Skip to content

Paying Blood and Treasure for the Environmentalist Fantasy

March 25, 2022

Under the Biden administration, environmentalists were able to shut down some US oil production. We went from being a significant net exporter of oil and gas to a net importer. Due to lobbying by their own environmentalists, central Europe shut down their nuclear plants and turned to Russia for natural gas. Now the Biden Administration wants us to continue to use oil from Iran and Venezuala rather than pump our own. That puts both the US and the world at greater risk of war. These misplaced environmental policies actually increased global greenhouse emissions by reducing the use of natural gas to replace coal and oil.

Democrat politicians in the US continue to put oil fields off limits rather than letting us drill and pump for ourselves. They reject the use of nuclear power. The question is who benefits. The environmentalists cost lives and diminished our children’s future. That may be what they wanted all along.

Billionaires who control US railroads donated to Biden’s election committee. Now Biden stops oil pipelines under construction and we move more oil by train. Canada sells more oil to China since it can’t export more oil to the US. Oil and gas are more expensive in the US.

I see how that benefitted the Democrats in power. How does this benefit US citizens?


Please leave a comment and a rating. RM

The World that Democrats Built

March 12, 2022

We told you the Trump economy was good, but you installed a Democrat Congress to “fix it”. You did that.

We told you that covid was the Chinese flu, but you installed a lockdown. That cost lives and treasure. The cure was worse than the disease. More people died due to the cure than if we’d done nothing. Lockdowns and quarantines wiped-out small businesses across the country and made the rich even richer. You did that.

We had full employment and a bright future. You fixed it. You destroyed our energy production. Energy is in everything. Now, everything is more expensive. Inflation meant that people had to keep working and couldn’t retire. It meant that the money you saved for repair and replacement was worth less and becoming worthless. You did that.

We had honest elections. You lost one, so you rigged the game and got rid of free and fair elections. We told you so, but you shouted us down because you liked Joe and Kamala and the people who put them in office. You did that.

Weakening the US meant that Russia and China were emboldened. You didn’t invade Ukraine or Taiwan, but you helped. You brought war to 40 million people because you didn’t like mean tweets. The people who told us that Trump would ruin the economy and start World War 3 have crashed the economy and helped started World War 3. You did that.

The greens will say they did it to save the planet. If you thought it was bad that Russia controlled 5 percent of oil exports, then you should be terrified that China controls 90 percent of the rare earth elements we need for electric cars and solar panels. We used to mine rare earth elements but Obama’s EPA closed the mines and sold the plants to the Chinese. You did that.

This is your mess. We tried to tell you that you were making a mistake, but you wouldn’t listen. You told us to sit down and shut up. You did that.

We won’t be silent. You built this mess. It is your fault. You made bad choices, and this is how it turned out. Though you can deny it all you want, you are to blame.

Were Corporations Less Greedy When Trump was in Office?

March 8, 2022

I’ve heard a number of Democrats say they are not responsible for the recent surge in prices. That is strange since economists around the world expected prices to rise when the US government printed so much money. To dodge the blame for making our money worthless, Democrat politicians said the real reason prices increased was because corporations are greedy.

That is a such a strange answer. I have to ask if corporations were any less greedy when President Trump was in office? The more I think about it the more I’d say no. Corporations are as greedy as they have ever been.

What do you say?

From the Washington Examiner- Biden and Democrats resort to blaming business greed for inflation

US Energy Policy Suddenly Makes Sense

March 8, 2022

US Energy Policy $uddenly Makes $ense

Only a few years ago, the United States exported oil. We achieved energy independence under President Donald Trump. Equally important was that we did so at a time when our economy was booming. Unemployment was at record low levels and energy demand was high. At the same time, we also reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the production of natural gas and replacing coal and oil with natural gas.

That changed when Democrat politicians seized office and crushed domestic oil and gas production. Energy prices effect everyone; everybody paid more. Energy prices soared and the economy plunged. High energy prices hurt us all, even the poor citizens that the Democrats claim to represent. Now, with huge shocks to the oil market, these same politicians in the Biden-Obama regime refuse to let us pump oil and gas at home.

The reason why is obvious after we look at recent political history. The environmental lobby provides political cover. The oligarchs like Soros and Buffett provided the motivations, and the payoffs.

We’ve been here before. Electricity prices rose sharply under the Obama-Biden regime. Those Democrats used the US Environmental Protection Agency to close powerplants and coal mines. The price of some coal companies fell to pennies on the dollar. Oligarchs like George Soros bought coal companies at bargain prices. Warren Buffet bought a railroad, and Democrat politicians, to import Canadian oil.

The US news media let the Obama-Biden regime pretend to be a friend to labor while the rich got richer and the working man looked for a job. I think that history explains what we are seeing now. Today, US and foreign oligarchs want to own US oil companies, US oil refiners, distributors, and the rights to oil and gas leases in the US.

All we have to do today is follow the money. The Biden-Obama regime took money from China and Russia. Democrats work for the people who paid them. They work for the rich oligarchs that put them in office. Their first goal was to buy political influence. The second was to keep that influence. There is probably a mix of money and blackmail at work. We gave the politicians too much power and we never thought that power would be turned against us.

The power to regulate is the power to control.. for a profit. The power a politician has to regulate us gives him the power to extort political bribes. That is an old refrain in Democrat controlled cities where you need to pay off the bureaucrats to open your business and keep it open. That was true in the past and is true today.

Investing in Joe Biden

The method of control is easy to understand. You can’t run a company if the government puts you out of business. Today, energy companies need government permits to explore for oil and gas. They need permits to drill test wells. If you do find oil, you need permits to put in production wells. You also need pipelines and you need permits to operate refineries. The Biden-Obama regime controls the permitting process. We will see oligarchs from the United States, China, Russia, and other countries buy oil leases and oil companies as the prices of those companies fall.

AP photo

We see oil and gas prices at record highs and Democrats refuse to let us pump our own oil. They refuse to shut down Russian oil imports. The Biden-Obama regime would rather make us buy oil from Islamic Dictators in Iran or Communist Dictators in Venezuala. Saving the environment was simply the politician’s excuse to wield political power for their advantage. This is really about money and power. It is about kickbacks and bribes.


Money talks and poor people the US who can no longer afford to drive can either walk to work or starve. Like the Russian Cossacks of a century ago, our formerly working-poor will have to leave their homes and move to our Democrat controlled big cities where they will live on welfare. This is a win-win situation for the Democrats who were losing population and jobs in their failed cities.

I have to admit my political biases. I wanted to buy products made in the USA so my neighbors had a job and a life. When they said, “Buy American” I included buying our own oil and natural gas. I didn’t know that foreign billionaires wanted to Buy American too, only they meant American politicians. One of the reasons I liked President Trump was that he couldn’t be bought. Maybe that is why the elite billionaires hated him so much.

This is “Buy American” too.

We are not powerless yet. Some of us voted these politicians into office. Shame on us, and shame on them. These politicians want power for themselves and their families, at least until they die and their kids overdose. Maybe this also explains why the oligarchs and the Democrats want us disarmed.


I gave you my best 800 words. If they helped you, then please share them with a friend. RM

Wisconsin probe finds 2020 election riddled with nursing home voting fraud – Washington Times

March 3, 2022

“(T)ens of thousands of illegal ballots from these facilities were counted casts doubts on the 2020 election result.

“The report blames the irregularities on the Wisconsin Elections Commission. It said the commission unlawfully ended a requirement that “special voting deputies” deliver the ballots and supervise all absentee voting in nursing homes and other residential care facilities.”

Source: Wisconsin probe finds 2020 election riddled with nursing home voting fraud – Washington Times

Dangerous Subways and Dangerous Judges

March 1, 2022

Don’t expect people with narrow experience to have deep insights into the human condition. Recent news described how violent the New York City subways really are. There were four stabbings on the subway in one 18-hour period last week. A few days later, a 57-year-old woman was brutally attacked as well. In her case, she was repeatedly kicked from behind as she walked down the subway stairs. When she refused to fall on her face, her attacker repeatedly hit her in the head with a hammer until she lost consciousness and could not defend herself. Then she was robbed. This brought to mind the recent discussions in front of the US Supreme court. We can’t ask experts to solve our daily problems when reality is just a theory to them.

The case before the Supreme Court hinged on New York state law. New York requires a criminal background check before you can buy a handgun. All handgun owners in New York are now law-abiding citizens, at least in theory. New York also demands an additional permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The problem before the court was that the state wouldn’t issue those permits to ordinary citizens who go ordinary places. In fact, those carry permits were political plumbs handed out to well-connected elites.

During the court discussion, US Supreme court justice Elena Kagan acted shocked that people might want to legally carry concealed firearms on the New York City subway or in Times Square. The reason we need to carry in such places is because criminals hunt us wherever we are. There are no safe places or safe times. The obvious evidence is in the newspaper every day.

The judge is an intelligent person who grew up in New York City. I assume that she is deliberately distorting the facts about crime in New York to suit her political leanings. In fact, the police almost never catch criminals in the act of committing a crime. Each criminal will commit dozens of crimes and injure dozens of victims before the criminal is finally arrested. These days, the criminal may be back on the street in hours after their arrest.

The police do not keep us safe. We do that. I report on armed defense so I know we defend ourselves thousands of times a day.

Our personal defense is up to us. The female victim who was attacked on the subway curled up and tried to protect herself. New York state denied this victim a more effective means of defense. To put a point on my argument, it is hard to be a good witness, Judge Kagan, when we have a shattered skull, a bleeding brain, and while we are hospitalized in a vegetative state. We first need to defend ourself and survive our attack.

Don’t leave our physical defense up to judicial “experts.” Please learn how to protect yourself and your family. Apply for your carry permit and go armed where you can. Vote the people who deny your right of defense out of political office. Your safety, and the safety of your neighbors, requires it.

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





Why They Murder Our Kids, and How to Stop the Next School Attack

February 26, 2022

Life tests our character and we are both the ant and grasshopper from Aesop’s fable. We both prepare and we procrastinate. We face a similar choice when it comes to protecting our children at school. Some of us planned and prepared ahead of time to protect our children, and some of us put that off for another day. What is worse is that some unprepared adults will blame the next mass murder at school on the citizens who took steps to protect their children from harm. Fortunately for all of us we know how to stop mass murder in our schools. That wasn’t always true. Defending our children at school was both a discovery and an invention. I’ve studied school safety for the last decade and this is some of what we’ve learned.

Mass murder is designed to shocks us, yet most of us ignore why these murderers kill our kids. Fewer of us act to take away the murderer’s motivation. Only a few of us work to put an effective defense in our schools. Mass murder strikes at all of our hearts, but a dedicated handful of people worked for years to make our children safer. It was hard work. It remains hard work.

Comparing mass murder to a natural disaster, it is easier to write detailed fire codes and seismic requirements for our schools than to admit that some people who look like us will deliberately hurt our children. Mass murder makes us feel helpless. We have to look evil in the face and not flinch. The good news is that we know exactly what to do to stop the next mass murderer in his tracks.

Murder is an ancient problem. We have laws against taking an innocent life but those laws are ineffective against someone who doesn’t care if they get killed. In the past, killing innocent victims was usually motivated by politics and religion and resulted in terrorists attacks. Planning your own suicide to include the death of a number of unrelated innocent parties is relatively new. We had to make a new name for it. This celebrity-murder was spawned by the news media that turned the murderer into an overnight sensation.

As peculiar as celebrity-murder sounds, we’ve seen similar behavior. We saw teenagers kill themselves so that they would be talked about on the local television news and in local newspapers. Teen suicides would cluster as one depressed teen wanted the attention given to the previous suicide. These troubled kids would rather be dead than live with the feeling of being ignored. We learned to keep these teens alive by not mentioning the name or showing the picture of the teenager who took his own life.

We reduced teen celebrity-suicide when we denied the teenagers the notoriety they were dying to get.

We can trace the growth of celebrity-murder back to the attacks in Dunblane, Scotland and then to Port Arthur, Australia. It was 1999 when we saw celebrity-murder jump to the US with the attack at the high school in Columbine, Colorado. Old investigative reports found over 80 copycat attempts following the attack at Columbine. I’m sure the number of copycats is far higher by now.

If you doubt that celebrity-murder is real, then remember how the media idolized the two terrorists who set off a pressure-cooker bomb at the 2013 Boston Marathon. The media gave the murders a public relations campaign worth tens-of-millions-of-dollars. In response, thousands of attention-starved teens wondered what they would have to do so it would be their face on the news.

Building Celebrity Murderers

Building Celebrity-Murderers

The solution to stop celebrity-murder should be as easy as repeating what we did to radically reduce teen celebrity-suicide. What makes the solution harder is that few politicians will scold the press and hold them accountable for sensationalizing the mass murderer. The politician depends on the news media for campaign coverage.. and the press feeds the politician’s ego. I think that is why so few politicians will promote legislation to punish the news media when the press creates celebrity murderers.

Given our flawed political and media climate, we might think that the situation is hopeless if we want to stop someone who wants to kill others and then kill themselves. Threatening the murderer with punishment certainly doesn’t work. That means increased criminal penalties are ineffective. The murderers will study and plan for years. That means that mandatory waiting periods for firearms don’t work either. We’ve seen these murderers kill their family members to get a gun. We’ve seen mass murderers lie to school counselors and psychiatrists, so the murderer is not looking for help with their personal problems. That limits the therapeutic model of stopping mass murderers. In fact, many of the murderers feel superior to the rest of us because of their skill in deception and in manipulating others. A firearms background check looks backwards, and mass murder is simply not a long-term career choice.

We discovered the solution to stop mass murders in schools almost by accident, but the discovery wasn’t simple. Fortunately, we had lots of people looking for a solution. The obvious place to turn for expertise at protecting our children was to ask the people who carried guns at school every day as part of their job. The process of discovery started when we asked school resource officers what they could do to stop mass murder in our schools.

There is a strong strain of professionalism in law enforcement when it comes to learning from the experience of other agencies. Administrators studied what worked and what failed. Someone asked the organization that studied school resource officers to see if an SRO could stop a mass murderer. The answer offered a ray of hope.

Yes, the SRO is an effective deterrent. Unfortunately, he is in uniform so he is easily identified. All the attacker had to do was wait for the SRO to go to lunch or until the SRO was at the opposite end of campus. The multiple attackers at Columbine, Colorado drove the single uniformed officer off campus with their gunfire. These researchers determined that time was the critical factor in stopping an attack. Whatever solution would stop the attacker had to be inside the building before the first shot was fired. Every other solution took too long and left too many of our children dead or injured.

After the attack in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, we had tens-of-thousands of school boards and school principals calling their local sheriff or their police chief. They asked for armed officers in every school. Time is so critical that the school officials wanted an armed officer in every building.

Consider the problem of providing an armed officer at school. Not only do you need an armed officer only seconds away from each student, but you have to be there whenever students are present. The defenders have to be on campus early to protect the music and sports activities that take place before class starts. The defenders have to stay late for the sports and drama activities that happen after school. Then we can add in the weekend sports and music activities. Now include the kids riding on the school bus and the sports teams riding to an away game. The magnitude of the problem seems overwhelming. The solution was staring some sheriffs in the face every day.

About one-in-a-dozen adults legally carry concealed in public. In some states, the sheriff issues concealed carry permits. Sheriffs knew that many school staff legally carried a concealed firearm in public. These school staff members carried all the time, except when they were at work.

Some states didn’t have that problem since they never disarmed parents and school staff. After seeing school attacks in other states, more of these school staff simply got more training and carried a concealed firearm at work more often. If that shocks you, then hold on to your seat for what we discovered next.

We have the perception that teachers are politically liberal. That is certainly true of their labor union, but less true of individual teachers. Teachers are our neighbors. Teachers were polled to see if they would be willing to carry a concealed firearm at work as part of a recognized school safety program. Like the population at large, most teachers said no. What was surprising was that a much larger fraction of them said “yes” than the fraction of adults in the general population who have their carry permits. We don’t know the opinions of the rest of the adults at school, people like bus drivers, janitors, and cafeteria workers. We learned that school staff may not like guns but many were willing to carry a gun to protect “their kids.”

The sheriffs who knew which citizens were legally armed in public put together the blind date between the school staff and the school boards. That solved part of the problem. Luckily, the next part of the solution was waiting to be discovered.

The law enforcement brain-trust that set the curriculum for school resource officers looked at the skills required to stop a mass murderer. Only a tiny part of law enforcement training was useful to defend a school. These law enforcement trainers considered if they could prepare civilians to stop a mass murderer. It would take only a few days of instruction rather than the months required for a law enforcement officer at a police academy. For one thing, these ordinary citizens already knew how to carry a concealed firearm because they did it every day.

Again, I think we were lucky. The psychological temptation is to add more and more qualifications on armed school staff. That ignores that each restrictive requirement means another disarmed staff member at school. Quantity has a quality of its own when time is critically important. The perfect solution is the dangerous enemy of good enough. As an aside, the shooting qualifications for school staff are more demanding than the scores required to become a law enforcement officer.

Putting teachers and instructors together was a monumental achievement. The program started small and grew year to year. The organizers were civilian volunteers who cared about saving our kids. They had the vision, raised the money from private donations, and fought the political battles to let school boards do what the boards thought was best. Civic volunteerism on this scale is uniquely American.

Training armed school staff

We’ve talked about the defenders and their training. The last critical part of the solution to save our kids was provided by the attackers themselves. The murderers are not afraid of dying but they are deeply afraid of failure. They needed to murder a lot of people and nothing less will do. In their eyes, killing a hundred kids makes them a phenomenon while killing a few kids proves that they were really a failure all along. That turns out to be vitally important.

The murderers feared nameless mediocrity more than they feared death.

While the attacker may plan to murder unarmed students, they fear that they won’t see the little old lunch lady who pops out a back door of the school cafeteria and shoots them in the back. We don’t need a perfect defense but we do need a credible defense that sows doubt in the mind of the attacker. Mass murderers want a sure bet and armed school staff create significant uncertainty in the attackers plans. Mass murderers turned away from schools and looked for other helpless targets in “gun-free” zones.

I have a fairly good imagination and we can imagine all kinds of problems that might exist with armed school staff. Before our imagination runs wild, consider that we already have several thousand man-years of experience with armed staff in schools. We wouldn’t notice that because concealed firearms are concealed. I have been in the training classes with school staff who volunteered to go armed on campus. The teachers and SROs talked to me after class. They were exactly the levelheaded people we want protecting our children. They would stop a bullet with their body to protect their kids.

Now we’ve given them a chance to save our children and a chance to go home alive. The greatest threat our children face is a politician and a journalist who can tell a biased story and leave the kids unprotected. That is another story for another time, but we have more challenges to face.

Let me leave you with this perspective. Our fantasies are not reality. Please consider this before you get overconfident because you play video games and think you could defeat a few elementary school teachers. In exercises on campus, the school staff I saw beat the police officers who tried to attack the schools. Our children are in good hands.

I respect both the SROs and the armed school staff. I’m glad they’re on our side defending our children. I wrote this so that more of us would be on their side.


I didn’t see a good place to break this history so it runs 2000 words. Please share it with a friend and leave a few words of your own. RM


List of school attacks- “

Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response- “

Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response Colorado- “

Articles about FASTER at the SlowFacts blog- “

Articles about public violence at the SlowFacts blog- “

Armed Heroes Out of Uniform Saved our Heroes in Blue

February 15, 2022

There are only a few stories. The way the particular pieces of this story come together make it remarkable. What makes it shocking is that the news media actually told us what happened. Several neighbors used their own firearms to protect two wounded police officers. The epic twist to this story is that these civilian heroes are the same people who Washington Democrats want disarmed. Art, even bad art from Hollywood, merely imitates real life.

This news happened in northwest Washington State last week. Our story starts on an ordinary weekday afternoon. A drunk neighbor fired a shotgun into the air because a next door neighbor was cleaning up his own yard and burning scrap wood and brush. Two neighbors across the street saw the encounter and called 911.

Sheriff’s deputies responded to the scene and approached the drunk neighbor. That was when the drunk neighbor used his shotgun to shoot the first deputy in the head. The second deputy moved in front of his wounded partner and shot at their attacker. Both deputies were now down on the ground.

That is when the two neighbors from across the street stepped in and stepped up. They took their kids inside the house and grabbed their guns. They fired on the attacker to keep him away from the deputies. As they approached the deputies, the attacker again emerged from his home and shot the second deputy. Both neighbors now returned fire and drove the attacker back into his home. A third neighbor rushed to the scene and the civilian responders protected the deputies and moved them out of the line of fire. The rescuers began treating the wounded deputies in a neighboring garage while protecting them from the drunk attacker.

A Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team arrived to contain the attacker. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) took over the care of the wounded deputies. The armed civilians gave the responding officers their name and then they went home. The drunk neighbor surrendered and was arrested.

Here is what the news doesn’t tell us. This story is the rule rather than the exception. Armed civilians defend themselves between one and two million times a year. We defend our family, our neighbors, and ourselves. We would know that if the news media buried their bias and told us the truth. Yes, the mainstream media deliberately hides the stories about the lives saved by honest gun owners, while the media trumpets the violence committed by armed criminals.

But wait, there’s more. This is where the real story takes a twist so characteristic of Hollywood dramas. This is when Washington State Democrats go on a tear to disarm honest civilians who own guns. These anti-gun politicians want honest civilians disarmed, taxed, and more highly regulated.

What the media hides is that each infringement disarms more of the good guys. The “gun safety” regulations actually give us more unarmed victims who become easy prey for newly released criminals.

Watch the video in the source material. The armed defenders were military veterans. Art imitates life, but like today’s news reporting, not very well.



News Article for an overview- “

News about aftermath- “

Video interview with defenders- “

More news about the incident- “

Frequency of armed defense- “

Repost- The Parkland Shooting Was Proof Positive That Gun Control Doesn’t Work

February 14, 2022

There is a lot we have refused to learn in four years. The mass murderer was a known threat. He was known by the administrators of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Broward County Public Schools, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI.

Source: The Parkland Shooting Was Proof Positive That Gun Control Doesn’t Work – The Truth About Guns

Painful Lies and Boring Facts About Being Armed

February 7, 2022

I’m in a rut. I read the endless stream of gun-control proposals and I have the same reaction time after time. Gun-control advocates promise us safety in return for further restricting the ability of ordinary citizens to go armed. Those excuses would be laughable if they didn’t cost so many lives. It is easier for us to recognize the false-claims of gun-control if we have a sense of proportion and perspective. Then we can see it is a step backwards when we create a larger problem as we work to solve a smaller one. If we actually want to save lives then we have to see the big picture and do no harm.

Ordinary citizens defend themselves with a gun several thousand times a day. Our armed defense stops tens of thousands of robberies, assaults, and rapes. It saves thousands of lives a year. Many thousands. Despite that immense virtue, nothing is perfect. We are human so there are problems with armed defense.

Gun-control runs into problems precisely because armed defense saves so many lives. To change our laws and save a few more lives tomorrow, we can’t reduce the many lives we save each day. It is hard to pass a gun-control law that will do no harm. Let me give you an example to make that clear.

Each week I analyze how ordinary people defended themselves with a firearm. I advocate for instruction, training, and practice. I encourage people to plan for lethal and non-lethal defense. We talk about avoidance and de-escalation all the time. Sure, I want gun owners to be trained, but I have perspective.

Week after week we see criminals break into a home. Grandma grabs her gun and says she is armed. The robber runs away because grandma wasn’t the victim he expected. The great news is that eight-times-out-of-ten the bad guys runs away before we have to fire a shot. I don’t see where mandatory safety training could make this self-defense situation significantly safer or more effective. 8-out-of-10 times it is already good enough.

Proportions are crucial. Firearms accidents are rare but criminal attacks are common. Yes, I ask gun owners to take training, but I know that costs money, takes time, and demands energy. Disarming ordinary citizens until they take training means that more good people will be disarmed. Maybe mandatory training saved a few people from firearms accidents but we condemned more of them to be the unarmed victims of violent crime. The unarmed victims will have to surrender or go against a criminal attacker with their bare hands. Criminals plan their attacks to beat an unarmed victim. I don’t want that, and few of us do.

The lie is that mandatory training saves lives. The truth is it costs lives.

If demanding a firearms safety course costs lives then demanding more is even worse. Today, the advocates of gun-control demand that we take longer and longer classes. Some gun-control proposals require several classes over more than two full days (over 22 hours). Some gun-control legislators propose that we retake the entire training course every six months. One gun-control bill would require us to carry a taser every time we go armed in public.

That might be fun for gun-junkies like me, but gun-control also disarms the people who are struggling to pay their bills and take care of their families. Putting a barrier between the victim and their gun disarms the single mom who can only afford to live where rent is low and, unfortunately, crime is high. Once I thought that was an accident, but it happens too often for it to be a mistake. Now I think that disarming poor people was what gun-prohibitionists wanted all along.

Gun-control laws often disarm minorities, women, and the poor.

I’ve given small gun-safes to friends who bought guns. Demanding that we lock up all our guns at night might eliminate some firearms accidents, but it will also increase the number of us who are unarmed when a robber breaks into our home. This is where a sense of proportion becomes critical since we defend ourselves more than 40 times for each firearms accident. We can’t solve a relatively small problem of firearms theft and accidents by creating a larger problem when we disarm the victims of violent crime.

The lie is that mandatory firearms storage saves lives. The truth is it costs lives.

Gun-control advocates want legal gun owners to pay a tax when a criminal uses a gun illegally. I noticed that prohibitionists never offer to pay us when an ordinary citizen uses a gun to defend themselves from harm. Guns in civilian hands save lives and reduce crime. Gun owners are subsidizing non-gun owners and saving the taxpayers money.

The lie is that gun-laws disarm criminals. The truth is that gun-control laws disarm law-abiding victims.

Let’s look at gun-control from another perspective. If safe storage of a firearm is a virtue, then shouldn’t gun-control advocates offer to buy small gun-safes for poor gun owners? If firearms training is so important, then why don’t gun-control politicians offer vouchers, subsidies, or tax deductions for firearms training? Why isn’t basic firearms safety taught in public schools? If avoidance and de-escalation are so important, then politicians should be subsidizing outdoor lighting, high-quality door locks, camera systems, and security alarms that help us avoid criminal encounters in the first place. They should, but they don’t. Their silence says a lot.

That tells me that one purpose of gun-control is to impose higher costs on gun owners rather than to save lives.

Gun-prohibition serves many purposes. Gun-prohibition lets elite government officials sell the right of armed defense back to our social elites. Gun-control also lets some people pretend that the government keeps them safe by disarming violent criminals. Let’s not forget that gun-control is a useful excuse for failing politicians in violent cities. None of those make us safer.

The lie is that guns cause violence. The truth is that criminals cause violence and government officials have failed to control violent criminals.

In example after example, gun-prohibitionists lied when they said that gun-control saves lives and made us safer. Unfortunately, too many judges honor the lie of gun-control as if it were the truth. Now I want you to look at the big picture and judge for yourself.

Please tell me what you see.


I read the gun-control bills so that you wouldn’t have to and then gave you the best thousand words I could find. Please share them with a friend. RM


2021 National Firearms Survey- “

Weekly news and analysis of armed defense- “

Lower fees mean more training- “

New York “safety certificate” costs lives “

Hawaii demands carrying a taser- “

Armed Defense is always a Matter of Time

February 2, 2022

I know that you’re way smarter than this, but I keep hearing new gun owners get bad advice. We hear it everywhere, from the news to the lunch counter. I’m not criticizing either source because I suspect they are simply repeating something they’ve heard. This is important because we can invent all sorts of complicated schemes as we plan our defense. It is easy to forget that time controls almost everything as we defend ourselves. Eventually, we remember that the bad guys arrive with a plan. We get to defend ourselves, our family, and our friends with what’s physically within reach and mentally within reach. Let’s look at some common suggestions and see how they measure against the clock.

“I only carry a firearm when I’m going someplace dangerous”

Maybe this means you’ll carry if you go to a convenience store or an ATM after sunset. That is good advice, but it is better advice to plan those trips for safer times of the day. The obvious question is how we will know if this is a dangerous place ahead of time. People have been attacked at every hour and in every location. It is dangerous for us to think the law of averages doesn’t apply to us. It is often too late to get our gun once the safe trip we planned turned out to be a dangerous journey after all. Part of our defense is admitting we are at risk.

Give the robbers what they want and just be a good witness, then call the police and let them handle it

Robbers do whatever gets them what they want in the shortest time. Criminals use violence because it works. The robbers don’t really care if that means issuing verbal threats, hitting us, stabbing us, or shooting us. We can hope that the criminals will be satisfied with what we hand them, but that is asking for mercy from the merciless. I’ve never heard a good reason to leave the degree of violence up to the robbers.

Being a good witness may sound smart, but we’re too busy to call for help while we’re being attacked. After the robbers have left, then we can go find someone who has a cell phone and ask them to call 911 for us because the robber took our phone. Since the robbers are long gone, this isn’t a priority call for the police.

Some police departments won’t even take a report if the robber took less than a thousand dollars and if we didn’t need medical treatment. If they do come out, the average police response time is a little over 11 minutes. The police will give us a case number and ask us to file the report in the next few days. The police usually catch up with the robber after he has committed about 20 crimes. If that schedule works for you then by all means be a “good witness”.

Calling yourself a “good witness” certainly feels better than saying you were a “good victim.” I think it is safer to be an armed defender.

“I have a gun up on the shelf in my bedroom so my family is safe.”

Feeling safe is different than being safe. An acquaintance in town got out of bed to find a stranger in her home. She screamed when she saw him and the stranger ran out the front door. I asked her how long it would take for her to get her gun off the top shelf, load the gun, and put the gun between herself and her attacker. We don’t have that time if the gun is two steps away and the robber is two steps behind usu. He can get us before we are able to stop him.

Now imagine we have our family at home. We hear glass breaking and we walk into the center of our home unarmed. Are we going to take our eyes off the intruders and turn our back on our family as we run to get our gun? Maybe that is the only option we’ve left ourself. If so, then let’s make that ugly decision now rather than freeze or stutter when we have intruders in our home.

Will you hesitate when you hear your family scream as you run toward your bedroom and your gun?

“You really should keep that unloaded for safety”

Should our self-defense gun be unloaded? That depends. Everybody has an opinion so please be careful where you take advise on armed defense. How many hundreds of hours of instruction has your advisor taken? How many self-defense incidents have they studied? How many classes have they taught?

Several very respected trainers said it clearly, “If a gun wasn’t dangerous then it wouldn’t be useful.” We are obligated to prudently manage that risk as we bring a gun into our home. Leaving an unloaded gun in the open is neither safe for children to be around nor is it effective for immediate defense. Fortunately, we have better choices.

We have centuries of experience with firearms. We learned how to carry guns on our body. We learned how to store personal firearms safely while they remain accessible for an authorized adult. We learned how to use small firearms for armed defense in our home and in public. We have access to that great body of knowledge, and how we teach today is different than the way we taught even a few years ago.

These are self-defense skills my grandmother could master, particularly because grandma was willing to ask questions and listen to the answers.


This article was first published at Second Call Defense with my permission. If you like it then please leave a comment, a rating, and share it with a friend. RM

Where You Used to go Armed in New York

January 31, 2022

There is a bill in the New York Assembly that makes most destinations into “gun-free” zones. I call it the “Prohibited Places” bill and you need to know the back story for this to make any sense at all.. even for the politicians.

It never made sense for honest citizens.

First, there is an important case before the US Supreme Court called NYSRPA v Bruen. That case asserts that New York State required ordinary people to get a permit to carry a firearm in public, and then denied those permits to ordinary citizens. It sounds like New York Democrats are conceding that they infringed on the right of self-defense and will lose the Bruen case. Maybe a liberal justice on the Supreme Court already gave them the text of that decision.

That brings us to Bill A8684 before the New York Assembly which “Prohibits firearms in certain locations, including but not limited to all forms of public transportation, large gatherings, and food and drink establishments.”

Since New York Democrats will soon have to issue carry permits, they want to make everywhere a gun free zone for everyone.

Bill A8684-

A person commits a class E felony if they-

“knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon the following locations:

“Any form of public transportation, including but not limited to railroads, ride sharing services, paratransit services, subways, buses, air travel, taxis or any other public transportation service;

“Food and drink establishments; or

“Large gatherings, which for the purposes of this section shall mean a gathering together of fifteen or more persons for amusement, athletic, civic, dining, educational, entertainment, patriotic, political, recreational, religious, social, or similar purposes.

I couldn’t tell if the usual suspects are above the law. Does this law apply to off duty law enforcement officers, judges, security guards, and politicians? Does it apply to retired cops, retire judges, and retired politicians? If the law makes us safer, then it should make them safer too. I can’t think of a reason why they should be exempt.

Bad things happen when uninformed lawmakers make rules for other people. According to this bill, mere possession of the gun is a crime. That means you can’t have a shotgun or rifle competition with more than 15 people on the premises. Most shooting ranges/gun stores became illegal if they let more than a handful of customers in the door at one time. This bill also outlaws most concealed carry classes. There went your 4H firearms safety class and your school’s rifle team.

We are all at risk when politicians make laws they don’t understand. It used to be legal to bring a firearm to the airport and declare that firearm with your checked luggage. Now, possession of that luggage is a crime.

Your church security team was just disarmed, and restaurant and bar owners were just disarmed at work. That is really bad since those businesses are already a frequent target for robbery. Was this law written to make robbery easier for the criminals?

It sounds like my Christmas party, my 4th of July celebration, and my birthday party would also be illegal. Fortunately that is easy to fix because I can celebrate those out of state. Not everyone is so lucky.

It would become a felony for us to use private ride sharing services while we transport our firearms. That means more of us will drive our own car or have to rent a car.

Possession is against the law, not carrying concealed.

I couldn’t help but notice that this law is an absolute gift to the thieves who are robbing taxi drivers, Uber drivers, and Lyft drivers every day. New York Democrats would be shocked, but some of those drivers would rather survive than be carjacked. The ride share drivers would like to retain their means of livelihood since they own the car rather than the car belonging to the ride share services. Now the driver commits a felony if he has his firearm in his own car as he works.

I wonder if the bill is written that way on accident or if those are the intended feature of the bill. Maybe the bill is simply a way to eliminate ride share services and force us back to unionized and regulated taxicabs.

Maybe this bill was written for the restaurants who catered to New York politicians. Sure, they wanted to put up “no-guns-allowed” signs, but then gun owners would go to restaurants where armed patrons were welcome. This bill is a way to get rid of that competition since all restaurants become “gun-free” zones. That is less far-fetched than it sounds since money talks in New York politics.

Sheriffs in up-state New York will hate it. Hunters could no longer take their cased firearms into a restaurant when they stop to eat. This will become the “steal my hunting gun” bill. Do New York Democrats think it a problem when criminals have more guns, or is that part of their plan?

The solution is straight forward. We have to hold the state liable for the damages it causes. The state must be forced to assume absolute liability for any and all injuries and damages we sustain because we were disarmed. New York Democrats say this law will save many lives so they should be eager to pay up.



Bill A8684- ”


Clinging to Delusions: Permitless Carry Opposition and Your Neighbor’s Freedom to Protect Himself – The Truth About Guns

January 31, 2022

I owe a thank you to Dan Zimmerman and “The Truth About Guns” for reprinting my article. RM

“Is more dangerous when honest men and women face criminals barehanded, and safer when the good guys are armed? That isn’t a hard question to answer. It’s easy to calculate the additional lives we’d save each year if a state allows honest people to carry guns in public.”

Source: Clinging to Delusions: Permitless Carry Opposition and Your Neighbor’s Freedom to Protect Himself – The Truth About Guns

Is the Gun Dangerous, or is it the Criminal?

January 28, 2022

The world is fascinatingly complex yet important truths are often simple. We shouldn’t take that too far since most simple answers are wrong or incomplete. That tension helps make life so interesting as we try to understand the world around us. For example, here is a simple description of a complex problem. We saw violent crime increase in the last few years. Should we try to keep violent criminals away from guns, or should we try to keep violent criminals away from us? Is the tool dangerous or is the person dangerous? Let’s look at both ideas and see if there are any simple answers to be found.

When we look for simple solutions we see that criminals use guns to commit violence. That sounds like the case is closed but there is more evidence to uncover. If we keep looking then we find that innocent victims also use firearms to stop violence. That means the answers are not black and white but shades of gray.

When we look at all firearms we see that a vanishingly small fraction of the guns owned by civilians were used in violent crime each year (1 in 1400). Now we look deeper and find out that honest citizens used a firearm for self-defense over 1.6 million times a year. That is more people than live in New Hampshire or Hawaii. Each year, more people use a firearm for self-defense than the population of Wyoming and Vermont combined. Armed defense is common.

Proportions matter when we’re looking at shades of gray. We use a firearm for self-defense six times more often than a firearm is used in violent crime (5.98). Good guys with guns save lives. That is both simple and true.

Is safety that simple?

Despite the facts that guns overwhelmingly stop crime, New York State passed a law to let the public sue gun manufacturers because criminals used a “dangerous” gun that the manufacturers released into the public. That obviously misses the target of reducing crime. Either those New York lawmakers got the facts wrong or they didn’t care about honest citizens who defend themselves. Politics is obviously complex.

When we look at how criminals behaved, we see that most violent crimes (85%) didn’t involve a firearm at all. Said another way, if we would magically disarm everyone, that wouldn’t hamper the vast majority of violent criminals. Instead, disarming the innocent victims makes it easier for the criminals and would lead to more violence.

Young men commit most violent crimes. Young men are stronger than old men, and far stronger and faster than most women. Disarming women and the elderly makes them much more vulnerable to violent criminals.

Few of us want that. Disarming the good guys hurts honest citizens who want to protect their family. That isn’t an abstract theory, but common practice as we use a gun for self defense over a million times a year.

Let’s step away from the soundbites. Look at human nature instead and think of the people you know. Some of the people you know are completely trustworthy while others are not. Some resist any temptation while others can’t be trusted with a penny. We are not all the same.

When it comes to violence, some of us are a danger to others and most of us are not. It is the person who is a danger to others rather than the tools they use. Again, that is both simple and true.

Violent criminals are not like us. Most of us will never commit a violent crime, yet we know that a few people will victimize others. Most murders are committed by a few hit men in drug gangs. 64 percent of felons who served time for a violent crime were re-arrested. 41 percent of violent criminals were later re-convicted of subsequent crimes. 34 percent of them were re-incarcerated. Some people practice a life of violent crime.

Shades of gray matter, and a violent criminal is 500 times more likely to re-offend than a firearm is likely to be used in a violent crime. In contrast, firearms manufacturers built a product that we overwhelmingly use to save lives in armed defense. If we’re looking for people who increase the risks for all of us, then let’s sue New York politicians, judges, and prosecutors who put dangerous recidivist-criminals back on our streets. Now that will save lives


I gave you 600 words for free. Share them with a friend, and please give me a rating and a comment in return. RM


New York law to sue gun manufacturers- “

Recidivism of violent criminals- “

US State population- “

UCR-FBI violent crime with firearms and without- “

Frequency of armed defense- “

Same Fear, Different States- Constitutional Carry and Letting Our Neighbors Go Armed.

January 26, 2022

It is more dangerous when honest men and women face criminals barehanded, and safer when the good guys are armed. That isn’t hard to understand. It is easy to calculate the additional lives we’d save each year if a state allows honest people to carry guns in public. I can explain it in a minute. I will, but the real mystery is why we’re still talking about fantasy-problems while violent criminals are killing our neighbors. We’re acting as if our bad dreams were more real than the bodies with chalk marks around them. Part of that problem is political. Politicians appeal to our fantasies and we’re suckers for that. Politicians also suck-up to anti-gun billionaires to get campaign contributions. Ultimately, voters like us are the problem when we hide behind sound-bite solutions. Back in the real world, disarming our neighbors costs lives.

Who disarmed the victim?

When you take even the shallowest look at violence then you notice that an armed attacker usually overpowers an unarmed victim. Criminals may break the laws but they are not stupid. They choose the tools that work. To quote one thug, ‘Guns and knives make people so generous.’

Robbers sometimes threaten to shoot us even when they don’t have a gun. Criminals only use guns in one-seventh of violent crimes. Unfortunately, violent criminals wait until they have an advantage in strength, in number, or in surprise. Rather than struggle with the insoluble problem of knowing if the robber’s threat is real, the real solution is for good men and women to go armed.

We don’t need clever calculation to know how many lives are saved when the victims are armed. We know that about 1.7 million legal gun owners use a firearm in self-defense each year. We know how many people live in each state and already have their carry permits. We know the rate of violent crime in each state, and we learned that about 30 percent of adults will carry concealed if the carry permit is optional. We even know how often people with their carry permits actually go armed in public. We know what happens because we asked, and because 21 states already have a form of permit-optional concealed carry.

In most states, we’re talking about saving thousands of lives a year. We can argue about the clearest way to explain the answer, but the calculations only take junior-high-school math.

In contrast, our fantasies about guns are complicated. We imagine that all kinds of things might happen if we let our neighbors go armed without first a getting a permission slip from the state.

  • We imagine that the police will keep us safe. We ignore that the police ask their own families to go armed because the world is dangerous.
  • We imagine that the police won’t be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys unless we have a state permit in our pocket. We ignore that the police seldom know the history of the people they stop on the street, or the identity of the passengers in the cars they stop.
  • We imagine that our neighbors will act crazy with a gun. We ignore that civilians who legally carry a firearm in public are even more law abiding and non-violent than the police.
  • We imagine that we only need more laws to keep us safe. We ignore that we have over 23 thousand firearms regulations today and criminals ignore our laws.
  • We imagine there are no guns in the world except for the police and criminals. We ignore that concealed is concealed, and one-in-a-dozen adults in public are legally carrying today.
  • We imagine that our laws disarm the bad guys but leave the good guys free to protect themselves. We ignore that making it harder for the good guys to get a gun means more innocent victims are disarmed when they are attacked by criminals.

We cling to our fantasies even though they cost lives. We feel virtuous as we imagine an ideal world without evil or violence. We want safety without effort. We want our safety to be someone else’s responsibility. Clinging to those fantasies leaves us vulnerable in more ways than one.

Politicians are eager to sell us something for nothing. All the politician has to do is put more ink-on-paper and send out a press release about more gun-control. It is the politicians who have their own security details. Most politicians are exempt from their own gun-laws. It is the politicians who get large campaign contributions from anti-gun billionaires.

I have a problem with that because we are the ones who pay the price. Demanding that our neighbors live according to a gun-free fantasy puts our neighbors at risk. Sometimes it gets our neighbors injured or killed.

I believe we should live and let live. Think what you will, but please don’t use the law to chain your neighbors to your gun-free fantasy. Leave your neighbors free to take care of themselves. That is exactly what permit-optional carry laws do.

Contact your legislators and set your neighbors free.


I gave you 800 words. Please share them with a friend if you found them useful.
Ratings and comments are nice too. RM

Sources are listed here- “

Why Our Florida Legislators Need Help with Constitutional Carry

January 26, 2022

The Florida Legislature might consider a Constitutional Carry, or permit-optional bill. That would let citizens with a clean criminal record carry firearms in public without first getting a state permit. The only people who can legally carry without a permit are the same ones who could legally get their permit. That sounds simple enough, but it isn’t. Any discussion of guns and violence is complicated. Firearms are both a tool of criminal violence and a tool of self-defense. We are not machines so we come with opinions and fears. We can talk about facts but we also have to look at our own glib answers. The great news is that we can save thousands of lives each year in Florida by letting honest citizens go armed.

Before we dive in we should agree on a few simple truths.

First, honest citizens like us are used to following the rules. Criminals are not like that. One of the first things law enforcement officers learn is that criminals don’t obey the law.

Second, violent crime happens and it can happen to us. If you think about it, you probably know someone who was the victim of a violent crime. In Florida, more than 80 thousand of us are victims of violent crime each year.

Third, we can and we do protect ourselves and the people we love. In the US each year, about 1.7 million of us defend ourselves with a firearm until the police arrive.

Rules- We want to pass more laws each time there is a violent crime. More laws let us feel in control, and politicians are eager to give us what we want. We have over 23 thousand firearms regulations in the US already. Sadly, more ink-on-paper often puts us in greater danger.

It is comforting to pretend that an armed criminal will go to jail for a long time. We feel better after passing laws that say a criminal can’t carry a gun on the street, near schools, or on Tuesday afternoon. Please read rule one and rule two if you think that stops violent criminals. Violent crime happens and ink-on-paper doesn’t stop it.

We imagine that the police will protect us. We forget that cops ask their family to go armed because the world is dangerous.

Policemen admit they can’t stop violence and they want their family armed.

Violence- In Florida, violent crime happens over 81-thousand times each year. That works out to a little more than 200 robberies, rapes, assaults, and murders each day. That happens every day and everywhere. If you don’t know a victim of violent crime then you are extraordinarily lucky. It is a bad plan to count on luck to protect us from violence.

The more of us who can stop violent crime the better for the victims and the worse for the violent criminals. That is why letting honest citizens carry guns saves lives. Each year in Florida, we use a firearm in self-defense about 100-thousand times. Our armed neighbors save a lot of lives. They could save even more.

Talking about facts is easy, but now we have to talk about the fantasies we have about violence and safety. It is frightening that some people will hurt us. It is frightening that more laws won’t stop them. It is frightening that criminals carry guns no matter how many regulations we heap on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens.

We’d like to imagine that we’re already safe. We don’t see guns in public except on the police and on criminals. We forget that one-in-a-dozen adults in public are legally carrying concealed. The risk of honest citizens carrying a concealed firearm is microscopic compared to what criminals do.

We feel more secure clinging to the familiar fantasy of a benign world than taking an unfamiliar step that actually makes us safer. For some of us, taking control of our own safety is terrifying.

Our fear of violence has nothing to do with letting law abiding citizens with a clean criminal record carry a concealed firearm in public without a state permit. Gun-laws control the behavior of law-abiding citizens, not of criminals.

It is dangerous when we relieve public anxiety by implementing public policy that doesn’t work.

We’d like to think that we can save lives by demanding that honest gun owners take a safety class before they can carry a gun in public. That certainly sounds good. It might reduce accidents, but it didn’t work the way we’d hoped.

We found that fewer honest people go armed when we make concealed carry permits more difficult and expensive. Being photographed, fingerprinted, going to the police to take a test, paying a hundred-dollar fee, and taking a firearms course was enough to disarm about 2.7 million Floridians. We inadvertently disarmed the good guys who later became disarmed victims. Our well-intended caution cost more lives than it saved.

The good news is that our neighbors are a lot like us. We want to do the right thing. We use a firearm for defense several thousand times for each fatal firearms accident.

Disarming the good guys is dangerous.

We can’t solve a smaller problem by creating a larger one.

We imagine that the police won’t be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys unless we have a state permit in our pocket. We ignore that the police seldom know the history of the people they stop on the street, or the identity of the passengers in the cars they stop.

The comforting news is that safety is closer than we think. Citizens who legally carry concealed firearms are extremely law abiding and non-violent. Armed citizens also make a difference. About one-out-of-11 adults have used a firearm in self-defense. We feel responsible to do the right thing. After they passed carry-permit-optional laws in other states, the number of people taking firearms training actually went up.

The reason is obvious after you think about it. We spent more of our money on training classes when the state stopped taking our money to pay for a carry permit.

We imagine that armed people would get in a deadly fight over a parking place, but that isn’t what we see. We found that individuals who legally carry a firearm in public are more likely to obey the law than even the police. Maybe you expected that and maybe that fact surprised you like it surprised me.

I’m not exactly sure how many lives the permit-optional law will save in Florida. I looked at the crime rate and at the number of adults who have their concealed carry permit today.

 If a carry permit were optional, then each year an additional four-thousand citizens would be armed when they were attacked.

 That doesn’t mean that four-thousand more people would shoot and kill the bad guys. That almost never happens. The criminal runs away when he sees an armed victim. We want more of that. To give us some perspective, four-thousand more cases of armed defense is more than all the lives lost on Florida’s roads each year. That is a lot of lives we can save.. and we should.

That is why our legislators need our help. They know a lot, but even the smartest people don’t know what they don’t know. It is impossible for our representatives to know everything that we know because we have so much more experience than they do.

We can teach our Florida legislators about gun owners and carrying a firearm in public when a permit is optional. You can contact your legislators here. 



2021 firearms survey “

One out of a dozen go armed “

Criminals ignore gun stores and gun shows “

Armed citizens are non-violent “

Armed citizens are safer than the police “

Violent crime by state “

Concealed carry permits in Florida- “

Number of fatal traffic accidents-“

Judge demonstrates absurdity of “intermediate scrutiny” in 2A challenges – Bearing Arms

January 25, 2022

One judge mocked the 9th circuit and called out their absurd decisions. RM

“There is so much flexibility in deciding whether anything short of an outright permanent ban (which nobody is dumb enough to enact anymore) places a “severe burden” on the Second Amendment. We can always point to stuff that isn’t banned in concluding this particular regulation isn’t a “substantial burden.” And second, once we’ve concluded that a challenged regulation does not place a “substantial burden on Second Amendment rights,” it’s really game over. A regulation that we’ve already determined does not substantially burden the Second Amendment can be upheld easy-peasy under our watered-down intermediate scrutiny test.”

Source: Judge demonstrates absurdity of “intermediate scrutiny” in 2A challenges – Bearing Arms

Nebraska Politicians Need Our Help to Learn About Constitutional Carry.

January 19, 2022

We know a lot about people. We also know a little bit about gun owners and politicians. We run into trouble when some of what we think we know is wrong. You’d think that making some gun owners take a firearms safety class would make everyone safer. We imagine that demanding we have a state license before we can carry a firearm in public would make all of us safer too. We’d be wrong and now know we know it. When we think about it, we discover that wisdom is about more than the truth we think we know.

Here is where the trouble starts. We put together an amazing number of facts and then think we know how other people will behave. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn’t. We imagine that telling people to take a firearms safety class before they carry a firearm in public would make everyone safer. It turns out that disarming the good guys cost more lives than were saved by inconveniencing the criminals. We disarmed the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators.

Our experience can give us wisdom or leave us with mistaken prejudices.

Having honest people carry a concealed firearm in public is a good thing. It is a fact that most armed individuals tend to avoid conflict rather than crate it. It is a fact that armed individuals use a firearm to stop the life-threatening situations they can’t avoid. About one out of 11 adults have used a firearm for self-defense. Across the US, about 45 hundred of us will defend ourselves with a firearm today. About one-out-of-a-dozen adults in public are carrying concealed. Yes, honest men and women go armed and protect themselves and their family. We don’t see it because concealed is concealed.

We imagine that demanding a permit to carry in public makes us safer because it disarms the belligerent spouse. We forget that the carry law also makes it harder for the victim of domestic abuse to go armed. We imagine that gun laws disarm criminals. In fact criminals break the law and don’t bother to apply for a permit. The sad fact is that our gun laws disarm more victims than criminals. Too often we create our “truth” by remembering the facts that fit our prejudices.

We know that fewer people apply for their carry permits when we make it more expensive and time consuming. That is a clear case where our common sense is correct.

We know that crime and violence are real. Forget the “truth” we know from TV and movies. From the latest FBI data, we know that almost six thousand citizens of Nebraska are victims of violent crime each year. That number might be optimistic because we’ve seen violence increase since that data came out. More of the victims of violent crime can defend themselves if a carry permit is optional.

I ran the numbers. I looked at the crime rate and the number of Nebraskans who have their permit today. An additional 560 Nebraska citizens would defend themselves with a firearm each year if a carry permit were optional. That doesn’t mean that 560 more people shoot and kill the bad guy. That almost never happens. The great news is that bad guys decide that attacking an armed woman was a mistake. He runs away, and we want more of that. To put it into perspective, 560 more cases of armed defense is over twice the number of lives lost on Nebraska roads each year. That is a lot of lives we can save.

We might imagine that armed people could get in a deadly fight over a parking place, but that is neither true nor a fact. We found out that individuals feel the moral weight of being armed. They want to do the right thing. They try to avoid conflict. A surprising fact is that people who legally carry a firearm in public are the most law abiding and non-violent group of people we can find on the planet. Let me say that again another way; individuals who legally carry a firearm in public are more likely to obey the law than even the police. Maybe that fact fits with what you expected, and maybe it surprised you too.

One little known fact is that Nebraska citizens can already carry in public without a license.. by carrying that loaded firearm openly in a holster. Many of us would rather go about disarmed than carry a firearm for everyone to see it on our hip. We have to be careful because some Nebraska cities outlawed open carry. The sad news is that leaving our gun at homes means we have to face a criminal with our bare hands. That means more good guys, and good gals, get hurt.

We also discovered that individuals take more firearms training classes when the carry permit is optional. That sounds surprising, but only at first. It turns out that we budget a few hundred dollars for our safety. We spend more of that money on training classes when the state isn’t taking our money to pay for a permit. Our neighbors are a lot like us. We want to know how to defend ourselves responsibly.. so we go to class and learn.

The problem we face is that some politicians think their wisdom is real. They confuse their “truth” with the facts. They need our help to learn about gun owners and carrying a firearm in public. We have to educate them about Constitutional Carry.

You can contact your legislator here. They need our help to learn the facts and the truth.


I didn’t have time to write a short article, so I wrote a long one. I gave you the best 800 words I could find. Please share them with a friend. RM


2021 firearms survey “

One out of a dozen go armed “

Criminals ignore gun stores and gun shows “

Armed citizens are non-violent “

Armed citizens are safer than the police “

Violent crime by state, table 5 ” “

Indiana Senators Need our Help to Pass Constitutional Carry

January 17, 2022

Life goes on, and we have work to do. The sun comes up and the sun goes down. Some politicians would have us believe that they did that; that the sun wouldn’t come up without them. In fact, politicians only make laws. Sometimes that helps us and sometimes it doesn’t. Politicians cost lives when they get in the way of the things we need to do.

In the US, we defend ourselves with a personal firearm about 45-hundred times a day. In Indiana, we also have about 25 thousand violent crimes each year. Indiana citizens defended themselves with a firearm.. you guessed it, about 25-thousand times a year too. That is good. Most of us want to see the victims of violent crimes defend themselves rather than see the victims injured. Most of us want that, but not all of us. Sometimes politicians get in the way.

It isn’t surprising that it is easier to defend yourself if you have a gun. That is less true for men in their twenties, but particularly true for women and older citizens. Unfortunately, Indiana requires that we get a state permit before we can carry a firearm outside our home. We have to fill out a form online and submit our fingerprints. That costs 135 dollars for a lifetime permit. One interesting fact is that if you have your permit, you do not have to inform a police officer that you are carrying. It isn’t required, but officers appreciate it. Of course criminals don’t do any of that when they go armed.

We’ve learned a few things about people who have their carry permits. We found that fewer people apply when the permit costs more and take longer to get. If you have a criminal record you can’t get a permit anyway, and criminals don’t bother with one.

We also discovered that people like firearms instruction. Gun owners take more firearms training classes  when the carry permit is optional. Paying the state for a permit takes money away from firearms instruction.

Permit-optional carry makes a difference because fewer honest people are victimized when they are armed. With a permit-optional law in Indiana, about 1600 more honest citizens would be armed each year when they are attacked by violent criminals. To put that number in perspective, that is about twice the number of people who die on Indiana roads each year. That is a lot of lives to save. It is worth saving them. 

Unfortunately, politicians are in the way. The Indiana house passed a permit-optional bill for the second
time. The bill died in the state Senate last year. Now, the bill is back. Unfortunately, some Indiana senators don’t trust honest citizens to do the right thing unless they pay the state first. Facts are on our side so we can ask them to show us their facts, to show us their data.

Unfortunately some senators are in love with ink on paper and think that criminals will obey their laws. Some senators only want to pass a bill if they get credit for it. Now we have to call them so it is in the senators interest to let us save our own lives. It is only a phone call after all. I know you have a lot to do, but be polite as long as you can.

Politicians cost lives when they get in the way of the things we need to do. Life goes on, and we have work to do.

Hint- Your government officials are listed here.

I gave you 600 words for free. Please share them with a friend. RM











Armed Defense, the Lives We Save, and the Lives We Live

January 9, 2022

Lots of us own guns. We also carry those guns legally in public. That is critically important because concealed carriers save a lot of lives. You knew most of that already, but there are a few things we keep hidden from you. Every day there are over 17 million of us legally carrying concealed in public. That happens seven days a week, with no days off. We save thousands of lives a day.

You already know that using a firearm is serious business. The law says an innocent person can only defend themselves with lethal force if death or great bodily injury are imminent and unavoidable. In plain language that means someone might go to the hospital or the morgue unless you present your firearm to stop the bad guy right now. If you didn’t know that, then you probably assumed something very close to it. The gun is a last resort, and we only threaten to take a life if an innocent person is about to lose theirs.

Guns and Bandages Image from Guns.Com

What you might not know is that one-out-of-11 adults alive in the US today used a firearm in self-defense. You might not know that honest gun owners legally use their guns to save lives over 4500 times a day. The great news is that they didn’t have to shoot 4500 people. Far from it. Most bad guys don’t want to be shot, and that is why the bad guys ran away when these defenders presented their firearms. In fact, we discharged a gun in self-defense a little more than 800 times a day. Even then, we only had to shoot and kill the bad guy a little more than once a day. That says that guns are almost always used to save lives rather than take them. That good news shouldn’t come as a surprise. That is what we’d expect from our neighbors who own guns.

What does it mean to save 4500 lives a day? Honest gun owners save more lives than are lost each day to heart disease, to cancer, and to all accidents combined. Each year, gun owners save twice as many lives as are taken by chronic lower respiratory diseases (read emphysema from smoking), by strokes, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease, flu and pneumonia, and by suicide. That is an amazing number of lives that were saved by ordinary people like you.

The reason honest gun owners do so much good is that they are like you. They are everywhere and they happened to be in the right place at the right time. They were willing and able to stop a threat and save lives.

Concealed carry is common. The number of concealed carriers is comparable to the number of office and administrative support workers. There are more concealed carriers in public than there are healthcare, education, and library workers combined. On average, one-out-of-a-dozen adults in public is legally carrying every day.

Their guns may be hidden, but with that many armed citizens on the streets we would already know if gun owners were a problem. In fact, they are a solution; time after time they stop a dangerous threat until the police arrive. That isn’t everything, but to 1.7 million of us a year, it was desperately important to be armed.

I gave you the best 500 words I could find. If those words made you think, then please share them with a friend and leave a rating. RM


Concealed carriers in public, and the number of armed defenses each year- “

Leading causes of death in the USA- “

List of common occupations- “

Facts and Fantasies about Guns and Gun-Control

January 6, 2022

The gun-control lobby started it. Then, the legacy media joined in and told us that guns and gun owners were dangerous. Their solution is to register and regulate guns and gun owners. They claim their gun-control will somehow, someday, take the guns out of the hands of criminals. If you only read their words then you might be persuaded. Let’s fill in the facts that the gun-prohibitionists left out. Gun-control laws do more harm than good.

armed defenders save lives

Honest gun owners use a firearm to stop a violent crime about 1.7 million times a year. That is a little over 45-hundred defensive-guns-uses a day. That massive benefit overshadows all the other problems we have with the criminal use of firearms. Legally justified armed defense is dozens of times more frequent than the suicides and accidents we see with firearms. It is hard to overestimate the importance of armed defense. Disarming honest gun owners in the hope of disarming criminals is a disaster since armed citizens do so much good.

Guns are common and persistent. Estimates put it just under 400 million firearms legally owned by over 80 million adults in the US. I have guns that are decades old. My friends have guns that are older than a century. Guns do not go away with time.

Criminals have lots of guns too. Criminals stole over 13 thousand guns from gun stores last year. One number I saw said that about 300 thousand guns were stolen from homes and cars each year. That works out to one gun stolen out of each 1300 guns we own so I’m surprised the number isn’t higher. Before you think we can stop criminals from getting guns, consider that the Mexican army lost a third of the guns it bought from the US military and US manufacturers. That dwarfs the 3 thousand guns the Obama administration sold to Mexican drug lords. The Mexican military also lost guns it bought from Germany, Australia, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Belgium. That is where the drug lords get the guns they use in Mexico.. and in the USA.

The marketplace for gun and ammunition is worldwide. Most countries have domestic firearms manufacturers. That means new sources of guns are only a few days away.

Guns and ammunition are easy to make. My friends reload ammunition for fun. It is a growing sport to make your own guns. Getting a few gun parts is easy for the drug-gangs in our inner cities. Compared to transporting millions of illegal aliens and billions of dollars of drugs across the border each year, moving a few ounces of steel and plastic is simple. If you can make private submarines to transport drugs, then the drug organizations can make all the guns they want. That means we’re not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals with ink-on-paper.

Keep in mind that only about 8 percent of violent crimes are committed with a firearm. Disarming violent criminals won’t stop the 92 percent of the violent crimes that are committed without a gun.

Gun ownership is widespread, but violence is localized. The good news is that most counties won’t see a single murder this year. About half of all murders happen in just two percent of our counties. Despite the localized problems of drug gangs, anti-gun activists and some politicians want to pass more gun laws for all of us. I wish it were that easy to make the world better.

In reality, regulations have to be exquisitely tailored so they do more good than harm. For example, we could ask for a mental health exam before we bought a gun in the hope of reducing suicide. If we eliminated all suicides with a gun, but also reduce the number of defensive-gun-uses by just 1.4 percent (1-in-70), then we’ve cost lives rather than saved them.

We looked, and sadly we never saw gun-control reduce the number of suicides. We forget that delaying a gun purchase also means that more victims of domestic abuse faced their attackers unarmed.

Protect your family

We could demand that all guns be locked up in the hope of eliminating firearm accidents. If we decreased the number of armed defenders who reach their guns in time by only 0.03 percent (1-in-3500), then we’ve actually cost more lives rather than saved lives. Imagine that the elderly woman living alone struggles to open her gun safe late at night and becomes a victim rather than a defender. We already balance risks and benefits for our family.

You can’t fix a small problem by creating a larger one.

It is easy to forget that we have over 23-thousand firearms regulations today. Criminals are no more likely to follow new rules than they were to follow the old ones. We already lock up our guns to keep them safe. We’re wonderfully reluctant to shoot an intruder. Because armed defense is so common, it is insanely hard for gun-regulations to do more good than they do harm.

The sad news is that we have too much gun-control already. We have more assaults, robberies, rapes, and murders because the victims were disarmed by our gun laws. Mandatory waiting periods cost lives because they disarm the victims, not the criminals. The cold truth is we’d save more lives if we reduced the fees and the number of classroom hours required for honest gun owners to get their carry permits.

I gave you 900 words and a lot of thought. Please leave a comment, a rating, and share these ideas with a friend. RM


September 15th article by Giffords “

USA Today- Gun owners are extremists- December 29 “

Armed Americans threaten Democracy by Newsweek, December 31- “

New York Daily News- January 3, 2022- “

National Firearms survey- “

Stolen guns from FFL’s “

REPORT: Mexican Army Loses 30% of Weapons Purchased from U.S.

January 5, 2022

So much for the sad fantasy that disarming honest citizens will somehow disarm criminals, either in the US or in Mexico. RM

“Mexico’s Army (SEDENA) is losing approximately 30 percent of weapons purchased from the U.S.. The report comes as Mexico’s federal government litigates against firearm manufacturers in a U.S. court, blaming them for the raging cartel violence..

“Mexico’s military has also allegedly misplaced weapons bought from Germany, Australia, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Belgium.”

Source: REPORT: Mexican Army Loses 30% of Weapons Purchased from U.S.

Repost- Armed Defense is always a Matter of Time

January 5, 2022

Second Call Defense liked this article so much that they wanted to share it with their customers. They let me share it with you as well. Here is the introduction, but the full article is on their site for now. RM

I know that you’re way smarter than this, but I keep hearing new gun owners get bad advice. We hear it everywhere, from the news to the lunch counter. I’m not criticizing either party because I suspect they are simply repeating something they’ve heard. This is important because we can invent all sorts of complicated schemes as we plan our defense. It is easy to forget that time controls almost everything as we defend ourselves. Eventually, we remember that the bad guys arrive with a plan. We get to defend ourselves, our family, and our friends with what’s physically within reach and mentally within reach. Let’s look at some common suggestions and see how they measure against the clock.

“I only carry a firearm when I’m going someplace dangerous”

Maybe this means you’ll carry if you go to a convenience store or an ATM after sunset. That is good advice, but it is better advice to plan those trips for safer times of the day.
(600 more words at the link below)

Guest Appearance on Meet the Pressers (Sep. 2021)

December 26, 2021

I talked with Matt Mallory and guest host Amanda Suffecool on Meet the Pressers. We talked about armed defense and self-defense training in the real world. This episode runs a little over 30 minutes. I hope you enjoy watching as much as I enjoyed visiting with Matt and Amanda. If you like the show, then please subscribe.

End of the Year Roundup on Gun Freedom Radio 2021

December 26, 2021

It is always fun to talk with Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio. I was on Cheryl’s Year-in-Review Episode that was both a look back at 2021 and a look forward into 2022. We talked about how common gun ownership is, and about the public shift away from gun control. Gun Freedom Radio has high quality production, so they make each episode available on YouTube, on GunStreamer, and in an audio-only version.

Cheryl teases me that I’d write an article while she was doing her introduction. I teased her that if she had me on more often then we wouldn’t have to discard so much material. 😉 Cheryl reminded me that I’ve been invited on Gun Freedom Radio 14 times. I am honored to have such great friends.

Gun Freedom Radio is on my podcast download list. It should be on yours too.

Gun Freedom Radio

Repost- A Video Interview Series for New Gun Owners- Guns 101 (2020)

December 25, 2021

The surge in new gun ownership started in 2020. That is when the Polite Society Podcast recorded a series about gun ownership, gun use, and gun safety for new gun owners. This is a great place to start if you brought a gun into your home this Christmas.

We’ve been using and learning about firearms for several centuries. I want you to learn from our experience rather than have you make loud mistakes on your own. The first episode is below. The playlist on Youtube has 95 short segments. Each is about 10 minutes long.

Welcome to the gun culture. Please stay safe and have fun.

Guest Appearance on Gun Owners Radio

December 25, 2021

I went on Gun Owners Radio a few days ago. They released the episode yesterday. Thank you to Rich Yumul and Michael Schwartz for having me on the show. I talked about the new information we have about how common gun ownership, and gun use, really are.

I suggest you give Jake Wiskerchen a listen as well. He is on the show before I came on and he has so much good advice and insights into mental health and firearms. Jake and Mike Soldini are the dynamic duo at Walk the Talk America. I recommend their podcast and their organization.

Mike came on at 9:47 and I came on at 34:55.

Is Mandatory Firearms Liability Insurance a Liability or an Asset?

December 24, 2021

Anti-gun politicians in New York are proposing mandatory liability insurance for some firearms owners. Let me give you the pitch and let’s see how you react. Yes, this is a test of sorts, so you might want to have some coffee before you dive in.

The theory is that honest gun owners cause crime. The law holds gun owners liable for everything that happens. Gun stores and gun manufacturers are held liable too. They are even liable for the actions of criminals who steal guns until the guns are reported stolen. I didn’t see any first party indemnification, so if you try and stop a robber who is stealing your guns and he shoots you with one of your own guns then you might be held liable. To sum up the theory, society would be safer because criminals will be disarmed after honest gun owners lock up their guns. The politicians say we would finally have peace on our streets, and who could object to that.

Now let’s look at the other side of the argument. Honest gun owners do a phenomenal job of keeping their guns away from children. Accidental deaths with a firearm are rare with only one out of 350 accidental deaths being from a firearm. So we have some perspective on the problem, let me add that an accidental death with a firearm happens a little more than once a day. Now consider that armed defense is frequent rather than rare. Honest citizens use a gun for armed defense a little over 4500 times a day. If we make guns less accessible will that save lives or cost lives? The answer isn’t clear, but armed defense is about 3500 times more common than a lethal firearms accident.

We have to think about this carefully. It is true that we might reduce the number of accidental deaths. If we could eliminated almost every single gun accident then we might save one life a day. In contrast, if those storage and liability requirements make it harder for us to defend ourselves by just 0.02% (1/4500) then we might lose an additional life every day. That is a step backwards. In order to actually do good, these laws must first do very little harm.

Now let’s be realistic. A new law won’t eliminate every accidental death from firearms. It would take a miracle, but maybe we could cut the number of accidents in half. We have to do that without interfering in one out of 7 thousand defensive uses of a firearm or else we’re going to cost more lives than we save. That says that liability and storage laws have to be tailored fit us exactly or they will do more harm than good. The law has to stop the small harm that is done with firearms by honest citizens without reducing the great benefit guns provide. We have to stop gun accidents and thefts without making guns even a little less useful and available.

One size fits all?

I’ve never seen such a law, and neither has anyone else. How many more co-eds will have to go unarmed as they walk to their job off campus? How many more women will have to leave their gun behind and face an ex-boyfriend with their bare hands? The politicians won’t say. It says a lot about politicians who propose laws like these that have such large and obvious flaws.

This also tells us a lot about gun owners in the United States today. You know the situation in your home. You know who is in your home and who is at risk from erratic behavior. You already do an extraordinary job of protecting your family from all the risks they face, not just the risks of a gun accident.

I’ve seen parents sell their guns when they had children, and I’ve seen parents buy a gun once they had children. You have already balanced your risks and benefits and found the solution that saves the most lives. You’ve built a solution that fits your situation rather than having to suffer under a law that forces one solution on everybody.

Perhaps I can explain that a little better. Most firearms “accidents” are from two sources. The first is from people who are forbidden to have guns. They can’t incriminate themselves by having a gun-safe in their apartment. They can’t store their gun in a holster. They stuff their gun under a mattress or under a pillow. They hide their gun under the front step. That is where kids find it. The second type of accident involves drinking or drugs. Neither of those sources are likely to be reduced by firearms liability and safe storage legislation. Criminals will break our laws and addicts will remain addicts.

It is extraordinarily arrogant of a politician to say they know our situation better than we do. It is boastful to say that secure storage schemes and liability insurance will actually save lives. I note that these laws don’t apply to law enforcement officers or other government employees. The reason is that cops know guns save lives.

We have over 23 thousand firearms regulation in the US today. It is easy for a politician to make promises, but few of their promises were delivered after the legislation was signed. In fact, we manage our lives very well and bad laws cost lives. When it comes to more gun regulations, we will pay all of the costs and receive few of the promised benefits.


I gave you 800 words and a lot of thought. If you learned something new, then please share the article with a friend. RM



Repost- Here Are the Facts About Spikes in Crime That Sen. Dick Durbin Didn’t Want Me to Share

December 22, 2021

Amy Swearer is exactly right. Refusing to prosecute violent crime gives us more violent crime. Read her testimony that Democrat Senators tried to hide. RM

“It is truly astounding that rogue Chicago prosecutors have reached a point where they will release suspects who fired dozens of rounds into a residential neighborhood during an unprecedented spike in homicide and, with a straight face, tell the community, “It’s fine, they only shot at each other.” Which at the same time tells those who perpetrate violent gun crimes, “It’s fine, as long as you shoot at each other.””

Source: Here Are the Facts About Spikes in Crime That Sen. Dick Durbin Didn’t Want Me to Share

Guest on The Loaded Mic with Dan Wos

December 18, 2021

Thank you Dan Wos for talking about the armed good guys who carry every day. It is one thing to suspect they are there. Now we know millions of us carry in public every day because we asked them.

My segment starts at 33:50.

%d bloggers like this: