I was going to write something up, but he did it better: Larry Correia on the Paris Attack

As usual, Larry hits the nail on the head in this great post:

Paris. Coming soon to a location near you. Mumbai, Beslan, and a thousand others, we’ve seen this before, and we’ll see it again.

On the personal, local level, this is another example of why you should carry a gun. No, we don’t expect every permit holder to be a Navy SEAL, just a speed bump. The best way to stop a mass shooter is an immediate violent response. At best, you drop them before they can hurt too many people. At worst, congratulations you were a distraction, but even distractions can save lives or derail plans.

Running is great. I’ll never fault somebody who chooses to run or hide when bad things happen. Every one of us has a different level of training, knowledge, and commitment, and what is the right answer for you, isn’t the right answer for your grandma. If you are the kind of person to get involved, you need to have a clue. However, since the only constant of gunfights is that they suck for somebody, you can do everything right and still die. On the bright side you at least bought everybody else some time.

For the pacifistic anti-gun dumb asses on the internet who always crop up in the aftermath of any violent event, bitching about imaginary crossfires, or how fighting back would just make things worse. Just shut up already. You’re children, with a child’s grasp of the subject. When people are being mass butchered, barring tossing hand grenades at the bad guy, it is pretty damned hard to make it worse.




CCW success story: Bank Robber shot by civilian with CCW

Just another example of a good guy with a gun:

Local 4 has learned the robber walked into the bank and announced a hold-up. He received money from a teller and then pointed the gun at the customer, who shot him. [The CCW holder] shot him in both arms and the leg.


If you are going to carry, carry everywhere.  The gun does you no good if you leave it at home.

Opinion polls “debunk” facts now? “New Harvard Research Debunks the NRA’s Favorite Talking Points”

Mother Jones (never known for their journalistic integrity or honesty on the topic of firearms) vomited up this piece of journalistic excrement today:

New Harvard Research Debunks the NRA’s Favorite Talking Points
Surveys drawing on scores of experts reveal a clear consensus against the gun lobby.

In it we have the usual uncritical fluff piece fawning over anti-gun shill David Hemenway’s latest work that is lauded as a decisive & stunning blow against the evil NRA… an opinion survey.   Opinion surveys should always be taken with a dump truck of salt since they don’t always match up with reality as documented in this Pew Research Survey where despite gun crime being at decade lows, 56% of people believe it is higher than 20 years ago.

The article opens with the scoff worthy platitudes that anti-gun writers peddle as without merit:

Anyone familiar with the gun debate has heard the talking points of the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates: “Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.” Or: “If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings.”

Yes, because being unarmed is certainly safer when facing someone who is willing to kill your child when you don’t have enough money to given them.   And a mass shooting has never been stopped by a concealed carrier. Certainly not in the last two weeks, in Philly.

As we’ve shown in our reporting, these arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, commented on another long-running assertion from the gun lobby: “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime,” he told the New York Times.

If by “don’t stand up to scrutiny” you mean “don’t survive our straw man arguments” – arguments like:

“Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns” where they say that just because outright confiscation isn’t on the agenda yet, there’s no middle ground between that and nothing at all.  Certainly nothing like trying to ban assault weapons.  Nevermind that confiscation has happened in places like California under Roberti-Roos, Canada, or elsewhere.  It certainly isn’t happening in New York, where law enforcement officers barely wait for the bodies to cool before swooping in to confiscate legally owned firearms from the families of the deceased.

or “Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.” where they conveniently make an apples to oranges argument by blaming firearms for suicides and use those suicides to pad total homicide stats, while undercounting defensive gun uses by limiting them to justifiable homicides.  After all, situations where a mother defends her child against a home intruder by shooting him 5 times don’t count since the attacker didn’t die.

As for the “no evidence that having more guns reduces crime” comment, that’s also been addressed as there’s zero proof that firearms availability has an effect on firearms crime either.

Yet, Hemenway says that some in the media have continued to treat such assertions as legitimate points of debate. That leaves the public thinking, “Okay, so there’s disagreement on this,” he says. It occurred to Hemenway that this was a familiar problem, so he set about surveying a wide range of experts on guns—modeling his project after a game-changing 2010 study on climate change, which found that 97 percent of researchers believe that humans are responsible for global warming. Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies. The Harvard team has completed nine surveys so far, with about 100 researchers responding to each: They show that a clear majority of experts do not buy the NRA’s arguments.

So let’s cut to the chase, let’s look at the information itself:


Expert firearms researchers were defined as those individuals that 1) publish in peer-reviewed journals and 2) publish specifically about firearms in the public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology literature. Expert researchers were defined as first authors on at least 1 peer-reviewed journal article from 2011 to the present (February 2014). It was felt that including all authors would overweight the public health/medicine area of research since articles there tend to have more authors.

If you can spot the selection bias already, give yourself a pat on the back.

Let’s dig further and look at the first survey dataset and see who responded:

Emails sent: 287
Emails opened: 194
Surveys started: 158
Surveys completed: 150

Interesting.  So out of this highly cherry picked group, just over half responded.  What did they have to say about the first question?

Q1: “In the United States, having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide”
Strongly disagree 3%
Disagree 5%
Neither Agree or Disagree 8%
Agree 26%
Strongly Agree 58%

Looks like these people never read the research coming out of Australia showing that firearms availability has little effect on overall suicide rates.  Of course I’m not the only one to mention that other countries with much harsher gun control can have higher overall rates of suicide as well.

But what really takes the case of this opinion poll is this:

Q3: Rate your level of familiarity with the literature on this topic
Not knowledgeable 7%
Slightly knowledgeable 13%
Medium 19%
Knowledgeable 33%
Very knowledgeable 28%

Yeah, no possibility for confirmation bias or Dunning-Kruger here.  No possible selection bias.  No one invested in firearms research or policy. No breakdown of disciplines past vague generic

Public health/medicine 48%
Criminology/sociology 33%
Public Policy 5%
Other 14%

Which lumps in psychiatrists with cardiac surgeons like noted shill antigun hack Arthur Kellerman.

The rest of the surveys are just as worthless.

The entire exercise is an Appeal to Authority writ large, with healthy amounts of the previously noted fallacies thrown in for good measure.  Of course, since there’s no benchmark or standard behind who is viewed as an expert, simply that they were “peer reviewed” at some point, we can dismiss this as junk science like most antigun agitprop.

Rape Survivor testifies at Maryland Legislator for Concealed Carry

Maryland is going through CCW law hearings right now and the following is testimony from a resident who lends a personal face to what is otherwise just statistics:

Kudos to the Daily Mail for actually being impartial in presenting this in their story: This incredibly difficult moment a rape survivor stood up in Maryland state Senate hearing to demand the right to carry a concealed weapon 

A brave rape survivor took the podium at a Maryland state Senate meeting this week and told the frightening tale about being stalked by a man she never met.

Jacqueline Kahn was speaking in support of a measure that would allow residents in Maryland to carry concealed weapons for self-defense.

The state is currently one of just a handful in the nation that doesn’t allow residents to carry firearms on the basis of protection alone.

‘I need you to know this is so incredibly difficult for me, but I feel like if I don’t humanize this, if I don’t make it clear how this legislation actually affects your daughters, your mothers, the women of this state, then it’s all just a bunch of numbers,’ Kahn told lawmakers.

In her presentation, Kahn told the Senators about how a man was once arrested in her back yard with duct tape and a knife.

‘I wish I could tell you that’s the only time I’ve been stalked, or that’s the only man who has stalked anyone in the state of Maryland. But there’s a huge number of women, who like me have been raped, who like me have been sexually assaulted — and we want the right to be able to do what we would be allowed to do throughout the majority of the rest of the United States,’ she said. Kahn didn’t speak about the details of her rape.

A Redditor knocks it out of the park with regards to Australian Gun Politics

Ban advocates always use misleading statistics leaving out violent crime, battery, and murder and focusing only on gun crime even though when you remove guns statistically the violence simply transfers to stabbings and beatings.

Having lived in Oz and America I have to point out that the aussie government makes these statements omg no guns yay constantly but when I looked for their statistical analysis Australia’s own government admits in their studies that gun control did not make a difference to violent crime:

Gun control does not slow the homicide rate:
stats:http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf A particularly showing piece of data is the homicide rates. 1996 had 354 homicides, 1997 had 364 homicides, 1998 had 334 homicides, 1999 had 385 homicides, 2000 had 362 homicides. I should point out that the legislation and ‘buy back’ happened in 97, and there was a 7% drop in homicides with firearms, outside of the average 2-4% decreasing trend. That 7% out of trend drop was immediately replaced and exceeded by an >8% increase in homicide with various other weapons. If anything, our legislation has stated quite clearly that without treating the cause of the issues, banning weapons is completely irrelevant and people will just kill with something else. Why Howard and his supporters feel this legislation that statistically and objectively accomplished literally nothing is worth flaunting, i have no idea.”

There are scientific university sources for my argument. Here’s a Harvard study source for my argument: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Even the latest data shows increase in violence: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html they often Twist statistics in order to say if it didn’t kill it doesn’t count which is disingenuous. Classifying violence in order to reach performance targets is really reaching for strings. Whereever you look for stats you will see violence is on the rise in australia: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492 “Armed robbery increased by 10 per cent and, although the most common weapon was a knife, Mr Lay said the 44 per cent increase in firearm use was alarming.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/frightening-rise-in-domestic-violence/story-e6frgczx-1226125910364

Australia has gone on to ban pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons, bb guns, knives of any type from being carried at any time, any type of self defense tool you could imagine is illegal or requires a permit that is practically impossible to obtain. Even if you decide to defend yourself with your bare hands you will be convicted if they can prove you used anything other than “equal force”.

Yes the first thing I think about when some lunatic violent criminal invades my home and threatens the life of my children is if I used equal force or not. As a veteran if you want to threaten me with bodily harm I’m going to do what I was trained to do and to think that anyone else that has their life threatened shouldn’t be able to defend themselves is frankly childishly immature. If you criminalize self defense then only criminals will have the upper hand.

For historical examples of how gun registration leads to confiscation which leads to genocide you need to have a look at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership “The Genocide Chart”: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

They should know something about that.

Over and over again American Colonists insisted that Native Americans turn over their guns as a show of good will or because they were given a written agreement to be protected and over and over again those that now had the upper hand and control turned around and slaughtered the natives.

My argument is simply not about if access to guns allows people to kill or not to kill. That is irrelevant. People will kill with a knife, with a glass, with their bare hands, by starting fires, even forest fires, some of the worst forest fires in australian history were started on purpose. People are inherently violent. Violence is a language and the zero tolerance for use of the language of violence is incredibly insipid. The complete ban of communication between people with violence means only those that are criminals will be able to be heard and everyone else is a victim. I’d rather speak the language and prevent myself from becoming a victim rather than wait for the police to figure out who to charge and who’s mother to call and give the bad news. Banning the language of violence means that only those that want to have control over or exploit others will know how to speak the language. If everyone else is afraid, unskilled, and knows they are to be punished if they use this language older then words then we have a weak populace that can be more easily exploited.

As for mass killings in australia, they always say, the gunban got rid of ANY mass killings. This is also NOT TRUE you might have heard of these australian mass killings: Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people. Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6] Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[7]

Sure, violence is on the rise, but crime is on the fall. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492

32-50% of violent crime follows alcohol use. Maybe we should ban alcohol before we ban guns? http://www.nllea.org/documents/Alcohol_and_Crime.pdf

To review crime is down yet stabbings, rape, and domestic violence is up but not classified a crime because only the robbery and killing is a crime, so don’t worry: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

FBI statistics show that crime is dropping in the big bad USA evil deathmachine: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582004-crime-plunging-rich-world-keep-it-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

Over a thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have occurred annually in the United States: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/simple-facts-mass-shootings-arent-simple-72055/

This fall in crime only exists because they don’t consider white collar crime such as laundering Mexican drug cartel money and fast and furiously giving cartels guns to be crimes. Own a bank and go absolutely crazy giving out loans and selling titles willy nilly till balance sheets are in a red chaos then hold the american economy hostage for bailouts. Not a crime. Bypass laws and forge titles to forclose faster? not a crime. Libor scandle. Not a crime. Maybe crime is down, but science proves corruption is at its all time high: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.UvzvW_mSwVl

I wonder if the corrupt benefit from disarming the populace?

Gun myths: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Reason gets it right again: How to Count the Defensive Uses of Guns

Reason’s always been pro-gun and a source for rational discourse when it comes to debunking the various flawed arguments gun control proponents come up with.  They have a new article out addressing the many issues with the antigun tactic of “driving the numbers down” for Defensive Gun Uses:

Stringent gun control advocates are fond of underestimating the possible importance of owning a gun. For example, a pair of anti-gun activists took to Politico in January to claim that the gun rights community is deluded about the likely number of defensive uses of guns by American citizens. Such defensive uses are known as DGUs (“defensive gun uses”) in the lingo.

Many in the gun rights community believe that a privately owned gun is used in legitimate self-defense over 2 million times a year in America. This figure arose initially from the survey work done in 1993 by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

The entire article is a must read and goes into detail about common errors and misconceptions.

The pushback against Campus Carry is much ado about nothing.

Campus Carry is making the news, especially after the remarks of one Nevada Lawmaker who suggested that women shooting rapists would have a deterrence effect:

The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (source)

Naturally the first reaction to this is a bunch of handwringing nonsense, strawman arguments and panic.

Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.

First and foremost, campuses certainly aren’t havens from gun-related risks that exist elsewhere – Virginia Tech & other school shootings are ample proof of that.

Second, the ‘drinking’ argument is completely incorrect for one simple reason: most states require that a CCW applicant has to be over the age of 21.  This is going to eliminate 90%+ of the student population immediately.  Instead, this bill is going to allow people to effectively defend themselves against attackers when they commute in from their homes or off campus apartments.   There’s no shortage of crimes that occur on campuses, such as:

These are just the first few results from Google.  But even more than that, we already know that “no guns” policies have created victims, because we know about Amanda Collins.  You may remember her name if you followed the Colorado firearms testimony during the last election season – Democrat Senator Evie Hudak made this callous remark to her after her testimony:

I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you na possibly use it against you …

It seems that when it comes to the issue of self defense, progressives are not pro-choice at all.

Naturally the media response to this issue has been almost uniformly negative.  The Houston Chronicle opines that

Allowing concealed handgun license holders to tote pistols on college campuses could cost tens of millions of dollars, a burden that could be ultimately passed on to students or siphoned away from education and research programs at Texas universities. (source)

Riiiiiiiiiiight.  Or it could cost nothing at all and just allow the same level of day to day activities that normal CCW use does.

The LA Times wrote:

What’s the dumbest idea of the season? Backed by the National Rifle Assn., state legislators across the country have been pushing laws to let students carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

What’s the lame excuse? Gun-toting young women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this. These are the same crackpots who argued in favor of more guns on campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. And who held out the 2012 massacre of 26 students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School as an argument in favor of arming teachers. Of course they’re cynically twisting the latest painful, high-profile issue into an argument for more guns. (source)

Wow.  I must have imagined the media outcry for more gun control after each and every possible opportunity.

As usual, this issue highlights the hypocrisy of the antigun movement.