Gary Wolf

5 Most Common Self-Defense Scenarios

According to the Texas law firm of Armed Attorneys, here are the five most common self-defense scenarios they have seen, either in a previous life as prosecutors, or now, as defense attorneys.

The person intervening may not know the circumstances as to what caused the fight in the first place.

5. Breaking Up A Fight

It may start out as a use of force or low level of non-lethal force incident and quickly escalates into a deadly force incident, if one or both of the combatants pulls out a knife, a gun or some other instrument which can be considered deadly force. The person intervening may not know all the circumstances as to why the combatants are belligerent with each other. Often people who insert themselves into the scenario to break it up often do not know who the initial aggressor is and who the “victim” is. But keep in mind that 3rd party defense is not legal in every state.

Juries don’t like when the combatants escalate the situation, rather than letting cooler heads prevail.

4. Breaking Up A Bar Fight

Everyone is drinking, Some may be intoxicated. Guilt or innocence will not be based on the amount of alcohol in one’s system but based on an ordinary prudent man. Keep in mind that if you are truly the “victim” and use an excessive amount of force to defend yourself, you may be arrested for some level of assault. Juries don’t like it when people heighten emotions or tension, aka heightening the incident. To avoid this, don’t become intoxicated. Be cognizant of not provoking an incident. Don’t let your pride take over.

3. Neighbor Disputes

Neighbor disputes are one of the worst self-defense scenarios, because even if you win, you lose, since you still have to live next door to that neighbor.

This comes up in many different forms; a neighbor who does not respect a property boundary, or a neighbor who has dogs who is destroying property, such as destroying or tunnelling under fences, and killing livestock. The biggest pitfall with these disputes is that the police may not know or won’t be privy to the leadup history between neighbors which escalated over time. The police will look at that snapshot of time at that moment of occurrence. Law enforcement hates responding to neighbor disputes. If they get called out due to a use of force 911 call, they will undoubtedly arrest one of the neighbors, perhaps both. They do not want to hear the entire backstory. Keep in mind that if you get arrested, the problem doesn’t go away. You still have to live next to that neighbor and that neighbor still hates your guts. The neighbor who did not get arrested may call the prosecutor’s office and demand maximum punishment for the accused, simply because the non-arrested neighbor has to see the one who got arrested every day.

2. Dog Attacks

If you absolutely, positively have to shoot an attacking dog, be cognizant of your community’s ordinance, if any, on discharging a gun inside city limits.

Much of the time, the culmination of past history with bad dogs is when one neighbor simply shoots the attacking dog, not necessarily based on what that dog is doing at that moment in time. Let’s suppose a few weeks ago, an aggressive dog attacked and killed your small dog. Then today you see the aggressive dog in his own yard not being aggressive, and you simply shoot it. When police arrive, they don’t want to hear “that dog killed my dog three weeks ago.” Instead, the police will ask “what was that dog doing today?”  Keep in mind that if the aggressive dog is on your property, merely trespassing on your property does not give you the legal right to use deadly force. Another scenario of this type is where you are walking your leashed dogs in your neighborhood or on a trail. There is a rise in loose-running, unsupervised aggressive dogs lately. Should this be the case, you may want to think of using a defensive tool that is not lethal, because if all you have on you is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Carry a non-lethal tool for defense.  And the reason is that shooting the aggressive dog may get you arrested. It may not be for cruelty to animals, but rather your city or town may have an ordinance against discharging a firearm inside city limits.

1. Road Rage

Be prudent and do everything you can to de-escalate the situation. In the jury room, juries will ask themselves “why didn’t he just drive away?”

Even if you are minding your own business and think you are the good guy and will just set your handgun on the dashboard to scare the road rage aggressor, doing so during a road rage incident will get you arrested. In Pennsylvania, while there is no brandishing law, there is a terroristic threats law, and simply setting your handgun on the dashboard may construe a silent terroristic threat.  Road rage incidences are a “he said, she said” type of incident, so as soon as you display your handgun, the aggressive driver is calling the police to report your bad driving with a gun, not their own bad driving. Even if you don’t point the gun. The other aggressive driver will always report that you pointed the gun. If you carry in your vehicle, make every attempt to de-escalate the situation and avoid road rage, because if the other driver told the police, you pointed a gun at them, and the police find a gun in your vehicle, you will be arrested. Do not pull out your gun unless it is absolutely the last resort. If the other person exist their vehicle and comes at you with a tire iron or a gun, you have every right to defend yourself with your firearm, but don’t pull out your firearm until the scenario escalates. One of the things the police, prosecutors and jury will look for is “could you have avoided or de-escalated the situation by simply driving away?” Even in Pennsylvania, which is a “Stand Your Ground” state and you have every legal right to stay put, juries just can’t help themselves. They will ask each other in the jury room, “why didn’t the victim simply drive away?”

5 Most Common Self-Defense Scenarios Read More »

Justified Use Of Force

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice on this matter, retain a licensed, competent attorney in your relevant jurisdiction.

Generally speaking, if you shoot someone, that is a crime. You will be charged with murder, aggravated assault, or the like.

However, the law also recognizes there are legal reasons or legal justifications for shooting someone. You will be basically saying “I did the crime, but I had a legal justification for doing so.” Therefore, I want you to read the following sentence in bold, re-read it, continue to re-read it until you have committed it to memory. Knowledge of this sentence may just keep you from showering with Bubba for the next 15 years to life.

A Reasonable Belief That Deadly Force Was Immediately Necessary To Prevent Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Kidnapping Or Rape.

Again, re-read the above until committed to memory. If you ever have to draw your gun in self-defense, you NEED to know the above law. This IS your legal justification recognized here in Pennsylvania.

Now, let’s break down this sentence:

Reasonable – Would an average ordinary citizen do what you just did in an identical circumstance? You need to convince a jury that your actions were reasonable, and that if they were in your shoes, they too, would have done what you did. Keep in mind that the judge, the attorneys, and the jury were not present when you took action. So one of their determinants regarding your guilt or innocence is them agreeing that your actions were reasonable.

Belief – Did YOU believe that failure to act would have meant death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape to either you or a loved one? You will need to convince a jury that you truly believed that shooting an attacker was your only option. Note: fear does not come into play here. If you are deathly afraid of clowns, you may not shoot them simply because you are afraid of them. Again, the judge, attorneys and jury were not present when the incident went down, so they need to agree that you truly believed your actions prevented death or injury to you or others.

Deadly Force – In this context “deadly force” does not mean someone died. It means that whatever method used to stop the attack was readily capable of causing death….a baseball bat, a frying pan, a golf club. While the initial design of those implements was not to be deadly, if they are used in a manner readily capable of causing death, they are considered deadly force. Shooting a bad guy in the leg with your .22 can be considered deadly force. If a bad guy is attempting to steal the tires off your car, you may use force to stop him, but not deadly force. You may push him away. You may call 911. However, if he turns and charges you with the tire iron, you have the right to defend yourself. You can use whatever means are necessary in defense of your life, up to and including deadly force. So if a bad guy approaches you in an aggressive manner with your car’s tire iron, you do what is necessary to defend yourself if you reasonably believe you have to do it.

Immediately Necessary – legal justification happens for only a split second. Was deadly force necessary NOW, at that moment in time, to stop an attack? If an attacker says “let me get my gun and I will come back to kill you”, that is not immediately. Immediately means happening at this very moment. If he says, “I’ll be back next week to kill you”, that is not immediately. Keep forensic evidence in mind. If investigators discovered the decedent had entry wounds in his back, you may be spending time at the gray bar hotel because entry wounds in the decedent’s back indicate he was fleeing and was shot in the back…the threat had ceased and it was no longer immediately necessary to shoot.

Prevent Death – If you did not act at that very moment, you would have been killed, seriously injured, kidnapped or raped. The law is written to protect life, not property. If a bad guy is out of your house with your large flat panel TV, let him go. You can always file a homeowner’s insurance claim to get a new TV. But you cannot get another child. Your spouse cannot get another you.

Serious Bodily Injury – this means the injury was so severe as to cause paralysis, missing limbs, maiming, long bouts with physical therapy, etc. It does not mean a cut on the forehead or a black and blue mark on your butt cheek from being pushed to the ground.

Kidnapping – this means removing a victim from their current location and moving them to another location. FBI statistics reveal that nearly 90% of kidnappings result in murder of the victim.

Rape – sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

Justified Use Of Force Read More »

To The Moon, Alice

No, this is not a blog about Ralph Kramden’s most famous line in “The Honeymooners” TV Show. It’s about Moon Clips. So, what are Moon Clips? They are an adapter which allows rimless ammo to be used revolvers, which generally use rimmed ammo.

The .380 ACP (l) is rimless, while the .38 SPL is rimmed.

However, a few gun manufacturers make revolvers which are chambered for rounds that a normally best suited to semi-automatic pistols. Ruger is one such manufacturer. Their highly popular revolver, the LCR, is one such gun chambered for different size calibers. There are two primary versions, the LCR and the LCRx. The LCR is hammerless and the LCRx has an exposed hammer. (Hammerless, in this case means the hammer is not exposed.) Both of these models are chambered for .38 Special +P, .22 LR, .357 Magnum, .327 Federal Magnum, and 9mm Luger. If, at this point you sang the kids’ song “Which of these is not like the other”, you would not be getting strange looks. That’s because of the five choices of calibers, only the 9mm is rimless and therefore designed to work in semi-automatic pistols.

The Ruger LCR with an enclosed hammer. Per the inset, this model is chambered in .22LR.

More often than not, revolvers are chambered for rimmed ammo, so ss the shooter loads each round into the cylinder, the round does not drop all the way through.

So, if you had a huge stockpile of 9mm rounds at your home, and you are just getting into revolvers, you could purchase either model Ruger LCR in 9mm to avoid having to build up a new stockpile of .38 SPL or .357 Magnum rounds.

Rimless rounds, such as .380 ACP, 9mm Luger or .45 ACP are simply snapped into each moon-shaped slot of the moon clip and loaded into the cylinder as a complete unit.

Then you simply snap five (5) 9mm rounds onto a moon clip and insert the entire loaded moon clip into the cylinder. The moon clip is what keeps the rimless 9mm rounds from falling through the front of the cylinder.

Smith & Wesson is another well-known gun maker who makes revolvers chambered for rimless cartridges. Here is a bag of two moon clips for .45 ACP rounds.

Moon clips are very thin and are generally sold in bags of multiple clips per bag.

Are moon clips worth it? It depends on how well you like revolvers and how large your stockpile of 9mm ammo is. I, personally, am not a fan. I love revolvers but prefer to shoot those chambered in the original designs, namely rimmed cartridges. But that is me. If you like them, buy and use them to your heart’s content. But make sure you sing Frank Sinatra’s “Fly Me To The Moon” when snapping each round into the clip.

To The Moon, Alice Read More »

Tritium vs. Optic

So, you were recently at the range and had a difficult time seeing your gun’s sights because the ambient light in or around the range was very low. Short of the sun shining brighter or turning up the wattage on the range flood lights, what can you do about this low ambient light condition? You can change the sights on your gun to make the sights easier to see in low light or no light situations. There are two choices of aftermarket gun sights available. Which you choose is a personal preference. These choices are changing your factory gun sights for either Tritium sights or (Fiber) Optic sights. So, what are they and what are their similarities and differences?

Fiber Optic Sights

A typical optic sight. Notice the openness along the colored glass tube. This is how the ambient light is gathered.

Fiber optics, or from here on out, simply “optics”, are made of transparent strings of plastic or glass. One string is super-thin, like human hair. However, the optical fibers in manufacturing gun sights are wider than usual. The feature that makes optical fiber popular is its speed and range. It can transfer light to as far as 200 miles per second, making it a top choice for telecommunications. When it comes to gun sights, the technology channels light pretty impressively. Fiber optics is almost reflective. It illuminates instantly by absorbing all the light hitting it. Because of this, the material is visible in varying lighting conditions. The gun sight itself, has an open top, so the glass strings can absorb ambient light. The sight then channels that absorbed light to the back of the sight and into the shooter’s eye.

Typical Tritium sights. Notice there is no opening in the top, because they generate their own light.

Fiber optics come in a wide range of colors. You can get it made in any tone, but green and red are the most common for gun sights. Now you may wonder which color to go for. Try different colors and see which is bright enough to give you a clear sight picture. But generally, staying true to green or red for maximum efficiency and accuracy is recommended. In fact, green is a better light conductor than red is.

Knowledgeable shooters do not rely on the length of the sight to judge its efficacy. Rather, they use the width of the glass tube. The wider the glass tube, the more ambient light it can absorb. So, when shopping for or trying out different handguns, focus on the width rather than the length of the glass tube. However, there is a downside to judging the gun sight solely on its width. Often, wider optics, while providing good light, obstruct the target you are aiming at.

This is the exact model I installed on my Ruger Mk-IV Target pistol.

So, what are fiber optic sights good for? Fiber optic sights are not like ordinary night sights. They don’t generate illumination on their own. Instead, they glow when the light from the surrounding ambient light hits them. That is why fiber optics work amazingly well in broad daylight. A fiber optics sight is suitable for the daytime when the sun is blazing. The more intense the sunlight, the brighter the light will glow. As a result, it will also give a good and clear sight picture. Fiber optic sights are ideal for sport shooting. The sight’s small diameter rod offers precise shooting, while the rod illuminates in external environments. In fact, at my favorite outdoor range, there is significant tree cover during the spring and summer months. So much so, that if the wind blows the leaves just right, their shadow is cast directly onto my gun, reducing the ambient light hitting my gun. An optic sight was a perfect changeout for me.

The actual glass tube is more fragile than Tritium sights. Care must be taken on handling the gun. If the glass tube should break, many models are designed so the tube is replaceable. There are some optic “kits” available which includes the sight and interchangeable glass tubes. This will allow you to go from green to orange quickly, if you want to see if a different color provides a better sight picture.

This Optic is a kit. It allows you to interchange the glass tubes, either due to breakage or the shooter simply wanting to try a different color.

Tritium Sights

Tritium is a hydrogen isotope (3H) that rarely occurs naturally. Instead, this is radioactive material and is mostly made artificially for illumination purposes. Radioactivity can be quite dangerous. But fortunately, tritium has relatively low energy. That makes it less harmful to humans but quite beneficial for lumination in guns. Tritium sights work just like a glow-in-the-dark toy. You have to expose them to a light source, and they will start generating their own light. Tritium does so through a phenomenon known as beta decay. It releases electrons that react with a phosphor material to produce light. The generated light is bright but not strong enough to affect the shooter’s night vision.

As with anything that is radioactive, its efficacy is measured in terms of “half-life”. When searching for tritium sights, you may have encountered the term “tritium half-life.” Ever wondered what that is? It is time a radioactive isotope takes to become half of its initial value. For instance, tritium’s half-life is estimated to be around 12.5 years. That means a tritium sight will start emanating light half as intense after this time period. But this doesn’t indicate that the light will become useless. Instead, it will just get a little dim. And for this reason alone, tritium sights can never be a permanent solution for firearms. No one can actually estimate the potency these instruments have. So, if you have a tritium sight on your gun and store the gun in your safe for lengths of time, you may notice the light given off by the sight may be duller than the last time you pulled the gun out of your safe.

Like fiber optics, tritium sights also come in multiple colors. If your main focus is on elongating the lifespan of your tritium sight, you must choose the color accordingly. That’s because every color degrades differently. For example, green tritium is an excellent and safe choice for dark environments. In addition, it is very durable, with a lifespan of 12 years. On the other hand, yellow tritium is also a good choice as it’s bright but comparatively dull than green. Yet, its lifespan is also 12 years. If you’re shooting at great distances, yellow tritium can cause strain to your eyes. Tritium also comes in orange. But it’s hardly used in guns as it’s less reflective and doesn’t allow the shooter to focus on the object in front. Orange tritium also has a relatively low lifespan of about 5 years.

So, what are tritium sights good for? Tritium sights work best in darkness. These are exceptional low-light night sights, making them ideal for defensive shooting. Moreover, their prominent footprint sight facilitates the shooter in quickly locating the front view. They are the ideal choice for defense firearms to help the shooter shoot accurately at the target. The best part is that tritium sights can be continuously illuminated, which is why they are also available in glow-in-the-dark clocks and wristwatches. You may also see them in exit or emergency signs and glow sticks.

Aiming becomes much easier in low or no light situations with the addition of an aftermarket tritium or optic sight.

So, Which Is Better?

Like just about everything in the gun owner’s world, as you can deduce,  fiber optics and tritium sights are efficient for different situations. While the former works during the day, the latter is ideal for the nighttime. Fiber optics are less expensive, while tritium can be heavy on your pocket. So, which one do you think is better? Well, the answer comes down to your requirements. Ask yourself whether you’re going on a shooting adventure or want an everyday weapon. Then, go through the pros and cons of each sight and make the right choice. If you’re still clueless, here are a few factors to consider in order to find your answer:


Regarding the price, fiber optics are less expensive than tritium sights. A little reminder: the former are transparent strings of plastic, while tritium is a radioactive isotope made artificially for illumination. On average, a fiber optic sight will come at almost half the price of its counterpart. So, if money is your concern, you should go for the fiber optic one.


Fiber optics require a considerable amount of light to work, while tritium sights generate their own illumination. But don’t forget that tritium’s luminosity can degrade over time. It will become less effective in a few years, mainly because it continuously glows. If you keep your tritium sight in a drawer for years and take it out, you may find that its magic is gone. In the worst-case scenario, it may not even work entirely. On the other hand, fiber optics sights don’t need previous exposure to work. Also, the material doesn’t degrade over time.

Optic Sight Pros
Optic Sight Cons
Tritium Sight Pros
Tritium Sight Cons


The comparison between both sights ends at versatility. Fiber optics refracts light from the environment to give you a good view. But if you’re in dark surroundings and want to draw your firearm, you won’t be able to reap its full benefits. That’s when you’d need a tritium sight. When it’s daytime, the scenario is quite different. The tritium light won’t be noticeable under the sun, while fiber optics one would give an intense light.

Installing Aftermarket Sights

This pistol sight pusher tool is available on Amazon.

Installing them is dependent on your gun model. Many gun models have them held in with tiny screws, such as the image of the sight for my Ruger Mk-IV Target pistol. Others, like Glock and Walther, have a screw under the sight which has to be removed. Therefore, the slide, barrel and slide spring have to be removed to provide accessibility to the tiny screw on the underside of the muzzle. Still others, like the two images at the beginning of this blog, are held in place with a dovetail mount. They require a special pistol sight pusher too to push the sight through the dovetailing. The tool can be purchased on Amazon. If you are not comfortable doing it yourself, have a gunsmith do it.

Tritium vs. Optic Read More »



If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, whether you think of yourself as a teacher or not, you are one. Whether you are schooling a liberal politician with your vote or educating a random person with your behavior, you are a teacher. All gun rights activists have a responsibility to teach.

The same thing goes for your defense attorney, should you need one. Your attorney’s job is to communicate to or teach the jury about your innocence. No one in the courtroom, except you, was at the scene when a self-defense shooting went down. It is your attorney’s job to teach a group of 12 indifferent men and women, some who may not even want to be there, about what happened, and educate them on why you should be acquitted.

The stuttering lawyer in “My Cousin Vinny” was eventually fired because he was boring and could not articulate the defendant’s innocence to the jury, not because he stuttered.

It is doubtful that you will be able to see your proposed attorney in action teaching before you select him or her. But it may be possible to sit in the gallery of a self-defense trial and see if the attorney will approach your defense in a similar way. If seeing the attorney in action beforehand is not possible, when you get to meet him or her for the first time, you can ask them how they approached a similar case. If the attorney answers you in a dull, monotonous way, that is how he or she will present your case. You want to see enthusiasm and pleasure in getting defendants acquittal verdicts.

Everyone remembers the stuttering attorney in “My Cousin Vinny”. The stuttering aside, his questioning of witnesses was in a dull and monotonous manner. And he was eventually fired after seeing Vinny’s enthusiastic courtroom antics.

Vinny got the charges dropped because of his courtroom antics.

Your defense attorney must fight fire with fire. The prosecution will introduce and wave the weapon around for the jury to see. They will show gory autopsy and crime scene photos to each jury member or display such photos on a large screen via PowerPoint for all to see. Your defense attorney must do the same.

Perhaps during your initial questioning of your prospective attorney, the attorney may not yet have all the facts and evidence, but the attorney may be able to describe exhibits from prior cases that might be relevant. In this explanation of previous trials, is the prospective attorney beginning to show enthusiasm about he or she can defend you?


And there is no better method of teaching politicians than through lobbying, which is pure teaching. But don’t expect the teaching to be received if you come armed with righteous indignation of our 2nd Amendment cause. Rather, approach the teaching from the point of view that you can provide what politicians need most…friends. Friends hold fundraisers, pass out literature, post signs, influence others, and most importantly…vote. Many politicians may care very little about our 2nd Amendment rights. But they care very much about being re-elected.

In the case of many politicians, their secretaries control access to them. Any rude comment to the secretary raises a barrier to accessing the politician. Not to mention the secretary may immediately report your boorish behavior to the politician, further raising the barrier for you to teach the politician.

The politician needs to be taught a message of why he or she must support our cause. And it is equally important for the politician to respect the teacher. And that requires the teacher to dress like a politician. So, leave the camo and tactical gear at home and wear a suit and tie, or at the very least, a button-down long sleeve Oxford shirt and khaki slacks. For the politician to feel relaxed around you, you must dress like him or her.

The humorous text on my T-shirt causes everyone to smile and puts people at ease.

Keep in mind that if you get the ear of the politician, it will usually be in a small room. Keep all potential distractions at bay. This includes the strong smell of aftershave, body odor, and the like. If the politician is on the opposite side of the issue than you, do not shout and yell to get your point across, as that tends to have the opposite effect where the politician begins to put up barriers between you and them.

Do not insult and abuse the politician, as threats against the politician rarely work. If each party is steadfast in their point of view, it is best to walk away from a disappointing meeting while still being able to communicate.

Everyone Else

Another of my T-shirts which puts people at ease.

Casual conversations are the best way to spread our 2nd Amendment message. A gun owner wearing an NRA or USCCA shirt in an elevator has a very small class. But if the gun owner is also a jerk, those in the elevator will also believe the gun owner is a jerk. On the other hand, if the gun owner is polite, chances are those in the elevator will look upon the gun owner favorably.

Your goal is to make those around you comfortable, and in doing so, your message will be more apt to be received. To that end, I recently ordered a bunch of T-shirts from Amazon relating to gun instruction. One shirt reads “Dad…Husband…Firearms Instructor…Legend”. The other shirt reads “I’m A Dad & Firearms Instructor…Nothing Scares Me”. In both cases, I received compliments or smiles from strangers.” I wear these shirts when I go to the dentist, when I donate blood, when I get morning coffee at Wawa.

Teaching Read More »

Stop Feeding The Narrative

Yes, you, law-abiding gun owners, are feeding the leftist media’s narrative, and you are probably unaware that you are doing so.

If you are reading this, there is a high probability you own at least one gun or at least believe in our Constitutional right to do so. Maybe it’s for hunting. Maybe it’s for sport. But more often than not for most of us, it is for self-defense.

Here’s a scenario that unfortunately all of us recently had to live out. You flip on the TV, and watch a breaking news story of the likes of Sandy Hook (CT) and Robb Elementary School (TX), where innocent young lives were murdered. And you shake your head in disbelief and get pissed off that it was allowed to happen. You then jump on social media and opine on the active shooter situation.

Part of the reason you get pissed off is because the left starts whining about more gun control. What they are doing is bundling you and all other law-abiding gun owners in the same category as the school shooter. Then you shout back at the TV…“But I am not a killer”.

This is the cause and effect the leftist media wants. They want you bundled in with these vile sociopaths, because if you are seen in this light on a large scale, they can jam their anti-gun rhetoric down our throats easier.

We need to change the narrative, and we CAN change the narrative…one person at a time. We need to stop referring to these vile sociopaths as “active shooters” and start referring to them as “active killers”, because they either have killed or are looking to kill innocent people while their shooting spree is “active”.

I own guns. I shoot guns. I teach about guns. When I go to the range and do some live-fire practice, yes, I am an “active shooter” at that point in time.  But I am not an active killer, because I have no intent on killing anyone (unless it is in a legally justified self-defense situation).

Maybe if enough of us law-abiding gun owners were to collectively call these nutjobs what they actually are…”active killers”, it may eventually filter down into the public lexicon that every law-abiding gun owner may be an active shooter, but not every law-abiding gun owner is an active killer.

Stop Feeding The Narrative Read More »

Telling Your Date

At a recent Concealed Carry class I was hosting, a woman asked a question: “I’m having a first date this weekend with a guy I just recently met. Should I tell him I am carrying?”

First off, any woman who decides to carry on a first date is aces in my book. You need to protect yourself in case the unthinkable happens and this new beau assaults you. And men, yes, this goes for you to, as there are bat shit crazy women out there too…I know…I dated one in the 90s.

But that question as to whether or not to tell your date does not have a simple answer, because the answer really is “it depends”. But to help you decide, and this goes for guys too, you need to ask yourself some questions to position yourself to either tell the date or not.

  1. 1. How well do you know the new person?
  2. 2. Have you had a chance to phone or Facetime with them to get to know them a little bit better?
  3. 3. Have you discussed ideologies, particularly about gun control and the 2nd Amendment?

If you never had these discussions, it will come out in the open if you tell them you are carrying. Because the topics of guns, gun control and the Second Amendment are so polarizing, one of two things will in invariably happen. Either the other person is in your camp and has the same ideology you do or they are not in your camp and be your ideological opposite.

Those in your camp will applaud you for protecting yourself. And a good one not in your camp will see your point of view, accept it, and accept you for it. And a bad one not in your camp…well…hopefully you’ll find this out early enough in the date so as to not throw vibes there will be a second date, or throw away good money hoping for post date “expectations”.

Telling Your Date Read More »

Walther PDP-F

The Walther PDP-F is a relatively new 9mm handgun introduced in 2022 by Walther. So, it does not have the lineage of the models like the 1911 or the Beretta 92. Walther is targeting women shooters as their primary market for this gun. Walther wanted to capture a larger share of the women gun shooter market. So, while other guns are usable by women because they perhaps are smaller, lighter caliber, easier to handle, these other guns are not made nor designed specifically for women shooters.

The model number means Personal Defense Pistol, Female. Or at least that is the conventional thinking. Walther has not indicated with the “F” stands for because is becoming popular with elderly shooters and shooters with dexterity issues. So, the “F” could also mean “Fogey” or “Fuddy Duddy”.

As more women enter the self-defense, concealed carry market, Walther wanted to be the lead in capturing an increasing share of the women shooter market. Walther interviewed 2000 women shooters, both professional and amateur and asked them “if you could design a gun for women from the ground up, how would you design it?” The responses were tabulated and the PDP-F was conceived.

The circumference of the hand-grip is smaller than the average hand-grip, because the majority of women shooters have smaller hands. The grip itself has been re-angled to accommodate women’s hands better. The trigger reach has been reduced by moving the trigger further back towards the grip, because, again, most women shooters have smaller fingers. The slide spring pressure has been reduced by 20% to make the slide easier to rack. In addition to the slide pressure reduction, the slide serrations have been cut deeper to allow better gripping when racking. The non-abrasive grip texture has been designed to be more aggressive to make the gun easier to grip and to hold. And finally, the back strap has been made modular and comes delivered with three size back-straps for small, medium and large hands. The foot of the grip, where the magazine is inserted, has a small forward bump out. The purpose of this to allow shooters to keep the muzzle on target by forcing the shooter’s hand to press down against this bump out. The gun comes in both a 3.5” muzzle model and a 4” muzzle model. The magazine capacity is 15 founds for both size models, which should be plenty of stopping power for a woman to stop an attacker.

This gun was named NRA Women “Handgun Of The Year” for 2023.

So, what’s in the box? The 9mm gun comes with a molded case, two magazines and three changeable back-straps. It is set up to have optics put on, such as Tritium sights or red dot sights. If Tritium front and rear sights are Glock sights. So if you decide to replace them, you will need to purchase the Glock sight removal tool from Amazon. The crescent wrench or socket in your tool box will not work, because those tools will be too large.

I purchased one of these guns and bring it to show students in my Women’s Only classes. My 19-year-old daughter was initially hesitant to shoot it because of her perception of the anticipated recoil. But after being coaxed by the Range Safety Officer to try it at our favorite indoor range, she now loves this gun. It fits her tiny hands perfectly with the small backstrap. The day after the range visit, I was cleaning my handguns and had this PDP-F in the mix of guns to be cleaned. My daughter came into the room, grabbed the PDP-F off the table and began practicing handling it…checking to make sure it is empty, keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, exercising perfect trigger discipline, and proclaimed “I love this gun.” Her rationale for her opinion is that grip circumference and rearward trigger are perfect for her hands.

Both size models are available in my online store. If you want to shop the online store, just be sure to disable your VPN first. You can re-enable it after your shopping experience. If, not, you will get a “403 Forbidden” error.

Click here to shop the 3.5″ muzzle size.

Click here to shop the 4″ muzzle size.

As an edit to this blog, in February of 2024, the Pennsylvania State Police announced the full-sized PDP has been selected as the statewide duty weapon for all officers. So, the lineage is there.

Walther PDP-F Read More »

Ready To Carry?

So, you have your Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit. But are you actually ready to carry?

Concealed carry weapons permit requirements vary from state to state, ranging from minimal classroom training to none at all. And fortunately, Pennsylvanians are on the none at all side, in terms of legalities. There is no law on Pennsylvania’s books that requires CCW wannabes to obtain any training, not even minimal training.

Of the more than 22.01 million CCW permit holders in the U.S., less than two percent have training beyond the baseline requirements. This percentage of those being trained keeps decreasing with every state that becomes a Constitutional Carry state (some call it “Permitless Carry”), because the whole point of being constitutionally able to carry is that there are no impediments to exercising your Constitutional rights.

But is that ideal? Yes, here in Pennsylvania, you can very easily obtain your concealed carry permit and begin carrying in public. But should you do so without being trained? The answer is a definitive “NO”. Not because I am instructor. But, because I believe it is the responsibility of every gun owner to be properly trained.

Imagine you are faced with a life or death situation and the only way to survive is to use your firearm in self-defense. A million things will go through your mind at that moment, such as, Is the safety off? Is there a round in the chamber? Am I aiming on target (critical mass)? Are their innocent bystanders around? Does the attacker have buddies nearby? Can I get my cover garment out of the way in time? You are going to attempt to answer these and many more questions in a nanosecond.

Now, in addition to the million things racing through your mind, add in the psychological, physiological and perceptual conditions your body will go through in that moment of extreme stress. The adrenaline dump, the tunnel vision, the uncontrollable shaking, the slowness of time, etc., are just some of the effects you may experience. Are you ready to handle that?

Can you draw from concealment quickly and effortlessly to get the drop on the bad guy before he gets the drop on you? So let’s say you do, and you shoot him first. Have you given any thought to the fact that at that very moment you squeeze the trigger, your life, as you know it has just ceased to exist?

Because, now comes the aftermath. Do you know what to do after you shoot your attacker? Do you know what to say to the police? What not to say? Do you know do with the gun you just used? Do you know if you will be sleeping on a pillow in a holding cell or in your own bed? Do you have a lawyer? If you do, is your have a lawyer an expert in gun or self-defense law in your state, or is your lawyer Cousin Vinny? Do you have the cash to pay attorney fees? If not, there is a high probability you won’t have money for bail either. Or will you put up your house up as collateral for bail?

This is why if you are going to carry, it is imperative that you get properly trained. Yes, first there is the obvious to learning how not to shoot your dumb ass, but more importantly, to obtain the necessary physical and mental muscle memory needed to save your ass from being shot and from being incarcerated.

So, if you want to get your CCW permit, have your CCW permit for a short while, or have it for a long time, click here to register for a Concealed Carry class offered by Dakota Firearms Training Academy.

Ready To Carry? Read More »

Stop Being In Denial

There are four actions you must undertake if you decide you are going to conceal carry. The first is to select the right carry gun for you. The second is to select the right carry method for that gun (holster or other). The third is to get trained. If you decide to carry without getting trained, you are nothing more than a thug.

But the topic here deals with the fourth action you need to undertake if you decide to conceal carry, and that is to get some kind of legal protection. It goes by many different names. Gun owner’s liability insurance and self-defense insurance, are just two of the names this protection goes by.

Your homeowner’s insurance will not cover you if you use your gun in self-defense, even inside your own home.

And if you are one of the many who carry concealed without such protection, you need to stop being in denial. Get your head out of your ass and get yourself protected!

Just one incident where you have to defend yourself with your gun is all it takes for your life to be fucked up forever.  If you think I am bullshitting you, click on this YouTube link. At around the 6:30 mark of this video, the author indicates that the defendant amassed close to $700,000 of legal bills, that unfortunately after he passed away in 2012, left his family burdened to pay.

All the defendant wanted to do that day was go for a hike in a national forest in northern Arizona. But as the events transpired, his life and his family’s lives were forever changed. It was bad enough that he took a life, was arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated until the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the conviction. But then insult was added to injury by the suffocating legal bills.

Now I don’t know about you. But I don’t have money deliberately saved up and earmarked for bail much less any potential gun-related legal defense.

Yet, here are some common excuses I hear as to why concealed carry gun owners do not get legal protection:

  1. I can’t afford it. You cannot afford not to be protected if you carry. If you cannot afford legal protection, then you really cannot afford attorney’s fees.
  2. I can’t pick my own lawyer. With some of the programs out there, you can. Just make sure the lawyer you choose is an expert in your state’s gun or self-defense law. Don’t choose an ambulance chaser simply because the lawyer is your cousin and offered to handle your case pro bono. For me personally, I want the absolute best unbiased gun or self-defense lawyer I can get if the possibility exists I may be incarcerated for 15 to life. So, in my case, I don’t want Cousin Vinny simply because we are family. And with all these plans that allow you to choose your own attorney, the plan will not pay the attorney fees unless the plan underwriters have vetted the attorney. THIS IS THE BIGGEST EXCUSE I HEAR. In my training classes, I ask all students to raise their hand if they have an attorney on retainer that will drop everything and come to their aid. No one raises their hand, yet many of these students are the first ones to need to be able to pick their own lawyer. WHY? By not raising their hand, that student is indicating to me they don’t even have a lawyer, much less one on retainer. So when the excrement impacts the rotary oscillator, the students and others in denial will turn to Google to help them choose a lawyer. AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THE ATTORNEY THEY CHOOSE WILL EVEN TAKE THE CASE.
  3. The plan doesn’t pay me for the days I have to miss work because of trial. Then pick a different plan, if that is what is important to you. If this is a deciding factor, how many days are planning to be at trial anyway? Review your employee handbook. Some employers will terminate employees simply for being arrested.
  4. I have to ask my spouse. Seriously?! You have to ask your spouse about what? You need to get your spouse’s permission to get legal protection? Are you shitting me?
  5. I have to wait until payday. Seriously?! You are that strapped that you cannot afford $15.00 per month. If so, then maybe concealed carry should not be your primary focus.
  6. These programs are not available in my state. MOVE! Do you really want to live in a state where you are not permitted to defend yourself and if you do defend yourself, are not even afforded the opportunity to do so without bankrupting the family.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I have no mercy for any concealed carry gun-owner out there to not have some form of legal protection. Everyone of these excuses are like assholes…everyone has one and they all stink.

Below is a chart of the most popular legal protection plans available in the U.S.

Look over this chart and highlight the boxes which are important to you. Then go to the respective websites of these companies to see if additional perks exist for members. For example, do any of these companies / plans offer you the ability to call or speak to an attorney for non-emergency legal questions? Do any of these companies / plans offer you the ability to get insight on laws of other states if you plan to travel and conceal through another state?

Stop Being In Denial Read More »

Carry A Phone

If you carry a gun, then also carry a phone.  Why?  To take photos? Maybe. To call 911? Bingo!

Criminals will often call 911 first and say YOU pulled your gun first and they had to pull a knife to defend themself.

Let’s suppose you are going about your day outside your home. You are approached by a bad guy who suddenly pulls a knife and demands money from you. You draw your concealed carry handgun and aim it at the bad guy. Not expecting the victim to fight back, he panics and flees at the sight of your gun without you ever firing a shot. You wipe your brow and exclaim “Whew!” But is that the end of it? In many cases, no. Bad guys want the element of surprise on their side and get pissed off when the tables are turned.

Those bad guys who know the game, call the police and tell the police they were just minding their business when YOU suddenly pulled a gun on them. So, the police show up and question you. Then you tell them your side of the story. When they ask you “why didn’t you call the police”, you respond with “well, he didn’t actually attack me, so no crime was actually committed”. Bullshit!

Even if you are in an area with no cell service, always call 911, because your phone’s call log will let authorities know you attempted to call 911.

The bad guy instigating the events by pulling a knife IS ACTUALLY committing a crime, such as attempted murder, aggravated assault or the like. So, by not calling the police first, you flip the tables in the bad guy’s favor, because HE CALLED THE POLICE FIRST. You can be arrested instead of the bad guy. The charges can be something along the lines of brandishing (if your state has a brandishing law) terroristic threats, or aggravated assault.

So, if you carry a gun, also carry a cell phone. Should an incident similar to this happen, IMMEDIATELY CALL THE POLICE. By you calling first, you become the complainant. The 911 call will be logged with a date, time and location (nearest cell tower). In these kinds of incidences, there are two types of people. Either you are the victim or you are the suspect. By calling 911 first, you automatically become the victim, because you will be on record as being able to present your side of the story first.

But what if you are in an area with no cell towers nearby and your call cannot go through? Should you hold off attempting to call 911? Absolutely not. Call anyway. Your phone’s call log will indicate, with a date and time stamp that you attempted to call 911. Now if the bad guy calls after that time and date stamp, you give your defense attorney something to work with.

It should be automatic when you grab your personal items before walking out the door: Keys? Check. Wallet? Check. Handgun? Check. Cell phone? Check. If you carry your handgun, ALWAYS carry your cell phone.

Carry A Phone Read More »

Easily Triggered

In our Basic Pistol classes, we teach students about shooting fundamentals…aiming, breathing, etc. One of the topics in this category is Trigger Control…being able to control the squeezing of the trigger during shooting so the shot pattern on the target is grouped and not scattered all over the place.

However, because we are indoors in a classroom setting with limited time, we can only teach with the aid of laser-fired training guns at the highest overview level. To train on trigger control for real and for a more detail understanding, students need live-fire training at a range.

The four main areas of trigger control, snatching, pushing, heeling and jerking.

Shooting at the range is supposed to be enjoyable, not discouraging, so the students get the desire to come back and want to shoot some more. The easiest way to make shooting enjoyable for first time shooters is for them to experience “wins”…hitting the target. I’ve seen some new shooters initially stand 25 feet away from the target and get discouraged when they don’t have a tight shot grouping if they hit the target at all. Twenty-five feet is too far away for new shooters learning how to shoot. Get closer. Start off by standing only five feet from the target. At five feet everyone hits the target, and new shooters begin getting the confidence they are doing things right. Then as they gain more confidence in their gun handling, back up to further distances. If the students’ ultimate goal is to have a gun for self-defense, most attacks happen at 7 yards or less (21 feet or less), so that is the distance they should be practicing. Shooting from distances greater than that are merely honing their marksmanship skills, not necessarily preparing them for the real world of self-defense. So new shooters should not back up to more than fifteen feet.

Distance from target is the easiest fix for students to have an enjoyable and memorable visit to the range. And it requires no skill. Where the real skill comes in, is to be able to “read” the shots of your target. Shot placement on targets tells a story of the shooter’s mechanics when squeezing the trigger.

Snatching is using too much finger on the trigger. In this example, the trigger finger is in the middle of the second joint.

Shot placement is identified using a “clock” analogy…an analog clock, not a digital clock. So, if the shot pattern is straight up from the bullseye, we say the shots are at “twelve o’clock”.  Shot patterns to the right are said to be at the “three o’clock” position.

The key to learning and controlling the shot pattern is the core of the entire topic of shooting fundamentals. There are four major incorrect techniques or actions shooters use which cause their shot patterns to hit anywhere but the bullseye. These four actions are called “snatching”, “pushing”, “heeling” and “jerking”.

These actions will be explained from the point of view of a right-handed shooter. For southpaws, simply flip the explanation.

Pushing is using the very tip of the finger to squeeze the trigger. In this example, the trigger finger is touching the trigger all the way at the end of the finger, near the fingernail.

Snatching. This action causes the shot pattern to be to the right of the bullseye, or the three o’clock position. It is generally caused by having too much finger on the trigger. When the trigger is squeezed, too much finger on the trigger causes the gun’s front sight and the muzzle to shift to the right. If the gun’s trigger pull weight is light, as is usually found with striker fired pistols, the shooter should have the front pad of their index finger on the trigger. This is the fingerprint area of the index finger. “Too much finger” means the shooter moved their finger back and had their index finger’s first joint on the trigger rather than the index finger’s pad. The reason the muzzle shifts to the right is because at the joint is where the fingers begin to have muscle control. There are very little useable muscles in the pad of the finger. The muscles in the first joint are what causes the index finger to begin bending. As such, with new shooters anticipating the recoil, these muscles can yank the trigger rather than squeeze the trigger, causing the muzzle to shift to the right.

Pushing. This action is the opposite of snatching. In this case, the shot pattern is off to the left, often the nine o’clock position. This generally occurs when the shooter has too little finger on the trigger, causing the front sight and muzzle to shift to the left. An example here is when the shooter has their index finger on the trigger close to the fingernail, rather than center in the finger pad. This easily happens when the shooter switches guns during your range visit. Shooters start off with a striker-fired gun with a lighter trigger pull, then switch to a double-action hammer fired gun with a heavier trigger pull, but without compensating by moving their finger to use the first joint. In essence, the shooter is still using the pad of their index finger.

Heeling is pushing the grip of the gun with the heel of the hand, forcing the muzzle up.

Heeling. This action causes the shot pattern to be high on the target. This generally occurs because the shooter is anticipating the recoil. Since the recoil will cause the muzzle to rise, the shooter is anticipating that rise and thus driving the heel of their palm forward to compensate for the anticipated muzzle rise. The fix is to have a friend load a magazine with a mix of live and dummy rounds. When a dummy round is fired, the shooter will not get the recoil and be better able to see if they are heeling the gun.

Jerking is anticipating the recoil and jerking the trigger, which pushes the muzzle down.

Jerking. This action is causes shot patterns to be low on the target. Instead of gently squeezing the trigger, the shooter quickly jerks the trigger. Doing this causes the trigger to be pulled down slightly, causing the front sight and muzzle to drop down. The fix it is to place the index finger pad on the trigger and squeeze the trigger consistently throughout the trigger’s travel path, not quickly jerking the trigger backwards.

Easily Triggered Read More »


Doing some gun research, I came upon a word I never heard before, and obviously never used. The word is “Hoplophobia“.

Definition (noun) – An irrational, morbid fear of guns (coined by the late great Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek “hoplites,” meaning weapon). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, and more, at the mere thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. One must point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, as it is dangerous, whereas sufferers deserve pity and should seek treatment. When confronted, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Often helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” often useful in treating many phobias. Also: Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.

Use in a real example: “The person has hoplophobia and passed out at the mere sight of a gun.”

Hoplophobia Read More »

God-Given Rights

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

Anti-gun leftists are waging a vicious war against OUR Second Amendment rights. Don’t be fooled into thinking they fight fair. Do you remember when Francis O’Rourke, our useless Secretary of Transportation, was running for president and shouted “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”, to which the Democratic crowd gave him a standing ovation.

Rights Vs. Privileges

So, what’s the difference? Well, the primary difference is one can be taken away, the other cannot. Privileges are given to you by an authoritative person or agency. A driver’s license is a privilege given to you by the state Department of Transportation. The state gives you this privilege and the state can revoke it, such as when you are convicted of drunk driving.

A right, on the other hand, is something bestowed upon you from God, and therefore cannot be taken away by anyone, including the government. The right to speak your mind (1st Amendment). The right to not have your property searched (4th Amendment). The right to defend yourself, yes with firearms, if necessary (2nd Amendment). The awareness of these rights goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, where the document disclosed “unalienable rights” and “endowed by our Creator”…concepts completely foreign to British subjects at the time who were under the thumb of the King of England and under the belief that a ruling monarch told you what you were allowed or not allowed to do. This was such a powerful document at the time and still is today. And in case you missed it or were not taught these in school, these rights are identified as the first ten (10) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill Of Rights”.

In what has become one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, a solitary man, who has become known as “Tank Man”, stands in front of a column of Chinese tanks in Tienanmen Square, in Beijing, in defiance to the government’s Communist policies

The anti-gun left believes that rights change over time. “The 2nd Amendment may have been needed during the founding of the country, but has no bearing now,” as many would argue. Imagine, if you will, two people fighting with swords in the same canoe. One or both will eventually fall into the water. Now, imagine one of the swordsmen moved to solid ground to fight and the other still fought in the canoe. The firm foundation of the solid ground is a game-changer because the swordsman on solid ground now has a distinct advantage over his opponent. The solid ground foundation is that the 2nd Amendment NEVER changes. This is your winning argument when going up against an anti-gun liberal.

And those who understand this the best are those who have been oppressed by totalitarian leaders. Regardless of your position of the openness of our southern border, the reason so many Venezuelans are among those crossing is because they have witnessed first hand the oppression caused when people are disarmed and can no longer defend themselves, making them ripe for totalitarian control by the government. The oppressiveness of that totalitarian dictator is making life unbearable for Venezuelan citizens.

Lily Tang Williams, a former Chinese citizen, now a Colorado resident, argued before the Colorado state assembly about the need for the 2nd Amendment, providing a first hand account of the perils of not having one in Communist China.

Some of you may be old enough to remember seeing news footage of the horrors of the Tienanmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1989 in Beijing. Student protesters were gunned down with guns and tanks. The image which comes to mind more often than not is the single solitary man protesting in front of a column of tanks. China’s gun control policy only included the police and military. Everyone else was not allowed to own guns. And because their God-given right to defend themselves was nonexistent, these protesters were gunned down in the streets.

Many Chinese began questioning their faith in communism after that day. Among them was a young devout woman follower of Mao Zedong, and considered him a god. But after he died, she lost faith in the Communist party. Her name is Lily Tang Williams. She emigrated to the United States. A fellow American college student showed her a copy of the Declaration of Independence, which opened her eyes about the monster Mao truly was. She said “you mean I have rights? It doesn’t matter which country? Which race? Which color? I have rights?”

The conversation with that college student opened her eyes to the benefits of the 2nd Amendment. He went on to tell her that Americans can own guns as a matter of right – without permission from the government. And if the government leaders become tyrannical, people have the right to stand up to the government with firearms. Lily Tang Williams got it. Having actually lived under oppression, she understood the significance of God-given rights vs. man-made privileges, and now, so should you.

There are three main takeaways from this blog if you find yourself arguing with an anti-gun liberal:

  • * People are “endowed by their Creator” with natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. These rights are NOT subject to compromise.
  • * Because natural rights are God-given, and are not privileges handed out by the government, human rights cannot be infringed. Hence, you need to argue against waiting periods, background checks, guns and ammunition bans, gun databases and more.
  • * Brutal and horrible consequences occur when government despots ignore the natural rights of their citizens – especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Next – Guns Save Lives

God-Given Rights Read More »

Guns Save Lives

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

This statement of guns saving lives is one that happens far more often than the anti-gun left will admit. The unfortunate “see the light” moment usually occurs after a horrific gun-related incident.

To successfully argue against the anti-gun left, you need to present actual examples of how the use of a gun saved one or more lives. And you need to be ready to share those stories because the lame stream media will not. And if you are able to share a CCTV video of the incident, so much the better.

Here is a very tiny sampling of how guns saved lives.

The reason the lame stream media will not share these stories is because it undermines their mantra that “guns are bad”. But if you effectively do your homework and cite real world examples, you could very easily have a mic-drop moment. When caught in their “guns are bad” lie with specific evidentiary examples of how guns saved lives, most of the left will simply change the subject. There is no alternative course of action when the proof is irrefutable.

So, in many cases they will then argue, “but what if gun control saved just one life?” There are two possible answers to this convoluted argument. The first is “if eliminating gun control saves just one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?” The other argument is that “when people are free to exercise their fundamental right, historical evidence suggests that many more lives will be saved.”

You need turn the anti-gun left’s logic against them. Do you remember when anti-gun Demonrats staged a sit in on the floor of Congress back in 2016. The CNN host covering this clown circus was Carol Costello. She posted an on-screen graphic with figures from the CDC of gun-related deaths in the U.S. At the time, she was interviewing Eric Pratt, executive vice president of Gun Owners of America. He countered by pointing out that CDC statistics actually show that Americans use guns more often to save lives than to take them…about 16 to 100 times more often.

In 2016, these Demonrat numb-nuts sat on the floor of the House of Representatives to protest the need for more gun control.

Costello got flustered because Pratt was using her own authoritative source against her. She got upset. At the end of the day, Newsbusters said that Costello “got schooled” by Pratt during the interview.

So, if you end up arguing with an anti-gun liberal, come armed, so-to-speak. You need to cite specific examples of how guns save lives, because the left hates this and it puts them on the defensive. There are several ways to cite such examples.

First, discuss several recent examples of self-defense. Go to if you need a good supply of stories. And visit this site frequently as it is updated often. Or if you are like me and live near a large city with soft-on-crime policies, like me living in the Philadelphia suburbs, stories abound.

Second, show that cops believe good guys with guns save lives, and use the following statistics:

  • * 93% of law enforcement agree that any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense.
  • * 91% of law enforcement support concealed carry for law-abiding gun owners, and some law enforcement agencies even support Constitutional Carry.
  • * 86% of law enforcement agencies state that the way to reduce casualties in mass shootings is to allow citizens to carry firearms concealed.
  • * 81% of law enforcement agencies support arming teachers and school administrators as a way to prevent mass killers on campus.

Third, cite studies which demonstrate that defensive gun uses occur frequently.

To help you in your quest to shut down the anti-gun liberals, there are two (2) ground-breaking studies done during Democratic administrations.

The first of these studies was with the Clinton Justice Department in 1997. Anti-gun researchers conceded that guns are used 1.5 million time annually for self-defense.

The second of these studies was the Obama Centers for Disease Control in 2013. The CDC funded study found that anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times a year, guns are being used in self-defense. Translated that means that guns are used 16 – 100 times more often to save a life than to take a life.

Fourth, debunk asinine scientific studies that supposedly discredit the number of self-defense cases in this country. The most well known of these bogus studies was by Arthur Kellerman in 1986. He came up with a bogus figure that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill the homeowner than to help him. So how did he arrive at this bullshit statistic? He specifically excluded the overwhelming number of self-defense cases from his study. This exclusion omitted the majority, roughly 95% of the instances where the homeowners used a gun in self-defense merely by brandishing their guns or by firing a warning shot. Kellerman has since backed away

Previous – God-Given Rights

Next – Gun Control Failure

Guns Save Lives Read More »

Gun Control Failure

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

Gun control does not work. Period! That is because criminals, by their very nature, don’t obey the law.

Again, to combat the anti-gun left, you need to cite specific examples of how gun control fails miserably. Here is an example you can use. The victim’s name was Carol Browne, a New Jersey hairdresser. She was murdered outside her New Jersey home in 2015 by her ex-boyfriend, a violent felon who threatened her many times. She was killed by a man of whom the police were fully aware! She had gotten a restraining order against him, and even installed security cameras and an alarm system. Then she went about the arduous and complicated task of purchasing a firearm in New Jersey.

Carol applied for a permit to purchase a handgun on April 21 of that year. On June 3, as she was still waiting for permission to purchase a handgun, her ex showed up at her home and viciously stabbed her to death. Although state law required applicants be issued their Firearms Purchaser ID card within 30 days, she still had not received it 43 days after application, the day her ex violently killed her. Click here to read her tragic story.

Gun control does not stop criminals. It merely criminalizes law-abiding gun owners. Do you remember the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut? You better, because the anti-gun left does, and uses this horrific event as a stepping stone for their ridiculous rhetoric. Click here to read an unbiased view of the massacre, a view which does not contain leftist words like “Assault Rifle” or “High Capacity Magazines”. The attacker, who was not eligible to own guns, first went to his mother’s house, stole her guns, then killed her as his first victim.

Can you name a gun control law that would have prevented that tragedy? Universal background checks (whatever that is)? Gun-free school zones? Permit waiting times? Gun purchase waiting times? Which law would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm? Actually, “universal background checks” is the left’s euphemism of a gun registry…something completely illegal per the U.S. Constitution.

The answer is “none”. The killer got into his mother’s safe, stole her firearms, then killed her, as his first victim? Then he continued on to the elementary school. So, what law would have prevented this? The killer broke countless laws and bypassed several existing gun control restrictions. Again, so what law would have stopped him from acquiring those weapons?

This failure of these laws is one of the most powerful arguments that gun rights activists can use. If you use the failure of these laws, which fits the colloquial definition of insanitydoing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result, you will find this is a mic-drop moment.

Also, background checks fail to stop bad guys from getting their hands on guns. The background check system is known as NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check system). Here in Pennsylvania, we have PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Control System) which is tied into NICS. NICS was inaugurated in 1998. The anti-gun left treats NICS as the holy grail of gun control. It was snake oil sold to the American public as an essential tool to “keep guns out of the wrong hands”. The problem is that gun purchasers and concealed carry permit holders can pass the background check at the time of the gun purchase or permit application. But this system cannot tell if someone will commit a crime in the future. Nothing can.

The NICS background check system is ineffective and dangerous. These checks target the law-abiding. Do you think a criminal with a rap sheet is going to go into a Bass Pro Shop and purchase a gun the legal way via a mandatory background check? Over 95% of the initial NICS denials are “false positives”, which means the overwhelming majority of those denied are not the ones who want to rob the local convenience store. In fact, the last year on record, 2021, only 12 people were actually prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for trying to illegally purchase a gun, during a year when over 25 million background checks were conducted. This means that the people being denied are not the dangerous felons this system was meant to stop. The rationale for the denials is for stupid reasons…an unpaid parking ticket, having the same name as a bad guy, or engaging in a bar fight 50 years ago. Yes, those being denied can appeal it, but the fight is lengthy process. According to USA Today, the Obama Administration illegally diverted every single one of its FBI Appeal Examiners to other duties, making it impossible for the agency to overturn mistaken denials. Some appellants had to wait over 18 months for their denial appeal to be heard.

These background checks can also lead to illegal gun registrations. Our Founding Fathers deliberately put into the Constitution that the government is not permitted to have a list or registration of gun owners, for fear of future gun confiscations. Every time I process a PICS background check for a customer’s gun transfer, I have to provide the customer’s driver’s license number and their date of birth into the PICS system. The system responds with the all the pertinent personal information of the transferee. Eventhough the state doesn’t know what kind of gun is being transferred, they know that on a specific date and time, John Doe required a background check for a gun.

This is the screen on the PICS website in which I enter the gun transferee’s information (green fields). The big question is: “when this information is submitted, is the data being stored in a gun registry database, or it is merely retrieving the transferee’s data already on file via their driver’s license?”

In 2021 came an astounding report from the General Accounting Office (GAO). “The Biden Administration in just the past year alone stockpiled the records of more than 54 million U.S. gun owners and is poised to drastically alter gun regulations to ensure that information on Americans who own firearms ultimately ends up in the Federal Government’s hands, according to internal ATF documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

In fact, according to the New York Times, the ATF compiled so many records on gun owners, that a floor collapsed at its West Virginia site.

This table here lists mass shootings since 2009. ALL of the attackers passed their background checks. The only pro-gun organization which opposed this law, was Gun Owners of America. The GOA rationale is that they will not support legislation which infringes upon a God-given right. We don’t ask journalists to get fact checked before publishing something, per our 1st Amendment right to free speech. We don’t ask clergy to get prior approval before conducting religious services, per our 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. So why would we force law-abiding gun owners to get government permission before exercising their 2nd Amendment right.

If attempting to argue with an anti-gun leftist, you must use their foolish thinking against them. They claim waiting periods and background checks might save one life. The argument here is what if these measures actually cost many lives, and use the examples above.

But the reality is that these measures give bureaucrats the ability to say “no”. This was the basis of the Supreme Court’s “Bruen” decision in June of 2022. There were a handful of states which were considered “may issue” states as it relates to getting a concealed carry permit. Each of these states may issue you a concealed carry permit if you showed good character or need. For reference, Pennsylvania is “shall issue” state, which means that the state shall issue you a permit unless they can prove you are not entitled to one. They cannot deny you a permit because some bureaucrat doesn’t like you. The Bruen decision leveled the playing field by making all 50 states “shall issue” states. Both Communist New York and the People’s Republic of New Jersey hate that decision because they can no longer say “no”. So, New York, for example, is now attempting to pass laws which circumvent the Bruen decision by basically making the entire state a gun-free zone. Eventually that will go up in front of the Supremes because they are denying citizens their basic 2nd Amendment right. And numerous times, the U.S. 2nd District Court, which oversees New York, has told New York their laws are unconstitutional. But New York doesn’t care, because there are no negative ramifications of noncompliance. If governor Hochul or attorney general James were hauled off to jail by federal marshals, they may reconsider.

Previous – Guns Save Lives

Next – Gun Free Zones

Gun Control Failure Read More »

Gun-Free Zones

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

Gun-free zones are a mass killer’s paradise. Since 1950, over 90% of the public mass shootings in the U.S. occurred in gun-free zones.

Dr. Lee Silverman would be dead today if he did not break his own employer’s rule about not having a gun inside the hospital.

There is a sign along the perimeter fence of a hospital not far from me, in Darby, PA (a Philadelphia suburb), telling everyone who enters the property they cannot carry guns inside. But in 2014, a patient with psychiatric problems ignored the sign and walked into the hospital intent on killing as many people as he could.

But what he did not count on was that his number one intended victim, his doctor, ignored the hospital’s “no guns” policy and was carrying a gun of his own. Dr. Lee Silverman is a lawful permit holder. Once the gun man attempted to shoot his doctor, Dr. Silverman crouched behind his desk and shot back, hitting the gunman three times in the mid-section. The local police chief Donald Molineaux said “without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives.” And the Delaware County DA, Jack Whelan said if the doctor had not brought his handgun to work, he’d be dead and believes other people would be dead also. He didn’t press charges against the doctor.

Or how about a more recent incident involving “no guns allowed” signs, the shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana. There were signs at every entrance, but as criminals do, the bad guy ignored them. He was stopped by a law-abiding concealed carry permit holder who ignored the entrance signs. Before a good guy with a gun stopped him, he had already killed three and injured two. The good guy who stopped the carnage was initially handcuffed, but was later released when CCTV footage revealed that he stopped the gun man’s attacks.

The food court at the Greenwood Park Mall, where the shooting took place. The bad guy first went into a nearby restroom. Upon exiting the restroom, he began shooting patrons in this food court.

Ironically, in both cases, the bad guys were stopped because good guys ignored these signs and carried into buildings whose building managers decided not to allow guns for their irrational fear of people getting shot. Yet people were shot anyway, because what those business managers don’t realize is that by putting up those signs, they are making their establishments “soft targets”.

There are two takeaways from both these incidences. First, bad guys intent on doing harm ignore those signs, and second, good guys with guns can save a lot of lives before the police arrive on the scene, because across the nation, the average response time of the police is 11 minutes.

The good guy with a gun, left, 22-year old Elisjsha Dicken, killed mass shooter, Jonathan Sapirman inside the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana, within 2 minutes of Sapirman opening fire, quicker than the police response time.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has studied every public mass shooting since 1950. Their research indicated that 94% of all public mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Go back to the previous blog and take another look at the locales of the more recent mass shootings to justify this statistic. And more importantly, ALL of these attackers passed their background checks. Proof again that background checks are worthless in identifying future actions.

Arguing with an anti-gun liberal, you need these two pieces of information in order to argue effectively.

These killers are not stupid in their location selection. They deliberately seek out gun-free zones. Here are a few examples, and their rationale for doing so:

Take the case of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012. The shooter’s original plan was to shoot up an airport, but seeing all the cops there, he decided on theaters. But he did not pick the one closest to his home, which ironically was the largest one. He deliberately picked one in Aurora, the ONLY theater within a 20-mile radius which had “no guns allowed” signs prominently displayed, the theater basically saying to concealed carriers “you can’t carry in here”. A perfect “soft target”.

Crime scene ballistic trajectory markers in the movie theater showing that James Holmes stood in front of the seats when he killed 12 innocent movie-goers. How many of those victims thought they would be safe because of the “no guns allows” signs?

In Orlando in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 13, 2016, a mass murderer went into the Pulse nightclub and killed 49 people and wounded 53 more. Prosecutors said his original plan was to open fire at the high traffic Disney shopping complex but decided to move to a softer target (Pulse) after seeing armed security at the Disney complex. As a sidebar, a good friend of mine owned a gun store in central Florida in 2016. This mass shooter patronized my friend’s store and my friend turned him away, stating “something just doesn’t feel right.”

In El Paso on 2019, a racist gunman killed 23 people at a Walmart. His manifesto said he would be going after “soft targets” or people who are disarmed. Now where was he going to find soft targets in pro-gun Texas? He lived in Dallas and committed his shooting spree in El Paso, 600 miles away from his home in Dallas. Why? Because he knew that every weekend, Mexican nationals would cross the border in droves to go shopping in El Paso. And these border crossers would be prohibited from carrying firearms across the border.

…and there are many more examples out there if you take the time to research them.

The FBI prepares “active shooter” reports. These reports definitively show that when a gun owner is present, mass shootings are either prevented or mitigated 94% of the time. But the lame stream media is almost entirely silent when it comes time to report good guys with guns. Rather, the media continues to report that mass shootings occur nearly every day. Which is a total lie. They cherry pick their stories relating to fatalities. In fact, more people are killed every year by automobiles than by guns. But if the media were to do a feature story on deaths by automobile, people would be calling on Congress to ban cars. Their job is to push public opinion to support additional gun control. So when researching video links some of the mass shooters I identify in this blog, it was very difficult to find a link from an unbiased, leftist news source.

The one question that anti-gunners ignore at all costs is “what if gun-free zones actually cost lives?” Or stated differently, “what if gun control policies cost lives?”

In 2014, a gunman opened fire in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 3 and wounding 14. This was the second mass killing at this Army base in five years. There is a federal law prohibiting servicemen from carrying guns unless they are Military Police or Security Forces. Again, another soft target because the prohibition on carrying guns and the fact that the base is large and the MPs cannot respond quickly enough.

I love driving past schools which post signs similar to this. Imagine if this sign had been posted at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Parkland High School in Florida, or Uvalde Elementary School in Texas.

But it is not just openly displaying a sign on the premises. It is also internal company policies, found only in employment manuals. An example of such a policy involved a woman named Kate Nixon of Virginia Beach. In 2019 she noticed a coworker acting strangely and violently, and told her husband about it. He suggested she bring a gun to work inside her purse, but she refused his suggestion as she was afraid she will lose her job if discovered. Sadly, that decision was a fatal one as she was one of 12 victims at the hands of that same coworker. She had a choice to make. Carry a gun and lose her job if discovered or not carry a gun and face this killer. No one should have to make that decision at the workplace. But a question for everyone facing the same dilemma. Is your job worth it, if the employer does not care about human life? Because many of these businesses who have “no-gun” policies also have no armed security onsite to protect workers. Click here to learn more of this tragedy.

Another place mass shooters love is schools, which are federally mandated to be gun-free zones. Yet, the law allows for exceptions, as adults with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry inside schools. As of 2018, there are 18 states which permit teachers to carry guns.

According to the CPRC, there has NEVER been a mass shooting attempted at any school where teachers are armed. And I love it when I drive past a school which has a sign reading “school personnel are armed and will use whatever force is necessary to protect students.”

If you were a bad guy with malice in your heart and wanted to inflict as much carnage as possible, which target of opportunity will you select. One which has “no guns allowed” signs posted or one which has “personnel are armed and will use whatever force is necessary to protect…” signs posted.

Previous – Gun Control Failure

Next – Gun Control Abroad

Gun-Free Zones Read More »

Gun Control Abroad

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

All but two of the world’s 25 worst mass shootings have occurred outside the United States.

Residents of other countries think Americans have a “love affair” with guns. The media tries to fraudulently tell us that in countries like Australia and England, each of which has banned guns entirely and in doing so, has completely wiped-out mass shootings. But the realities are that after gun control was enacted, crime rates have actually risen, and mass shootings have not stopped. A comprehensive international study showed that by the turn of this century, Australia had one of the highest crime rates in the world, a rate well above that of the U.S. And now just over 20 years into this century, murders and gun crimes are higher than before the gun ban of 1996. Australia responded with strict gun control in 1996 due to a massacre that left 35 people dead in the town of Port Arthur on the island of Tasmania.

The anti-gun leftists claim that America is the murder capital of the world. They selectively choose countries with low murder rates to “prove” that America’s murder rates are higher. They cherry-pick their data. The reality is when it comes to murder rates, America is not even in the top 100. In fact, America is in the safe, bottom half. What the media is not telling you is those countries with high murder rates also have the strictest gun-control laws.

The media ignores countries like Venezuela, which banned private gun ownership in 2012. Then the Venezuelan government enforced that ban by confiscating guns, similar to what the Nazis did in pre-World War 2 Germany. Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world, over 20 times higher than here in the U.S.

And in North America, the media focuses on Canada and ignores Mexico. Mexico’s murder rate is 6 times greater than ours.

And guns are not the reason. If guns are banned, criminals will use other means to achieve their desired ends. Here is a small list of 6 other types of weapons used to commit mass murder:

  • * 2,996 murdered with utility knives and airplanes (September 11, 2001)

* 918 murdered with cyanide laced fruit drink in Jonestown, Guyana

  • * Up to 500 murdered with machetes in Nigeria
  • * 168 murdered at the Oklahoma Federal Building with fertilizer and a U-Haul truck in Oklahoma City
  • * 87 murdered with matches and gasoline in the Bronx
  • * 86 run over and murdered with a box truck in Nice, France
  • * 50 murdered in a coal mine attack in China

In order for these other countries to justify their draconian gun control policies, such as Australia and England, these nations have been accused of under-reporting their actual crime statistics. In England, “officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics”. According to Sgt. Mike Bennett, officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. He said “the crime figures are meaningless. Police everywhere know what’s going on.” A report from the British Inspectorate of Constabulary concluded that because of the “differences in reporting criteria, comparison of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham.”

And England is not alone. In Australia it is happening too. An Aussie newspaper reported that “the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally.” This revelation came to light because police down under were also under-reporting the crime data.

Bottom line is that banning guns across the globe is not working. When an anti-gun leftist claims that other countries do not experience mass killings compared to the United States, that’s a lie. When an anti-gun leftist claims that banning guns, Americans will be safer, that is also a lie. Banning guns does not prevent evil hearts and minds from getting firearms. And if guns were ever banned, these bad guys would use other deadly instruments to carry out their crimes.

Previous – Gun Free Zones

Next – Guns Prevent Tyranny

Gun Control Abroad Read More »

Guns Prevent Tyranny

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. And no Founding Father ever said “One if by land. Two if by sea. The deer are coming! The deer are coming!”

A former mayor of Boston once said “I can’t imagine a single sports hunter who needs an AK-47 or an Uzi to shoot deer.” I can just see Yoda saying “The stupidity is strong in this one.”

The Second Amendment is not about deer hunting. Owning guns is not a (government-issued) privilege. It is a God-given right of the people to protect themselves from their own government.

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, said in Federalist 46 that:

The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

So why are these world governments afraid to trust the people with arms? It’s very simple. They’re afraid because if they were to start abusing an armed people, then the people would shoot back. How many times have we heard stories of bullies continuing their bullying until the victims fight back? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the DC vs. Heller decision of 2008. On pages 24 and 25 of that very famous decision, the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms – is essential to “resist tyranny”.

To argue with anti-gun liberals on this issue, one must go back and revisit our own country’s history. The Revolutionary War began on April 19, 1775 at the battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. The colonial militia was made up of average people: farmers, storekeepers, blacksmiths, doctors, etc. They stood up bravely to the what has been argued as the best fighting force of their day – the British Redcoats. But why did they feel they needed to stand up to the Redcoats? What was so atrocious that they needed to stand up with guns? The Redcoats were attempting to confiscate the guns and gun powder of the colonists in Concord. But the colonists did not simply prevent the confiscation of guns and powder. The colonists knew that if they gave up their guns, freedom and independence would be lost. They beat the Redcoats so badly that the Redcoats threw their guns in a nearby pond and fled for their lives.

An armed people do not have to be stronger than their oppressor. They simply need to serve as a credible deterrent.

Let’s look at another smaller, but credible deterrent. Take Switzerland for example. The biggest testimony to the right to bear arms came in World War II. The only country Adolf Hitler did not attack was Switzerland. Every other country he conquered had a standing, professional army. Why did he not attack Switzerland?

Every Swiss male between the ages of 20 to 55 must serve 17 weeks of training in the Swiss army. At the end of his training the recruit returns home, and brings home with him the fully automatic rifle he trained on, an allotment of ammo, his uniform, a military pack and a CBR mask.

And on a personal level, any wonder why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world!  Everyone is heavily armed! So, for the Swiss, it has been this way for hundreds of years. This concept has helped Switzerland from being sucked into the many wars which have ravaged Europe.

Also, what is not widely known is that Switzerland is loaded with actual hidden underground bunkers, with heavy artillery aimed at its roads at key border crossings. Had Hitler attempted to drive Panzers into Switzerland, the Wehrmacht would have been annihilated by that artillery.

This was best explained by General George Patton:

“Even Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht (army) which conquered all of Europe in the early months of World War II, chose not to attack Switzerland, despite the fact that the small country was in the crossroads of Western Europe…. In a classic example of dissuasion at work, Hitler’s general staff recommended against an invasion on the grounds that the costs would be disproportionate to the gains… In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker…”

If you haven’t yet figured it out yet, gun confiscation is a prelude to genocide. There was a study done years ago by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) which analyzed seven (7) major genocides in the 20th century:

  • Turkey
  • Soviet Union
  • China
  • Germany
  • Guatemala
  • Uganda
  • Cambodia

In every one of these atrocities, gun confiscation preceded genocide!

Most people are not up to speed with the genocide in Cambodia, so let me fill you in. In the 1970s, this country suffered the worst genocide of those listed above, as a percentage of the population…way more than Germany in World War II. Almost one third of the population was murdered by a Marxist government, known as the Khmer Rouge, and its despotic leader, Pol Pot.

What happened? First the government confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens. Then, they slaughtered them. An eyewitness said this to New Yorker magazine:

“[The] first Khmer Rouge soldiers to arrive came on trucks from the forest, with other soldiers running behind them. The trucks stopped in the marketplace. [Mrs.] Eang watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. The soldiers said ‘we are here to protect you and no one has a need for a weapon anymore’.

“People who owned no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. The roundup of weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers concluded that the villagers were no longer armed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness.

“The soldiers said that everyone would have to leave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was finished, they could return.”

Once the civilians were disposed of their firearms, the massacres began.

The JPFO interviewed Holocaust survivor, Thomas Haas, who spent time in Dachau concentration camp. “Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people were so conditioned to be law-abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums owned such guns. What fools we were… There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people has not been ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a rag tag, half-starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made assholes out of the Nazis.”

Previous – Gun Control Abroad

Next – Gun Control Is Racist

Guns Prevent Tyranny Read More »

Gun Control Is Racist

This blog contains excerpts from the book “Fighting Back” from Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

we all know about the famous “I Have A Dream” speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 in front of the Lincoln Memorial. While his speech is well-known, what is not so widely known is Dr. King’s views on Firearms.

Dr. King believed in firearms for protection. People who visited Dr. King’s home described it as an arsenal. In fact, one visitor to his home sat in a recliner and a gun fell off the wall and almost hit him. After Dr. King’s home was bombed in 1956, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. But he was denied. This rejection underscores the danger of gun control. It turns rights into privileges, allowing prejudiced officials to revoke rights of decent people at will.

One commentator said it best:

“Even though King’s house had just been bombed, his application for a concealed carry permit was still rejected. Few people in the U.S. needed a permit to carry more than Reverend King did in 1956, but since the local police had discretion in their decision-making, King, who no doubt, met the requirements of the law, was rejected nonetheless. This was the norm when the applicant was black.”

These handgun licensing laws in the late 1800s and early 1900s were at the heart of enforcing discrimination. They were clearly calculated to keep black Americans disarmed. On paper, they seemed “equal” because everyone had to ask for permission, until a Florida judge let the proverbial cat out of the bag by stating that such laws were “passed for the purpose of disarming negro laborers [and were] never intended to be applied to the white population.”

One black journalist, Ida Wells, documented many of the lynchings that took place in the 19th Century. “The only time blacks actually escaped a lynch mob was when they had a gun and used it in self-defense.”

During the Civil Rights era of the ‘50s and ‘60s, Southern Democrat police departments would often look the other way when blacks were being abused. Former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, tells the story of how her father would take his shotgun, and along with other armed blacks in the neighborhood, would form nightly patrols to protect the town’s people from the KKK. And because of seeing these patrols is the reason Rice is such a strong opponent of gun control.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the march on Selma, Alabama in 1965. If you haven’t heard about it, shame on your school for not teaching it. The march was intended to bring attention to the mistreatment of blacks that was occurring. The police formed a picket line at the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma. The police fired tear gas into the crowd, clubbed them, bull whipped them, hosed them down, and used dogs on them. The date, March 7, 1965 became known as Bloody Sunday.

Another peaceful student protest was scheduled a few days later in Jonesboro, Louisiana. But the Deacons for Defense, a group of four (4) armed black men, were determined not to have another Bloody Sunday. The police arrived and called for firetrucks. As the firefighters were unraveling their hoses in an attempt to hose down the protesting students, one of the Deacons was heard telling the others to shoot as soon as the water was turned on. The police officers retreated and ordered the firemen to roll up their hoses and depart. The Deacons successfully and peacefully used their weapons to prevent official violence against law-abiding students.

Law-abiding citizens were being forcibly disarmed. That’s been the history of gun control. It’s a tool that has be used time and again to control people. And despite the bullshit rhetoric that “gun control makes people safer”, that is simply not the case. Governments act in the self-interests of the ruling class and don’t always act in the best interests of their citizens, which is why we have the Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms, without infringement.

Previous – Guns Prevent Tyranny

Next – Gun Activism 101

Gun Control Is Racist Read More »