Monday, October 12, 2015

Countering anti gun falsehoods

COUNTERING ANTI-GUN FALSEHOODS

Well, they’re at it again.  Their egos deeply invested in their narrative that “guns are bad and so are the people who own them,” we now hear prohibitionists telling us that no mass murder has ever been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”

Au contraire.   Here are a dozen cases where armed good people of both genders stopped massacres by drawing and if necessary, firing their own guns.

To this list I would add the Aurora, Colorado church shooting which, ignored by the media, happened within two months of the mass murder in the “gun free zone” theater in that same community.  The perp opened fire at the church, killing an innocent woman; before he could claim any more victims, a parishioner drew his own legally-carried concealed handgun and shot the murderer dead.  Didn’t read about that in the mass media, did you?  Or the incident some years ago in Cape Town, South Africa where organized terrorists attacked a church and opened up with machine guns and grenades, but were routed by a single parishioner who returned fire with a five-shot snub-nose .38.  And shall we remember the many armed citizens who saved people at the Westgate Mall terrorist attack, while soldiers and police fibrillated outside?

Note that from the monster at Sandy Hook to the one in the Aurora theater to the latest at the Oregon campus, these punks have surrendered, suicided, or gone down in front of righteous gunfire as soon as good guys with guns entered the equation.

The mayor of Bethlehem has recently called on more citizens to carry guns and stop terrorist attacks, recognizing that armed citizens have done so before in his country . Said the mayor, “If we look at the statistics in Jerusalem and elsewhere, we see that aside from the police, civilians carrying weapons have foiled terror attacks. They will increase the likelihood of fast intervention.”

I wish American politicians and pundits could face reality so.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2015/10/09/countering-anti-gun-falsehoods/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MassadAyoob+%28Massad+Ayoob%29


Sunday, October 11, 2015

$100 Florida, Utah & Arizona CCW Class for Illinois non residents

$100 - Utah, Florida & Arizona CCW License Class - for Illinois residents


Get three (3) non-resident Utah, Florida & Arizona CCW permits / licenses - together legally and safely conceal carry handgun(s) in over 34 States. 

Location: VFW Villa Park,  Illinois 
Date: November 14th (9AM-1PM)

Cost: $100.00 includes (UT & AZ) fingerprints, passport photos, non-resident paper applications and notary of the FL application.

331-642-8110 / www.IllinoisCC.com

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Honest talk about guns...

Honest talk about guns

A. Barton Hinkle | Posted 

Vester Lee Flanagan’s brutal murder of two young WDBJ news people has reignited the debate over gun control. That debate, which never really ends, is deeply frustrating to both sides because of a conundrum that does not get talked about enough: The most popular gun control proposals would have little effect, while the most effective measures would be immensely unpopular.

Instead, we get the frequent assertion that voting against gun control exhibits “cowardice.” This is an ad hominem, not an argument on the merits. We also get the assertion that gun control advocates want only “common-sense” restrictions, and the lament that America needs an “honest conversation” about guns. None of these shibboleths sheds much light.

Gun-violence restraining orders rest on a clear, articulable suspicion about an individual - rather than on sweeping assumptions that, much like racial profiling, cast suspicion on the dangerous and the innocent alike.

After every high-profile killing, the cry goes up that America must “do something,” which is how an Aug. 26 Washington Post editorial put it. This urge is so strong that it overwhelms critical thinking. “We certainly don’t know if the gun control measures that (Virginia Gov. Terry) McAuliffe or other would-be reformers favor would have prevented Wednesday’s deadly attack,” the newspaper said. “But it doesn’t matter.” Efficacy doesn’t matter? Really?

Apparently not. The two most common proposals in the aftermath of any spree killing are universal background checks (Virginia Democrats are reviving that proposal now) and a ban on assault weapons — neither of which would have a measurable effect on spree killings.

***

Three of the most horrifying massacres in recent years — by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.; James Holmes in Aurora, Colo.; and Jared Loughner in Tucson, Ariz. — all were committed with legally obtained weapons. Background checks did not stop them. Nor did a background check stop Flanagan, who passed his.

Better background checks might have stopped Seung-Hui Cho’s rampage at Virginia Tech — and should have. The problem was not that the background check system was insufficiently broad, but that Cho slipped through the cracks of a system that would have caught him had it been working properly. The same holds true for Dylan Roof, the Charleston, S.C., shooter whose arrest on drug charges might have stopped him from buying a gun (but, for complicated reasons, also might not have).

In fact, according to an analysis by The Atlantic of 30 mass shootings from 2003 to 2013, broader background checks would have stopped only one: Douglas Williams’ slaughter at a Lockheed Martin plant. Requiring states to report information promptly and thoroughly to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System might do more good than broadening the application of a system full of holes.

Likewise, bans on assault weapons would have a vanishingly small effect on spree killings. Such bans usually define assault weapons based on cosmetic characteristics — such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor — that have no bearing on lethality. This is one reason few public officials have tried seriously to revive the 1994 federal ban that expired in 2004.

Although there are millions of so-called assault rifles in circulation (3.3 million Colt AR-15s alone, for example), they actually are used in homicides less often than hammers and clubs. And that’s true for all rifles, not just the scary-looking kind. In 2013, FBI data show, 285 people were killed with rifles — and 428 with blunt instruments.

To be fair, some gun control advocates nod toward these realities by saying, as The Post did recently, that “no one piece of legislation or policy change will solve the problem of gun violence. Many actions are needed.”

But which ones? Other possibilities include mandatory trigger locks; limiting gun sales to one per customer per month, as Virginia used to do; limiting the capacity of semiautomatic magazines, as New York tried to do; waiting periods; registration; licensing; and confiscation.

***

Some proposals stand on stronger legs than others. One that merits adoption is the gun violence restraining order, or GVRO, which allows authorities to confiscate the firearms of individuals who have been adjudicated a threat. (Virginia considered such a proposal earlier this year but didn’t pass it.) Laws like that rest on a clear, articulable suspicion about an individual, rather than on sweeping assumptions that, much like racial profiling, cast suspicion on the dangerous and the innocent alike.

The hard truth, however, is that while such reforms might reduce gun deaths somewhat, they are unlikely to have a transformative effect. They certainly are unlikely to make gun homicide rates fall by half, which is what has happened over the past 20 years, even as many states have relaxed their gun laws.

After Virginia passed a law allowing guns in bars, for example, the number of crimes committed with guns in bars actually dropped. (You can’t say repealing the ban caused the drop, but you also can’t say it caused any increase.) That gun-related killings fell in so many places where gun control laws were loosened should cast doubt on simplistic assertions that there is a direct relationship between gun laws and gun crimes. International comparison, likewise, raise similar doubts.

After all, there are 300 million guns in America, and nearly one out of every three adults owns a firearm. The vast majority of gun owners will never hurt anyone with a gun. Moreover, the presence of a gun in the home does not always correlate neatly with getting shot: While whites are twice as likely to have a gun in the home as blacks, blacks make up 55 percent of all shooting victims.

***

Still, it’s indisputable that if the U.S. were to confiscate all civilian firearms, only a very few people would die by gunshot. In Japan, where nearly all gun ownership is forbidden, the number of deaths by gunshot in any given year is less than two dozen. France, which also has extremely stringent gun laws, likewise has a gun homicide rate lower than America’s by an order of magnitude (although, as some have pointed out, France’s gun laws didn’t stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre).

Gun control advocates are willing to trade a marginal degree of liberty for a marginal reduction in gun deaths. But are they willing to stop there? If so, many gun rights supporters actually might join them: Polls show gun owners support some modest gun control efforts, such as broader background checks.

Defenders of gun rights are less likely to endorse stronger measures. Advocates of gun control think it is callous to accept tens of thousands of deaths a year just so gun owners can keep their toys. But is their own attitude toward, say, alcohol any less callous?

The reports that 29,000 people died prematurely because of alcohol in 2013 — far more than the number who were murdered by someone using a firearm — and that’s not counting deaths from alcohol-related accident or homicide.

The lives of those who died were shortened by an average of 30 years. Yet the vast majority of Americans blithely tolerate this because they don’t want to (and shouldn’t have to) give up something nobody really needs: the occasional drink.

The real question is whether gun control advocates would be satisfied with a minor reduction in firearm killings. Suppose for the sake of argument that the U.S. adopted the bulk of the gun control agenda, and then witnessed another massacre like the one at Newtown.

At that point, would gun control advocates say: “Well, we tried all the common-sense measures, so there’s nothing more we can do”? Or would they, like anti-abortion activists, press for even more stringent restrictions?

That’s one question any honest conversation about guns ought to answer.

http://m.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/bart-hinkle/article_8b9d8900-3dae-5585-a35c-8399c376e519.html?mode=jqm

Friday, October 9, 2015

More guns = less crime!!!

New FBI Report Validates what Gun Owners Have Been Saying All Along

If one were to listen to the talking heads of MSNBC (which I would not recommend), Americans are gun fanatics with an oozing bloodlust that hinders progress at every turn. As gun sales continue to climb and more and more guns are being sold in America, the left is disgusted by America’s thorough rejection of their illogically-conceived principle that guns create more violence.

In reality, the exact opposite is true; more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are helping to create a safer society and this fact is so clear that even the FBI must admit it.

A new report from the FBI shows that as gun sales reach all-time highs, violent crime rates continue to drop.

AWR Hawkins at Breitbart summarizes the findings:

On November 10, the FBI released a report showing “violent crimes in 2013 decreased 4.4 percent when compared with 2012 figures, and the estimated number of property crimes decreased 4.1 percent.”  That slide continued in 2014, albeit at a lesser pace in come categories.

For example, at the beginning of this week, the FBI released numbers showing that murder fell by 0.5 percent compared to 2013, which is “a 3.2 percent decrease from the 2010 figure, and a 14.9 percent drop from the number in 2005.” Moreover, robberies “decreased 5.6 percent from the 2013 estimate and 11.7 percent from the 2010 estimate.” The figures for 2014 represent a “22.0 percent [decrease] from the 2005 estimate.”

Again, these decreases follow a year in which the number of  background checks conducted for gun purchases broke records. Moreover, the decreases in murder and robbery took place in a year in which gun sales continued to be so brisk that a background check was conducted almost every three seconds on Black Friday. CNN reported that the “average of almost three [background checks] per second [was] nearly three times the daily average” seen throughout the rest of the 2014.

On April 8, 2015, the Washington Times reported that the 2013 surge in gun sales forced manufacturers to make “10.8 million” weapons that year, just to meet demand. That is nearly twice as many guns as manufacturers made in 2010. Yet 2014 figures show murder has fallen 3.2 percent since 2010 and robberies are down 11.7 since 2010 as well.

These stats are fantastic, but hardly surprising. Time and time again, this has proven to be the case. Last year, after Chicago was dragged kicking and screaming into allowing for concealed carry permits, the Windy city enjoyed the lowest homicide rate it had seen in 56 years!

Still, the left likes to pretend that this continual pattern is merely a coincidence. To borrow a phrase from the left: “the debate is over.”

More guns in the right hands not only enables citizens to better-defend themselves and their community, but the publicizing of such data sends a clear message to would-be robbers, rapists and murderers: “We’re packing. So maybe stealing a TV isn’t worth it.”

http://politistick.com/new-fbi-report-validates-what-gun-owners-have-been-saying-all-along/

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Yes...with training and good judgement

Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

Thanks to Oleg Volk for the photo. (The earlier photo, some readers pointed out, showed someone seriously jeopardizing his left thumb by holding it too close to the slide of a semiautomatic.)

Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding people carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard of even one such example.

A while back I posted about a few examples, but since then there have been some more, so I thought I’d note them. Naturally, such examples will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren’t people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn’t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don’t hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims. Moreover, at least some examples are ambiguous, because it might be unclear — as you’ll see below — whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped.

Still, for whatever they are worth, here is a list of some such incidents (which deliberately excludes killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers, or police officers from other jurisdictions, at the time of a shooting, as well as some other cases which struck me as borderline):

1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

7. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

8. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.

9. In Pearl, Miss., in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.

Of course there’s much we don’t know about civilians and mass shootings: In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he’s already done? In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders?

Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people had asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter, so here is what I found.

For an explanation of why I didn’t include the December 2012 Clackamas Mall shooting, see here. Some of these incidents are drawn from a list on the Crime Prevention Research Center site, though I have independently read the media reports to which I linked (as well as some other media reports on the incidents, for background).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

Monday, October 5, 2015

Double-Action Conceal Carry Myths

Concealed Carry Myths: Double-action Pistols Suck For Self-defense

 By  1 Comment

On a concealed carry gun, is a long , heavy, double-action trigger a benefit or a curse?

Recently, there has been much rekindled and rehashed debate on whether striker-fired guns are the spawn of Satanic fire-breathing seahorses or the most effective self-defense technology ever to grace a holster.

Some folks remain convinced that striker-fired guns like Glocks have trigger press motions that are too easy and too short. According to this view, negligent and unintended discharges are bound to happen, more so than with other designs. Under stress, your body does weird things, one of which is a sympathetic muscular response. For example, clenching one hand will cause the other to clench, although maybe to a lesser degree. If that “other” hand is holding a gun, then you just might fire it unintentionally. It’s happened before, but so have a lot of other things, like Clay Aiken running for Congress.

The opposing camp prefers long, double-action triggers like those on revolvers and pistols like Berettas, Sig Sauers, and the like. The first shot requires a very long and deliberate press of the trigger. On a Beretta 92FS, the base of the trigger moves over an inch before the shot breaks. The center portion of the trigger, where one’s finger will likely rest, moves over ⅝ of an inch. The trigger weight can run over ten pounds, as compared to the five-pound range of many striker-fired pistols.

At first glance, it sounds like the double-action / single-action crowd has the debate nailed, but there are downsides to consider. First, that long double-action trigger press is harder to master, so it takes some work to deliver an accurate shot, especially under stress. Then there’s the dreaded transition. With a double-action / single-action gun like the Beretta 92 / M9, the first shot requires a long trigger press with over 10 pounds of pressure. Subsequent shots operate in single-action mode with a five pound, and much shorter, trigger press. Getting off multiple accurate shots requires the shooter to master this transition from double-action to single-action between the first shot and second. A striker-fired (or single-action only) pistol has no such transition to conquer. Proponents of that design claim you can unleash two rapid-fire shots at a 300-yard distant Willy Wonka Bottle Cap candy and hit it both times.

Like most debates, there is some truth on both sides. Personally, I have double-action / single-action, striker-fired, and single-action only guns and am comfortable carrying any of those styles. I’ve never been stressed out about the whole double-action / single-action transition thing. In fact, my first “real caliber” gun was a 9mm Beretta 92FS. I carried it as my only option for years and never worried much about it. I guess I didn’t know enough to know that it was the worst concealed carry choice ever and would cause not only my eventual demise, but the downfall of Bingo parlors and tanning salons everywhere. I simply shot it enough to feel comfortable with “the transition.” As a new concealed carrier, I kind of liked the multiple layers of perceived safety. The safety / decocking lever provided one layer. The long, double-action trigger press offered another. I still like those layers and carry double-action pistols frequently.

Until a recent training class I never really knew exactly why I was so comfortable with a double-action / single-action design for concealed carry. Then I found out why I like it. I took an abbreviated class with Ernie Langdon. You might have heard of him, as he’s one of the premier pistol instructors anywhere.

http://mygunculture.com/concealed-carry-myths-double-action-pistols-suck-for-self-defense/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MyGunCulture+%28My+Gun+Culture%29

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Illinois Concealed Carry Weapons Class

$250 - Illinois Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW/CCL) License Training Class

BRING A FRIEND TO CLASS AND GET $50.00 OFF YOUR CLASS FEE!!!  ALL LADIES GET $50 OFF - 16 HOUR CLASSES ONLY!!!

VETERANS QUALIFY FOR THE 1-DAY (8 HOUR) CLASS - $100

Get your Illinois Conceal Carry License... Plus get 3 other CCW's licenses FREE! (Utah CCW, Arizona CCW & Florida CCW) - together safely and legally conceal carry a handgun in over 36 States...!!!

Price: $250 (NO other class fees), 
price includes;
1. Range fees ($25)
2. Illinois Livescan digital fingerprints ($70)
3. Utah & Arizona ink fingerprints ($25)
4. Passport photos ($15)
5. CCW application paperwork 
6. Assistance with CCW application paperwork 

Class Date: November 14-15th (16 hours)
Location: VFW- Villa Park, Illinois 

331-642-8110 / www.IllinoisCC.com