Skip to content

Repost- Guns are Saving Lives in Brazil:  The Rise of Gun Rights

July 17, 2019

An interesting article by Kevin Murphy. It looks like we’re already seeing a reduction in violent crime after Brazil allows its citizens to defend themselves.

“No matter how many polls conducted, thought experiments performed or billions of run through computerized models, all these meant nothing if real world data suggest otherwise. Today, we’ll explore Brazil which recently loosen its restrictive gun policy to reduce crime.”

Source: Guns are Saving Lives in Brazil – The Rise of Gun Rights

Socialism Means Different Things to Different Democrats

July 17, 2019

Socialism sells expectation rather than proven performance. The new workers paradise is always one government regulation away. As sold by Democrats today, that undefined socialism means different things to different people.

  • To the government employee, socialism means higher pay, earlier retirement, and a larger pension.
  • To the union worker, socialism means less competition from companies in free states.
  • To the student who took classes at an expensive university and got an unmarketable major, socialism means someone else pays his student debts.
  • To the politically connected religious organization, socialism means spending someone else’s money and the blending of church and state.
  • To the Democrat politician and party functionaries, socialism means a new flood of “campaign” contributions.

The socialism we’re sold is never the socialism we get. By definition, socialism means the government regulates the economy. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and socialist politicians know that people will pay a lot to stay alive. Socialism means we have to ask government for permission for everything.

Under socialism, we ask permission to work for someone or to quit our job. We ask permission to hire someone or to fire them. We need permission to stay in our apartment or to move to a new one. We need permission to speak and permission to stay silent. Socialism demands permission to build a place to live or a place to work. Eventually, socialism means permission to buy food..and the more socialism the less food there is to buy.

Every required government authorization comes with a fee and a chance for government officials to get “voluntary campaign contributions”. Those contributions are really unofficial bribes. That is how socialism works in practice.

Socialism is a disaster for the working man, but not for the millionaire Socialists running for political office today. For them, Socialism is a way to become unimaginably wealthy. That is how politicians and their wives became millionaires today, and how they become multi-millionaires under Socialism. (here and here)

Socialists in the US point at Sweden and say we want that here. Socialist salesmen don’t point at Cuba and North Korea. The Venezuelans wanted Sweden too, but they got Cuba instead. I know Swedes who left Sweden and Spaniards who left Spain because they wanted the freedom we have here in the USA. Under Socialism, only what is permitted is allowed.

Today, we’re promised Sweden, but we get the spreading government-run-shit-show of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Saint Louis, Detroit, Baltimore and Trenton. I wouldn’t trust them to run a cookie sale.

That is the reality of Socialism, but that probably isn’t what the socialist student living in his mom’s basement has in mind.

Gun Control Puts Women at Risk

July 9, 2019

Politicians said that gun-control would make us safer. That sounds good, but it isn’t what we see. One reasons is gun-control disarms innocent women. Taking the tools of self-defense away from women leaves them at a physical disadvantage. That is only one of the ways that gun-control leaves women at greater risk. Why did the politicians and the news media ignore these issues while they were shouting for more gun-control?

Sexual disparity- Men and women are different. Unarmed men have a physical advantage over unarmed women. Men are about 2/3rds stronger than women in their upper body. Men also have an advantage in lower-body strength and speed, but to a lesser extent. Size is also a factor since a large male can strike a female while remaining out of reach. Men also have a higher bone density so they can withstand harder blows. These differences put women at a disadvantage in a hand-to-hand fight where men are stronger about 90 percent of the time.

In contrast, a firearm works best at a distance. A gun helps equalize a woman’s ability to defend herself..if the state allows her to have one.

Limited magazine capacity- We were told that we’d be safer if guns had fewer cartridges in the magazine. Several states have enacted laws limiting magazine capacity to 10 cartridges or less. You might be surprise that this restriction has a sexual bias. When they are limited in the number of cartridges they can carry, men often choose a more powerful cartridge for their gun. Men also find it easier to conceal the larger gun that shoots the larger caliber cartridge. Women find that harder to do. Women prefer to shoot and carry a gun of a smaller caliber and lower power cartridge than a man. Choosing a smaller caliber usually reduces the felt recoil of the gun, the size of the gun, and the weight of the gun. The smaller cartridge can be shot faster..if there is ammunition to feed it.

Magazine capacity is a real concern. The average victim is attacked by several criminals at once. Suddenly, the 10 round magazine doesn’t seem like enough protection. The alternative for women is to carry a gun that is comfortable for them to shoot, and then to carry a spare magazine. Ask someone you know who carries concealed if they carry a spare magazine.

We would never tell a female police officer to limit how much ammunition she carries in her gun, but that doesn’t stop the gun-prohibitionists from limiting a woman’s right to choose her own magazine.

State-limited roster of guns- We were told that we’d be safer if the consumer could only buy a smaller range of handguns. Yes, that regulation has a sexual bias. Limiting the choice of new firearms favors men since many older guns had a military and police heritage and were designed for men. Even today, men buy more guns than women, so relatively fewer guns are designed for smaller hands, for easier cocking, and for lower recoil. The good news is that today we have guns deliberately designed for shorter arms and smaller hands, where the state allows women to have them.

Gun free zones- More women graduate from college than men. Women are also at greater risk of sexual assault than men. Calling the school a “gun-free” zone disarms students, staff and people who merely walk across the campus. That puts women at risk. It isn’t fair that women have to choose between their physical safety or taking a night class at the local college. Unfortunately, the “gun free” zones don’t end there.

Some states don’t allow concealed carry even for young moms on their own property. They can’t go armed as they go to a bible study or bring a smelly diaper out to the trash late at night. They can’t carry in their car as they drop their kids off at daycare or at school. Disarming the victims always leaves them at greater risk.

Other firearms prohibitions- Some women are victims of domestic violence. They often need a place to stay when they flee their abuser. All the women’s shelters I’ve investigated are gun free zones.* Evidence shows us that women face the greatest danger immediately after they leave their abuser. They are not safe in this gun-free zone. Being disarmed also puts these women at greater risk as they take care of their family and leave the shelter.

So called “safe storage” laws dictate how a firearm and ammunition may be stored. Unfortunately, states and local governments do not provide free or low cost storage facilities for women in domestic abuse situations. Women are forced to choose between protecting their family and breaking the law.

Bureaucratic delays- For some women, the first time they considered the physical safety of their family is after domestic abuse or a physical attack. Unfortunately, bureaucratic delays for firearms permitting, registration and licensing keep these vulnerable women disarmed during that dangerous time. We have many stories of women who used their firearm to defend their family from their abuser. Unfortunately, we also have too many stories of women who asked for permission to get a gun and died waiting.

Protection orders- Truth is the first casualty in family court. If the government disarms both parties during a domestic dispute or custody battle, then we’ve put the woman at greater physical risk relative to the man. My friends who were victims of abuse noticed this flaw immediately. Once you look, it is easy to understand their concern. The proponents of gun-control didn’t talk about disarming women when they championed protection orders.

With about 300 thousand sexual assaults a year,
disarming women makes a difference.

Women know what they need to protect themselves and their families. Their choice may not be perfect, but it is better than a choice forced on them by a distant politician. Politicians support gun-control for their benefit, not for ours, and not for the benefit of the women we love. That is easy to see once we know where to look.


Sources- “Sex differences in strength — some observations on their variability”

*Please post in the comments section if you know of women’s shelters that provide safe storage for personal firearms. I’d love to interview them.

I gave you 1000 words. Please share and comment if this helped you. RM

EDITORIAL: It’s Time to De-Fund the NRA – The Truth About Guns

July 8, 2019

Thank you, Dan Zimmerman. LaPierre is a liability, not an asset. RM

As a result of the accumulated and ongoing controversies, allegations, mismanagement and malfeasance, Wayne LaPierre has unquestionably become a liability to the National Rifle Association, its membership, and the cause of defending and extending gun rights in America.

Source: EDITORIAL: It’s Time to De-Fund the NRA – The Truth About Guns

Gun-Control is Wrong for This World

July 1, 2019

Everyone has their own perspective, but some beliefs are more accurate than others. That is certainly true about gun-control. Do we have too little gun-control, or too much? Do we have too few firearms regulations or too many? Our answers say a lot about us, but the facts about gun-control can be confusing.

If we live with angels, then there is nothing to fear so there is also no need for gun-control. In contrast, if the world is filled with criminals, then gun control doesn’t work because everyone ignores our gun laws. We don’t live in either of those worlds. We don’t have to guess about the real world because we can look for ourselves and see what works and what fails.

We disarmed law abiding people who wanted to carry a concealed firearm in public. We disarmed them by charging them hundreds of dollars for their carry permit. We disarmed them by costing them days of training. We disarmed them by the bureaucracy taking months to get them their license. About 11 million people said it wasn’t worth the time, money and hassle. About 5 million more of us were disarmed in states that deny almost all concealed carry applications. By a conservative estimate, gun-control disarmed 16 million good guys. Some people claim that we’re safer now that those 16 million law abiding people have been disarmed. We don’t have to guess.

We can ask how many of these disarmed people were injured each year because the state disarmed them. Self defense is real. We can approach the estimates from several observations.

What are the costs in human lives
when we turn the good guys into disarmed victims?

We have data from the the Center for Disease Control on rape and sexual assault where the victim survived the attack (non-fatal injury data). They recorded about 300 thousand sexual assaults in 2017. They know how many assaults were reported by victims over 21 years of age and thus by victims eligible to carry a firearm in public. I’ve calculated that 27 thousand of the victims were both of eligible age and were attacked outside their home where a carry permit is required.

I calculated about 1,800 sexual assault victims were disarmed by gun-control each year.
That is important since victims who defend themselves with a gun
are almost never raped.

Who is disarmed by gun-control?

Armed defense is similar to sexual assault in that many of the attacks are never reported to the police. Widespread telephone surveys, with tens of thousands of respondents, estimate that between one-out-of-400 to as many as one-out-of-70 adults used a firearm for self defense. I combined those estimates with our 16 million individuals disarmed by gun-control.

At a minimum, 32 thousand of us were victimized
because we were disarmed by gun control.
The higher estimate is almost a fifth of a million people.

I’m sorry that people were killed at work in a gun-free zone in Virginia last month. I’m sorry that children were attacked in a gun-free zone where their teachers were disarmed. Let’s take a very hard look at the people who were injured by gun-control before we prescribe more of the same medicine that got them killed.


Do We Want Fewer Firearms Accidents in the USA.. or More?

June 26, 2019

I want to make us safer and we might have more firearms accidents than we have today. I put that shocking statement in front of you rather than stand accused of it later. You might think that fewer guns would make us safer. The more I learn, the more I doubt that approach.

Let’s be clear that I don’t want firearms accidents to happen. Nobody should. What I want is for fewer of us to be hurt. If many of us are attacked by criminals and legal gun owners are very safe with their firearms, then more guns may mean fewer injuries overall. Which approach will save lives, more honest people with guns, or if fewer honest people go armed? Crime and medical reports give us some information.

I found data from 2017. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention said we had 676 children under 12 years old injured with a firearm that year. That is about two a day, and that sounds horrible to me. I kept reading and found out that only one-out-of-6000 accidents involved a firearm. Also, all the unknown causes were classified as “accidents”. We don’t know if the firearms accident was because a child found an unsecured firearm, or if the thug down the street shot at another gang member and hit an innocent kid down the street. We don’t know if the accident resulted in a cut or a life threatening injury.

We have some numbers, but I don’t have clear messages from them. I’m am left with two impressions. The good news is that firearms accidents involving children are rare, at about one child out of 78 thousand in 2017. Also, we could prevent some accidents if we are careful with our guns.

Now let’s look at intentional use of firearms. We have over 300 thousand aggravated assaults each year. Add in an additional 300 thousand sexual assaults. Those numbers are shocking. I want fewer people to be victimized, and I assume that you do too. Those numbers indicate we’re about a thousand times more likely to be victims of a criminal attack than to have a child injured in a firearms accident. I didn’t know that before I looked.

Let’s put those facts into perspective. Suppose there were a rule that would eliminate half the accidents with children and guns. If that same gun-control rule disarmed only one crime victim out of a thousand, then that rule would probably get more of us hurt rather than reduce the number of injuries.

There is more. The crime statistics I found said that women who use a gun in self defense are not raped. Fighting against the sexual assailant works most of the time but there were zero completed rapes when the victim defended themselves with a firearm. It is true that the number of women who used a firearm to stop an attempted rape isn’t statistically large. Maybe, if we collected date for many years, then we might find someone who used a gun for defense and was raped, but that doesn’t happen often.

I think we would have fewer rapes if more people were armed. The downside is that we might have more accidents with firearms.

Firearms are common and they are not going away. We seldom see guns in public even though 40 percent of us have a gun in the home. More than half of the people who don’t own guns say they could see themselves as a gun owner in the future. About 20 million of us have a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public today. We don’t see them because concealed is concealed.

There are real risks when we disarm the victims. A few weeks ago, twelve people were murdered in a gun free zone in Virginia Beach. Some of the victims at the Virginia Beach municipal building wanted to be armed. They disarmed themselves because they were afraid of being fired if their employer found out they had a gun at work. Their employer, the city, was willing to trade their lives in a mass murder against the possibility that an employee might have a negligent discharge of a firearm at work. That bet worked for the city’s risk manager.

That public policy didn’t work for the city employees who were defenseless during the murderous attack. Even though the police arrived in record time, that risk reduction strategy was fatally flawed for the unarmed victims.

Details matter. If we change public policy, then we have to keep perspective on the relative size of both risks and of rewards. We want to see the world in the correct proportions rather than stay stuck in a distorted fantasy world.

If there were no risk of firearms accidents, then we’d want all the good guys to carry guns all the time. In fact, we do have negligent discharges of a firearm. Fortunately for us, ordinary people have a good idea of how physically careful they are and how mentally stable they are. My experience is that people who don’t feel comfortable with guns don’t buy them. Those who buy them know when to put them away.

Our armed society is complex. We’re about five times more likely to be attacked by a criminal when we’re outside our homes, but we’re also about four times more likely to be disarmed when we leave home. Trying to protect us by disarming the good guys and gals is a bad goal and gets us injured or killed.

We are at greater risk in public than when we’re at home. I think we need more armed citizens so we can save more lives. We need lower permit fees for concealed carry and fewer gun free zones. That is what the numbers tell me.

We might have more accidents if five times more of us were armed. I know that, and I’ll be there with you teaching firearms education and safety. I’ll cry when an innocent person is injured in an accident, but I’ll shed fewer tears because fewer of us will be hurt.


Shooting of Criminal by Citizen NOT Reported by Police & NOT Unusual

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

America’s Complex Relationship With Guns

Link- Brighton Rabbi Asks Congregation To Bring Guns To Synagogue | WBUR News

June 25, 2019

Rabbi Dan Rodkin says thoughts and prayers will not save his congregation from an attack on their house of worship.. Brighton synagogue has been improving safety measures with security cameras, reinforced glass windows, even panic buttons. Despite these efforts, Rodkin worries a gunman might still get inside the synagogue and shoot his members. “We can’t think, ‘I’m just praying, and God will save me. No, we need to take care of situations ourselves.”

The rabbi is asking his own congregation to bring guns to Shabbat.

Source: Brighton Rabbi Asks Congregation To Bring Guns To Synagogue | WBUR News

%d bloggers like this: