Counter the Gun-Grabbers! Join NRA
Join Our Club HERE
New Member Orientation HERE
More Women Signing Up For Concealed Carry Class
Posted at 10:00 am on April 27, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners like to paint concealed carry as the domain of beer-swilling, minority-hating wannabe Rambo males looking for an opportunity to blow someone away. Much of their anti-gun rhetoric is based around this idea. Well, the part that isn’t based on misconstrued data or outright fabrications.
However, they really need to update their version of reality.
In a statement released Monday, the National Carry Academy says the number of women taking concealed-carry courses has spiked by 24 percent since the February 14 shooting. In an interview with The Federalist, NCA CEO Chris Schutrop said an increasing number of women have been arming themselves over the past three years, but the Parkland shooting especially hit a nerve among women.
“There’s a greater chance they can protect themselves if they are carrying a firearm and are trained to use it,” Schutrop said. “It’s a tangible way that they can make a difference to help others and help themselves.”
That’s awesome. Seriously.
While concealed carry wouldn’t have prevented Parkland, it may well have helped at countless other mass shootings. It wouldn’t have helped in Parkland simply because concealed carry wasn’t allowed on school campuses in Florida. Based on the anti-gun push down that way, it’s unlikely that’s going to change any time soon.
But even taking the extremely rare possibility of mass shooting off the table, concealed carry is a massive benefit to women. While some circles like to pretend that women are capable of literally everything a man can do, there are exceptions. For example, the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. That puts women at a disadvantage when it comes to violence, where strength is an important factor. Unless that is, she has a gun.
You only need to muster a few pounds of pressure with your finger to pull a trigger, and that’s an incredible equalizer when you’re asking a 120-pound woman to defend herself against a 250-pound aggressive male.
I think most women recognize that fact, and many are looking at how to mitigate those differences. That means a firearm. Plain and simple.
One comment about the NCA’s numbers is that it only accounts for increases in concealed carry courses. It doesn’t account for a spike in states that don’t require a course before issuing a permit. I’d wager that you’d see as big, if not a bigger, spike there. After all, women who might be intimidated by a concealed carry class might skip the process. If they didn’t have to sit through one, they might just pick up the permit.
Of course, it’s impossible to know the gender breakdown of concealed carry, but I’m glad to see this news. I’m a husband and a father of a young daughter. One of my greatest fears is something happening to my wife or little girl and me not being there to try and protect them. The idea of the average concealed carrier changing to include more women means other fathers can deal with that fear a little bit better than before as their little girls, now all grown up, can protect themselves.
NATIONAL DATABASE EXPOSES VARIETY OF GUN CONTROL LAWS
A new national database is helping to make clear what many gun owners already know – that the law concerning firearms can vary hugely from state to state. Whilst the current situation is undoubtedly confusing and frustrating for many professional gun owners, it is hoped that the new database will focus the attention of lawmakers on cleaning up the current mess of gun legislation.
The problem stems, in our opinion, from a lack of enterprise and courage on behalf of federal authorities. From 2014 to 2015, the US experienced the largest annual increase in firearm deaths for 35 years – it increased 7.8% in a single year.
This is clearly unacceptable, but the response of Congress was tepid. The 2015 – 16 session saw just four bills being passed which addressed firearm violence. Given this, it is not surprising that many states felt obliged to take the matter into their own hands, and passed a motley selection of laws that are often unique to each state and in many cases contradictory.
The new database tracks these laws over the past 27 years, and reveals striking differences in the rate and type of gun laws passed in each state.
For instance, the researchers who put together the database found that there are a possible 133 provisions that could be in force to reduce gun violence. Five states currently have fewer than five of these measures in force. On the other end of the scale, two states had 100 or more of these provisions.
Another trend is that states are increasingly passing laws that allow for shootings in self defense. These “stand your ground” laws allow a person, if threatened with serious bodily harm, to shoot their attacker under immunity from prosecuton. Between 2004 and 2017, 24 states passed laws of this type.
A similar story emerges when looking at concealed carry legislation. In the US today, there are 12 states that permit concealed carry without any kind of license or permit. This year alone, three more states are seeking to enact laws that would allow concealed carry without a permit or license.
Another large trend revealed by this database is the increasing level of legal protection offered to gun manufacturers. Laws designed to protect the gun industry have been passed in many states in recent years, offering the industry protection which in unparalleled in other fields. These laws prevent citizens who are injured by firearms from suing the manufacturer of the weapon responsible, and even stop local governments from bringing similar lawsuits.
Whilst we art GND are in general in favour of increased freedoms to own and use guns, we also think that databases like this are useful.
Whilst the researchers who conducted this research were clearly doing so in order to further limit Second Amendment rights, they have revealed a problem that we can all agree on – that the current situation with gun legislation is a total mess, and the Congress needs to do more to standardize rights across the US.
Anti-Gun Article Outlines Why AR-15 Isn’t For Defense…And Gets It Wrong
Posted at 10:00 am on March 24, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Earlier this week, I came across an article all about why the AR-15 wasn’t for home defense. Unsurprisingly, it wasn’t written by someone who understands firearms. It was written by someone who is apparently terrified by the idea of private citizens having an effective, lightweight means of defense, and her arguments proved it.
So, I thought I’d take a minute and show you just how wrong this whole mess is. It’s an older article, but I have little doubt it’s fueling more than a few discussions, even today.
1. The AR-15 Was Designed For Military Use
In 1957, the United States Army asked Armalite to produce a lighter-weight rifle capable of piercing “both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters,” according to the AR-15 website. After extensive research on the effectiveness of weapons in war and how those weapons injured soldiers, the AR-15 was created to be an efficient rifle that could cause mass amounts of damage quickly. In the 1960s, the AR-15 became known as the M-16.
First, the fact that the weapon was developed for military use is irrelevant. GPS was developed for military use too, but no one thinks twice about using it to find a Starbucks.
Second, the history isn’t even right. The Army never asked Armalite for anything. Armalite developed the weapon because the Army wanted it, but they weren’t the only one in consideration. It still took years to get the military to buy it, years where they were marketed to civilians instead. It wasn’t until Colt bought the design that Uncle Sam gave the right the go ahead.
But again, that’s irrelevant. The reasons the military adopted it are some of the very same reasons it’s ideal for home defense. Saying it was designed for military use is neither here nor there.
2. The AR-15 Wastes Ammunition
If you are going to use a gun as your first line of defense, do you want a gun that sprays bullets everywhere in rapid succession? The “assault” part of assault rifle describes the deadliness of the AR-15. In his piece for Slate, Peters noted the AR-15 can fire up to 45 rounds per minute. If you are attempting to use this gun for self-defense if someone is attacking you and your family, it’s not the best move; bullets are going to be flying everywhere, and the potential to hit a family member, a neighbor, a pet, or even yourself seems dangerously high.
Here, we see that someone has confused the AR-15 with the M4.
The AR-15 only fires one round per trigger pull. You may waste ammo, but it’s because you’re pulling the trigger too much.
Just because it can fire 45 rounds per minute doesn’t mean it will. That number is based on a full mag dump as fast as the weapon can cycle. Most people aren’t going to bump fire the thing at a burglar, so the argument is irrelevant.
3. The AR-15 Is A Vanity Rifle
One of the reasons that the AR-15 is popular is because it can be endlessly customized — never mind that the ease of customization can lead to owners unwittingly violating state laws. Holding a rifle that can fire 45 rounds per minute is certainly going to make a person feel powerful, but is it actually making them safer? No. The AR-15 is a weapon that gun owners can brag about owning, but its usefulness in self-protection is questionable at best.
So, point three says nothing at all?
Sure, an AR-15 can be modified into illegality, but that doesn’t make it a “vanity rifle,” whatever the hell that means. It just means some people are unfamiliar with state laws. However, it’s also worth noting that most sellers of accessories won’t ship products to states where they’re illegal.
So, basically, that point is a big nothingburger.
As for anything else “made” in this point, she’s arguing by assertion. She says its so;, but she hasn’t presented any new evidence that she’s right. Based on the other “evidence” she’s presented, I bet I know why.
4. The Odds Of An AR-15 Or Any Gun Being Used For Home Defense Are Low
The idea that if good people have guns then everyone will be safe is simply ridiculous. Whether you have an AR-15 or a pistol in your home, the chances of you ever using it for home defense are minuscule. In 2012, the Violence Policy Center released data that revealed only 259 justified homicide cases (i.e. when people killed others in self-defense) were confirmed in the United States. In contrast there were 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012.
Even more alarming? The LA Times reported there was just “one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012).” With that data in mind, would having an assault rifle in your home honestly make you feel any safer?
Wow. What’s with this fascination will killing people. She should get help.
Defensive use of a firearm doesn’t require killing anyone. A shot that misses or even the sight of a gun sends many criminals running. Further, the numbers she’s quoting don’t cover any woundings, which should at least be considered, especially since estimates for defensive uses of a firearm vary, but are typically on par with the citation of violent crimes.
It’s especially worth noting that many of those violent crimes were perpetrated with some weapon other than a gun, meaning a firearm is used more often to defend life than threaten it.
Even if we ignore all that, so what? The odds of me using my fire extinguisher are pretty low too, but I still have it. You see, when it comes to protecting my family’s life, I don’t play the odds, particularly when I had to use a firearm to protect my family’s home once. Statistically, my having to pull a gun once makes me all but immune to needing to do so again, but statistics also said I’d probably never need to draw.
I don’t bet my wife’s and kids’ lives on statistics.
5. The AR-15 Is Powerful Enough To Pierce Body Armor
Mark and Jackie Barden, the parents of David Barden, one of the children who was murdered in Sandy Hook, are among the plaintiffs trying to hold the gun manufacturers accountable for selling AR-15s to civilians in the Soto et. al v. Bushmaster case.
The Bardens penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in early 2016, in which they wrote, “The last thing our sweet little Daniel would have seen in his short, beautiful life was the long barrel of a ferocious rifle designed to kill the enemy in war. The last thing Daniel’s tender little body would have felt were bullets expelled from that AR-15 traveling at greater than 3,000 feet per second — a speed designed to pierce body armor in the war zones of Fallujah.”
To bring a weapon into your home — or anywhere — that is powerful enough to be used on a battlefield is not a rational response to self defense, but a highly dangerous move.
Oh, so a couple of parents grieving over the loss of their children are a valid source for data?
Look, the 5.56 round is blocked by Level III body armor, which is at least equivalent to what our troops wear. In fact, Level III can stop .308 rounds, which have far more punch than the relatively wimpy 5.56.
Where things change is if you’re using armor-piercing ammunition. Since that’s hardly a common round and is technically illegal to sell, though not necessarily illegal to possess, it’s a moot point.
In other words, this is a bogus claim based on information from people who aren’t knowledgeable on firearms in the least.
What. A. Shock.
But that’s what passes for intelligent discourse on anti-gun websites. These very same arguments keep popping up in social media discussions, but they’re all a bunch of nonsense. They only work if you accept them at face value and trust the “research” provided. Since that “research” is, at best, laughable, this may be the most ridiculous anti-gun article I’ve ever read.
I applaud them for it. It takes a great deal of…something to go out and spout such nonsense with the unflappable air of arrogance that expects it all to be taken at face value.
I’m not even mad. That’s amazing.
But it’s still ridiculous.
Disclaimer: The webmaster and author of much of the material on this site assumes that visitors to the site are capable of making their own choices and taking full responsibility for their decisions and actions. Individuals who are not capable of taking responsibility for your own choices, STOP. Do not read anything else on this site. The webmaster has made good-faith and reasonable effort to ensure that the information and articles contained on this site are accurate and contain sound advice, but the reader is hereby advised that there may be occasional unintentional errors of fact or omission. Deal with it! If it does not sound right to you, don't do it. The webmaster accepts absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything you might say or do as a result of reading any material on this site. Live your own life, make your own decisions and accept ownership and responsibility for those decisions.