Skip to content

The Lessons We Learned.. and Forgot.. About Defending Our Schools

May 27, 2022

We saw two young men kill innocent people this last month. We’ve seen mass murder before. Determined men and women studied the murder of innocent victims. It isn’t easy to look death in the face but it is dangerous to look away and pretend it couldn’t happen again. Any responsible adult should be haunted by what we could have done and yet chose not to do. These are a few of the lessons we learned from mass murders in the US and around the world.

We learned that time is critical. The mass murderer will kill several people during the first minute. Then, the attack slows down as victims run for cover and become harder to kill. The exception is if the murderer can trap his victims where he is unopposed and can kill at will. The sooner we stop him the better. Every second counts.

It takes too long for the police to arrive. The first responders are those individuals in the building who are armed and trained to respond to a lethal threat. It doesn’t matter if it is a school, a church, or an office building, no one can order these volunteers to leave their office or classroom but most of them will go to help. They decided to move toward the sound of gunfire. They probably reached that decision as they were working through a training exercise on a weekend. There are no sure outcomes, but they could not let the children and colleagues in the next classroom be murdered while they sat still. They made that choice long before they heard the sounds of gunfire and alarms.

When they hear an attack, the responders remind their students where to hide. The responders grab a medical kit and go. Their door is already locked and they hear the door lock behind them as they move into the hallway.

The first responders see a stranger with a gun in his hand shooting down the hallway and then shooting into a classroom. The first responders present, aim, and fire until the stranger is down. Other responders come around the corner. They secure the attacker’s firearm.

The attacker is down but the emergency isn’t over. There is lots of work to do. Responders begin to summon help and to treat the injured. Many school staff converge on the wounded and work to stop the bleeding. They move the injured toward the Emergency Medical Services who are already on their way. The scene is strangely like the practice drills except the blood, the tears, and the crying are real this time.

trauma care training

The police will be there in about 5 minutes. The first law enforcement units to arrive form into a team and move into the building. The rule is to grab someone and go inside. Some of the arriving officers have trained with the school staff before. They know the layout of the school and where the identified attacker is located. They know that the first attacker is down.

The police and EMTs sweep through the school. The police are looking for other attackers. Emergency Medical Services move right behind them and take over treatment and transportation of the injured as the police advance.

Injured victims who can walk are directed toward the arriving EMS units outside. Some of the wounded are carried toward the parking lot so they can be transported while the rest of the building is still being searched and secured.

That is what best practice looks like. I can only tell you what the practice drills feel like because I’ve never felt the real thing. Even the practice exercises tear at your heart. That is why everyone trains so hard so that the real thing never happens.

Law enforcement and emergency medical organizations change slowly, but we’ve known best practice for decades. If your school, your church, your law enforcement, and your emergency medical services are not training this way then you need to know why. You need to ask them about their safety plan.

Who decided to ignore best practice? If your schools, church, and office don’t train like this then they are betting the lives of innocent people that a murderer will strike somewhere else. Who decided that their life wasn’t worth saving? You have the right to ask and to expect an answer.

Go. Move toward the problem. Like the first responders, you are responsible for making things better in your community.

If the school principal doesn’t have the right answers then replace the school principal. If the school board doesn’t have the right answers then replace the school board. Consider moving your children to another school. Ask the Sheriff and chief of police also, and replace the Sheriff and the Mayor if you have to. People don’t like to change but asking questions today lets us save lives tomorrow.

Grab someone and go forward.

I gave you 800 words and a piece of my heart. Please share them with a friend. RM


Ed Monk- Active Shooter Response- “

FASTER Saves Lives- “

FASTER Colorado- “

Outline of Common School Safety Plans- “

Safety Plans for Secondary School Principals- “

Security Plans for Churches- “

Repost- From a “Sitting Ducks School” model to a “Sheepdog Teacher School” model – Bearing Arms

May 26, 2022

“It is amply clear that gun control has failed time and time again. The attackers always slip through the cracks even when there are numerous warning signs, get what they need, and proceed to commit their evil.

In the worldview of Yoni Netanyahu, the hero of the Entebbe airport hostage rescue, “Good is no match for evil without the power to physically defend itself.”

It’s high time we give good the power to physically defend itself.

Source: From a “Sitting Ducks School” model to a “Sheepdog Teacher School” model – Bearing Arms

Maybe I’ll Take the Blame for Mass-Murder, but I Also Want the Credit for Lives Saved

May 25, 2022

I saw this on social media and in the news after a crazy man attacked an elementary school in Texas. The claim was that honest gun owners are responsible for murdering schoolchildren in Texas because we wouldn’t give up our guns. That got me thinking. Maybe I’ll take the blame for mass murder but then I also want credit for the many lives that ordinary gun owners save every day. Let’s sort through this argument of claims and counterclaims.

Active shooters killed 103 people last year. The FBI said there were 12 incidents last year that met the narrower definition of a mass shooting.

Gun-prohibitionists say that we would vastly reduce crime and mass murder if we outlawed guns. They ignore that we’ve seen mass murder where guns were completely outlawed. For example, Chinese murderers attacked people at a train station with knives. Mass murderers used guns to attack us in the US even where ordinary citizens were disarmed. The gun-prohibitionists ignore that criminals use guns even where guns are outlawed in the entire country like in Mexico and in France. We’ve seen dozens of protesters who were murdered by Mexican politicians who were working with the drug gangs.

For a moment we’ll ignore all that and let the gun-prohibitionists’ claim stand without examination. Let’s pretend you could stop armed violence with more ink on paper.

What the gun-prohibitionists want to hide from us is that our guns save thousands of lives every day. Ordinary citizens like us use a firearm for defense over a million times a year. Think about what that says. For us to legally use a firearm in self-defense means that we faced an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or great bodily injury. That means a lot of those armed victims are going to be hurt if they were disarmed. You deserve credit for the thousands of lives you save every day. You save ten times more lives every day than mass murderers take in a year.

The counter claim is that criminals would be disarmed too if honest citizens were disarmed. I doubt that. If criminals obeyed the law then they wouldn’t be criminals. If prohibition worked then we wouldn’t have drugs in every high school. You’ll have to show me where criminals turned in their guns and violent crime dropped because of gun-control laws. I’ve looked and I can’t find it.

We already know that 85 percent of violent crime doesn’t involve the criminal having a gun. How will innocent victims stop violent criminals once the victims are disarmed? Is grandma supposed to go hand-to-hand with violent thugs who break down her door? Gun-prohibitionists say we should call the police. The gun-prohibitionists ignore that we are only able to call the police once the crime is over and the damage is done.

What the gun-prohibitionists also want to hide is that guns stop mass murder. We’ve seen that happen in restaurants, parks, malls, churches, and in schools. If we’re going to blame honest gun owners for the actions of criminals then we also have to give gun owners credit for the lives they save. While we’re handing out credit and blame, does this mean that federal, state, and local governments owe armed citizens and gun manufacturers a reward because ordinary gun owners save so many lives and saved society so much money by reducing violence?

I also want credit for another benefit of civilian firearm ownership. Guns in civilian hands help politicians to respect human rights and to obey the rule of law.

We’ve heard US politicians talk about arresting people who wouldn’t wear a mask. Politicians talked about arresting business owners who wouldn’t close their shops. We’ve seen that happen in China, but we still have the rule of law in the United States, at least for now. Neither side wants to say this out loud, but politicians follow the law rather than use armed force because armed citizens can push back. I like that we use words and argument rather than clubs and guns. I like that, and I want gun owners in the US to get credit for all of it.

With that settled, now the gun-prohibitionists can tell me how criminals will obey their next gun control law after the thugs ignored the 23-thousand firearms regulations we already have.

I love good story.



2021 National Firearms Survey- “ in violent crime

2022 FBI report on mass murder- “

Review and expansion of FBI data on mass murder, 2018- “

FBI says armed citizens stop or reduce mass murder- “

2019 FBI homicide statistics, weapons, firearms- “

We Told Them to Protect Our Children, but They Didn’t Listen

May 25, 2022

A crazy man with a gun attacked a school in Texas. We’ve been here before. The people who deeply understand mass-murder told us what we need to do to protect our children. Murders like this are what happens when we ignore best practice and hope that evil won’t come to our door. Special interests will throw blame around but we can’t hide from the facts. We will learn more in the next few days, but this is what we know.

We know that there are crazy and violent people in the world. Gun control advocates said that guns were the problem and proposed that we outlaw guns the way Mexico does. That failed horribly in Mexico so I see no reason for gun prohibition to stop criminals here in the USA. We don’t need another failed proposal that doesn’t work in the real world.

We know that time is critical to defend our children. We needed several armed defenders on campus so they are near to the attacker. It took the police an hour and a half to confront this murderer. It takes even longer to declare the scene secure so that Emergency Medical Services can treat the injured. Seconds count and an hour-and-a-half is far too long.

We know that murderers will kill until they are confronted. We know that when armed defenders are present they defeat mass murderers 96 percent of the time. That isn’t my data, but data from the FBI. In contrast, gun-prohibitionists say that school faculty and staff should be disarmed and that we’d be safer if we waited for the police. Mass murderers look for disarmed victims.

We won’t have a perfect defense. We know that about three people will die if armed staff are present to respond to the attack. We know that a dozen more students and staff will die if we wait for the police to confront the attacker. Those several minutes matter. It is little consolation that this latest attack at a Texas elementary school fit the model almost perfectly.

We know that quantity has a unique quality of its own when it comes to armed defenders. It is better to have an imperfect defense at the scene than to have a perfect defender who arrives too late. No defender can undo the damage that has already been done.

We know that theory is different than practice. In theory, trained volunteer defenders could have an accident at school and put students at risk. In fact, we have thousands of man-years of experience with qualified school volunteers going armed on campus. We have not seen members of a trained school defense team have a firearm accident on campus. Reality is different than a fantasy about what might happen. Children die when fantasies quide public policy.

We’ve worked with school staff before. We know that many of them want to save their children. All we have to do is give them a few days of training so they can stop the murderer and stop the bleeding until EMTs arrive. Special interests, often gun prohibitionists and teachers unions, replied that government employees need weeks or months of training. That isn’t what we’ve seen. We’ve seen traines school staff use a fiearm at a higher level than the qualification tests for law enforcement officers.

We know how to defend our children and to stop mass murderers. It is up to us to demand that politicians and school administration follow best practice today. Learn more about first responders in church and school from FASTER and FASTER Colorado.


I speak for neither FASTER nor FASTER Colorado. Both organizations are active on social media. I have observed their training and studied the results. I list more resources and references in my FASTER and Public Violence tag. RM

More People Dead as Gun-Control Fails in New York State

May 17, 2022

Time and again we’ve seen crazy murderers target unarmed citizens in New York City and New York State. A few weeks ago, a black man deliberately attacked white people on the New York City subway. Last week we saw a white teenager deliberately go hunting for blacks and Jews in Buffalo. Each time the response of New York politicians is the same. Despite the extraordinary gun-control laws already in place, New York Democrats think the solution is to disarm more law-abiding citizens. It is hard to look at violence but it is more dangerous to think that more ink-on-paper will keep us safe next time a madman goes hunting for us.

The Gun Control we have in New York-

Few of us actually know about the many gun-control laws already in place in New York State. Even fewer of us know how badly those gun-control laws failed.

It is an old idea to try and keep guns away from criminals. New York is rated “A-” by the Giffords gun-control organization. The state is rated sixth out of the fifty states for the strength of their gun-control laws. New York requires that law-abiding gun owners apply for a background check before they can buy a gun. The problem with background checks is that they look backwards and mass murder is a one-and-done career. Background checks don’t stop mass-murderers, or even slow them down.

In contrast, it can take months or years for an honest citizen to get a permit to carry a handgun in New York. Many honest citizens are denied their permits precisely because they are ordinary. They don’t have an “extraordinary need” to protect themselves, their families, or their neighbors. Criminals don’t bother with permits.

These recent mass-murderers in New York were known to the police because of their mental health problems and their threats of violence. Before these violent attacks, those threats never rose to the level where the attackers could be successfully prosecuted. Honest citizens have to renew their permits every five years. Criminals carry illegally.

For the fortunate few who can get a carry permit in w York State, gun-control laws restrict the number of cartridges they are allowed to carry in their guns. It is also illegal for most New Yorkers to bring their guns with them as they travel across New York. Laws like that are successful in disarming the victims, but don’t bother mass-murderers very much.

The Murderers Get a Vote-

We quickly found out that criminals don’t follow our gun-control regulations any better than they follow the rest of our laws. Mass-murderers plan their crimes for months or years so mandatory waiting periods don’t stop them or even delay their attacks.

Guns have to be extremely simple so they operate reliably. They are far simpler than a home computer or a lawn mower. That means that guns are easy to make and to modify. The recent mass-murderer modified his gun so it would be easier to reload. The murderer didn’t care that the modification was illegal in New York.

Both of the recent murderers planned their attacks so they faced unarmed victims. In the earlier attack, only a handful of ordinary citizens are allowed to carry a firearm on the New York City subway. In this later attack, the murder chose the location because of the concentration of blacks and Jews living in that neighborhood. The murderer chose that location because government officials routinely disarmed minorities because they can not document an “extraordinary need” to go armed. Ordinary citizens pay the price in blood when government officials get it wrong.

Armed Good-Guys Save Lives-

We don’t know what we don’t know, and we are not aware of what is concealed. Across the USA, millions of ordinary citizens legally carry a concealed firearm in public every day. On average, about one in a dozen adults are armed. Armed citizens stop violent criminals thousands of times a day and we use a firearm in self-defense over a million times a year. 

Mass murderers are evil and crazy, but they are not stupid. We know that mass-murderers look for easy victims because they told us so. Unfortunately, an armed citizen was present at the attempted mass murder only 12 percent of the time. When they were there, the armed citizen stopped or reduced the number of victims 94 percent of the time. That sounds unbelievable at first.

Killing unarmed people is easy, but mass-murder is almost impossible

when some of your victims will shoot back.

We imagine a gunfight that looks like the old west movies we watched late at night. That isn’t how these  events unfold. In real life, murderers get shot from behind.

Please take a look around the next time you are in public. Look around the mall, the supermarket, or the parking lot and imagine you were the bad guy. Could you defend yourself from all the people who surround you? Remember that one-in-a-dozen adults are armed.. and the bad guy has no idea who they are and when they will shoot back.

Now you know why mass murderers go to “gun-free” zones where good guys are disarmed by law!

The scenario unfolds this way when an armed defender is present. We hear a noise. We wonder if it is a gunshot and we look around. We hear it again and we see people run. We see a murderer with a gun in his hand. We move to a safe position, present our firearm, and stop the threat. The attack is over in seconds.

Time means everything. On average, 2.3 people are killed when an armed defender is present. A dozen more people are killed if we have to wait the several minutes it takes for the police to arrive and stop the murderer.

What We Can Learn from New York-

Gun-control promised to make us safe. It fails time after time because criminals and crazy people don’t obey our laws. Democrat politicians who support firearms prohibition make the excuse that their 23 thousand firearms regulations simply have not gone far enough and that mass-murderers are sure to obey the next law they pass. A more reasonable question is to ask why the next law would be any different than the 20 thousand regulations that failed.

The news media won’t ask that question so we have to do it for them. Our safety and the lives of the people we love depends on asking those uncomfortable questions. It is hard to look at violence but it is more dangerous to think that more ink-on-paper will make us safer. Our safety is up to us.


I gave you a thousand words for free. Please leave a rating, and a comment. Please share this article with a friend. RM


New York’s gun control rating- “

New York Firearm Restrictions- “

Racist manifesto- “

2021 National Firearms Survey- “

Citizens carry concealed in public- “

FBI says armed citizens stop or reduce mass murder- “

Armed Citizens save lives in attempted mass murder- “

Infringing the Time, Manner and Place to Bear Arms

May 16, 2022

We don’t agree on very much. That is why the rights of free speech and freedom of action are so uncomfortable, so important, and so necessary. We have to tolerate ideas we find offensive or even dangerous because there is so much we don’t know and so much we need to learn. If you doubt that our rights of free speech are infringed today then please consider how public discussion was censored on the topics of Covid lockdowns and election integrity. Rather than free speech being dangerous, we found that the most dangerous problems are the ones we’re not allowed to debate. The cure to offensive speech is more speech, not less. We face a similar problem when we consider infringements on the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense. We have to talk about our infringed right to bear arms. Freedom isn’t comfortable, but it is the safest option we have.

We’re told we would be safer if approved citizens were the only ones allowed to exercise the right of armed-defense. We’re told that we’d be safer if law abiding people were disarmed in public. We’ve seen that taken to ridiculous extremes where honest gun owners were disarmed in public parking lots, parks, churches, and businesses. We saw criminals and mass murderers attack unarmed victims in those so-called “gun free” zones. What happens to our individual right of armed defense when politicians and businesses infringe on those rights?

There are many restrictions on our rights that we submit to voluntarily. We agree to moderate our speech in concert halls, in libraries, theaters, and in comedy clubs so that others can enjoy the performance along with us. We lose our right to speak in the temporary circumstance when that right infringes on the rights of other people to listen.

Note that we’re speaking about rights rather than mere preferences. Disarming the honest good guys can have drastic consequences. Does a store owner assume extra liabilities and obligations if he disarms the law abiding customers who want to enter his store? What happens if a city council says that the store owner must disarm all his customers? What if the city council passes a law so law-abiding citizens can’t bring their tools of armed defense into town at all? Do storekeepers and public officials assume additional liability for our safety when they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our families?

If those answers seem obvious then consider if self-defense is a right or a priveledge. If shopkeepers and city governments are allowed to discriminate based on gun ownership, could they legally demand that everyone in their store or in their town has to be a gun owner? Infringements are always done in the name of public safety.

This might sound like we have a handful of questions and are very short of answers. Our legal system has a long history of resolving the natural tension between rights and obligations. We also have some facts to guide us.

We know that honest citizens in the US use a firearm between one-and-two-million times a year to stop an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. That is a large number, but we can put it into perspective. Honest gun owners defend themselves with a firearm about 150 times for each time a criminal uses a firearm to commit murder. Armed citizens save lives several thousand times a day.

The frequency and proportion of armed defense explains why our so-called “public safety” gun-control laws are so dangerous. The advocates for gun-control claim their gun laws make us safer, but our most dangerous and most violent cities have some of the strictest gun-control regulations. Political promises are cheap, but our 20-thousand gun control-regulations haven’t stopped armed criminals. Again, looking at proportions makes it clear why gun-control fails time after time.

 It is really hard to pass a law that will reduce the harm that criminals do with a gun while at the same time leaving honest citizens armed so they can still defend themselves. If we disarm one-hundred criminals and only inadvertently disarm one-law abiding gun owner then we’ve cost more lives than we’ve saved. It is hard to write a gun-control law that does no harm.

We already have laws and procedures that hold private citizens and government officials accountable when their negligence injures others. We are responsible if a guest hurts themselves on a broken step as they walk up to our front door. The city council may be liable if they refuse to test the quality of their municipal water supply and the water makes people sick.

The law has been studying human behavior for a long time. We are held liable for what actually happens rather than what we hoped would happen. We can claim that the rotten step on our front porch was part of our home’s rustic charm, but we are still responsible for the broken ankle after our guest falls through the broken step. The city council and the taxpayers are liable for the attack on disarmed victims in the city mandated “gun-free” public parking lot. We can be criminally and civilly liable when our actions contribute to another person’s injury.

As always, laws are cheap but consequences can be costly. That is a necessary feature so that we consider our actions and fix our mistakes. If you think that sounds punitive then please read past the titles and consider what our thousands of gun-control laws really do.

Our elites already know that gun-control fails. That is why our gun-control laws seldom apply to the elites. Provisions are usually written into gun-control laws so that politicians, judges, and police officers are exempt.

Please think about that for a minute. If a law needs an exception because the law puts a politician and his family at risk, then that law is too dangerous for us and for our families too.

Freedom isn’t comfortable, but it is the safest option we have.


I gave you 1000 words for free. Please leave a rating and a comment. If you learned something then please share this article with a friend. RM


2021 firearms survey- “

2019 FBI homicide statistics, weapons, firearms- “

The Right of the People- Why the Elites Hate the Second Amendment

May 6, 2022

Money lets you buy what you want. Now that many of our Deep Blue cities have defunded the police and crime has exploded, people with money are buying off duty police officers to stop crime in their neighborhoods. Though covered in the news, the use of private security is an expansion of a long-term trend. What should make news are the billionaires trying to disarm the rest of us.

Rich people live in gated communities and walled compounds. They have their own security force. Some wealthy families have their own private security detail that lives with the owners inside their walled compound. It may have fancy flower beds on the outside, but it remains a castle in disguise.

Watch the progression as the elites worked to disarm us and protect themselves.

  • First, the elites buy armed security officers for trips or special events in public.
  • They buy armed security details for their homes, offices, and vacation homes.
  • They pay for legislation that let them travel with their own armed officers.
  • They make “campaign donations” so legislators disarm the common man who the elites see as a threat. We need to show “proper cause” to be issued a carry permit. The elites buy retired law enforcement officers for their security detail. Perhaps a banker can get a permit because he handles money. Perhaps a jeweler can get a permit because he has valuables in his store. In contrast, we are denied a permit because we want to defend our children. Our treasure is deemed less important than theirs.. unless we first make a significant campaign donation.
  • The elites pressed for legislation outlawing inexpensive firearms. That started after the civil war to prevent recently freed black men and women from having firearms to resist armed gangs like the Klu Klux Klan and the Night Riders. Even then, honest citizens were disarmed yet political gangs had no trouble getting guns.

Today, the gun-prohibitions have become more subtle. Today the elites impose time consuming training requirements and expensive licensing requirements before the common man can own a gun. Some legislative proposals demand that we are re-licensed every six months, far more often than most policemen.

Today we’ve seen the elites buy academic and media organization to promote civilian disarmament. The familiar adage that if it bleeds it leads is neither true nor adequate to describe today’s reporting on armed defense. The hired media emphasizes the thousands of times a criminal uses a gun. The same news media ignores the millions of times that honest citizens use a firearm for legal self-defensive. The media bias is glaring once you know the truth.

Today, the elites pay for multimillion dollar political and legal campaigns to pass laws that disarm the common man.

Of course everyone has the right to an armed defense.

Just buy your own police force like I did for my family. See how simple?

Thanks, and I’ll be sure to follow you for more personal safety tips, but that doesn’t work for us and ours.

We don’t have our own motorcade and security detail. We have to go out at in public at all times of the day and night. We and our families are far more likely to encounter a criminal than are the elites. The victims of crime are disproportionally poor and minorities who live, work, and travel in high-crime areas. Unfortunately, the gun-control laws are written to serve the elites, rather than to serve us.

The elites are wrong. The rich are never safe when criminals flourish by victimizing the poor. Time and again, it is the ordinary citizen who is the first responder to stop violent crime. We use a firearm to make us equal to the task of defending our family. The elites want the use of arms reserved to themselves. Rather than being a problem for society, the armed citizen is the defense that protects our communities. We know that because we live there. We see what happens outside the walled compounds.

The common armed citizen is the moral elites of our society. We are more law abiding than the police. We protect our family and our neighborhoods. Now, we have to carefully watch what our politicians are doing as legislators too often try to disarm us.

It is the right of the people to go armed, not the right of the elites.


I gave you 700 words. Please use them well. RM


Businesses and rich neighborhoods buy private security services as police are defunded- WSJ “

The Racist Roots of Gun Control- “

2021 survey of firearms ownership and use- “

Comparison of criminal offense rates by licensed gun owners versus the law enforcement officers- “

Repost- 14-Year-Old Defends Her Sister from a Professional Criminal

May 3, 2022

This is a repost of a weekly article I write for Ammoland. We have lots of new gun owners in the USA and they are learning how to defend their family. When should we teach our children to defend themselves and others?

U.S.A. –-( We start with this news story out of Middleboro, Massachusetts as reported by the nearby news station WBZ Boston, CBS-4.

It is 7:30 in the morning. You are a 14 year old girl who is home on a weekday over spring break. Your mom already left for work. You are awake and your younger sister is still asleep.

You hear a strange sound. You step into the hallway outside your bedroom and hear someone in the garage. You run to the kitchen and grab two steak knives. With a knife in each hand, you open the garage door and shout,

“Get out of here. Get out of my home. You don’t belong here.”

The intruder drops the property in his hands and runs to his truck. You pull your phone from your pocket and take a video of the intruder. You also take video of his license plate as the intruder backs his truck down your driveway. You’re frightened, but you manage to call 911.

Your intruder is arrested as he crosses over a local bridge. He is charged with aggravated breaking and entering, trespassing, attempted larceny, and disorderly conduct. He has a criminal history that goes back four decades. The intruder has been arraigned 130 times for burglary and robbery. He is held pending a 200 thousand dollar cash bail.

Your mom says you are amazing.


Let’s talk about what this young woman did correctly, and then think about what we should do before we leave our teenagers home alone.


Another 1000 words at Ammoland.



Sensitive Places Turn Deadly for Honest New Yorkers

May 3, 2022

We’ve seen a flood of violent crime in New York state and a tidal wave of crime in New York City’s gun free zones. The New York Police Department released data showing felony assaults are up 33% this year. Felony assaults are up more than 50% from a month ago. Stabbings and slashings on public buses, subways, and trains are up 70% compared to last year. Assaults with a club or blunt instrument are up 48%. These attacks are happening where the politicians told us we’d be safe. Instead of protecting us, New York politians want to make sure we are disarmed and vulnerable.

You might remember that the subject of “sensitive places”, locations where persoanl firearms might be banned, was mentioned 30 times in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Case that is now in front of the US Supreme Court. That case asks if ordinary people retain the right to carry ordinary weapons in ordinary places for self-defense. Representatives for the New York Attorney General replied that many public spaces in New York were special rather than ordinary. So far the state is doing a horrible job of defending ordinary citizens in its existing gun free zones.

We were promised that we didn’t need to go armed in New York because the police would provide enough officers to stop crime on the streets. We didn’t need to go armed when we used public transportation because the transportation police would stop crime and make those places safe for us. The politicians broke their promises.

The surge in crime is not inevitable. At the time when crime surged in New York City, we’ve seen other cities reduce the rate of violent crime. Dallas, Nashville, and Jacksonville come to mind.

In New York, the “gun-free” zones where honest citizens were disarmed became more dangerous, not less dangerous. In reply to this surge in crime, New York legislators proposed to make almost every public place and private business into a “gun-free” zone. That decision speaks volumes.

Money talks in politics. New York politicians are more concerned with their anti-gun campaign donors than with our safety. Democrat politicians rake in the campaign checks while ordinary citizens pay in blood.

The police don’t protect us. New York judges have consistently sided with the politicians to keep us disarmed and defenseless. The future holds more of the same as working people look for better jobs and safer places to live. No wonder so many people are leaving New York.


Crime surge on New York City transit= “

Bill A8684- ”

Anti gun groups in New York propose to stack the US supreme court expressly to pass more gun control- “

Crime falls in Jacksonville, Florida- “

Demographic shift out of New York- “

Why are Gun Owners Against Gun Registration?

May 1, 2022

Guest post by Gregory K. Taggart.

Question: “Why are gun owners against a central gun-owner database, also referred to as “Gun Registration”?

At its root, the concept of a central gun-owner database is closely related to “Universal Background Checks” which is a necessary mechanism to build such a data base. The premise is essentially that it is a “good idea” for the Government to know who owns the guns.

Consider a “Central Gun Owner Database”. Why are gun owners against one?

1. The gun-owner database has ABSOLUTELY no effect on CRIME. Why? Since it is illegal for criminals/felons to possess firearms, any requirement for criminals to register or be on the data base is “self-incrimination” under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. A criminal CANNOT BE PUNISHED for failing to register a firearm. There is no legal way to compel a criminal to be in the data base. So, the “data base” is simply a list of “LAW ABIDING PERSONS”. By definition, law-abiding persons do not figure much in “crime”.

2. That leads us to the next obvious question. What legitimate public policy interest is acheived by having a “List of the Non-Criminal Law-Abiding”? The response is, “Well, these gun owners might someday turn into a criminal actor and THEN we have a list of their guns.” So, the gun-control advocates want to a list of non-criminals maintained and updated on the off chance that a particular person MIGHT, in the future, potentially, just maybe, possibly become a crook?

When might such a list have any relevance? (Please notice I did not say “utility.”) The “Central Gun Owner Database” proponents will reply: “If formerly law-abiding, church deacon, dentist Fred Mertz, DDS, suddenly transforms himself into an amoral, raging criminal gangster, and he is on a list, the cops will be able to know he has a gun.”

The folks capable of critical thinking will note that the cops expect a “raging criminal gangster” to be armed no matter what he used to do or who he used to be. Law enforcement officers always assume that violent criminals are armed. A list isn’t necessary to show that the violent actor did, or didn’t, own a gun in the past.

Laws based on justice, in Liberty, seeks to punish actual evil actions, not fantasy, future, hypothetical “what-ifs” and “maybes”.

3. Being able to determine that law-abiding school teacher “Joe Schlabotnik owns a gun” is absolutely irrelevant to a criminal investigation. Beyond ownership, being able to determine that the gun found at a crime scene BELONGS to Joe Schlabotnik is irrelevant with regard to the crime. Finding the gun and determining its owner, proves absolutely nothing. The officer is interested in who used the gun to commit a violent crime.

“Yes, Officer Malloy, you found my gun. It was stolen from my gun locker recently- I have been out of town and just got back and just noticed it was stolen this morning. Thanks for finding my gun. I hope you find the guy who committed a crime with it- please notify me when it is no longer needed as evidence, I want my stolen property back.” Again, no list is needed.

4. When Corn Pop the gangster is busted carrying Joe Schlabotnik’s firearm, Corn Pop, a felon and a federal and state Prohibited Person, is already committing a felony. The felon is barred from owning a firearm no matter where the firearm came from. The justice system doesn’t need a “List” to prosecute Corn Pop.

Corn Pop doesn’t obey our laws. He has guns, but you cannot force him to be on any list, and you cannot punish him for not being on the list. Again, no list needed or even legally possible for Corn Pop. Corn Pop can still be prosecuted as a “felon in possession” or as a “possessor of a firearm while committing a criminal act”. A list isn’t needed to put Corn Pop in the Crossbars Hotel. If the prosecutor is willing to prosecute; often they are not- it might offend a particular political interest or demographic group.

5. To what use could a “Central Gun Owner Database”, namely a “List of Law-Abiding Gun Owners” potentially be put? Hmm. Let me think for a moment… the old post WWI German Weimar Republic was “social democratic”, rigorously legal, but typically bureaucratic as seems to characterize Germans. In Weimar Germany, Law-Abiding citizens were graciously allowed to own firearms, provided they had been checked and investigated and had the proper stamps and proper permissions and paid the proper fees.

The Kriminal Amt – the Police- kept the records, namely a list of those law-abiding Germans. Today we would call it a “Database”. No criminals were on the list.

Even in 1920’s Germany, no criminal would be so stupid as to be on the “List” of gun owners- it was already illegal for a criminal to have a gun. At that time, my grandfather’s relatives, distant Jewish cousins, lived in Baden-Württemberg. They did not hunt, being ritually observant, but they did have a few firearms for sporting purposes and maybe for personal security as well; who knows?

As law-abiding German citizens, they complied with the 1928 Firearms Law; they had received all the official permissions and vouchers and approvals and paid the fees. In short, they were on the official “List” of gun owners at Police Headquarters.

In 1933, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) rose to power. As the NSDAP assumed control of all facets of government, the new regime was very interested in the ownership of firearms, especially the ownership of firearms by their political opponents and by Jews and those of the “slave races”. They certainly found the “Central Gun Owner Database” created by the 1928 Weimar law to be very useful. The Nazis knew exactly all the law-abiding non-criminals who possessed firearms and where they were kept and exactly what those firearms were. The new government did not care much about the criminal thugs who had illegal guns; they had a vital interest in the people on the List. Neither my Jewish cousins, or their children or other progeny are available for comment because they were disarmed and murdered by the state.

Can someone please explain to me, again, just WHAT LEGITIMATE PURPOSE does a “Central Gun-Owner Database” serve? I will wait patiently for the answer.

And “Just Because” does not count.


Gregory K. Taggart is a Texas Aggie. He writes about firearms, and Texas law and history. Greg teaches firearm safety and the common law of self-defense. He has been an expert witness. He also designs gun ranges.

Some defensive shooting thoughts to communicate to family:

April 28, 2022

This isn’t mine. Richard L. left this as a comment. I’m posting it for all to see. Thank you, Richard. RM

Some defensive shooting thoughts to communicate to family:

1. If there is something or someone that you see that makes you nervous or if I ask you to, please get behind me.
2. I will not use my firearm if it is possible to flee or defuse the situation.
3. If the perpetrator has already drawn and is pointing his firearm at us, I will not draw mine unless an opportunity presents itself.
4. If the person displays a knife or raises their garment to show they have a firearm in their waistband, I will draw mine and engage the person while you get to safety.
5. Compliance has no guarantees. If I use the surrender language like, “Hey I’ll do what you want just don’t hurt my wife” I am going to draw and shoot if the opportunity presents itself. This is your heads up to be ready to flee or get down behind cover. Ala Danny Reagan.
6. If I ever have to get into a defensive shooting incident, when the incident has concluded call 911 ASAP. Whoever calls 911 first is usually going to be in the most favorable situation with the law.
7. If a shooting incident ever happened it would not be unusual for me to end up being handcuffed and taken to the police or sheriff’s station while they sort out what happened.


Moving the Discussion- Should We be Armed in Bars and Restaurants?

April 28, 2022

Are we safer if we arrest honest citizens who carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol? That sounds like a good idea to some people. For them, the idea of giving guns to drunks sounds like a recipe for disaster. The problem is more complex than that, but where you end up in the debate is usually right where you started. We don’t change our opinion very often or very easily. We’ve all heard lots of arguments where people wanted to win rather than learn, and I’ve been guilty of that myself. The best antidote I’ve found is to listen before I talk. Let’s see if we can move the discussion along rather than digging a deeper rut in the same tired argument.

Moderation in all things

We weren’t very old when we first noticed that some people drink too much. We were a little older when we recognized that most violence is committed by people who are intoxicated. Many well intentioned people have the natural inclination to try and disarm the drunks, particularly if they don’t know how much good is done by people who are armed.

I understand that you don’t want people to have a firearm in their hands when they are intoxicated. I’d like that too, but I’m concerned we could be disarming more of the good guys than we are disarming the bad guys. The vast majority of people who have a drink will never become violent. Unless we’re careful, we could be creating more disarmed victims instead of disarming violent perpetrators. It is a hard problem to solve because good people defend themselves with a firearm so often.

Another simple solution would be to prohibit the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Those words should sound familiar because I cheated. That language is from the prohibition law that we had in the US back in 1919. In the next 13 years we discovered that the cure of prohibition caused more problems than it solved.

Since prohibition doesn’t work, the next thing we might try is to disarm the drunks. Your imagination is pretty good if you see a few problems with that. No one wants to walk up to someone who has been drinking and ask if they are carrying a firearm.

Excuse me, madam, but you look like you might have had too much to drink. If you have a gun with you then I’d like you to hand it over for safekeeping. How does that sound?

It is far too easy to have an accident if we ask the drunks to touch their guns. Also, the irresponsibly armed individual could be too emotionally volatile for us to manage if they are already intoxicated and take offense at our question.

Our legislators took the easy way out and disarmed everyone in the bar. The theory was that anyone might drink too much and the legislation makes an easy press release. On the surface, that legislation sounds like it might make us safer. We uncover some important factors if we dig even a little deeper.

In practice, prohibiting all guns in bars didn’t work out the way we were promised. Bars are often open late into the night. Bars handle lots of cash, so this isn’t a new idea that bars are frequently targeted for robbery. Turning the local bar a gun into a “gun free zone” made the business an easy target for armed robbers who want to rob disarmed business owners. We disarmed the good guys and increased violence rather than decreased it. That is a big problem and a step backward.

Carried to the extreme, we have actually seen mass-murderers attack bar and restaurants because the customers were disarmed. In one case, even the several policemen who were in the bar were unarmed.

The cops had learned that they could be accused of drinking while armed even if they were the designated driver or the designated defender. Facing the accusation and the subsequent investigation by their police department wasn’t worth the hassle or the risk to their careers. That is why the police went unarmed. Thirteen innocent people were murdered in the attack on the Borderline Bar and Grill in California. Fifty people were murdered at the Pulse Nightclub in Florida where none of the patrons were armed.

Mass murder is horiable, but fortunately it is rare. There are other problems that we see on a regular basis if criminals know that the customers leaving a bar or restaurant are disarmed.

It is always easier for a criminal to rob a single person who is alone than to try and rob a large group of people. We handed the criminals in town a steady stream of unarmed victims as people leave the bar late at night.

The problems with gun-prohibitions are obvious, but even that level of firearms regulation doesn’t do everything it promised. The legislation promised that we’d disarm people who were intoxicated. In fact, people who want to drink and carry can do their drinking in private. We’ve seen intoxicated people get into an argument and leave a restaurant so they could go get a gun from their car. That leaves all of the innocent people in the restaurant at risk because we disarmed the responsible defenders as well as the customers who drink too much. Disarming the good guys doesn’t make us safer.

I see that there are problems with disarming the good guys, but maybe that is just the cost we have to pay if we want to be safe with our family when we sit down to eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol.

It is comforting to imagine that we are in a safe place with our family. It is comforting to imagine that criminals obey our laws. It is tempting to think the problems with gun-prohibition are so subtle that they were unforeseeable and therefore should be excused. Before we reach that conclusion, it is important to note what the legislators knew and when they knew it.

Legislators knew that prohibiting guns in bars would cause problems even as the legislation was being crafted. That is why many states exempted judges, legislators, and some law enforcement officers from the prohibition on carrying firearms where alcohol is served. I think that was for their safety rather than for ours. To speak plainly, troublesome laws are for the little people rather than for the elites.

Instead of disarming all the customers, an improvement in the law might be to let people who are not drinking carry in bars and restaurants. We already ask people to use a designated driver in their group so they won’t drink and then get behind the steering wheel of their car. Because of the laws in some states, we’ve already seen the designated driver act as the designated defender. Call me Captain Obvious but the sober driver can actually carry more than car keys in his pocket.

This could be a worthwhile improvement. We’ve asked the people who drink not to carry a firearm and the people who don’t drink can retain the right to carry if they want to. That sounds like a good solution..maybe.

Think about it for a few seconds and you can easily identify the armed defender. He is the person leading the group to the car and opening the car doors. In contrast, the single individual walking up to his car alone as he leaves the bar at night is probably disarmed. We’ve again identified the disarmed victims for the criminals.

By prohibiting sober people from carrying in a particular place we’ve penalized the law abiding and non-violent citizens.

Look carefully at the scene we just described. This single driver had a single drink so he could not carry his legally owned personal firearm yet he was still sober enough to drive himself home. This looks like a clue to me, but the problem still isn’t simple.

Is firearms-prohibition a philosophical question or a practical one? Is it the bar that is the problem, or is the problem the person who drinks to excess? Is any alcohol too much so we should lose our privilege to drive and our right to armed defense, or is some alcohol allowable? When do we regain our rights after we drink? Is it an hour, a day, or a week later?

Are gun-prohibitionists suggesting that we require gun-safes at the entryway to bars and restaurants where gun owners would check their firearms?

Let’s say we had a beer with friends after work and then we drove home. Would we have been safer if we walked home on the street late at night? Would society be safer if we were disarmed all day because we planned to go to the bar with friends after work? The radical gun-prohibitionists would shout “Yes.“ Most of us think that is an extreme position.

The heart of the question is that we are menatally impared if we drink too much. Some states make it against the law to carry while legally intoxicated. Some states say we shouldn’t drink and carry, and they use the same blood alcohol limit that they use for driving. In contrast, some states set a lower blood alcohol content for carrying a firearm than for driving a car.

You’re saying that people can drink and go armed. That sounds irresponsible.

I’m arguing that proportions matter. Some of us drink too much in public. A small number of us drink too much while carrying a firearm. A very small number of us drink irresponsibly, carry a firearm irresponsibly, and then responsibly obey the law to disarm in a bar or a restaurant. The benefits from gun-prohibition are small.

Disarming all the responsible people creates a bigger problem than it solves. Drunk drivers are a much larger problem than licensed concealed carriers who drink too much. About ten thousand drunk drivers die in fatal car accidents each year. At the same time, about 1.7 million people used a firearm for self defense. We can’t solve a small problem by creating a larger one.

Simple solutions won’t fix subtle problems. This isn’t a laboratory experiment where we control every variable. The best we can work toward is making things better rather than expecting or demanding a perfect result all the time. We would be hard pressed to show that gun-prohibition saves lives.

Perhaps I now understand the toast I heard when I was a child back in the 1960s. Some older adults would lift a glass and say, “To freedom!” They were celebrating the right to drink alcohol that had been taken away during prohibition. Today, I’ll celebrate the right to decide what is best for me and my family.

When in doubt, let us say “To freedom!”


I gave you 1800 words. I hope you found them useful. If they helped you think then please leave a comment. RM


Alcohol Prohibition in the United States- ”

Murders at the Borderline Bar- “

Murders at the Pulse Nightclub- “

Deaths from drunk driving-

UPDATE: Biden Administration Changes Course, Decides to Commit Political Suicide Over Mask Mandate Ruling – RedState

April 20, 2022

Timing is everything. So is the ability to count. The mask mandates will cost the Democrats votes across the country, but the Dems need the mask mandate in the fall so they can demand mail-in voter fraud balloting in swing states. They can find a compliant judge in each swing states by October. I suspect the ballots will be printed well in advance.

That which is tolerated is repeated. RM

“..the DOJ will not seek an emergency stay on the ruling, which means this will drag out for months before any possible victory for the administration is secured. That means that you will have maskless flights going on well into the summer before the CDC likely attempts to reinstate the mandate.”

Source: UPDATE: Biden Administration Changes Course, Decides to Commit Political Suicide Over Mask Mandate Ruling – RedState

Is Maryland Attorney General Frosh Ignorant or is He Dishonest?

April 20, 2022

The Maryland Attorney General filed a recent amicus brief with the US Supreme Court. Attorney General Brian Frosh said that the state is justified in banning modern rifles because those weapons have been used to commit mass murder. AG Frosh mentions violent attacks that happened outside of Maryland. For some reason the Attorney General failed to mention the far larger number of cases where honest citizens used a rifle for justified self-defense. If this is an omission then it is an oversight the size of the Grand Canyon.

The AG’s report goes back a decade to find 150 deaths that were attributed to a mass murderer who used a modern rifle at some time during his attack. What we don’t know is why the Attorney General stopped there.

Why didn’t the AG also mention that rifles like these are in common use and were routinely used for armed defense? I am not saying that those firearms could be used for armed defense. I’m saying that they were used, are used, and will be used for armed defense every day.

You’d think a Supreme Court judges would like to know that. I suspect the judges would also like to know why the Maryland Attorney General chose to hide those facts. Let me show you how big a fabrication the AG presented.

We know that about 25 million people report owning a modern rifle in the US. We know that ordinary US citizen use firearms for armed defense about 1.7 million times each year. We know they use a rifle in those defensive encounters about 13.1 percent of the time.

Honest citizens used a rifle in armed defense over 210 thousand times a year,

or almost 600 times a day.

I don’t know how many of those rifles we used in armed-defense were the particular make and model that the Attorney General wants to ban. I don’t know if each one of those self-defensive encounters would have resulted in death since the bad guy almost always runs away when he sees that grandma is armed. Those subtleties are interesting but they are overwhelmed by other facts. Firearms in the United States are almost always used in armed defense rather than being used for mass murder.

It is hard to know precisely which type of firearm is likely to be used in a crime because the firearm is not recovered in every case. In this case, the evidence is overwhelming. Rifles are a fraction of the guns owned by honest citizens, but rifles are still used ten times more often in armed defense than any firearm is used in any murder.

Let’s put what we know into perspective. Each day, honest citizens in the US use a rifle to prevent death or great bodily injury.

Armed citizens save many more lives with a rifle each day than are lost to mass murderers each year.

Should we do what we can to reduce mass murder? Of course we should. So why haven’t we? In particular, why hasn’t the Maryland legislature fully funded state sponsored treatment of the mentally ill? The Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh used to be a Maryland State Senator. Perhaps the voters will ask him.


I gave you 500 words. Please share them with a friend. RM


Maryland SCCOTUS Brief- “

2021 National Firearms Survey- “

Are Gun Grabbers or Gun Owners Empathic and Distrustful?

April 18, 2022

Both sides of the gun debate feel that their position is correct. Both sides agree that horrible people do horrible things. Both sides of the debate want to stop that. That small point of agreement is where progress in the debate usually ends. I think both sides are empathic and distrustful but they are paying attention to very different things. A way to get farther in the debate is to ask a deeper question.

The anti-gun side says that the bad guys would become better guys if they were disarmed, and that the other side loves guns more than they love people. The self-defense side replies that gun-control disarms far more victims than criminals. They note that disarmed bad guys are still bad guys, and the vast majority of violent crimes are committed with fists, clubs, and knives rather than guns.

The pro-gun side of the debate says that the victims of violent crime would be less victimized if they were allowed an armed defense. The anti-gun side of the debate answers that guns are just tools of violence and violence is never an optimal solution.

Neither side changes their opinion because the argument never touches their core beliefs. I want us to join in the debate by asking a more fundamental question; can we be trusted with violence?

Most of us need to do some homework before we can put an answer together. Let’s look at the question piece at a time.

Can you judge when violence is justified? Have you studied enough to make that decision in a short amount of time? Can you recognize when violence is not only justified but a necessary evil that avoids a greater evil? Taken to the obvious limit, can you use a lethal tool to kill another person?

Those are difficult questions, but this isn’t a philosophy course where we have a semester to debate each answer. The hard part about the questions is that we will answer on our own in a very limited amount of time. We have neither the time to ask, nor is there an informed authority who knows our situation in enough detail to give us accurate and useful answers about what to do.

The armed citizen reacts defensively when he is attacked. As legally armed citizens, we have an enormously wide range of possible responses when we face a threat. In contrast to a soldier or police officer, the armed civilian gets to run away as fast and as far as he wants. We never have to engage a bad guy if running away is a good option. Unfortunately, we won’t know, and we can’t know, all of our options when we suddenly face a threat. That is why we want to ask the important questions now when we have time for reasoned answers.

Are you ready to use lethal force in self-defense?

That is one of the fundamental questions that lies under the gun debate. The answers are not obvious.

The advocate for gun-prohibition identifies with the victim and wants to take away the criminal’s tools. The self-defense advocate identifies with the victim and wants to empower the victim. In theory, both advocates are nearly on the same side.

I think both sides empathize with the victim but differ in their degree of trust. At a shallow level, the gun prohibitionists say we should trust the government for our defense. The self-defense advocates answers that we have to save ourselves until the police arrive.

At a deeper level, you won’t trust others to use violence if you wouldn’t trust yourself to use it.

If you have violent or barely controlled impulses then you assume that everyone else has those impulses. You assume that other people should be disarmed since you don’t trust yourself to carry and use lethal means of self-defense.

That is why I think the question of violence and trust is fundamental. Do we trust ourselves. By extension, do we trust others with the power to use lethal tools responsibly? That question may yield more answers by practical inspection than by philosophical introspection.

Let me illustrate that point with a story I heard when I was a firearms instructor. I don’t know if this story is literally true. It might be fiction and tell us about many truths at once.

The story goes that a family wanted all the adults to know basic firearms safety before they introduced a gun into their home. The teenagers and cousins were eager to take a firearms safety class, but Grandma said she didn’t want to touch a gun since she would never use it. She would put her body between a bad guy and her family, but at her age she couldn’t think of anything that someone would do to her that would justify taking the other person’s life.

When they were in the classroom, the instructors pointed out that grandma should learn how to tell if a gun was loaded or unloaded so she could put it away safely. She should know the condition of the gun before she handed it to another person. Grandma learned the basics of firearms safety along with the other adults.

The problem came to a head when they walked out to the shooting range. Grandma wouldn’t shoot at the targets. One solution was to have Grandma shoot at the empty backstop so she knew how the gun felt in her hand.

Rather than give her a bullseye target, a firearms instructor deliberately gave Grandma a target with human figures on it. “This bad guy broke into your granddaughters room at night,“ the instructor said. “He has a knife in one hand and is dragging your granddaughter by her hair back towards the window. What are you going to do? Are you going to say goodbye to your grandchild?”

Grandma pressed the trigger.

“Did that stop him?” the instructor asked.

Grandma fired again.

Grandma would never use violence out of anger or hate, but she would use lethal force to save the people she loves. Maybe you have the heart of a warrior but you have to think through some questions first.

Consider this quote as you wonder if you trust yourself.

“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” (Faramir in Tolkien’s Two Towers)


I gave you about 1000 words. I hope you enjoyed them as much as I did. Please share them with a friend and leave a comment. RM

State Sen. Lupe Contreras of Arizona tells Lauren Snyder to stay home if she is afraid of being disarmed by the state- “

Understanding Russia’s war in Ukraine

April 16, 2022

Like you, I’m trying to make sense of what I see and read. From what I can tell, Putin had several goals when he invaded Ukraine. One overt goal was to expand Russian territory and economic power since Ukraine is central Asia’s breadbasket. Putin wanted to move Ukrainian captives into the Russian interior since the Russian population is falling. Putin also needed a way to skim more money from the Russian people as they sacrifice their standard of living to achieve Russian “security”. None of that went as planned.

Putin and his oligarchs stole about a trillion dollars from the Russian economy. That is comparable to what the US oligarchs stole, but the Russian economy is about one-fourteenth the size of the US economy. To understand the proportions at work, consider what would happen if the Biden, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi and Soros families took 14 times more of our economy. That is a lot of graft for a country to bear, but now double it again becaues Russia has half as many people as the US so the per person cost of graft is higher. That is the size of the problem faced by the Russian people.

That describes the Russian economy of a year ago, but the proportions are much worse today. Not only is the Russian economy shattered by sanctions, but Putin has to pay his corrupt cronies in worthless rubles that they can’t easily exchange into hard currencies as they move their wealth outside of Russia. Reducing the corrupt payoffs upsets the power hierarchy that keeps Putin in place. Unfortunately, Eastern Europe pays Russia over 500 million dollars a day for oil, coal, and natural gas.

Remember that eastern Europe switched to Russian fuels after Germany shut down its coal and nuclear powerplants to appease the environmentalists/socialists. Russia helped finance the green parties, and in return the green parties made the Russian oligarchs fantastically rich. Like the Russian oligarchs, the western greens were always interested in spending other people’s money and telling other people how to live.

The west does not have a monopoly on political corruption. Just like the Russian winter, Russian corruption is always in the background in the Ukraine conflict. The Russian military machine ran out of fuel several times. The reasons are enlightening for westerners but are taken for granted by native Russians.

Time and again, what the Russians paid for isn’t necessarily what they got. Putin and the oil oligarchs skimmed their cut and siphoned some of the fuel to the black market. Russia’s military officers skimmed their share of the military budget as well. At one point during the war, Russian forces fired on their own oil storage facilities since it was healthier for their officers to attribute the loss to war rather than have to explain how they drained their own oil storage tanks and sold the fuel. That style of corruption is only familiar to the west when we see a few corrupt building contractors or government unions, but in Russia it happens on a trans-national scale.

Repeat that process of corruption again and again and we see a Russian military robbed of food, of fuel and of other equipment. Tents and uniforms go missing. Radios are sold to the black market. Repair supplies are at a fraction of their reported levels since spare parts often walk away from storage depots. That seems almost bizarre to westerners but is standard practice in socialists economies around the world. The Russian military might well run out of tires for its trucks.

What is left is a shadow military force. Many of the Russian combat vehicles are not fully equipped with reactive armor since the necessary components were either removed or never installed. Yes, the boxes appear on the sides of the tanks, but in many cases the boxes that should hold reactive armor are empty. I shudder to think what is left in their medical trauma kits.

Sadly for the Russian people, the controlled press in Russia would never report that Russian soldiers were sent to die in substandard equipment or left untreated on the battlefield. As brutal as that is for the Russian people, it fortunately gives us a window to peace. The west can report on the corruption and the progress of the war as clearly as possible.

There are no angels in public office. Putin sold the war as a fight of Russian integration, but the Ukrainians clearly want none of Putin’s corrupt rule. It is hard to sell the myth of integrating fellow slavs back into Russia when Russian soldiers murder civilian captives, rape women and young girls, and level the cities they are claiming to save. The west can expose the mass graves and lay bare the lie that made the war palatable to the Russian people.

The western environmentalists are indirectly funding the Russian oligarchs and they too have blood on their hands. The west can put its own house in order and reestablish its energy independence. Western countries should remove the restrictions and taxes they placed on all forms of domestic energy production. It can restart its coal and nuclear plants for a start. The west can again mine and produce its own fertilizer.

The west can ostracize Russia’s trading partners like Turkey, South Africa, Uganda, Iran, India, China and Pakistan. For example, western nations could impose a tariff on Indian goods until the Indian oligarchs stop trading with Russia. In the United States, the Biden administration could do the same with China. Unfortunately Biden’s hands are red with Chinese bribes. There is little chance of Biden imposing sanctions on China unless he was compelled to do so by Republican legislation and a public outcry.

The war will end at some point, but that will not come when Russia runs out of bullets and bombs. The war will end when Putin and the Russian oligarchs run out of money that pays the bribes that keep them in power. That can happen sooner rather than later.

We will have peace if the Oligarchs are starved quickly. Putin may expand the war if the West reacts slowly.


I gave you 900 words. Please leave a comment if you thought they were well chosen. RM

Repost- Announcement: Moody’s says repayment of Russia’s foreign-currency bond in rubles does not meet contractual promise – Moody’s

April 15, 2022

Not only is the Russian economy shattered, but Putin has to pay his corrupt cronies in worthless rubles that they can’t easily exchange into hard currencies. That upsets the power hierarchy that keeps Putin in place. RM

“London, April 14, 2022 — Moody’s Investors Service said that, on 4 April, Russia reportedly made payments on two bonds maturing in 2022 and 2042 in rubles rather than US dollars which represents a change in payment terms relative to the original bond contracts and therefore may be considered a default under Moody’s definition if not cured by 4 May, which is the end of the grace period.”

Source: Research: Announcement: Moody’s says repayment of Russia’s foreign-currency bond in rubles does not meet contractual promise – Moody’s

Politicians Lied, Gun-Control Failed, and Innocent People Died on the New York Subway

April 15, 2022

Trust us, they said. They shouted it from the podium and from the headlines.

New York politicians said they would take care of us. They said we don’t need to have a firearm and protect ourselves or the people we love. They said that if we voted for them then they keep us safe when we’re in pubic. All they needed was a little more gun-control and then we’ll finally be safe. This latest mass murder on the subway is different is scale, but similar in type to what we see every week. If we stop to look at it, the murders on the subway remind us that New York Democrats lied and we are not safe at all. The open question is if we’ll pay attention and really look at what is going on.

David French photo from NY Post-Shutterstock

We have the right to defend ourselves. Like the rest of our rights, that doesn’t come with any provisions other than to use it responsibly. New Yorkers chose to give that right away to the government, and then the government, both state and city, failed to live up to their part of the bargain. They lied, and people died.. again.

We were told that bad guys would be disarmed by gun-laws, but clearly they weren’t. We were told that the police would be there to defend us but they were nowhere to be seen even in the middle of rush hour. We were told that disarming the law-abiding citizens of New York should make us safer, but it didn’t. In New York City, honest citizens can’t carry in public. That isn’t theory, but fact.

Despite what we were told, despite what we were promised, we saw that disarming honest citizens doesn’t disarm the criminals and the crazy people. We were told that disarming the good guys would make the bad guys harmless, but it didn’t. Gun control failed, so what are we going to do now?

What are you going to do? You can sit in your apartment with the three deadbolts and pretend there isn’t a problem. You can pretend it is someone else’s problem and vote the way you always voted. You have choices to make.

You can vote to put people in office who respect your right of self-defense, but any election is months away. You can move and live in a place where you can protect yourself and the people you love. You can do that in a few days.

The choice is up to you. Expecting things to somehow change by themselves in New York City means you are the crazy person since it is insane to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. You won’t be alone whatever choice you make. Lots of people choose to do nothing and pretend the next time will be different. That is a choice.

The same old politicians will keep doing what they have always done and blame someone else. We still have choices even if the politicians don’t change. I left California five years ago and moved to a free state. I don’t want my new home to become more like California or New York or New Jersey. I want it to remain different, to remain free.

You have choices too. I trust you to make the right ones. Now, what will you do?


I gave you the best 500 words I could find in my heart. Please share them if they touched yours. RM


DOJ Secretly Spied on Journalists’ and Security Detail’s Apple and Google Accounts; Project Veritas Files Motion Demanding Return of Property | Project Veritas

April 13, 2022

The Biden DOJ spies on journalists to advance the political purposes of the Biden Administration. RM

“The DOJ’s spying campaign represents the latest example of governmental misconduct in, what appears to be, a politically motivated investigation.  President Biden’s Department of Justice has placed its crosshairs squarely on Project Veritas’ newsgathering activities pertaining to apparent allegations against then-candidate, Joe Biden, which were made by his daughter, Ashley Biden, in her diary.”

Source: DOJ Secretly Spied on Journalists’ and Security Detail’s Apple and Google Accounts; Project Veritas Files Motion Demanding Return of Property | Project Veritas

Report: Gavin Newsom’s Wildfire Prevention Program Has Not Completed a Single Project

April 13, 2022

Judge what they do, not what they say. RM

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) wildfire prevention program has yet to complete a single project, two years after it was announced, thanks to onerous state environmental regulations that could allow wildfires to start and spread far more easily.”

Source: Report: Gavin Newsom’s Wildfire Prevention Program Has Not Completed a Single Project

“Truth and Freedom” Brooke Cheney is Sick of Biden’s Lies

April 12, 2022

By Brooke Cheney

Truth and Freedom
I believe that truth is important.
I believe that freedom is important.
I believe that America was founded on Truth and Freedom.

What I saw today, on the front lawn of the White House, was neither. Significant lies were told to the American people.

Not just slight mistakes or inconsistencies. I work with politicians and I understand that they can’t know everything that they have to make decisions on. I know that they are doing the best they can with the information that is given to them. None of us know everything.

The press conference that was held on 4/11/2022 was distressing. So Distressing that it’s 4AM and I can’t sleep. I literally feel sick to my stomach.

As Americans I feel it’s important that we can trust and believe our leaders. I certainly expect our President to understand as much as he can about the subjects that he speaks on. I believe that he is surrounded by some of the best minds that can serve the American people. What I saw today was very distressing as I know many of my fellow Americans have no idea how badly they were lied to. I mean straight up, bald faced lies were told by the folks that spoke on the lawn of the White House today.
I am not some crazy conspiracy theory kinda person. Yes, I am a gun owner. More than that I am a competitive shooter and have friends across the country and am well educated on how much of the firearms world works. Much more than the average gun owner (that I used to be).

I have also studied how to prevent violence. As a mom and a victim of violent crime, I want a safer world for my kids. Violence is a verb, a gun is a noun. Stopping violence, long before a gun is in anyone’s hand is where we should be focusing. This is just one more reason, today’s lies are just so much more upsetting. I want lives to be saved. The press conference that was held today, will do nothing to help save lives. This is the why it makes me so upset. We do need to save lives! As long as they/everyone is focusing on outlawing guns, the violence problem is NOT BEING ADDRESSED!!!

LIES – Straight up lies. The President holds up a fully assembled firearm and says this is an example of what you can order through the mail. – False

The President said that this will help protect police – False.

A gun, with or without a serial number will still cause harm in the hands of a bad guy. A majority of firearms used in crimes are either stolen (so tracing stops at the bad guy) or was obtained through what is called a straw purchase, where someone who can pass a background check buys the gun for someone who can’t.

The lies go on and on. Now here is why my stomach turns. He’s our President. He’s supposed to have the best people at his side helping him take care of our country, yet here we are, being bald faced lied to, and many will not know the difference, if they don’t understand how guns and gun sales really work. Our President, who we should be able to believe in and trust, just straight up lied to the American people.

This is not a “I did not have sex…” kinda lie. This is he held in his hand, an actual gun, and said that this can be ordered through the mail. It cannot. It’s really that simple.

Freedom and Truth, to me these things MUST go hand in hand. Truth is getting harder and harder to come by. When our President outright lies about how something works to the American people, who should trust and believe him, we are losing.


Brooke is a firearms instructor and hosts “Suicide Prevention Saturday” on Facebook.

BREAKING: 5 Shot in Brooklyn Rush Hour Subway Shooting – The Truth About Guns

April 12, 2022

We were told that this couldn’t happen since civilians were disarmed in NYC. The Democrat politicians lied to us. RM

New York after the shooting- image from the truth about guns

At least five people were shot and injured Tuesday at a New York City subway station during a morning rush hour attack that left wounded commuters bleeding on a train platform and police searching for the shooter. Fire personnel responding to reports of smoke at the 36th Street station in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood at around 8:30 a.m. found at least 13 people were hurt, but — aside from the five shot — there were no details on what those injuries entailed.

Source: BREAKING: 5 Shot in Brooklyn Rush Hour Subway Shooting – The Truth About Guns

Kentucky Governor Beshear vetoes bill allowing lawyers to bring guns into court

April 12, 2022

The Democrat Governor knows that some elites are more equal than others. RM

The Democratic governor said he was contacted by judges, prosecutors and the state Fraternal Order of Police requesting him to veto the measure.

Source: Beshear vetoes bill allowing lawyers bring guns into court

What Biden Didn’t Tell you (and Your Friends Don’t Know) about Guns and Serial Numbers

April 11, 2022

Things are not always as they seem. President Biden said guns are causing crime. The President needs an excuse for the increase in crime while he has been in office. I have to wonder why guns didn’t cause crime before Joe Biden took office but are causing crime now, particularly in Democrat controlled cities. This recent surge in violence isn’t a surprise to anyone but confirmed Democrats. The President needs to blame guns to distract us from his failed political decisions. Here is some perspective that the President hid from us.. or maybe he just forgot.

The obvious fact is that we let criminals out of jail during Covid. The inmates didn’t stop being criminals simply because we faced the Chinese flu and released them on the public. That political decision meant we had more dangerous criminals on the street who might commit crimes. We also refused to put criminals back in jail when they committed new crimes. That took away the deterrent effect of our justice system. Politicians made this problem, not a new kind of firearm.

Politicians created more violent crime because they put more criminals on the streets and because each criminal was committing more violent crimes than before. Biden also threw open our borders so drug gangs could move drugs almost at will. Even an elderly politician can understand why this causes more crime.

Of course, that isn’t what President Biden said. He said it is all about guns with strange serial numbers. He didn’t mention that serial numbers were not even required on firearms until 1968. Many of our classic semi-automatic handguns had been in production for almost 6 decades by then, so there are tens of millions of unsterilized firearms in legal circulation. True, you can also get a government employee from the ATF to say anything the President wants him to say, but believing that a missing serial number causes crime plays us for a fool. The law enforcement sources I trust have not seen a surge of homemade and un-serialized firearms causing crime. What Democrats call a “ghost gun” isn’t a firearm at all, but an incomplete part of a gun.

The President refused to say that the vast majority of our violent crime isn’t committed with a firearm. If we magically stopped all “gun crime” today then we’d still have the remaining 85 percent of violent crime to deal with tomorrow. Fewer than 1 in a hundred criminals used a long gun of any kind, a rifle or shotgun. Of course, Biden didn’t mention that. He probably forgot.

Most murders are committed by drug gangs fighting other drug gangs. Consider what that means since these gangs move MILLIONS of illegal immigrants across our border and move BILLIONS of dollars of drugs around the US each year. Those drug trafficking organizations have their own privately made submarines to move drugs. That says they can easily move a few ounces of steel, plastic, and lead anywhere they want them. Gun prohibition doesn’t work any better than drug prohibition.

We will not disarm violent drug gangs by regulating legal gun owners. It is dangerous to try and will cost more lives than it saves.

President Biden refused to mention that civilians use guns in armed defense. We know that ordinary civilians in the US use firearms defensively about 1.7 million times a year, or several thousand times every day. It is important to have a sense of perspective and proportion to understand what that means.

We defend ourselves with a firearm thousands of times a day, but there are about 10 thousand criminal murders with a firearm in the entire year. Honest citizens use a gun for justified self-defense about 170 times for each criminal murder. Guns in civilian hands are far more likely to save a life than to take one.

Think of it this way. If Biden’s the new gun regulations disarm even a few honest gun owners, yet somehow disarmd many criminals, then the new regulation will still cost innocent lives by disarming more innocent victims of crime. Unfortunately the news is likely to be worse than that. Criminals don’t care about gun laws and background checks; you have to live in a fantasy world to believe they do. Maybe the president believes it, but we shouldn’t.

Criminals ignore our laws, so legal gun owners are the only ones affected by our 23 thousand firearms regulations. If all those existing gun laws didn’t stop violent crime, then what makes President Biden think criminals will obey his new gun laws?


I gave you 700 words. Please share them with a friend. RM





On the Second Amendment Foundation Weekly Bullet with Paul Lathrop

April 11, 2022

My friend Paul Lathrop asked me to sit in on a weekly roundup of second amendment news. It was my pleasure, and I hope it is yours too. Give us a look and a listen.

Democrat Politicians Lie About Murder Because the Truth is Politically Expensive

April 9, 2022

At the beginning of March, a man murdered his three daughters, ages 9, 10 and 13 in Sacramento, California. He also murdered the court-ordered chaperone who supervised their visit. The murderer then shot himself. He used a modern rifle.

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsome called it, “Another senseless act of gun violence in America.. In a church with kids inside.. Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and their communities.”

Democrat State Attorney General Robert Bonta said, “We need to enforce more of the laws that we have. The rise in violent crime throughout the country is almost entirely because of guns.”

Of course they said that. They have to blame “the gun” because to speak the truth offends too many of the Democrats’ special interests. Here is some of what these Democrat officials couldn’t say.

-Democrat politicians couldn’t tell us the murderer was an illegal immigrant who overstayed his visa five years ago.

-They couldn’t tell us that the murderer had an active restraining order that made him a prohibited possessor, and his possession of a firearm illegal. They left out that in legal documents the murderer swore he didn’t have any firearms.

-They didn’t tell us that the murderer’s ex-girlfriend said he had mental health issues and had threatened her with violence and threatened to take his own life.

-Democrats politicians didn’t tell us that the murderer was under a detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that he could be deported.

-They can’t say that the murderer was arrested and in police custody only five days ago for driving under the influence, resisting arrest, and assaulting police and medical staff who tried to help him.

-Democrat politicians have to ignore that 85 percent of violent crimes don’t involve a firearm.

Democrats can’t speak the truth because those admission would damage the special interests that keep these politicians in power. They can’t say that some immigrants are a danger to all of us. They can’t say that California routinely releases dangerous criminals back on the street because their political decisions made it too expensive to incarcerate dangerous prisoners or provide mental health treatment in California. They can’t admit that gun-control laws don’t protect us because suicidal murderers won’t obey our laws.

It was more politically expedient to blame the gun than to blame their failed political polices, and too bad if it cost the lives of four innocent people. Those innocent lives were merely the incidental cost that Democrat politicians were willing to pay to remain in office.

The murdered children are 9-year-old Samarah Mora Gutierrez, 10-year-old Samantha Mora Gutierrez, and 13-year-old Samia Mora Gutierrez.

If you think this is an isolated event and that these are isolated lies, then you should keep reading because it happened again last week.

That is when gang members with long criminal records had a shootout only a few miles away from the earlier murder in Sacramento. At least five people were shot to death.

Again, Democrat President Joe Biden called for tougher gun laws to stop mass murder on our streets. So did Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein.

They couldn’t tell us that violent gang members got out of jail early, got illegal guns, and then shot at other gang members on the streets of Sacramento. They can’t say that.

That would admit that the California economy is hurting, California’s judicial system is broken and underfunded, and that gun and drug prohibition doesn’t work. It was politically easier to blame “guns”.

Let’s uncover another layer of truth because the lies don’t stop there. Democrat politicians tell us these lies because they work.

We see dozens of people shot by drug gangs every week in Chicago. Every week the Democrat Mayor of Chicago blames laws in other states. We are told the same lies for years-on-end because the voters and the press never hold these politicians accountable for what they’ve done. The politicians are not held accountable in Chicago, in Sacramento, or in Washington D.C.

We, the public, we the voters, are the ones who made it politically easier for politicians to lie to us than to tell us the truth. We never hold ourselves accountable and for what we’ve let Democrat politicians do election after election.

We get the lies we tolerate. We are responsible for the politicians we put in office. The faces in office change every decade, but we can’t change the future by re-electing the same old ideas into office.

We accepted the lies. It is easier for us to blame a political scapegoat than to change the way we vote. It costs innocent lives every day.


I gave you 700 words. Please share them with a friend and leave a comment. RM


Church murder by illegal immigrant with mental health issues-





Gang murder on the streets of Sacramento with illegal gun-



How Todays “Green” Ideology is Going to Ruin Nature and Kill People

April 8, 2022

Be very careful what you wish for. I understand the appeal of a simpler life that we think we can understand. When we say we want to end our dependence on fossil fuels we are also saying we want food costs to double and triple. That price rise will happen not only here in the US but around the world. Energy also effects the cost of every product. More of us will lose our jobs as we de-industrialize. That makes more of us financially vulnerable. The increased cost of producing, storing, and transporting food will push vulnerable people into poverty and malnutrition. Poor people don’t act like rich people do. We’re talking about more hungry kids and more environmental damage. You might not know how we got here, but we stand on the shoulders of giants who keep us fed.

The use of nitrogen fertilizer is critical to modern farming. These fertilizers doubled the yield of modern crops. With fertilizer prices soaring, we will see marginal farmers stop planting. That means that food prices will increase dramatically. We will also see more naturally rich and naturally irrigated farmlands forced into food production. That means more destruction of natural lands.

Add in the fact that Ukraine was the fifth largest exporter of wheat in the world. If politicians continue or accelerate the foolish subsidy of alcohol as a “green” fuel, then we will see energy and food prices rise to dangerous levels.

Give me enough energy and I can do anything. Make energy cheap and we make everyone rich. There was a time long ago when it made sense to force air through an electric arc to produce nitric oxide. Eventually, that nitric oxide was converted to ammonia. Ammonia is a key ingredient in modern fertilizers. Ammonia is the “amine” in amino acids, and a critical building block in plant growth. Modern fertilizers doubled the amount of food we produce per acre given the same amount of water and cultivation.

Later, we discovered more things we could do with electricity so electricity prices rose. We also discovered that rather than convert air into ammonia, it took far less energy to convert natural gas into ammonia.

You remember natural gas, don’t you?

Yes, natural gas is the fossil fuel that let the United States cut its greenhouse gas emissions while our economy grew and eliminated unemployment at the same time.

Yes, that fossil fuel.

Natural gas is the same fuel we used to export to Europe. The same fuel that Democrats told us to stop pumping. Now that Europe shut down many of its nuclear reactors, Europe, particularly Germany, gets its natural gas from Russia. Now you know why Russia developed its own nuclear plants and funded environmental activists in other countries, including the United States. Russia said it will also ration the fertilizer it sells outside of Russia.

It takes energy to cultivate, to plant, to weed, to fertilize and to harvest our food. It takes energy to transport and process our food. It takes more energy to store our food. That is true here and true around the world.

Fertilizer costs

We’re going to eat more canned vegetables, and the fresh vegetables we see will be higher in price and lower in quality. Meat prices will rise. That may not bother the rich, but it will sure impact the poor. It will hurt the poor in both the US and in other countries.

The tragic part of this is that making people poor and hungry is really bad for the environment. Poor people can’t care about cutting down the forest or destroying the reef when they have to feed their children. Making sure that poor people in the third world have economic opportunities is what allowed those people to care about the environment next door to where they live.Destroying the fossil-fuel driven industrial world cuts the poor off from their opportunities to make money. Making energy more expensive means more people will go back to stripping the forests for fuel.

No, you can’t afford to run a freighter on solar power and green energy promises. Making fossil fuels and fertilizer more expensive hurts poor people everywhere.

The green political movement has made us poorer. They made the poor poorer, and that will hurt the environment the greens say they care about.

The lesson is pretty clear. We have to be careful when we swallow simplistic answer to complicated problems. There may be important things the advocates for “climate justice” didn’t tell us.

I may be wrong about this. I have been wrong before, but I’ll ask you to note that billionaires have invested heavily in farmland across the US.


I gave you 800 words. If you found them worthwhile then please leave a comment and share this article with a friend. RM

Things Often Don’t Go as Planned- Philadelphia Edition

April 7, 2022

We have all had our plans go astray. That could happen with a project at home or a vacation away. It is tempting to think that rich people are so much smarter than we are, but I suspect that their plans often deliver unexpected results too. Here is a story from Philadelphia that makes the point as we follow the steppingstones.

Freedom Hall

You might remember back a few years when we released criminals during the Covid scare. We also had riots in many blue cities. With more criminals on the streets and some streets in flames, many people felt threatened that the violence they saw might affect them and their families. About 10 percent of adults in the US bought a gun in the last few years, and 5 percent of adults bought a gun for the first time. Who knew two years ago that the CDC and BLM would win awards for firearms sales.

These new gun owners are a broad cross-section of the US population. New gun owners are younger. Twice as many are under 45 years of age compared to existing gun owners. New gun owners are two-and-a-half times more likely to be a racial minority than existing gun owners. What surprised me was that new gun owners had significant similarities with existing gun owners.

Both new and old gun owners look the same when asked about more gun control; they oppose it.

We have recent reports of a surge in gun sales in the United States following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The firearms industry trade group reported that the background check figures for purchases in March rose by 300,000 over February of 2022. That is a decrease from the numbers of the last two years, but it means that a lot of us are still buying guns. Also, there are 25 states that have at least one qualified alternative that allows firearms purchasers to buy a gun without using the FBI background check system. Those alternatives are typically used more by repeat gun buyers more than first time gun buyers. Either way you look at it, we are seeing more new gun owners.

They say that all politics is local, and that might be true about deciding to buy a gun as well. Homicide has increased significantly in Philadelphia. Carjackings more than tripled. Given the catch and release policy of the Philly District Attorney, we don’t have good statistics about robbery and theft.

More of us felt empathy with the victims of violent crime. We put ourselves in their place. Concealed carry permit applications in Philadelphia increased six-fold after crime spiked. Buying a gun wasn’t the fulfillment of some wild west fantasy, but a reaction to the reality of violence on the streets where we live. Justified armed defense increases by a factor of four in Philadelphia when we compare this year to last year. Said another way, we’ve seen more examples of justified armed defense in Philly in the first three months of the year than we saw all year in 2020 and 2021.

Armed Defense in Philadelphia, ABC image

I don’t think a surge in gun ownership and a political shift away from gun-control was what George Soros had in mind when he urged the Philly District Attorney to release criminals back on the street. Things don’t always go as planned. By the way, there is an impeachment effort to remove the Philly District Attorney, the same attorney that Sorros funded.

That political history makes me feel better when my small projects take more time and turn out differently than I planned. That happens to all of us.. even to billionaires.


I gave you my best 600 words and thougths. Please leave a comment in return, and share this with a friend. RM









Guest Appearance with Dan Wos

March 28, 2022

I’m back now, but my wife took me on a vacation. I joined Dan Wos on “The Loaded Mic” before I left. Here is that episode. Dan also plays and collects guitars. Hint.

Clear Thinking About Taxing Guns

March 26, 2022

We are strange creatures. We see the world and build mental models of how the world works. Soon, those models become more significant to us than reality itself. That is dangerous when so much of our “experience” is from the news and entertainment media. We think our tiny screens show us what is really happening in the world. We want to be carful about what we put into our heads.

Here in the USA, there are over a million violent crimes a year. The vast majority of them do not involve the criminal using a gun. At the same time, honest citizens like us defend ourselves with a firearm over a million times. Each year criminals also kill a few thousand people with a firearm. Mass murderers kill a few hundred of us. That isn’t what we see on our small screens.

The media inverts those proportions. We might think that mass murder is common and armed defense is rare. That lets special interests with a political agenda play on our distorted view of reality. That is dangerous for all of us.

Three states recently passed constitutional carry legislation. That means that people who legally own a gun can now carry their gun in public without asking for a permit and paying a tax. The new law won’t change how armed criminals behave since criminals who were not allowed to own a gun were already carrying their guns illegally. Breaking the law is what criminals do every day. Our gun laws disarmed the people who obey the law, and now we’ve reduced those infringements on honest people in three more states.

Now that constitutional carry passed, more law-abiding citizens will carry a legally owned firearm in public and at home. That makes life harder for criminals since the thugs don’t know if their intended victims are armed. The criminal’s uncertainty makes all of us safer. We are safer if we choose to carry a personal firearm and if we choose to go unarmed.

I studied the effects of concealed carry licensing across the United States. As you’d expect, fewer of us get our license to carry as that license becomes more expensive and more time consuming. What surprised and pleased me was that more of us take firearms training when the costs of a license go down.

That sounds counter intuitive from one point of view. If we drop the state mandate to take a firearms training class then more of us will take a class? I see why you could be skeptical.

Now consider another perspective. The state not only required a class, but they taxed us if we wanted to have a carry permit. No one would be surprised if more of us got firearms training if the state gave us a few hundred dollars. That is what happens when licensing fees decrease. We were able to spend our safety budget on firearms training rather than on paying state taxes and fees. We’re wealthier because the state isn’t taxing us as much, and now we can afford to take more firearms safety training.

That isn’t what the anti-gun Democrat politicians told us would happen. They said that blood would flow in the streets. They say the same thing each time a state considers removing the taxes and regulations on honest people who want to defend themselves with a personal firearm.

Whether we believe the politicians or not depends on the models of human behavior we carry in our heads.

Ask yourself if these anti-gun politicians were right. Did disarming the law-abiding victims make us safer? We already have over 23 thousand firearms regulations on the books. In contrast, there were 21 states that already allowed ordinary citizens to carry a firearm in public without a permit. When you listen to the news and hear stories of violent crime, are those stories of violence from states where honest citizens are armed or from states where honest citizens have been disarmed? Does the disarmament model actually make us safer?

It is nearly impossible to get a carry permit in parts of California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and in Maryland. Cities like Los Angeles, New York City, Springfield, Camden, and Baltimore are some of our most violent cities. If disarming honest citizens made us safer then we should see the results on the nightly news. What do you see?

We all want to stop violent criminals. Some people decided that guns were bad so they passed laws that disarmed the people who obey the law. I think that model of human behavior is incomplete. I like it when the good men and women can defend themselves. That happens over a million times a year. I think that model of human behavior gives us better results than disarming the victims.

There is a bit of good news that we don’t see reported yet. We are not all the same. Some of us were able to pay the thousand-dollar tax in order to protect our families with a firearm. Many of us couldn’t afford to pay that much. Removing some of the fees and regulations on armed defense means that more of us can now afford a gun and self-defense training. More of us will be armed at home and in public. Fewer of us will be unarmed victims. More poor people can defend themselves from violent criminals.

That helps the people who need help the most. I like that, and so do most of you.


I gave you 800 words for free. Please share them with a friend and leave a comment. RM

%d bloggers like this: