Sunday, June 26, 2016

Authors of JAMA study of Australian Gun Control are Gun Control Advocates, as is the AMA

The authors of the Australian study gun control study pubished in the Journal of the American Medical Association are gun control advocates.  From
The authors of the JAMA study had obvious conflicts, Wheeler said, with one being a member of the Coalition for Gun Control (Australia) and "Second author Philip Alpers is the founding director of the gun ban organization and is a delegate to the U.N.'s project to ban private gun ownership worldwide, the so-called Programme of Action. Mr. Alpers, although he holds the title of Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Sydney School of Public Health, apparently has no college degree and no evident qualifications other than being a premier gun prohibition activist. These are insurmountable shortcomings for authors of a supposedly peer reviewed scientific article in a journal with the reputation of JAMA."
From the Guardian:
The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
Professor Simon Chapman is a noted gun control advocate, who pushed hard for the policies evaluated by this study.  From
He was a key member of the Coalition for Gun Control which won the 1996 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Community Human Rights award for its advocacy for gun law reform after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
From the Guardian:
A co-author of the paper, Associate Professor Philip Alpers, who is also the founding director of, said it was “amazing” that the reforms were still having a positive effect 20 years after they were first introduced.
Phillip Alpers does not have a formal degree.  His major qualification for his associate professorship appears to be his anti-gun activism, and a number of papers he has written.  From
So we put it directly to the university, who on earth would referee for someone like Alpers whose various so-called scientific papers have one thing in common; they’re littered with the most clumsy and basic mathematical errors and elementary errors of logic, which invariably favour Alpers’ own arguments! Their reply:
“The University cannot disclose private and confidential information of that nature to third parties such as yourself. As all your correspondence is being copied to Associate Professor Alpers for his information, I suggest you address any further questions to him directly”.
Good idea, we thought. After being advised by Alpers that we should “feel free to ask (him) anything we couldn’t find elsewhere”, he apparently had a change of heart.
“As you’ve already been told, universities in common with other employers do not permit disclosure of reference-related information to third parties”.
 So there you have it. In our day, Professors were a little different. Their many and various academic degrees, the universities that conferred these titles upon them, and the dates were all a matter of public record for every department.

The AMA has issued a statement that they support the failed "Assault Weapon Ban".  From
Based on long-time AMA-HOD policy, the letter also calls for renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines.  AMA supports S. 150, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) can hardly be considered a neutral source for research about a policy position that they have long advocated.  It was advocacy studies at the Centers For Disease Control that prompted a ban on federal funding of gun control advocacy there.  The AMA has not come to its position on gun control recently.  It has been an advocate for at least 24 years.  From
”In 1992, the AMA’s Council on Scientific Affairs promulgated a report and position paper on “Assault Weapons” (guns with a military appearance), and declared them to be a public health hazard in the United States. It recommended legislation to restrict the sale and private ownership of such firearms.

Among the critics of the AMA report was Edgar A. Suter, M.D. According to Suter (1995), “The AMA Council on Scientific Affairs did not conduct a rigorous scientific evaluation before supporting a ban on assault weapons. The Council appears to have unquestioningly accepted common misperceptions and even partisan misrepresentations regarding the nature and uses of assault weapons....While an assault weapon ban may have appeared to the Council to be a simple solution to America’s exaggerated ‘epidemic’ of violence, a scholarly review of the literature finds no reliable data to support such a ban. Unfortunately the Council’s faulty call for prohibition may distract legislators and the public from addressing effective methods of controlling violence.”
A major difficulty in any research is that people tend to find what they want to find.  One of the ways it becomes a problem is selection bias. It is clear that there is little to no statistical support for the claim that decrease in crime or suicides was due to the extremely strict Australian gun laws put in place in 1997.

Selection bias is a problem for all researchers.  But people should be aware of studies done by advocates and published by an organization that promotes the same advocacy.

This does not mean that Chapman and or Alpers conciously deceive or publish false information.  It means that they are human, and more likely to see and report on that which supports their opinions.

As a "control" on mass killings, New Zealand did not implement the strict gun control laws of Australia.  They eliminated much of their gun registry in favor of licensing of individual gun owners.  Yet over the period of the study, New Zealand, like Australia, has not had a mass killing by gunfire. Link to Paper (PDF) Mass killings are rare events in both Australia and New Zealand.

The number of gun owners and guns owned in Australia have returned to pre-1997 levels, but the homicide and suicide rates have not.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Followup AK: No Charges for Ole Larson in Shooting of Codey Tallman

Larson told Tallman to stop and Tallman shoved him, troopers said at the time. Tallman later knocked Larson to the ground, and Larson followed him into some woods, where Tallman knocked him down again, they said. When Larson started calling troopers, Tallman hit him.

That's when Larson "removed a .38 caliber handgun from his (pocket) and advised Tallman he was armed and told him to stop," according to a trooper's report. Tallman charged and Larson shot him in the leg.
More Here

IN: Armed Victim Shoots at Suspect Who tried to Rob him Twice

The victim told officers that the same man who had robbed him earlier in the month, Kyndrick Hancock, had just came into his home with a gun and demanded money.

When the victim told Hancock he didn't have any money, police say Hancock fired a shot at him. Police say the victim shot back and Hancock took off in a car.

We're told a car matching the description was stopped at Washington and Kentucky. Police say Hancock was driving.
More Here

Saturday, June 25, 2016

.22 Ammo in Yuma WalMart

When I go to the local WalMart in Yuma (there are three), I check to see if there is any .22 ammunition.  At some point, increased production and falling demand should cross, allowing for more .22 on the shelves. At the WalMart on Frontage road, toward the Foothills, I was surprised to see .22 ammunition.  It was the first time in three years. 

There were 2,300 rounds of CCI Mini-Mags and 1,000 rounds of CCI Standard Velocity.  The Mini-Mags were in plastic 100 round boxes at $7.47 a box.  The Standard Velocity were in paper, 50 round boxes at $3.47 a box.

A perky, pretty clerk, Yittzel, was happy to answer my questions.  She was a joy to deal with, and did not have any problem with me taking pictures.  She said that they seldom saw .22 ammunition, perhaps once a month. She thought it might be coming in a little more frequently lately, but it was still uncommon.  She was surprised when she came in and found .22 ammunition on the shelves that morning.  She doubted if it would last more than  a couple of days.

A customer came up to the counter and bought 300 rounds of CCI mini-mags, the maximum allowed.  He wasn't interested in the Standard Velocity.

He asked when Yittzel went off shift, or if he could come back in 15 minutes and buy 300 more.  She told him that three boxes was the limit. I expect he came back later, when someone else was at the counter.

I asked Yittzel about ammunition availability and the effect of politics.  She agreed the ammunition bubble is driven by people's fear of potential legislation during the Obama administration. 

Resellers who buy ammunition from WalMart to sell at gun shows, or over the Internet, help to keep the bubble inflated.

She said when she came to work after the Orlando shooting, most of the ammunition shelves were bare.

.22 ammunition manufacturers have increased production in an attempt to balance long term supply with demand.  At the Shot Show in January of this year, Aquila said that they were increasing production about 30%.  Industry sources assured me that CCI/Federal were increasing their production by 20%.  Those increases should be coming on line about now. 

The machines to manufacture .22 ammunition are expensive.  Manufacturers are hesitant to invest in expensive machinery, only to have it sit idle after a bubble of demand has burst.  After three years, manufactures have decided there is a long term component to the increase in demand.

Every time it appears that production has started to meet demand, the Obama administration pushes another infringement on the Second Amendment, and demand spikes.  The House Democrats throwing a tantrum on the House floor, and demanding that American civil rights be violated, did not help.

We may have to wait until there is a Republican administration for .22 ammunition to become plentiful again.  The Democrat nominee, Hillary, is pushing harder for more Second Amendment infringements than any other nominee in history. 

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Gun regulation:  Is Australia a model that the USA should adopt?

In the wake of the recent shootings at Orlando and elsewhere, many Leftist commentators have pointed to the strict gun controls introduced by Australia in 1996 and have noted that Australia has had NO mass shootings since the laws were enacted.  They assert that this is powerful evidence for the enactment of such laws in America. But is it true?  Did Australia's strict laws reduce gun deaths?

Before I answer that, I think I might point out that there are important demographic differences between the U.S. and Australian populations.  In particular, the minorities are different.  Australia has negligible Africans but large numbers of Han Chinese.  And those two groups differ greatly in propensity to crime generally and homicide in particular.  The Chinese are as pacific as Africans are violent.  I don't think I have ever heard of a Han Chinese breaking into someone's house, whereas that happens daily in the USA.  So Australians have a much smaller need for guns as self-defense.  I love the Han.

But one part of the Leftist claim is true.  There have indeed been no mass shootings since 1996 in Australia. But such shootings were rare anyway and gun crimes were already on the way down in Australia so how do we allow for that?  Below is an article from a major medical journal that has done all the statistics. Its conclusions have been widely reported but almost always misreported.  So I produce the actual journal abstract below.

As you can see, they found that the decline in gun deaths had speeded up but not to a statistically significant degree.  More interestingly, the rate for all crimes had declined even more than the decline in gun deaths.  So all we can say is that Australia has been getting steadily safer for a long time now.  There is no evidence that guns have anything to do with it.  The journal article:

Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013

Simon Chapman et al.



Rapid-fire weapons are often used by perpetrators in mass shooting incidents. In 1996 Australia introduced major gun law reforms that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns and rifles and also initiated a program for buyback of firearms.


To determine whether enactment of the 1996 gun laws and buyback program were followed by changes in the incidence of mass firearm homicides and total firearm deaths.


Observational study using Australian government statistics on deaths caused by firearms (1979-2013) and news reports of mass shootings in Australia (1979–May 2016). Changes in intentional firearm death rates were analyzed with negative binomial regression, and data on firearm-related mass killings were compared.


Implementation of major national gun law reforms.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in mass fatal shooting incidents (defined as ≥5 victims, not including the perpetrator) and in trends of rates of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and suicides, and total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.


From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred. There was also significant change in the preexisting downward trends for rates of total firearm deaths prior to vs after gun law reform. From 1979-1996, the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-3.9) per 100 000 population (average decline of 3% per year; annual trend, 0.970; 95% CI, 0.963-0.976), whereas from 1997-2013 (after gun law reforms), the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4) per 100 000 population (average decline of 4.9% per year; annual trend, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.940-0.962), with a ratio of trends in annual death rates of 0.981 (95% CI, 0.968-0.993). There was a statistically significant acceleration in the preexisting downward trend for firearm suicide (ratio of trends, 0.981; 95% CI, 0.970-0.993), but this was not statistically significant for firearm homicide (ratio of trends, 0.975; 95% CI, 0.949-1.001). From 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths was 10.6 (95% CI, 10.0-11.2) per 100 000 population (average increase of 2.1% per year; annual trend, 1.021; 95% CI, 1.016-1.026), whereas from 1997-2013, the mean annual rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 11.3-12.3) per 100 000 (average decline of 1.4% per year; annual trend, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.980-0.993), with a ratio of trends of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.958-0.973). There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods for suicides or homicides.

Conclusions and Relevance

Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

JAMA. Published online June 22, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8752

California Infringement of Second Amendment can be Overcome

While I was visiting another member of the gun culture, I was shown a new acquisition, a Springfield XD in .45 caliber.  I was struck by the the warning label on the box "NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA" and W/HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE.

I object to the term "High Capacity Magazine".  The magazines are not high capacity, they are standard capacity.  Magazines of ten rounds or less are reduced capacity.

The idea that a Constitutionally protected item could be forbidden by state law reminded me of how topsy turvy the interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution has become.

When the American colonies first won independence from England, the document governing them was the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles had demonstrated that a central government was necessary for  defense of the country, and to maintain order among the states.  Some states had erected trade barriers against their neighbors. The Commerce clause of the Constitution fixed that defect.  For most of the nations history until the late 1800's, the commerce clause was used to prevent the states from interfering in interstate trade that crossed state lines.   

The power of the Federal government to regulate trade between states has morphed into the ability to regulate all aspects of trade.  The Supreme Court has ruled that there is virtually nothing the Federal government cannot do in its regulation of trade.  The power to regulate has been used to prevent State's interference in trade, and it has been used to enhance their interference in trade.  The 1968 gun control act was specifically designed to enhance the power of the states to prevent sales of guns across state lines, at least to people who are not licensed by the federal government.

The Supreme Court is currently in a deadlock over whether states may restrict Second Amendment rights to certain rifles and pistols; and whether they can restrict the magazine capacity of those firearms.  The Supreme Court has not been willing to consider those arguments.

That leaves legislative solutions.  It is unlikely that Second Amendment supporters will be able to obtain legislative majorities in California, New York, or Connecticut in the near future.  But Second Amendment supporters already have  legislative majorities in the U.S. Congress.  There has been majority support for national reciprocity of carry permits for a number of years.

Republican nominee Donald Trump has made support of a national reciprocity law part of his legislative platform.

Part of that law should be the requirement that people who are carrying in states other than there own, may carry any legal firearms from their state of residence.    Just because your car does not meet the California codes for emissions in California, does not mean that you may not drive there.

This would be an easier increment for the Congress to swallow than to simply strike down the burdens on the Second Amendment passed by those state legislatures.  The idea that a person is subject to a felony conviction for crossing a state line with an otherwise legal standard capacity magazine in her personal defensive firearm is absurd.

Because I carry a Glock with a standard capacity magazine, and live on the California border, I am aware of the dangerous legal trap these laws have created.  Miss one exit on the interstate, and you have committed a felony.

The law would be constitutional under the Second Amendment, the commerce clause, and the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

States should not be allowed to undermine the Second Amendment for citizens visiting their state, who have no vote in their legislative process.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

CA: Intruder Shot in Leg

On June 22nd , 2016 at about 1900 hours officers responded to the area of the 300 block of 1st Avenue in Rio Dell for a report of a subject who had been shot. The gunshot victim was located and medical assistance provided for a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the subjects leg. The subject was transported via ambulance to Redwood Memorial Hospital.

More Here

OR: Armed Homeowner Shoots Naked Intruder

A Southwest Portland homeowner shot a man who was trying to break into his home through a backyard window Wednesday afternoon, an official said.

Responders found the intruder completely naked in a water fountain in the home's backyard, said Capt. Steve Alexander, a Multnomah County Sheriff's Office spokesman. The intruder was taken to a hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound that didn't appear to threaten his life, Alexander said.

More Here

GA: Korean Husband Defends Wife in Gunfight, Husband and Armed Robber both Die

DULUTH, GA. - A husband is dead after defending himself and his wife from an armed robber, according to police.

The deadly shootout happened outside the Time Internet Café on Steve Reynolds Boulevard near Gwinnett Place Mall just before midnight.

The owners of the café were locking up when police say they were approached by a 22-year-old Diante Doby of Stone Mountain. He was armed with a pistol and wearing a white mask and dark hoodie, according to police.
More Here

LA: Robbery Suspect Flees at Sight of Gun

NEW ORLEANS —A would-be robber fled after the man he was attempting to rob showed he was armed, New Orleans police said.

More Here

KS: Car Shop Owner Holds Thief at Gunpoint

KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- An auto shop owner held a thief at gunpoint until police could arrive. He says the man stole a car and tried to sell off the seats.

Those high horsepower, turbocharged sports cars generally roll into Modified by KC for a tune-up. Saturday, a man came to the shop with a red Mini Cooper hoping to sell the car seats for $500.

“He didn’t fit the build for a Mini owner,” said co-owner Ryan Charlton.

He has recognized the car through posts on social media. He figured out that the man stole the Mini and is trying to sell parts off the car. Charlton played along. First, he locked up the shop.
More Here

Friday, June 24, 2016

Government wisdom

Disputed Heirs Want to Destroy $5 Million of Legal Guns and Ammo for Political Statement

On a segment of ABC News, a lawyer for the disputed heirs of a mystery man claim to want five million dollars of his estate destroyed, to make a political statement.

Jeffrey Lash legally accumulated 1,500 guns and six and a half tons of ammunition, valued at more than 5 million dollars.  He likely got most of his money from the women in his life, including his fiancee of 17 years.

His estranged cousins from Los Angeles wish to have that part of the estate destroyed to make a political statement.

Several woman who lived with Jeffrey Alan Lash are involved in litigation over the estate.  The prime candidate seems to be  Catherine Nebron, who was Lash' fiancée. Her lawyer says that Lash manipulated Nebron and essentially held her captive while she financed his endeavors.  At least two other women were involved with Lash. From
Family members set to inherit a stockpile of guns and ammunition, worth millions of dollars, plan to destroy the weapons "to send a message," their attorney Daniel Brookman told ABC News today.
"They want these instruments of death to be destroyed," Brookman said. "They don’t want these weapons out on the street."
Jeffrey Lash' fiancee, Catherine Nebron, has stated that she has the legal right to sell the 5 million dollars worth of firearms and ammuniton.  From
According to Brookman, Lash's stockpile was worth an estimated $5 million.

A year after an autopsy said Lash died at 60 years old from natural causes, Los Angeles police said he legally purchased the firearms.

Nebron's lawyer claims now they were hers to sell.

"They can be sold through the Department of Justice and may be sold to police departments, but there is no point in destroying them," Nebron's lawyer Harland Braun said.
The story reminds me of Solomon's famous decision involving the two prostitutes who both claimed one baby.  He found the true mother by saying that he would devide the infant in two and give a half to each.  The mother said no, and Soloman used her affection to determine that she was the true mother.

All of the firearms were legally purchased.  Destroying them does nothing but enrich arms manufacturers. If they are destroyed, more will be manufactured, instead of satisfying that demand with firearms that already exist.

Could the cousins and/or their lawyer be hoping to cash in on the current politically correct furor over mass shootings? The lawyer stated that the mass shootings were important for their decision.  Might they hope that a politically correct judge will be more sympathetic to their politically correct views?

Who can know the human heart.  I am no Solomon.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Defense Against Animals: 14 Foot Python in Backyard Oklahoma

One of the most underrated defensive uses of firearms is for defense against animals, either to protect property or people. This 14 foot python was probably turned loose by an irresponsible owner who could no longer take care of it. Perhaps they became frightened by it.

A snake this large is a clear and present danger to pets and small children.  While most snakes can be dispatched with a shovel or hoe, I would not want to attempt that with this python.  It might take offense.

A firearm is a stand off weapon that allows you to apply deadly force at a distance.  A picture with the article shows the python was shot in the head, killing it quickly and humanely.

The snake was a surprise for the teen who discovered it. From
"I come outside, and the snake is literally slithering in our yard, and I'm like 'Oh, no, this is a dream.' So, I shut the door and open it back up, and it's for sure not a dream. So, I go tell my dad,” Lara said.

It wasn’t just any snake either but a 14-foot-long python.

"My dad was like 'Hey, just go get the shovel' and I was like 'No, we need the gun. Like, this is a huge snake.' I didn't know how long it was at the time, but I knew it was big enough to eat someone, you know,” Lara said.

Lara and his dad shot and buried the snake, something Lara said they felt they had to do with several small kids living in the area.

“This is why we built the fence, for creatures not to get in and for them to actually play safe, and seeing that here is just scary,” Lara said.

Notice that the JC and his father did not want to shoot the snake.  They were concerned that it belonged to someone else.  They knew it would be irresponsible to allow it to escape and become another person's problem.  So they made the hard choice and took the responsible action.

To many, "back yard" means suburbia.  You can see that the Lara's back yard is out in the country. The snake was likely released in June of 2016. Pythons do not survive Oklahoma winters in the wild. They are tropical animals.  Unlike Florida, Oklahoma does not have to worry about cultivating a wild population of exotic pythons.

People in the country often have to deal with pets that irresponsible owners abandon.

Firearms allow for relatively safe defensive actions, whether it be defense of the family vegitable garden from rabbits, pets from a rabid skunk, or children from a dangerous snake.

I do not always carry a shovel or hoe, but I usually carry a pistol.  Regrettably, I have had to kill poisonous snakes at my ranch.  It is not that I hate snakes; it would be irresponsible to allow living land mines to take up residence next to the buildings when I bring children and dogs there. 

I attempted to relocate one sidewinder that had created a den next to the front door.  I released it a few hundred yards out in the desert.  The next morning, it was coiled up on the front step.  I re-captured it and took it to Yuma Proving Ground so the preventive medicine department would have an example. 

Most defensive uses of firearms against animals never make the news.  It is not news for a gardener to shoot crows that are pulling up his seed corn, a retired couple to shoot a skunk that is acting diseased, or a sportsman to shoot porcupines that are chewing holes in his cabin.

Shooting a 14 foot python in the back yard in Oklahoma.  That is news.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Thursday, June 23, 2016

FL: Woman Shoots Naked Home Invader

According to reports, the victim retreated to her upstairs bedroom, locked the bedroom door, called 911, and armed herself with a .22 caliber handgun. She then hid in her bedroom closet.

Etherington followed the victim upstairs and made entry to the bedroom. Once inside, he removed his shorts, which he had defecated in, and made entry into the closet.

Deputies stated that the victim fired one shot and struck the suspect in his abdomen.

According to a press release, deputies arrived and short time later and forced entry to the home.

They found the naked and bleeding suspect hiding behind the bedroom door.

More Here

Followup MI: Marcus Weldon Found not Guilty in 2014 Self Defense Shooting

The suspect, Omar Padi, who shot at Weldon, moved to Yemen.

A 28-year-old man who shot two men while dressed as Santa Claus after an argument at a Detroit gas station on Dec. 21, 2014 has been acquitted of all charges against him.

Marcus Weldon, who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm, says he claimed self defense when he took the stand in a week-long trial that ended with a jury issuing a not-guilty verdict Monday.

Weldon opened fire on two men, striking one of the men, Omar Pady, then 29, in the abdomen, and his friend, Salah Rifai, in the arm.

He claims he fired his gun in self defense, believing that Pady was going to shoot him. 

More Here

TX: More Details on Balch Spring Home Invasion Shooting

Police said a black male suspect entered a house with the owner inside. The owner confronted the suspect and shots were fired. The suspect left the home and was found near the house with a gunshot wound.

More Here

Followup KY: Names of 2 Home Invasing Suspects Killed have been Released

"I came around the garbage box, and this guy saw me so he took off on the left side of the vehicle and stopped at the left side to get something out, and I went around the right side to keep the vehicle between me and him," the homeowner said. "And he came around with a gun, so I shot him, and the other guy came around the garage with something and I shot him. One collapsed at the front, and one collapsed at the rear of the vehicle."
More Here

MO: Mental Case Attempts Kidnap, Fails

A Springfield man was charged with three felonies after police say he threatened two people with a gun Monday at the Springfield Golf and Country Club.
Donald Weber, 56, was charged with unlawful use of a weapon and two counts of attempted felonious restraint after police say he threw handcuffs at two men, pointed a gun at them and tried to force them into an office.


One of the victims ran to his truck and retrieved a gun. There was then a brief standoff between Weber and the victim in which they yelled at one another before both victims ran from the scene, according to the statement.

More Here

Followup PA: Shop Owners Proud of Employee's Self Defense

WAYNESBORO - Shop owners have welcomed the actions of an Antietam Pharmacy employee who used his concealed firearm to shoot a robber.

Eric Christie, owner of Christie’s House of Pipes and Cigars, said it was great to have someone stand up to protect their life and liberty and to defend their property.

“I’m darn proud of them,” he said.
More Here

Slippery Slope on Guns Shown in Scotland: Airgun Turn in and Licensing

11 years ago in Scotland, in 2005, a drug addict murdered a 2 year old boy with an air rifle.  Killing someone with the power limited air rifles in the UK is extremely rare. Anti-gun activists used this event to impose licensing of even the underpowered airguns allowed in the UK.  The licensing will only apply in Scotland. In the rest of the UK, air rifles will continue to be available over the counter.

An  amnesty was scheduled to allow people to turn in airguns to be destroyed.  No compensation was given. Over 12,000 were turned in to be destroyed. There is no reason to destroy the airguns except as a propaganda message that airguns are bad and should be turned in to the police.  The airguns turned in are likely worth upwards of a million dollars.

People who wish to license their airguns will have six months, starting 1 July to license them or turn them in. From
This will make it a criminal offence to have an air weapon without a licence or a permit.

Anyone found guilty of the new offence could be fined or face up to two years in prison.

The Scottish Government had pledged to introduce the scheme following the death of Glasgow toddler Andrew Morton, who was killed by an airgun in 2005.

Mark Bonini was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of murdering the two-year-old, who died after being struck in the head by an air gun pellet.

So far the force and the Scottish Government have hailed the scheme a success, with thousands of potentially deadly weapons now off the streets.
The emotional posturing and opposition to anything remotely to do with guns, even airguns, is similar no matter what the power of the gun.  We see the same lack of any rationality in legislation aimed at firearms in the United States.  It is clear the animus is directed at the mere idea of a gun, and at anyone who engages in the shooting sports, or to use any kind of gun for any purpose. 

There are more fatal incidents with 5 gallon buckets in the UK than there are with air rifles.  A report on 5 gallon bucket drownings in the UK 1982-1996 showed that they averaged about 1.2 per year.

In 1998 a Journal of Clinical Pathology report claimed that there was about one death by airgun per year in the UK.  Of the 5 cases examined, 2 were suicides.  The report notes that air rifles do not have enough energy to penetrate adult skulls, unless they enter the eye socket or temple.

It is likly that fatalities with airguns have fallen significantly since 1998.  Airgun crime peaked in 2006-2007.  From BASC Scotland:
Dr Colin Shedden, director of BASC Scotland, said: “Offences involving air weapons in Scotland have fallen by 75% in recent years. In 2006-07 there was a ten-year-peak of 683 air weapon offences. In 2012-13, after six years of steady decline, there were 171 offences. In addition, all firearms offences are now at the lowest level since records began. Airguns are already extensively regulated by law, with more than thirty offences on the statute books. Bringing in this legislation will not deter those who are already determined to break the law.”
Since 2005, I have found 3 more airgun fatalities in the UK. The latest 3 were all ruled accidents, one in 2007, one in 2009, and one in 2016.  That is consistent with a 75% drop in fatallities for the last 11 years. Such numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

There are about 60,000 firearms licenses in Scotland.  It is estimated that there are several hundred thousand airguns.  Licenses will be "may issue".  Good cause will be required.  The cost alone will be prohibitive to many, at 72 pounds ($103) initially, and 48 pounds ($68) for renewal every five years.  The licensing scheme seems designed to reduce the number of people who have airguns.

Airguns in the UK are limited to 12 foot pounds or less.  Any airgun with a higher energy level requires a firearms license.  As a comparison, a .22 short propels a 29 grain projectile at 1050 feet per second, producing 71 foot pounds of energy, approximately six times as much as the most powerful unregulated UK airgun.

This is the continuation of the slippery slope that started in the UK in India after the mutiny of 1837.  The British rulers determined to disarm the Indian population.  They did so by enacting a "may issue" permit system for firearms.

After WWI, the system was imported to the home islands, because of fear of revolution.  The slippery slope brought about the elimination of permits for the purpose of self defense, gradual tightening of requirements to obtain a permit, requiring a permit for shotguns, eliminating the possibility of a permit for handguns, pump action shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.

None of these actions had any measurable effect on the crime rate.

Now Scotland is requiring the same permits for air guns as required for firearms.  Airgun use is already regulated by 30 different laws.

The slippery slope may be a considerable ways from the bottom.  There have been serious proposals to ban knives that have a point

I understand that the long bow is still allowed, but carrying one in public may result in your arrest for carrying an "offensive" weapon.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

TX: Armed Home owner Stops Multiple Home Invaders by Shooting One

Police say a group of burglars tried to break into a home at Shepard and Natalie Street.

The homeowner was inside and armed. Police say he opened fire on four men, hitting one.

More Here

1984 Answers to a 2016 Question (Orwellian Satire)

 1984 is a famous distopian novel about the future.  It was written by George Orwell in 1949. 

On the forum, a participant asked these questions about the possible effects of disarming the population:

There are other pressing questions. 1) Once all privately guns disappear into the government black hole, will there be no longer any need for law enforcement officers? 2) Once we’re all safe from private gun ownership, what will constitute our primary means of protection and defense, and what reason is there to believe it will be any more effective than the government protection industry today?
I put on my Orwellian hat and typed these replies.

As a good party member, you know there are two truths (sometimes more) that must always be concurrently believed. One truth for the masses, another for the party, and sometimes another for the party leadership, that only they are capable of bearing.
Here are the truths that apply:

Will there be any need for law enforcement officers?

This applies to the masses and the party:

Of course! How can you doubt it? There will be many more crimes to enforce, not to mention thought crime and dedicated service to running re-education centers! Law enforcement does great service for the party!

This applies to the party leadership:

We will need many more loyal law enforcement to enforce these edicts. We also need to purge existing law enforcement of those who do not fully support the program without thought. Replacements should be from loyal party members only.

What will be our primary means of defense?

For the masses - The benevolent government has always been your primary means of defense. Now that evil gun owners have been disarmed, the government will defend you by making certain that all crime thinkers will be placed in re-education centers for the benefit of society. Any resistance to redistribution of wealth will be vigorously punished. If you do not possess any excess property, if you are not white and have been a loyal party member, you have nothing to fear.

For the Party - You will be protected. As a loyal party member you may be allowed to have weapons. Your party loves you.

For the Party leaders - Your security details will be increased. You now are at slight risk while the last bitter clingers show their true colors and are eliminated. Do not believe the false reports of assassinations. The situation is under complete control.

Will it be more effective than the government protection industry today?

For the Mass - Be careful. This is close to crime think. The government is always benevolent, always responsible, and always improving. There is no other truth.

For the Party - When you see this question, you know you are dealing with a latent crime think. Check their tax records very closely. Put them on one of the appropriate lists.

For the Party leadership - You already know that your security has been improved. The more guns that are removed from outside government hands, the more that you are secure. Pay no attention to rumors of bitter clingers in the area near you. The situation is completely under control.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

PA: Armed Pharmacy Robbery Suspect Loses Gunfight

WAYNESBORO - A masked person who walked into a local pharmacy early Monday evening, brandishing a handgun and demanding money and drugs, received only gunshot injuries in return.

More Here

CA: Gun Beats Knife in Home Invastion

Police said Mackay refused to leave even after several requests by the homeowner, and then began waving the knife, advancing toward the man.
The homeowner got his handgun and ordered Mackay to leave, who refused, police said.

Rare AR: 11 Year Old Boy Shot by Mistake

A family member shot and seriously wounded an 11-year-old boy Sunday morning in Woodruff County after mistaking the boy for an intruder, according to Arkansas State Police.

State police spokesman Bill Sadler said preliminary witness statements indicate the boy walked from a nearby home into a residence where a family member lived in the Mayberry community west of Cotton Plant at about 12:45 a.m.

The family member's relationship to the boy wasn't available Sunday afternoon, but Sadler said the shooter called 911 to report a possible intruder before the shooting.

Slate Writer asks for Facts on Guns and Gun Law Coverage

Rachael Larimore, a Senior Editor at Slate, has written a unusual piece for the publication.  It is titled Bullet Points.  You can be forgiven for expecting this will be another uninformed diatribe against those evil conservatives, who if they would only stop licking the boots of their NRA masters, would allow common sense legislation to pass that would prevent crime by outlawing evil guns.  The expected would, in this case, be wrong.

Ms Larimore, who has been at Slate since 2002, was, as of 2008, the only Republican at the publication.  That makes her remarkable.  She actually knows how to do research on the Internet.  The article does a good job of excoriating the leftist media for being consistently wrong about guns.  Not about policy; Rachel only hints at that.  But it follows that you are unlikely to get policy right when you do not know the most basic facts about guns or gun law.  From Rachel Larimore  at
There are many reasons that this cycle repeats as it does. We live in a divided society where people cocoon with like-minded allies, and we’ve stopped listening to the other side. The NRA is powerful. We get distracted and move on to the next shiny thing. But one important point: The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Media stories in the wake of mass shootings typically feature a laundry list of mistakes that reflect their writers’ inexperience with guns and gun culture. Some of them are small but telling: conflating automatic and semi-automatic weapons, assault rifle and assault weapon, caliber and gauge—all demonstrating a general lack of familiarity with firearms. Some of them are bigger. Like calling for “common-sense gun control” and “universal background checks” after instances in which a shooter purchased a gun legally and passed background checks. Or focusing on mass shootings involving assault weapons—and thereby ignoring statistics that show that far more people die from handguns.
Rachel gets everything right in the article.  There is only so much that you can put in a short article, and I do not expect her to be a subject matter expert. At the end of the article she suggests that Slate dedicate a staffer who is experienced with and knowledgeable about guns to write about them, just as they have dedicated people who write about sports or legislation, or judicial decisions.  Perhaps Rachel has someone in mind.  Perhaps she would like the assignment herself.  She has demonstrated more knowledge about the subject than the rest of Slate put together.

The time might be right.  The Washington Post owns Slate.  Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.  After Bezos took over the Post added The Volokh Conspiracy blog to the Post's stable.  I regularly read the Volokh Conspiracy.  Eugen Volokh is arguably the most knowledgeable and brilliant legal mind on the planet, when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Perhaps something similar will happen at Slate.  Rachel would be a welcome exception to the ignorance and bias that is routinely seen.  A discussion on the issue of reform of the gun laws, based on fact, would be a refreshing and likely, profitable, change for the publication.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Monday, June 20, 2016

Followup PA: Video Shows Suspected Car Thief Being Shot in Arm

The homeowner's vehicle comes to a stop. The homeowner is seen getting out of the driver's side door, pointing a gun at the suspect's vehicle.

That suspect gets out of his car and almost immediately falls to the ground. Police say the man was shot in the arm.

The would-be thief the picks himself up and runs, and that homeowner is seen following. Both the leave the view of the camera.

More Here with Video

Followup OH: Coroner IDs Dead Home Invasion Suspect

A suspected intruder shot and killed early today was identified as Bryan Q. Lewis, 36, of Dayton, according to the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office.

Lewis died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, and his death is considered a homicide.

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court records show Lewis was convicted in 2012 of theft of a residence on Idle Wild Boulevard just a short walk from the Lindale house. Lewis had been indicted for aggravated burglary and robbery but pleaded to lesser charges and was sentenced to probation.
More Here

Senator Murphy Reveals "Slippery Slope" Strategy on ABC's "This Week"

Senator Chris Murphy, anti-Second Amendment plotter

On ABC This Week, June 19, Senator Chris Murphy revealed what Second Amendment supporters have said was the anti-Second Amendment strategy all along.  Pass incremental infringements on the Second Amendment until nothing is left that means anything.  That is why anti-Second Amendment plotters push so hard on legislation that seems unrelated to the current terrorist atrocity.

They use it as an emotional vehicle for other legislation they normally could not pass.  In the interview, ABC's Jon Karl is questioning Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. From the ABC transcript:
KARL: -- there's these proposals. Your proposal would've done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would've done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino and in fact was -- is unrelated to the killing in Newtown.

So why -- I mean, why -- I mean, why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding to? 
This is a perfectly logical question.  Why is Murphy focusing on this? His answer is instructive.
MURPHY: Well, so first of all, we can't get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. 

But we can't get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didn't stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don't happen. That trap is an impossible one.
No, it is not an impossible one.  If the Senator were dealing honestly, he could explain it.  If it would have helped somewhere else, he could make the argument elsewhere. 

The argument of the anti-Second Amendment lobby is that if the government controlled all access to guns, and strictly limited them, then terrorists could not get them, or at least it would be harder.  But that kind of control has failed, massively, all over the world, just as it did in France, in Norway, in Belgium, in Brazil, in Mexico, in Jamaica, in South Africa, in Puerto Rico, in the UK.

The plan guts Second Amendment rights, allowing for incremental confiscation over time, just as has happened in England and Wales.

Murphy continues, explaining that the Sandy Hook massacre is being used to push for unrelated infringements on the Second Amendment.
The Sandy Hook families lobby for background checks.

You know why?

Because they're just as concerned with the young men and women who are dying in our cities because of the flow of illegal guns as they are about a ban on assault weapons or high magazine clips that might have prevented the Newtown killing.

So this has to be broader than just responding to the tragedy that happened three days ago.
Except, there are no facts to support that contention.

The terrorist Watch list legislation is particularly dangerous. It sets the precedence that a person's Second Amendment rights can be stripped from them without due process by bureaucratic fiat.  There is no appeal process.  You do not know your rights have been lost until you attempt to exercise them.  It is an anti-Second Amendment schemer's dream because anyone they dislike can be put on the list, secretly.  The list can be expanded overnight to include whole groups of people.  It is a Constitutional nightmare.

The components that the anti-Second Amendment plotters are attempting to put in place are all peices of a machine that ends up destroying Second Amendment rights.

Ban people on the Watch List from owning guns. That establishes the power to strip people's Second Amendment rights from them without due process or even notification.

Universal Background Checks - Make it illegal for anyone to obtain a firearm without asking government permission, which is subject to the Watch list.

Universal Gun Registration - No gun to be legally owned unless the government knows who has it, who is allowed access to it, and where it is stored.

Mandatory notification of lost or stolen guns - Makes it legally difficult to resist incremental gun confiscation. Incremental gun confiscation has been common where universal registration has been implemented.  It has already taken place in California and NY. 

If you are not able to turn the registered gun in, you will have committed a crime and be subject to prosecution.  As more atrocities happen, more guns are declared illegal,  and/or it becomes more expensive to keep them, until there are none left.  It might take decades, but it happened in England and Wales.

All of Senator Murphy's pieces of legislation fit into an overall scheme to destroy Second Amendment rights over time.  He cannot argue for them all together. The intent would be too clear. The package could never pass the Congress. 

Incrementally, bit by bit, using the latest crime to push for unrelated legislation, they could be put in place.  That has been the plan for 50 years.  Precursor legislation, such as the 1968 gun control act, and the national instant background check system are already there.  They do nothing to actually reduce crime, but they enable future incremental steps to destroy Second Amendment rights.

50 years ago, anti-Second Amendment potters were open about their strategy.  Now they know they have to use lies and subterfuge. 

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Sunday, June 19, 2016

TX: Senior Citizen Shoots, Kills, Robbery Suspect

The Angleton Police Department has released the identity of the man killed in the early Tuesday morning shooting as 23-year-old Louis Dewayne Norris. Norris was involved in a disturbance at a residence in the 400 block of West Cedar Street when a citizen shot Norris once in the chest killing him at the scene. There are no charges being filed thus far, as the shooting appears to be justified in self-defense. As is standard in all shootings, the circumstances in this case will be examined by the Grand Jury to determine whether evidence exists to proceed with any criminal charges.

This incident occurred in the early morning of Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 12:09 a.m., when Angleton Police Department officers were dispatched to the house on West Cedar Street in Angleton after a 911 caller reported a person being shot. Officers arrived on scene and found Norris to be deceased and began processing the crime scene which included interviewing witnesses.

Detectives believe Norris is connected with other recent cases of robberies which involved elderly victims. Detectives urge Angleton citizens to please contact the Angleton Police Department if they have information pertaining to any unreported assaults or robberies, especially which involve the elderly.Source

IN: Burglary Suspect Shot

MUNCIE – City police said an attempted break-in at a northside home Friday morning resulted in the shooting of an intruder.

Emergency dispatchers received a call at 9:26 a.m. from a person in the parking lot of the Aldi store, at 108 W. McGalliard Road, who reported hearing gunshots nearby.
More Here

TN: Homeowner and Bank Robber in Gunfight, Both Die

A Cottontown homeowner was killed in a shootout with a suspected Kentucky bank robber who was hiding in his home Wednesday afternoon, according to Sumner County investigators.

The Sumner County Sheriff's Office has not yet released their names, but they have identified the two dead bodies found in a home on the 2800 block of Highway 25 as the homeowner and a suspected bank robber who was hiding from police in the home.
More Here

PA: Victim Chases, Shoots Car Thief

MORRISVILLE, Pa. (WTXF) - A man caught trying to break into a car ended up being chased and shot by the car’s owner, according to police in Bucks County.

Morrisville police chief George McClay told FOX 29’s Dave Kinchen it started at about 5am Thursday when the victim saw the man breaking into car, so he got his weapon.
More Here

AL: Wife Shoots Estranged Husband

A wounded veteran.  Terribly sad case.

A Decatur woman in divorce proceedings with her estranged husband shot and killed him early Tuesday in her Southeast Decatur home, claiming self-defense, authorities said.
More Here

AL: Homeowner Shoots Home Invader

Hartford police responded to a home invasion late Tuesday night during which the homeowner shot an intruder trying to burglarize his home.

Hartford Police Chief Annie Ward said police officers responded to a home invasion and shooting between 11:15 and 11:30 p.m. on North Fifth Avenue.

“It was an attempted home invasion and the home owner shot the suspect,” Ward said.

More Here

AL: Self Defense Shooting Investigated

The investigation revealed this incident is an ongoing altercation between two individuals and does not involve any of the businesses around this location.

Police also say this assault was not random and believe the shooting occurred as an act of self-defense.

More Here

LA: Armed Victim Shoots Robbery Suspect, both Wounded


Police say a teen robbery suspect thought a man carrying a purse was an easy target, but soon learned that the victim was carrying a weapon of his own.

"The victim reached down into his purse and pulled out a gun," notes the arresting officer in the probable cause report. "The victim fired one shot into the left leg of the defendant."
More Here

Gun Used to Kill British MP was Sawed Off .22 Rifle

.22 Sawed Off Rifle Found in Australia

The Sun in the United Kingdom has reported that the firearm used in the murder of MP Jo Cox was a sawed off .22 rifle.  The picture above is an example of a .22 sawed off rifle that was found in Australia. From
Last night a source said the gun used to kill married mum-of-two Jo, 41, was a sawn-off .22 rifle.

The gunman was said to have held it illegally and did not have a licence.
 When we obtain an actual photograph of the weapon/weapons used, we will report it here.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

OH: Gun Beats Hammer in Home Invasion


A Dayton man lying in bed Friday morning shot and killed an intruder at “point-blank” range, according to a 911 call made by the Lindale Avenue resident.

The Montgomery County Coroner’s Office identified the deceased as Bryan Q. Lewis, 36, of Dayton. Lewis died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and his death was ruled a homicide.

“They came into the bedroom saying do you want to die, mother (expletive)? Do you want to die, mother (expletive)?” the 911 caller told dispatchers. “I pulled a gun out of my nightstand and shot him twice. I’m pretty sure he’s dead.”

More Here

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Ken Emanuelson says:

If you really want to understand how stupid and silly things have gotten in the gun control debate, keep in fact that the Administration is now SIMULTANEOUSLY:

A. Denouncing the availability of SMALL-caliber semi-automatic non-military rifles (e.g., .223 AR-15s) to civilians while

B. Actively selling LARGE-caliber semi-automatic military surplus rifles (e.g., .30-06 M1 Garland's) to civilians.

I'm in favor of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, by which the government sells surplus military rifles to civilians, but if military guns are a problem, why is the government selling them?

Calibre Press on Orlando, Early Cell Video from Outside of Pulse

The Caliber Press has published an interesting and informative article on what happened at the Pulse club massacre in Orlando.  It is a well written account that answers some questions, but many others remain.  For example, it appears that the initial confrontation occurred outside the club, with the shooter fighting his way inside.  From
...a uniformed Orlando Police Department (OPD) officer working security at the event engaged Mateen in a gunfight. Mateen was able to evade the officer and enter the club just as last call was announced.
This seems to leave the officer outside the club, and the Jihadi inside.  Presumably there was some time, from a few seconds on, before reinforcements arrived.  They arrived very quickly. There had to be a pause before going back inside, if only to inform the responders of the description of the suspect, the direction he was last seen, his armament, and to formulate a hasty plan of action. From calibrepress:
Two more OPD officers immediately arrived on scene and pursued Mateen into the club. Mateen meanwhile retreated into the cavernous and booming space, taking hostages and murdering as he went. Some of the patrons would later report that they thought the gunfire was part of the music soundtrack. At 2:11 a.m., eight minutes after Mateen fired his first shot, Pulse posted on its Facebook page: “Everyone get out of pulse and keep running.”
Eight minutes is a very long time in an ongoing firefight at close quarters.  The fighting and killing continued for a considerable longer period.  From calibrepress:
 At around 2:30 a.m., at the height of the massacre, the killer called 911 and pledged allegiance to two international terrorist organizations that are conflicted, according to FBI Director James Comey.
The SWAT team broke into the building at about 5 a.m.  Sometime in between, the Jihadi took more hostages in the bathroom area and the officers started negotiating.  Exactly when that occurred is not yet known outside of the agencies involved.

Link to video from cell phone outside of the club, early in the shooting

It is an interesting story. Well written, with details that I have not found elsewhere. I am sure that many more details will surface. He seems to be one of the better prepared Jihadis. A security professional who was a very good shot, who understood a lot of the dynamics and how officers would respond.

He was a nightmare for police officers, part of why he was such an effective killer.  Consider how bad it would have been if there had been two or three like him working in concert.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

NH: Veteran Car Dealer Cashes in On Popularity of AR15 rifles

A New Hampshire business is cashing in on the high popularity of the AR15 style rifles. Owner Mike Hagan is a combat vet of Afghanistan.  His company offers a veterans' discount as well.  He isn't intimidated by political correctness. From
Owner Mike Hagan, of Hagan's Motor Pool Auto Repair and Sales, told Fox25 that several people have taken him up on the deal so far.

“I have given away four AR-15s and one 9mm handgun, which is the other option if you don't want the AR-15,” he said.

Hagan has partnered with a nearby gun store for the promotion.

“They go to the dealer and pass their background check. If they don't pass they don't get the weapon it's that's simple,” he said.
Using popular and desirable items as a value added means of attracting customers is as old as trade.  Those who see opportunities and are willing to act on them are rewarded. 

The revelation that Hagan's Motor Pool is offering AR15 rifles with their vehicles has turned into a marketing bonanza for the company.  It is getting advertising that it could not buy for millions of dollars. 

The story is being covered at, in the Boston in Pittsburgh, the Union Leader in New Hampshire, on,  across the nation, and internationally.

Over half of paying customers in the United States associate guns with safety.  Hagan is going to bring in a lot of paying customers.  People who despise guns tend to be clustered in urban centers, and many are not interested in owning vehicles.

It is likely luck that Mike Hagan's promotion hit at a time when the media is pushing gun control as hard as it can. Promotions like this take preparation, coordination, and planning. Things veterans learn to do well. But luck is often defined as the moment that preparedness meets opportunity. 

Both have come together for Hagan's Motor Pool.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update WA: Gun Beats Knife in Douglas County, Suspect Dies

Douglas County Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal reports a suspect in an alleged East Wenatchee burglary died of gunshot wounds after a confrontation with the burglary victim several hours later Wednesday night.

Upon returning to the victim’s home around 8 p.m., Gjesdal says the suspect shot at the victim, grazing him in the chest.

The suspect then followed the victim into the street, stabbing him several times in the thigh. The victim then shot the suspect numerous times, emptying his gun of bullets.

Moments later, sheriff’s deputies arrived at the victim’s residence, where they saw the victim and suspect, 35 year-old Seth Williams, standing in the street, both seriously wounded.
More Here

Jo Cox (Murdered British MP) Suspect ordered Manual on Improvised Weapons

It is uncertain if the alleged attacker of MP Jo Cox, Thomas Mair, shouted "Britain First" as the MP was attacked and murdered.  The witness to the alleged shout appear to have recanted.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left wing hate group aligned with the Obama administration, has published a document showing that Thomas Mair had ordered an improvised weapons book from another left wing hate group, the National Alliance (NA). (In the 1930's the NAZIs were a mainstream leftist organization.) The competing leftist groups both supported much greater control of the economy by the government and severe restrictions on gun ownership.

The National Alliance did not want the restrictions on gun ownership put in place until they were in power. The SPLC is already aligned with the existing power structure.  From
According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center Mair was a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States, for decades. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.
Two things are revealed by the document and the SPLC's access to it.

First, it shows the futility of attempting to remove guns from society.  In spite of draconian legal controls on guns and ammunition, it is likely the suspect was able to fabricate his own.   From the

 Police arrested a 52-year-old former psychiatric patient named locally as Tommy Mair. According to witnesses, Mrs Cox’s killer used either an antique or a home-made gun which he calmly reloaded between shots. As she lay bleeding to death, he repeatedly kicked her before walking away, having stabbed a 77-year-old man who tried to intervene.
Initial reports indicated that there were two shots, followed by one more. It is easier to make a single shot or double barrel gun than a multi-shot; which is why the "calmly reloaded" part is interesting.

MP Jo Cox is the first MP to be shot and killed in over 200 years.  The previous owner of that dubious honor was Prime Minister, Spencer Percival, who was shot and killed with a muzzleloading pistol in 1815.

Second is the question of where the SPLC obtained the document. It is unlikely that the National Alliance would hand over a copy of this document to their bitter rival, especially as the NA ceased operations in 2013.

Who keeps 17 year old records of commercial transactions from a defunct group?

The NA supported extreme political views.  I have little doubt that the CIA or the FBI, or the NSA, or perhaps some other governmental entity has been keeping copies of all correspondence produced by the NA.  This would include any overseas correspondence.

The SPLC has been a close advisor to the Obama administration.  It has become a common practice to leak such documents for political advantage.  The Obama administration is on record as vehemently opposing the separation of the UK from the European Union. Opponents of the separation referendum (Brexit) have attempted to use the murder of the MP to oppose the separation. The vote is scheduled to take place next Thursday, June 23rd.

Members of the public have expressed fear that orders of literature on improvised munitions, or any literature that might be disapproved of by the government, could result in them being "put on a list".  This document validates the concept that such records are kept.

I always assumed that overseas correspondence is copied; that overseas telephone calls are recorded, and that records are kept.  When I lived in Panama, it was prudent to make that assumption.

The ability to collect and store such documentation has increased by several orders of magnitude in the digital age.

I do not allow such knowledge to prevent me from acting.  It is another datum to take into consideration.  I do not say anything over the phone that I would not wish recorded; I do not send anything over the Internet that I would not expect to be published the next day.

The records did not prevent the murder of the British MP.   Far more damning records were kept on the Orlando mass killer.  Nothing was done.

Instructions on how to make improvised weapons are more available over the Internet today than through the mail seventeen years ago.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Friday, June 17, 2016

Senator Cruz Defends 2A from the Floor of the Senate, Excoriates Obama Terrorism Failures

 Senator Ted Cruz does a superb job of exposing Democrats using a terror attack to attack the Constitution.  As is to be expected, the leftist media is attacking it as a "terrible" speech.  Read or watch it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Mr. CRUZ. 
 Madam President, our Nation is at war. Five days ago, we saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, FL. From September 11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. As the facts have unfolded, they now indicate that the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub.

   All of our hearts go out to those who were murdered. To the families of those who were victims and who are grieving, we stand in solidarity, we lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism. But it is also a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.

   In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, and it was, sadly, the same political tale we have seen over and over again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words ``radical Islamic terrorist''; that they would suggest this attack was yet another isolated incident, one lone criminal, not connected to any global ideology, not connected to any global jihad; and that, even worse, they would try to use it as an excuse to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I wish, when we predicted that, that we had been proven incorrect. But this week played out all too predictably.

   Yesterday we saw a political show on the Senate floor, with Democrat after Democrat standing for hours, incensed not at ISIS, incensed not at radical Islamic terrorism, but incensed that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. This is political distraction. This is political gamesmanship. I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dudgeon that we have to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to shift to their favorite hobbyhorse of taking away the Bill of Rights from law-abiding citizens.

  I have spent years defending the Second Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms--the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I, along with the Presiding Officer, along with a great many Members of this Chamber, am committed to defending the constitutional rights of every American. You don't defeat terrorism by taking away our guns; you defeat terrorism by using our guns. This body should not be engaged in a political circus trying to restrict the Second Amendment. Instead, we should be focusing on the problem at hand.

   Why did we see yesterday's series of speeches? Because Senate Democrats have an election coming up in November, and they don't want to talk about the real issue. Let's talk about ISIS. Let's talk about radical Islamic terrorism. Let's talk about the failures of the last 7 years of this administration to keep this country safe.
  In response to my criticism and that of many others, President Obama gave a press conference where he said, echoing the words of Hillary Clinton: What difference does it make if we call it radical Islamic terrorism? Well, Mr. President, it makes a world of difference because the failure to address the enemy impacts every action taken to fight that enemy. 

   I want to talk in particular about three areas where this administration and the Senate Democrats' refusal to confront radical Islamic terrorism has made America less safe and what we need to do about it. Let's start with prevention. Over and over again we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack. Yet, because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that will not even say the word ``jihad,'' will not even say the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' they look the other way, and the attacks go forward. 

   In my home State of Texas, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan--the Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had been in communication with the radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. All of that was known beforehand, yet they did nothing. They did nothing. And on that fateful day, Nidal Hasan murdered 14 innocent souls, yelling ``Allahu Akbar'' as he pulled the trigger. Yet, just to underscore the blindness of this administration even after the terror attack, the administration insisted on characterizing that terror attack as ``workplace violence.'' That is nothing short of delusion, and it is a delusion that cost 14 lives. 

   If we know of a U.S. serv ice mem ber who is communicating with a radical Islamic cleric and asking about waging jihad against his fellow soldiers, MPs should show up at that individual's door within minutes. And if we didn't have an administration that plunged its head in the sand like an ostrich and refused to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism, Nidal Hasan would have been stopped before he carried out that horrific act of terrorism. 

   Likewise, with the Boston bombing and the Tsarnaev brothers, Russia had informed the Obama administration they were connected with radical Islamic terrorism. We knew that. The FBI had gone and interviewed them. Yet, once again, they dropped the ball. They stopped monitoring them. They didn't even note when the elder Tsarnaev brother posted on YouTube a public call to jihad. Mind you, this did not require complicated surveillance. This was YouTube. Anyone with a computer who could type in ``Google'' could see this. Yet, because the administration will not acknowledge that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorism, they were not watching and monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers. So they called for public jihad and then carried out that public jihad with pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon--yet another example where we knew about the individual beforehand, and if we had focused prevention on the problem, we could have stopped it. 

   A third example was San Bernardino, that horrific terror attack. Once again, we had ample information about the individuals in question. The female terrorist who came to San Bernardino had given the administration a fake address in Pakistan. Yet the so-called vetting that this administration tells us they do had failed to discover that it was a fake address. She had made calls for jihad; yet the administration failed to discover that. In San Bernardino, we saw yet another horrific terror attack. 

   And how about Orlando? Let's talk about what the facts are in Orlando. Now, we are only 5 days in. The facts will develop further as they are more fully developed, but here is what has been publicly reported. 

   What has been publicly reported is that Omar Mateen was interviewed not once, not twice, but three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014. One of the reasons he was interviewed by the FBI was that he was talking in his place of employment, which, ironically and shockingly enough, was a contractor to the Department of Homeland Security, and he was talking about being connected to terrorist organizations, including the Boston bombers. To any rational person, that is a big red flag. Yet it has also been reported that his coworkers were so afraid to say anything because they didn't want to be labeled as somehow anti-Muslim by speaking out about someone claiming to be connected to radical Islamic terrorists. 

   We also know that when he was questioned by the FBI in 2004, according to public reports, it was because he was believed to have been connected to and knew Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who traveled to Syria to join the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front and who became the first known American suicide bomber in the Syrian conflict. That is yet another big red flag. If you are palling around with al-Nusra suicide bombers, that ought to be a real flag. If the administration is focused on radical Islamic terrorism, this is an individual we ought to be watching. 

   We know that Mateen, as it has been reported, traveled to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for 10 days on March 2011 and for 8 days in March 2012. And we also have indications that the FBI may have been aware that he was a follower of the Islamist educational Web site run by radical Imams. Not only that, but his father has posted online videos expressing not only sympathy but arguably support for the Taliban. All of that is what the Obama administration knew. Yet by Sunday morning they were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were not monitoring him, and he was able to go in and commit a horrific act of murder. 

   The question that every Member of this body should be asking is, Why is the ball being dropped over and over and over again? It is not once. It is not twice. It is a pattern. It is a pattern of failing to connect the dots. I would suggest it is directly connected to President Obama and this administration's refusal to acknowledge what it is we are fighting. If you direct the prevention efforts to stopping radical Islamic terrorism--we had all the information we had on Mateen to keep a very close eye on him. Yet if that is not what you are fighting, then you close the investigation and yet another attack goes forward. 

   I would suggest that this willful blindness is one of the reasons we saw the circus yesterday on the Senate floor. Senate Democrats should be asking these questions, yet we don't hear them asking those questions. Instead, they want to shift this to gun control. They want to shift this to putting the Federal Government in charge of approving every firearms transaction between law-abiding citizens in America. Mind you, that would not have prevented this attack. Mind you, it was not directed at the evil of this attack. Mind you, it ignores the global jihad we are facing, but it is a convenient political dodge. We need serious leadership focused on keeping this country safe. 

   A second component of keeping this country safe is defeating ISIS--utterly and completely defeating ISIS. 

   In yesterday's circus, when calling for taking away your and my constitutional rights, how often did Senate Democrats say: Let's utterly destroy ISIS. Not with the pinprick attacks we are seeing, not with the photo-op foreign policy of this administration--a failed effort that leaves the terrorists laughing at us--but instead, using overwhelming airpower; instead, using the concerted power of the U.S. military, with rules of engagement that allow us to fight and win. Right now, sending our service men and women into combat with rules of engagement tying their hands behind their backs is wrong, it is immoral, and it is not accomplishing the task. 

   Do you want a response to the Orlando attacks? President Obama and Vice President Biden are going down. They will no doubt give a self-righteous speech about gun control, trying to strip away the rights of law-abiding Americans. How about they stand up and have the President pledge that ISIS will be driven from the face of the Earth? Do you want to see a response to murdering innocent Americans? If you declare war on America, you are signing your death warrant. That is the response of a Commander in Chief. That is the seriousness we need. 

   A third component of focusing on the enemy is that we should focus on keeping us safe--in particular, passing two pieces of legislation, both of which I introduced, the first of which is the Expatriate Terrorist Act. This is legislation which provides that if any American citizen goes and takes up arms and joins ISIS, joins a radical Islamic terrorist group, that he or she forfeits their U.S. citizenship. So you do not have American citizens coming back to America with U.S. passports to wage jihad on America. We have seen Americans such as Jose Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, who have abandoned their country and joined with the terrorists in waging war against us. Just this week, the CIA Director testified to the Senate that more are coming; ISIS intends to send individuals back here to wage jihad. 

   Rather than engaging in political showmanship, trying to gain partisan advantage in the November election, how about we come together and say: If you join ISIS, you are not using a U.S. passport to come back here and murder American citizens. That ought to be a unanimous agreement if we were focused on keeping this country safe. 

   Likewise, let's talk about the problem of refugees. What are the consequences of the willful blindness of this administration that President Obama, in the face of this terror attack, says that he will admit some 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees, despite the fact that the FBI Director has told Congress he cannot possibly vet them to determine if they are terrorists? 

   Here is what FBI Director Comey said: 

   We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing to show up because we have no record of them. 

   This is an FBI Director who was appointed by President Obama who is telling the administration they cannot vet these refugees. Yet what does the administration say? What does Hillary Clinton say? What do the Senate Democrats say? Let the refugees in, even though ISIS is telling us they are going to use those refugees to send terrorists here to come and murder us. This transcends mere partisan disagreement; this is lunacy. 

   We know the Paris attack was carried out in part by people who came in using the refugee program, taking advantage of the refugee program. Indeed, earlier this year, on January 6, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq who entered the United States as a refugee in 2009, was charged with attempting to provide support to ISIS. He wanted to set off bombs using cell phone detonators at two malls in my hometown of Houston, TX. This is a refugee who came from Iraq. Yet, do you hear the administration saying: This is a dangerous world. Jihadists are attempting to kill us. We have to keep us safe. They don't say that. 

   The legislation I have introduced, which I would urge this body to take up, would impose a 3-year moratorium on refugees coming from any nation where ISIS or Al Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorists control a substantial portion of the territory. We can help with humanitarian efforts. We can help resettling refugees in majority Muslim countries in the Middle East. America is a compassionate country that has given more than 10 times as much money as any country on Earth to caring for refugees. But being compassionate doesn't mean we are suicidal. It doesn't mean we invite to America, we invite to our homes people who the FBI cannot tell us if they are terrorists or not. 

   What should this Senate be doing? We shouldn't be engaging in a sideshow of gun control. By the way, I will say on behalf of a lot of American citizens, in the wake of this terror attack, it is offensive. I sat in that chair and presided yesterday over some of the show. It was offensive to see Democrat after Democrat prattling on about the NRA. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 49 people in Orlando. It wasn't the NRA that set up pressure cookers in the Boston bombing. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 14 innocent souls at Fort Hood. It is offensive to play political games with the constitutional rights of American citizens instead of getting serious about keeping this country safe. 

   I would urge this body to take up both pieces of legislation--the Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent terrorists from using U.S. passports to come back to America and TRIPA to prevent refugees from countries with majority control, major control from ISIS or Al Qaeda from coming in, ISIS terrorists as refugees. Those would be commonsense steps. The overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. Yet, in this politicized environment, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about. Until we get serious about defeating radical Islamic terrorists, we will continue to lose innocents. 

   I would note one aspect of the attack on Sunday morning. It was widely reported that it was at a gay bar. There are a great many Democrats who are fond of calling themselves champions of the LGBT community. I would suggest there is no more important issue to champion in that regard than protecting Americans from murder by a vicious ideology that systematically murders homosexuals, that throws them off buildings, that buries them under rocks. The regime in Iran, now supported by billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars at the behest of President Obama, murders homosexuals regularly. 

   I will confess, some in the press pool were a little bit puzzled: Well, how can a Republican be speaking out against this? Let me be very clear. I am against murder. I am against murder of any American. Nobody has a right to murder anybody because they differ in faith, because they differ in sexual orientation, because they differ in any respect. We are a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone to live according to their conscience, according to their faith. This murder in Orlando was not random; it was part of a global jihad, an ideology, an Islamist ideology that commands its adherents to murder or forcibly convert the infidel, by whom they mean every one of us. 

   This body should not be engaged in political games. We should be focused on the threat and keeping America safe and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.
   As we remember the victims of this latest terror attack, the greatest memorial we can give to them is to redouble ourselves to a seriousness of purpose to prevent the next terror attack from taking innocent American lives. I hope that is what this body does. I hope we do so in a bipartisan manner. 

   I yield the floor.

Source at the Congressonal Record  S4279, S4280, S4281

Here is a link with the video

  Dean Weingarten