introduce a ¡°long butterknife¡± or ¡°dinner settings¡± bill -  you know, you can never be too careful about those doggoned table settings, including possible strangulation by napkins!!   It really is the fact that, as one wag wrote the Canadian Broadcasting Company, ¡°Banning the legitimate ownership of handguns to prevent the illegitimate use of handguns is equivalent to the idea that banning sexual relations between a husband and wife will prevent rapes in dark alleys.¡±


    And speaking of other countries, examine other leftists, and what they do for personal protection. For the sake of brevity, I won¡¯t even begin to cover all the politically correct Hollywood types like Michael Moore who are for gun control ¨C but use armed guards for their own protection ¨C other than provide one example of the hypocrisy du jour: David Gregory on CNN mocked the NRA¡¯s Wayne LaPerrier after the Sandy Hook shooting for proposing armed guards at schools. But of course, as yet another latte liberal, Mr. Gregory sends his kids to the uber-luxe  Sidwell Friends school in Washington, DC, which ¨C if you scan the school¡¯s online staff directory -  you will find a security department of at least 11 people, of which many are police officers (and you can bet they ain¡¯t totin¡¯ just yellow pads to issue detentions to would-be bad guys!) And of course, Obama¡¯s children go to this school as well, so there¡¯s also Secret Service personnel at the institution.  But that returns us to Orwell¡¯s dictum about socialists, which we see put in practice everywhere and every time socialism is put in place ¨C there¡¯s one rule for the ¡°special¡± folks, and another rule for the hoi polloi. And if you don¡¯t believe that, maybe you need to check out one of Michelle Obama¡¯s seemingly monthly uber-luxe vacations. (I won¡¯t bother the remind you that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as exposed by Mark Levin,  has a concealed carry permit , and once stated ¡°¡°If somebody tries to take me out I¡¯m going to take them with me¡±, or say anything about another liberal hypocrite from the Washington Post, the late Carl Rowan, who wrote in 1981 that anyone who wasn¡¯t a law enforcement officer who committed a crime with a handgun should be sent to prison for ten years without parole  - while  in 1988, as Aaron Goldstein wrote, ¡°Rowan shot and wounded an intruder at his D.C. home with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol. Well, Rowan didn¡¯t acquire a badge in the intervening seven years.¡± But any way you cut the above, we need to remember, as Martin Luther King warned us, ¡°Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.¡±

    Basically, the attitude of these leftists is explained in a nutshell by Jon Rappoport ¡°I¡¯m a limousine liberal. I don¡¯t believe in owning a gun. I wouldn¡¯t know how to shoot a gun if my life depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons¡­¡± ( )

    Incidentally, here is gun ¡°expert¡± Feinstein, compared to a smart 6 yr. old:

    Let me conclude with an anecdotal story to help reify the matter. Canadian John Myers writes about a personal experience in Alberta (and which is borne out by Dr. John Lott¡¯s aforementioned book, ¡°More Guns, Less Crime¡±) at[PIZ0411C]&rrid=238494331. Myers writes:

    ¡°I never imagined that a time would come where I would have to level my shotgun at a person; that I would take deadly aim with it. But that happened when I as a senior at the University of Calgary and was cramming for a final. Around midnight I heard a car screech to a stop outside my parent¡¯s home which sat on an isolated street. I was home alone with the family dog, Elsa, a Great Dane with a gentle disposition.

    In the news had been reports that two men were terrorizing women on Calgary streets. Two young women, Laurie Boyd and Debbie Stevens, had been dragged from their cars at night and murdered. I heard pounding at the front door. I knew something was seriously wrong when I opened the door to find my girlfriend Angela standing before me crying. Before I could even ask her what was happening a second car pulled into our driveway with the high-beams on.

    I took Angela inside and went outside to see what the commotion was about. I brought the family dog with me and kept her leash wrapped tightly around my hand. Two men were walking straight towards the door; neither one saying a word and neither showing any regard for me or our dog which was growling and barking.

    I dragged the dog back inside and gave her to Angela. I remembered the Remington that I kept in the front closet. I found it and then fumbled for the single target load shell that I kept in the corner of the hat shelf. It was all the ammunition I had, but I was damn happy to have it. I was shaking, but I loaded the shell. I slipped back outside. I was surprised at how close these strangers were to me; perhaps fewer than 20 paces. I remember the taller of the two had his hand reached inside his coat. It was dark so at first I don¡¯t think they noticed my shotgun. But they knew it was there when I raised it to my shoulder and pumped the fore-end, chambering the shell. In a split second they spun and ran to their car, roaring off into the darkness.

    More than a year later two men, Jim Peters and Rob Brown, were charged and convicted on multiple charges of murder. My girlfriend Angela later became my wife. To this day we don¡¯t know if those men were the Calgary serial killers. All these years later we remain certain of two things: These men had evil intentions and we were damned lucky to have that shotgun.¡±

    There¡¯s more to gun ownership in America than meets the eye. Don¡¯t let the leftists take the moral high ground on this one - that belongs one hundred percent to the gun owners.

    J. Vanne

    Fan mail from  non-listeners:

       I think poor Ian suffers from a lack of affection. Wouldn't we all be better for
    sending Ian some nice, conciliatory messages? Wouldn't it be soothing to
    this obviously tortured soul? Be nice everyone - he seems so, so... fragile.

    From: Ian Watson
    To: "" Re: you people are sick
    Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:10:34 -0800

    go shoot somebody and give me peace - your an idiot

    Ian -

        So good of you to offer a response, although somewhat disappointing for
    lack of substance. Leave you alone?  Why Ian, I am simply providing the
    favor of a response to what you sent me. How could I, as a courteous and
    civil person, do less?

        Go shoot somebody? Ian, you really might wish to seek out some anger
    management counseling. We never think about shooting people. We only
    think in terms of lawful defense.

        Give you peace? I sincerely question whather there can be any peace
    for a person such as yourself who expresses such violent suggestions.
    Hatred is NOT A family value, Ian. Be well. The self defense civil rights
    community prays for your healing.

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL
    Host, America Armed & Free

    Ian -

    Oh by the way, you asserted in an earlier post that, "Scotland banned guns."

    And how hard is it for criminals to get guns there??? See the article
    copied below, with url:

    When Guns Are Outlawed¦: An American man is suspected of smuggling
    80 weapons into the UK by hiding them in his suitcases. Former U.S.
    marine Steven Greenoe, who holds British citizenship, apparently
    strolled through airport security in both Britain and America with
    dozens of handguns stashed in his suitcases on ten flights last
    year. He is believed to have delivered them to criminal contacts in
    the North West of England. On one occasion, Greenoe was stopped
    after officials at Atlanta airport spotted the firearms. But incredibly
    he was allowed to board the flight after telling officials he worked
    as an international security consultant. The revelations are an
    embarrassment for transatlantic security and for the UK Border
    Agency. t makes a mockery of security regulations which mean
    innocent passengers have to carry cosmetics in clear plastic bags
    when in fact Greenoe apparently had no problems carrying weapons
    in a suitcase…
    smuggled-80-guns-UK-used-Ma nchester-shooting.html

    I might entertain the ida of discussing this on the radio with you,
    if you have the courage for that.

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL
    Host, AmericaArmed & Free

    ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
    From: Ian
    Re: you people are sick Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:50:42 -0600

    Your a get paid

    Sent from my iPhone

    Hi Ian -

    Nice to hear from you again. No, your research is deficient - I am
    not paid. I, and all the others at the Citizens Defense League tables
    and events, are volunteers. It's one of the reasons we are so effective -
    we are a grass roots movement. We are motivated by the principles
    of freedom, which we welcome you to someday become cognizant
    of, and embrace.

    Speaking of which, I am rather disappointed in your lack of response
    to my last e-mail, posted below. In what country are there no guns?
    What has happened to the crime rate in countries where the honest
    citizen is hard pressed to obtain persoanl weapons?

    Even after your vituperation, we will still welcome you some day if you
    ever wake up. Of course if you don't, we will continue to use your
    vitriol as a barometer of success and a compass of conduct. (: - )

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL

    ---------- Original Message ----------


    ---------- Original Message ----------
    From: john watson
    To: http://webmaila.juno.

    Subject: you people are sick 
    Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:16:29 -0800

    you still think its cowboys and indians - why dont you all grow
    up - if there were no guns there would have been no gun to do
    the shooting and therefore no guns needed to protect anyone -
    you people are sick

    Hi Ian -

        Thank you for taking the time to write and express your opinion.

        Actually, there is a medical condition called hopolophobia, which
    is an irrational fear of weapons. I think you might wish to seek an
    opinion from a psychological professional for a determination as
    to where the sickness resides.

        Beyond that, I must point out that if no guns existed, people
    would use other implements with which to hurt each other. That
    puts the elderly, the infirm, children, and the disabled, at the
    highest risk for criminal predation. It would also expose the most
    economically underprivileged in our society, to an increased risk
    of criminal attack. This is provable, if you will consult the book
    "Lethal Laws," published by .  One must
    inquire, John, as to the racial undertones of your post to AzCDL .
    What do you have against minorities most greatly affected by
    what you propose?

       As to growing up, we believe that it is infantile to conduct oneself
    as if criminal predation does not exist. It does, and it would be
    irresponsible as citizens, not to prepare ourselves for the civic
    responsibility of self defense and the defense of the innocent.

        Your missive to us also seems to indicate a disconnection from
    reality - at what place on earth are there no guns? What place which
    has tried to ban them, has succeeded in so doing? What is the crime
    and murder rate in societies which have banned guns from their
    non-criminal citizens?

        We look forward to your reasoned and considered answer to these
    questions. As always, any communications sent to is, and the
    responses, are in the public domain.

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL
    Host, America Armed & Free

    ---------- Original Message ----------
    From: john watson
    Subject: you people are sick 
    Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:16:29 -0800

    you still think its cowboys and indians - why dont you all grow up - if there were
    no guns there would have been no gun to do the shooting and therefore no guns
    needed to protect anyone - you people are sick

    ------- Original Message ----------
    From: To:
    Subject: Read about you in the L.A. Times.
    Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:59:30 -0500 (EST)

    So Charles, you don't believe in mental health background checks as a condition
    to own a gun?  I guess it's because you're just as mentally unhinged as that guy
    who went shooting in Tucson Saturday morning.  I personally don't feel safe that
    someone like you owns so many guns.  It's just a matter of time before you go
    blowing people away like that guy.  I believe a majority of gun owners like
    yourself will eventually commit a crime with them in your lifetime.  It could be
    something small like showing your gun to a potential victim in a threatening
    manner to doing what that guy did.  You're the reason so many people around
    the world hate Americans and that Americans are the laughing stock of the
    world.  Freedom to do what?  Commit a crime?  Stupid white trash redneck
    Americans is the reason the USA is going down the toilet.




    Hi Andrew -

         Good to hear from you again, although since you didn't respond to my last post
    to you, I wonder if you are getting my responses.. Your current post seems
    somewhat echolalic of your first two, without any support, statistics, or documen-
    tation. My concern is that you may not be basing your suppositions on fact, but

         Your tone in them seems either angry, or, my guess, injured, so I must ask,
    are you the victim of a crime or abuse that would cause you to have such harsh
    opinions? Is it possible that you might be projecting some illness of yours, upon
    me? If so, that is a serious psychological condition, and I hope you seek help for

         There is a medical term called, "hopolophobia," which is an irrationally based
    fear of weapons. There is treatment available for it. As with many people who have
    been vitriolic towards me, I wish you healing and peace.

         I think it only fair that I respond to your stated concerns. No, I do not believe
    in federal government background checks for people to get guns. We have them
    , and as a legitimate gun owner, I can live with that, but I know of no rational
    human being who believes that they will keep nuts from getting and misusing
    guns. Do you believe that mentally ill people will still get guns if we have back-
    ground checks, Andrew?

         Look at the countries where it is very hard for private citizens to get guns,
    like the U.K. That did not stop a crazy man from committing the Dunblane
    Massacre. It did not stop Chung Hui So from committing the Virginia Tech
    massacre, either. Both he and Loughner share something in common - they
    passed a background check.

        Now Andrew, you assert that I am, "mentally unhinged." Upon what do you
    base that, may I ask? I host several programs on talk radio, which I have done
    for 13 years, operated my own business, co-founded a civil rights organization,
    serve on the boards of several charity organizations, and hold down a responsible,
    full time job.

         I am certified by the State of Arizona to teach the use of deadly force and the
    tools thereof to students. Over the last 17 years, I have certified over 2000 to carry
    concealed weapons. Their permits are recognized in 31 other states to go armed
    among the populace. To date, I do not know of any that have been convicted of
    misconduct with those weapons, so I must ask, what is your factual basis for
    your accusation that I am "unhinged," other than an emotional dislike of weapons?

         Have you ever fired a gun? Are you trained with them? Have you read as to
    their history, use, and development? What is your background on which you base
    your opinions of the topic?

        As to your "feelings of safety," your feelings are none of my business. Part of
    the decline of our country is that we are too concerned with people's feelings, and
    not concerned enough with rational thoughts and obeyance of moral principles.
    There is no right to "good feelings." There is a right in the Constitution to the tools
    of personal protection, within ordered liberty. That does not mean that there are
    no restrictions, but only those necessary to ordered liberty.

         On my radio program Swap Shop, where people buy, sell and trade guns freely,
    I suggest that they do a "private background check," which involves doing receipts
    in both directions with driver's license numbers on them. In this way, if a prohibited
    possessor buys a gun, he leaves a prosecutable paper trail on himself. I'm all for
    punishing people who misbehave with a firearm.

         You assert that I might engage in behavior that, "could be something small like
    showing your gun to a potential victim in a threatening manner..."

         Well Andrew, if you had some knowledge of law here, you would know that that
    is NOT something "small." It is called in Arizona, aggravated assault with a deadly
    weapon," and it subjects anyone convicted of it to 4.2 years in state prison.

         Again, on what fact or evidence do you base your claim? Might I point out that
    only .0017 of 1 percent of people with a CCW permit get arrested for a serious crime,
    according to the combined reports of the states that issue permits? (See "Gun Facts,
    5.2)  Are you aware that we are more law abiding than police officers, statistically

        By the way, we, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, requested a bill 2 years
    ago that made "defensive display" of a weapon, if justified by threat, LEGAL. As
    a result, less people will now go to jail for doing so, so in essence it reduces the
    chance of your assertion becoming true. It just does so in the opposite of the
    way you intended.

        Lastly, you assert that, "You're the reason so many people around the world
    hate Americans and that Americans are the laughing stock of the world." Really?
    I sort of had the impression that all those American cemeteries where our heroes
    have fallen defending the liberty of others, made us the envy of other nations, not
    the laughing stock of them.

       Of course, your view of history may differ somewhat from mine, but that's ok, it's
    a free country, and I support your right to believe whatever warped ideology you
    may hold, as long as you do not attempt to convert me to it by force. If so, that's
    one of the reasons that I am armed. I strongly suspect that that is one of the
    reasons you fear weapons - that you cannot make others think what you think
    they should....  

         As to, "freedom to do what?"  - anything I want that is not a damage to someone
    else's property or person, nor coercion to do same. I suspect that is a concept that
    you might find very frightening. If so, I invite you to get counseling for your problem
    with my freedom, or, if you wish, enjoy learning to live in fear. I support your choice
    for either, and would defend that right with force, if necessary.

        You assert "stupid, redneck, white trash." Do you know, by the way, if I have
    a degree? The favor of a civil response is requested.

        Remember that all communications with me are in the public domain.

    Charles Heller
    Host, Liberty Watch Radio
    Secretary, AzCDL

    From :    |    
    To :,
    Subject : You're a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.
    Date : Mon, Jan 10, 2011 02:12 AM


    I'm against allowing people like you to even own one gun and I'm more of
    a patriotic American than you will ever be.

        _____________reply seperator_____________________

    Hi Andrew -
       Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
       The fact that you, and some others might not "allow" us to have guns, points
    out a valuable lesson: that's why we do not live in a democracy, per Article 4,
    Section 4 of the Constitution. In a republic, you don't get to vote on my rights.
    You DO however, get to have the right to say that you do not respect my rights.
    That is a right of yours that I would defend.
       As to being a, "better American," I would be curious to know by what objective
    standard you measure that? Bin Laden has engineered the death of many people.
    I have not. How does that make me the bigger terrorist? You expansion on that
    topic might be illuminating.
       Anything you send me is in the public domain.
    Chalres Heller
    Host, Liberty Watch
    Secretary, Arizona Citizens Defense League

    On 4/29/07, these guns were stollen from my car. Any of you seeing these at
    at gunshow, please summon local law enforcement and give them the case # below.
    Thanks, Charles


    4 29 07 Gun  Loss List Pima County Sheriff Case # 070429 200


       Professional Ordinance Carbon 15  S/N 824413 with assault bag, 6 20 shot
         mags and 180 rounds soft point


                Springfield Armory M1-A  S/N 130558 Mil dot scope, brown cheek rest.
    5 - 20 & 1 10 shot mag, 100 rounds .308 Cleaning kit with bore snake. Assault
    systems bag. This rifle had a large aperature mil dot scope and a cheek rest
    mounted on it at time of theft.




    Hi standard 4" blue Sentinel with Tyler grip adapter  S/N 197 8442


    Charles Heller
    870 2700

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) 

          Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
    reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a
    choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your
    bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of
    those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. 

        In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
    interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of
    social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu
    is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. 

        When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have
    to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate
    your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
    that  puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a
    75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and
    a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with
    baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,
    or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. 

        There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
    bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
    civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes
    it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
    true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by
    choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a
    mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of
    arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and
    that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an
    armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the
    state has granted him a force monopoly. 

        Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations
    lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
    fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
    won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
    the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
    constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
    and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
    makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
    not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The
    gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
    as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as
    well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily

        When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a
    fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side
    means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because
    I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit
    the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
    actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
    equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    From John Farnum:

    On personal excellence, from a friend with a large, metro PD on the East Coast:

    "... all patrol officers here are told, once deadly force is justified, we should seek cover and just shoot in the direction of the threat, keeping the bad guys' heads down and preventing them from getting close, as we wait for help.  This unwritten philosophy is in no way confined to this department.  They don't want us to get hurt, but they don't want us to hurt of kill VCAs either, even when they are representing a deadly threat.   There is little ever said about individual marksmanship, how to effectively/lethally engage human targets, individual tactics, or 'winning the fight.'

    We are required to assume help will always be just minutes away, that our radios will always work, and that we can always count on the department's 'backing.'  We are not trained as the individual operators we will need to be in the next terrorist attack."

    Comment: When politicians actively court the votes of criminals and their families, it is not surprising that they don't want any of their potential voting constituency shot by police.  Thus, both police and good citizens become expendable, as violent criminals are coddled and protected as the valuable resource big-city politicians believe them to be.


    14 Nov 06

    Grasping at guns
    Lorne Gunter, National Post

    Published: Monday, October 16, 2006

    Almost a week after last month's tragic shooting at Montreal's Dawson College, the
    National Post ran a guest column by the mother of a Dawson student.

    Beverly Akerman suggested a "simple" response to the crime: "no more guns. Because
    no one can accurately predict who among us will become unhinged enough to commit
    bloody slaughter, I believe guns shouldn't be available to the public." We dubbed this a
    "mother's radical solution for gun crime."

    But suggesting a ban on guns is hardly radical. Every time there is a Dawson-like tragedy,
    a chorus calls for a ban on guns.

    Allan Rock, the former Liberal justice minister who was the legislative father of our current
    gun registry, admitted he came to office in Ottawa believing "only the police and the military
    should have firearms."

    Since Ms. Akerman's commentary, this paper has run half a dozen letters (and received
    perhaps a dozen more) from professors, psychologists, health care workers and gun
    control advocates all calling for a gun ban, or at least wondering aloud why ordinary
    people should be permitted to own such destructive objects.

    Banning guns is one of the most common solutions offered by urban professionals,
    bureaucrats and special interests in the face of each new high-profile shooting. But
    consider this: A week after the Dawson shootings, Britain was transfixed by its own
    similar shooting. Two 17-year-olds were shot in a South London McDonald's for
    disrespecting their attacker during a conversation. The shooter used a semi-
    automatic handgun.

    Yet, there were no calls for a ban on civilian ownership of handguns. Why? Because
    Britain had already banned civilian handguns nearly a decade ago. In response to the
    horrific Dunblane, Scotland, school shootings in 1996, in which 16 five- and six-year-

    old children and one teacher were killed, the U.K. eliminated all civilian handgun

    It's hard to call for a ban in response to a new newsworthy shooting when you already
    have a ban thanks to an old one. Since 1997, it has not been legal for ordinary Britons
    to own a handgun. Yet since the ban, handgun homicides have gone up, not down. In
    the six years prior to the ban, there was an average of 33 handgun murders a year in
    Britain. Since then, there had been an average of nearly 43, an increase of 30% despite
    the ban.

    In the years since the handgun ban, violent crime in Britain has spiked and the streets
    of the major cities are awash in illegal guns smuggled in from abroad. By Scotland
    Yard's estimate, as many as 4 million illegal handguns have entered the U.K. in the
    past nine years.

    In Manchester, for example, police report an average of two firearms offences each
    day by 15 - to 20 -year-olds, alone. In most categories of firearms crimes other than
    murder, Britain is now more violent than the United States.

    Australia has had a similar experience. Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in
    which a crazed gunman killed 35 people at a Tasmanian resort, the Australian national
    government banned most semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Nearly a
    million civilian guns were confiscated (with compensation) in the months after the

    Yet, while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting
    incidents actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years after the government-
    imposed gun "surrender."

    The Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BCSR) credits the dramatic
    gun crime decline since 2001 not to the gun ban, but to increased police efforts to
    interdict illegal gun shipments and prosecute owners of illegal weapons, notably drug
    dealers. Don Weatherburn, the head of the BCSR, sees no evidence "to be able to
    say that gun laws have had any effect."

    Indeed, lawful civilian gun ownership has jumped dramatically again in Australia since
    2002, at precisely the same time as gun crime has been falling.

    Once a disturbed individual has made up his mind to enter a school or hotel or other
    public building and commit mass murder, no civilian gun control -- neither a registry,
    nor a ban -- can stop him. Grabbing guns is grasping at straws. Outlawing civilian
    possession of firearms might give worried people the sense something is being
    done to make them safer. But that would just be a false sense of security.

    © National Post 2006


    SW1911 Safety Recall Information

    Smith & Wesson is committed to producing firearms of the highest quality. To accomplish this goal, we are constantly evaluating and monitoring the safety, reliability and performance of our products. As part of this ongoing evaluation process, we have received reports, in an extremely small number of cases, that the firing pin safety plunger of the SW1911 pistol can become disabled, creating a situation where the slide may jam and render the firearm inoperable. This only pertains to certain Smith & Wesson Model SW1911 pistols bearing serial numbers JRD0000 to JRD4750.

    To date, none of these cases have resulted in any injury, and Smith & Wesson has not received any reports of any accidental discharge associated with the functioning of the firing pin safety plunger. While the company has not received any reports of injury, a failure of the firing pin safety plunger may affect the reliability and safety of your firearm. Therefore, given our commitment to quality and safety, we are initiating this recall campaign, and we are offering to repair, free of charge, any affected SW1911 pistol.

    For more information please view the "SW1911 Safety Recall Notice" PDF file at the top of this page. If after viewing the document you believe your SW1911 requires service, click the "Enter SW1911 Return Information" link at the top of this page and enter all the required information. A special FedEx return label and shipping instructions to facilitate the return of your Model SW1911 Pistol will be mailed to you promptly. If you have any questions you may call 1-800-331-0852 for more information.

    I have posted the url on my site,



















    5 13 06 Today I had a new experience....

    For years I have been teaching about gun safety, and one of the things one teaches about
    is a "squib." The English call it a "firecracker," and the Aussies, a "coward." It is a case
    where a cartridge is not loaded with enough powder to make the bullet leave the barrel
    when it is fired.

    My student was firing my Scandium .357 with light .38 loads, BANG, BANG, pop.... and
    I told her to cease fire and set the gun on the bench. Lo and behold...

    I then took this view, while standing behind it and the camera at an oblique angle:


    1) Pay attention to everything when you are shooting. The next round fired from that
    gun would have been dangerous and

    2) Carry a multi tool and full cleaning kit when you go to the range.

    3) ALWAYS carry a primary and a back up gun.


    From a letter to John Farnum:


    "I was practicing drawing and deploying my Cold Steel Vaquero Grande yesterday.

    Like you, I consider a good blade vital, but useless if you don't practice. On completion,
    I folded the blade, but did not visually check that it was indexed completely inside the
    handle. Of course, the inevitable happened. I stabbed myself in the meaty part of my
    left palm just below the thumb, sinking the point to the bone.  Man, those Cold Steel
    knifes are sharp!

    This injury has emphasized important points:

    When handling weapons, don't disengage your brain while your body is still in motion! 
    In other words, don't relax too soon. This not only counts for tactical encounters, but
    for every time you handle weapons.  When you say to yourself, 'Whew; glad that's
    over,' watch out!  It ain't.

    A robust and seriously sharp blade is a must. That's why my first choice is Cold
    Steel.  This blade entered my skin with just the barest pressure. Had I been fighting
    in a weakened state, or with a poor attack angle, my razor-sharp blade would have
    made the difference between a glancing blow and a ruinous, fight-winning cut.

    Sharp blades cause copious bleeding! This wound bled and bled, and then bled
    some more. Causing your attacker to bleed profusely, even from a minor wound,
    can grievously impair his will to continue fighting, which is one of the 'four Ds.'

    When working with blades, expect to be cut, sooner or later! Be prepared for
    that stinging feeling and the rush of blood.  If you're not unconscious, it means
    that you can still fight."

    Comment: My friend is absolutely right!  As with guns, blades will bite you when
    you're careless.  However, for warriors, they are an inexorable part of our lives
    and very being.  The risks associated with having serious weapons around must
    be balanced against the risks associated with not having
    weapons around.  Life is meant to be exciting, not relaxing!


    19 Aug 06


    No Charges in Shooting of Unarmed Man

    Mother of Optometrist Killed by Police Calls Prosecutor's
    Decision 'Pathetic'

    By Tom Jackman

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, March 24, 2006; Page B05

    The Fairfax County police officer who shot an unarmed man to death in
    January will not be charged with a crime, the county's chief prosecutor
    announced yesterday, and the man's family angrily responded by
    claiming that a civilian in the same situationwould have been arrested.

    From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J.
    Culosi, 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had
    done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F.
    Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun
    without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit
    a crime."






    "I feel for the family of the victim in this case," Horan said. "You have
    to. But I also feel for the police officer. This is a good police officer.
    Fine record, almost 17 years. He's as shattered by this as any good
    police officer should be."

    The officer is Deval V. Bullock, 40, a longtime member of Fairfax's
    SWAT team, numerous sources familiar with the case said.
    Bullock declined to comment when contacted earlier this week.

    "My son is lying in a cemetery," said Anita Culosi, the victim's mother.
    "His whole life was ahead of him. That man pulled a trigger and shot
    my son dead. I can't handle that. It's just pathetic that they don't find
    something wrong with what they did to my boy."

    Bernard DiMuro, the Culosi family's attorney, said: "A pointed gun
    with a finger on the trigger is not an accident. There is no doubt that
    had the shooter not been a police officer, he would have been charged
    criminally, and a jury would have decided the issue." He said Horan
    could have charged the officer with second-degree murder or

    The Culosis also questioned whether the police could fairly investigate
    themselves and whether Horan had received a complete investigation.
    The family sent a letter to the Fairfax Board of Supervisors asking it to
    review the case, and to review police policies on the use of force and
    the use of SWAT teams as well.

    Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said police are continuing to
    review their policies on the use of force and also on the use of SWAT
    teams in serving search warrants. Horan said he thought the use of
    SWAT teams by Fairfax police was appropriate.

    Police had been investigating whether Culosi, an optometrist with offices
    in Manassas and Warrenton, was a sports bookmaker. An undercover
    officer had been placing bets with Culosi for nearly four months and arrived
    outside Culosi's townhouse in the Fair Lakes area on Jan. 24 to collect
    $1,500 in winnings, Horan said.

    Culosi was standing next to the officer's car, on the passenger side, when
    the officer gave the sign for two SWAT officers to move in. They headed
    toward the car, one to arrest Culosi and one to protect the undercover
    officer, Horan said.

    One officer pulled up in a car behind the undercover officer's. "As the officer
    came out, he was bringing his weapon up," Horan said. "In the course of
    bringing his weapon up, it discharged. He has no real explanation how."

    Horan said the officer shouted the word "police" at Culosi. "Right after
    "police,' " Horan said, "it went pow."

    Horan said the officer was aware that he should not have had a finger on
    the trigger and that he should not have had his .45-caliber H&K handgun
    pointed at anyone. "As he says, you keep your finger straight," Horan said.
    "He felt his finger was straight . . . but obviously his finger is not straight up.
    His finger has to be on the trigger."

    Horan said the officer's gun was tested and was not at fault. He said the gun
    had a standard trigger pull and was modified only to add a flashlight on the
    barrel, but the flashlight was not in use.

    Horan's decision not to pursue criminal charges does not affect any civil
    lawsuit the family might file, and DiMuro said one is likely.

    The officer, originally placed on leave with pay, returned to work in an
    administrative job a couple of days after the shooting, Jennings said. Police
    said they will resume an internal investigation of the officer; they were
    prevented from interviewing him while the criminal probe was pending.

    Horan said the accident "could have been based on the number of hours
    the officer was awake that day." He said the officer had started working at
    5 a.m., overseeing a managed deer hunt in the Great Falls area aimed at
    thinning the deer population. Horan said the officer went home at noon that
    day, then returned to work at 8 p.m. Culosi was shot at 9:35 p.m.

    Culosi's family members said they were launching a Web site, , to provide friends and the public with
    information about the case. "We are not going to sit by and allow this
    to happen to another citizen of Fairfax County," said Salvatore J. Culosi,
    the victim's father. "Our family will never understand this. And we will
    never be the same."



    25 Nov 05

    Comments on military readiness, from a student currently assigned overseas:

    "Ain't it the truth!  In an hour my shift starts.  My unit guards this base's entire
    ammunition supply, and we're located in a not-especially-friendly, foreign country.

    I have no guns with me now, nor do any of us where we're not technically on duty. 
    Shortly, I will be issued a dirty M9 pistol, with two magazines and twenty rounds
    of dirty, 9mm hardball.  Our orders are to carry the pistol in a flap holster, with
    all flaps fully secured, so drawing with one hand, or quickly even with both
    hands, is not possible.  The weapon is to be carried with a magazine inserted,
    an empty chamber, and the safety 'on' (decocking lever down).  As you might
    say, we're little more than cannon fodder here!

    Clearing barrels litter this facility like horse crap.  Those few weapons that are
    carried, even by active-duty soldiers, are always unloaded and universally treated
    with the utmost cavalierly. I have never seen firearms so casually thrown about
    with such contemptuous disregard to unsafe directions in which they are
    incessantly pointed.

    I so much miss the comradery of your class where real gunmen bear arms
    proudly, with true safety, honor, respect, and professionalism.  It has yet to
    filter down here!"

    Comment: I'm disheartened when I receive notes like this.  The True Way has
    yet to shine forth at this remote outpost, and many like it.  The thing I regret
    most is that, with all our effort, we have (obviously) accomplished so little.


    26 Nov 05

    Counterpoint, from a young lad in Country:

    "Mr Farnam, I witnessed a negligent discharge in a mess hall over here.  The
    culprit was, of course, the mishandling of weapons.  It is not uncommon.  Thus,
    here is the other side of the argument:

    My unit deployed to Iraq on short notice, with little additional arms training.  We
    have eighteen-year-olds walking around with 9mm pistols, who have only touched
    them on one previous occasion, and that was a paltry ten  rounds of familiarization
    firing just prior to departure from CONUS, and under  the tutelage of instructors who
    knew precious little more about the weapon than did their students!

    Lack of muzzle consciousness is, by far, the biggest problem over here, and the l
    amentable affliction makes no distinction with regard to rank or age!  Accordingly,
    unit commanders will not allow the carrying of loaded weapons inside camps. 
    The rational is that there is little reason to carry loaded inside a guarded area."

    My reply: Thanks for your note, son, and I understand the hesitancy of you and your
    colleagues to be "hot" all the time, even if it were permitted.

    "Guarded area," huh?  The fact that you're drawing"combat pay" should be a hint
    to both you and your hesitant and naive commanders.  When in Vietnam thirty-
    GOT OVERRUN ALL THE TIME!  With any luck, that phenomenon will not become
    a big part of your life over there, but it only has to happen once for a lot of hapless
    and unarmed men to be wretchedly massacred, because they cannot  shoot.

    PISTOLS ON A REGULAR BASIS.  In our Marine Programs, we teach them to
    do it in two days!  We've never had an ND, and our students come away as
    competent gun  handlers, as well as fast and deadly-accurate shooters.  They
    think of themselves as professional gunmen, and they carry hot, proudly and

    The problem with the "no-gun" policy, common in CONUS, is that it creeps into
    our daily routine, even in areas of active fighting, where you now find yourself. 
    Shifting gears becomes more and more indecisive and incomplete.  Some are
    even hesitant about carrying hot OUTSIDE the wire!  When will we stop being
    afraid of ourselves?

    You better understand something about warfare, lad:  Active war is going to be
    a continuous part of world landscape for the remainder of your lifetime.  On behalf
    of my generation, I apologize to you and your  colleagues for the hash you've
    inherited from us.  With that said, you better get used to a pitilessly indifferent
    HARMFUL HEAVY-HITTER, and that you're going to  be in a high state of readiness,
    all the time, no matter were you are,  regardless of "rules."  I pray you make that
    decision while you still can!


    21 Nov 05

    ACOG into the sun:

    "I tested a DPMS AR-15 yesterday.  Rifle ran fine, but I was shooting almost
    directly into the setting sun.  Iron sights worked fine.   However, when I mounted
    an ACOG and attempted to continue, I discovered light  spalling was sufficient
    to wash out the target.  I could see the sighting pyramid just fine, but nothing else!"

    Comment: It's not just the ACOG.  All rifle optics have an issue when shooting at
    a target with a strong light source close to it.  Many have assured me that iron
    sights are obsolete.  Not yet!


    21 Nov 05

    Info on rifle optics, from a student and operator:

    "Like you, I love Aimpoints, ACOGs, and scout scopes, but there is a critical
    weaknesses that is shared by everything with glass, and it must be acknowledged
    and dealt with during realistic training. Many of us carry rifles  (car guns) in vehicles.
    When the outside temperature drops, these rifles, and their attached optics, get
    cold. When one must subsequently retrieve the rifle and then enter a heated
    building, the optics will fog instantly, rendering them temporarily useless. 
    Moving back into the cold will cause the fog to turn to frost.

    Training under all foreseeable the environmental conditions will help eliminate
    painful, operational surprises!"

    Comment: Once again, none of these issues are shared by iron sights.


    24 Nov 05

    A Thanksgiving Day Story, from a friend and student in Country:

    "For the second time since I've been in Country, a first sergeant approached me
    today in the Thanksgiving-dinner chow line, put his arm around my shoulder, and
    stated, 'I notice there is a magazine in your pistol, soldier.  It's not actually loaded,
    is it?' I calmly informed him I'm a CID  agent, that my pistol was 'actually' loaded,
    and 'that's just the way we do  things.'

    He backed off, put his palms up, and replied with the customary loser's self-
    justification, 'I don't make the rules,' to which I retorted, 'You're part of the problem,
    top.  We're standing in an active combat zone, and I'm the only one in this entire
    room with a gun that will actually shoot!' My reply flew  over his head, of course,
    but it was a sad reminder of how shamefully emasculated our armed forces have
    become, even in an area of active fighting.

    I wasn't issued ammunition until eight days after I arrived in theater.  Fortunately,
    per your advice, I brought my own. There is no excuse for such casual disregard
    for the personal safety of troops.   Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath that our
    commanders, or our politicians, will do anything that will push this floundering
    system in the right direction."

    Comment: We are fighting decades of gun-phobia, which has made its way into
    every corner of our civilization, even our "armed" forces, and even when they  are
    deployed to a combat zone and actively engaged in a war!


    A Recent "Kaboom":

    While recently performing some sound testing with various loads, I had some .38 spcl
    wadcutter loads made by a friend. Because they are so light, I did not notice the
    difference between a light load and one that evidently was not powdered and lodged
    in the barrel. Next shot, "kaboom ."

    No injuries, and a $28 used part solved the problem.

    Here you can see the one lodged in the tube that caused the problem.


    Site Powered By
        WebBizBuilder Site Manager
        Online web site design