Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing

LEGAL IMMIGRANT’S MUST-WATCH TESTIMONY AGAINST GUN CONTROL: ‘FEW SAW THE THIRD REICH COMING UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE’

During a public hearing on gun violence in Hartford, Conn. on Monday, a legal immigrant by the name of Henson Ong issued a passionate defense of the Second Amendment and argued that gun control simply “does not work.” The video of Ong’s testimony has already surpassed 130,000 views on YouTube.

“Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am a legal immigrant and I am an American by choice,” he began, prompting applause from the audience.

“Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes,” he added. “Gun control doesn’t work.”

Ong then launched into a impassioned diatribe about what he considers to be the real problem fueling gun gun violence — “societal decay.”

“Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, boy scout marksmanship merit badges,” he explained. “You could buy rifles at hardware stores, you could order them… your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings*.”

“What changed?” he asked. “It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually was decreased. What changed was societal decay,” he added, resulting in more applause.

Ong pointed to the Washington, D.C. and Chicago as two cities with some of the strictest gun laws but also “the highest crime and murder rates.”

“If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates,” he said.

Ong also defended Americans’ right to own so-called “assault rifles,” which are really just semi-automatic rifles. Citing a recent purchase of 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons”by the Department of Homeland Security, he noted how the agency described the weapons as “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

He went on: “Had the Koreans in the LA riots not had AR-15s and AK-47s with 30-round magazines — and Ruger 30s — their businesses would have burnt to the ground like all the other businesses in their neighborhoods. Theirs stood because they stood their ground.”

Driving a point home that many U.S. lawmakers don’t even seem to fully understand, the legal immigrant stated definitively that the Second Amendment’s purpose was not for hunting.

In closing, Ong quoted a famous statement by Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent on the case of Silveira v. Lockye in 2002.

“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”

Ong ended his testimony to applause from the audience.

Graham Expresses Opposition to Gun Control

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham speaks in the Senate Judiciary Committee about his concerns with gun control.

Senator Ted Cruz not only Swept the floor on the Gun Control Hearings..he took out the trash

Mark Mattioli emotional speech

‘THE PROBLEM IS NOT GUN LAWS’: WATCH THE EMOTIONAL SPEECH BY A SANDY HOOK VICTIM’S DAD THAT GOT A STANDING OVATION

Parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School appeared before a subcommittee of the Connecticut Legislature on Monday to speak about gun control. While some used the platform to promote stricter firearms legislation, at least one parent became passionate, claiming that there are more than enough laws on the books, that current regulations simply need to be enforced and that the nation needs to embrace personal responsibility.

Mark Mattioli, whose six-year-old son James perished inside of the school, testified that a plethora of new gun laws isn’t the answer and that, instead, personal responsibility, accountability and civility are the best path forward. He made his comments as intense debate surrounding gun control and the causal factors behind the shooting continue to be at the forefront of public discussion.

The grieving father, who ended up receiving a standing ovation, said that he believes in “simple, few gun laws” and that there are already “more than enough on the books.” Mattioli contends that “the problem is not gun laws” and that these regulations simply need to be enforced.

“How do we expect to have any impact on a society and say, ‘We’re going to pass a law. Hey this is inexcusable. We can’t allow any more of this. Let’s pass a law that will change the course of the future’  when we don’t enforce the laws that we have on the books — the most important laws?,”he asked

Mattioli also addressed mental health, a key issue that has often fallen second to gun control in discussions surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting.

“I think there’s much more promise for a solution in identifying, researching and creating solutions along the lines of mental health issues — I think there’s a lot of work that can be done there,” he said. ”I believe the solution may not be as easy to implement as I might hope, but it’s a simple concept. We need civility across our nation.”

At one point Mattioli got so emotional during the the testimony that he had to move onto a new topic. He eventually went on to say that “we need common decency to prevail,” dismissing calls for greater gun control. Mattioli gave the specific example of Chicago, a city with tough gun laws, but one that continues to experience intense violence. He noted that gun laws did not protect the hundreds of people who died in that city last year.

Watch Mattioli’s passionate and emotional speech, below:

Bill Stevens

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke recommends gun training for personal safety

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke recommends gun training for personal safety

The Road is out Ahead!

Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave: Special Report

Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave: Special Report

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 22, 2012

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment is in place to discourage dictators and protect the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution,expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.“

Meanwhile, history has shown that disarmed populations and dictators always go hand in hand, with abusers and seekers of power preferring a people unable to stand up for their rights and easy to trample and dominate.

Our birthright as Americans is at stake: if we don’t stand up to defend the 2nd Amendment, we stand to let all our other precious rights slip away, from freedom of speech on down.

Demand A Real Plan

————-

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” - Joseph Stalin

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” - Anonymous American adage

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” 
– Samuel Adams

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…” – Tench Coxe 1788

“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” - Joseph Stalin

“In earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.” - Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.” - Joseph Stalin

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” - Joseph Stalin

“The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” - Joseph Stalin

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” 
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
” –Thomas Paine

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
” – Ben Franklin

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” - Joseph Stalin

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 
– Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” – Patrick Henry

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” 
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – George Mason

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” 
– Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

“The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.” - Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War”, July, 1775

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong, “Problems of War and Strategy”, 1938

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee, 1778

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” - Hubert Humphrey, “Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns magazine, February 1960

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolf Hitler, April 1942

“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” - Orrin Hatch, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” – William S. Burroughs, 1991

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
- George Washington

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915.

Are any of these better than another?

Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.

One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. I always had a slight problem with the methodology of Marshall and Sanow's work. For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This led to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop! I wanted to look at hits anywhere on the body and get a realistic idea of actual stopping power, no matter how many hits it took to get it. So I started collecting data.

Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.

I documented all of the data I could; tracking caliber, type of bullet (if known), where the bullet hit and whether or not the person was incapacitated. I also tracked fatalities, noting which bullets were more likely to kill and which were not. It was an exhaustive project, but I'm glad I did it and I'm happy to report the results of my study here.

Before I get to the details, I must give a warning. I don't have any dog in this fight! I don't sell ammo. I'm not being paid by any firearm or ammunition manufacturer. I carry a lot of different pistols for self defense. Within the last 2 weeks, I've carried a .22 magnum, a .380 auto, a .38 spl revolver, 3 different 9mm autos and a .45 auto. I don't have an axe to grind. If you are happy with your 9mm, I'm happy for you. If you think that everyone should be carrying a .45 (because they don't make a .46), I'm cool with that too. I'm just reporting the data. If you don't like it, take Mr. Ayoob's advice...do a study of your own.

A few notes on terminology...

Since it was my study, I got to determine the variables and their definitions. Here's what I looked at:

- Number of people shot

- Number of rounds that hit

- On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.

I also excluded all cases of accidental shootings or suicides. Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal.

- What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso.

- What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them

- Accuracy. What percentage of hits was in the head or torso. I tracked this to check if variations could affect stopping power. For example, if one caliber had a huge percentage of shootings resulting in arm hits, we may expect that the stopping power of that round wouldn’t look as good as a caliber where the majority of rounds hit the head.

- One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall's number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.

- Percentage of people who were immediately stopped with one hit to the head or torso

Here are the results.

.25ACP # of people shot - 68 # of hits - 150 % of hits that were fatal - 25% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.2 % of people who were not incapacitated - 35% One-shot-stop % - 30% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 62% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 49%	.22 (short, long and long rifle) # of people shot - 154 # of hits - 213 % of hits that were fatal - 34% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38 % of people who were not incapacitated - 31% One-shot-stop % - 31% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%
.32 (both .32 Long and .32 ACP) # of people shot - 25 # of hits - 38 % of hits that were fatal - 21% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.52 % of people who were not incapacitated - 40% One-shot-stop % - 40% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 78% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 72%	.380 ACP # of people shot - 85 # of hits - 150 % of hits that were fatal - 29% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76 % of people who were not incapacitated - 16% One-shot-stop % - 44% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%
.38 Special # of people shot - 199 # of hits - 373 % of hits that were fatal - 29% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87 % of people who were not incapacitated - 17% One-shot-stop % - 39% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 55%	9mm Luger # of people shot - 456 # of hits - 1121 % of hits that were fatal - 24% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45 % of people who were not incapacitated - 13% One-shot-stop % - 34% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%
.357 (both magnum and Sig) # of people shot - 105 # of hits - 179 % of hits that were fatal - 34% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7 % of people who were not incapacitated - 9% One-shot-stop % - 44% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 61%	.40 S&W # of people shot - 188 # of hits - 443 % of hits that were fatal - 25% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36 % of people who were not incapacitated - 13% One-shot-stop % - 45% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 52%
.45 ACP # of people shot - 209 # of hits - 436 % of hits that were fatal - 29% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08 % of people who were not incapacitated - 14% One-shot-stop % - 39% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%	.44 Magnum # of people shot - 24 # of hits - 41 % of hits that were fatal - 26% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.71 % of people who were not incapacitated - 13% One-shot-stop % - 59% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 88% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 53%
Rifle (all Centerfire) # of people shot - 126 # of hits - 176 % of hits that were fatal - 68% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.4 % of people who were not incapacitated - 9% One-shot-stop % - 58% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 80%	Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge) # of people shot - 146 # of hits - 178 % of hits that were fatal - 65% Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22 % of people who were not incapacitated - 12% One-shot-stop % - 58% Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 84% % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 86%

Discussion

I really would have liked to break it down by individual bullet type, but I didn't have enough data points to reach a level of statistical significance. Getting accurate data on nearly 1800 shootings was hard work. I couldn't imagine breaking it down farther than what I did here. I also believe the data for the .25, .32 and .44 magnum should be viewed with suspicion. I simply don't have enough data (in comparison to the other calibers) to draw an accurate comparison. I reported the data I have, but I really don't believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP!

One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonable expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented.

Some interesting findings:

I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.

The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38 SPL probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.

Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates. If you look at the percentage of shootings that did not result in incapacitation, the numbers are almost identical. The .38, 9mm, .40, and .45 all had failure rates of between 13% and 17%.


Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this.

One other factor to consider is that the majority of these shootings did NOT involve shooting through intermediate barriers, cover or heavy clothing. If you anticipate having to do this in your life (i.e. you are a police officer and may have to shoot someone in a car), again, I would lean towards the larger or more powerful rounds.

What I believe that my numbers show is that in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.

Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn't a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

Conclusion

This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.

Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!

Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Greg has a master's degree in Public Policy and Management and is an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute.

by Greg Ellifritz

Massachusetts State House Firearms Rally Amazing Chinese-American Perspective!

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

Carl F. Worden

January 15, 2013

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

5 COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GUNS & MASS SHOOTINGS

LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: 5 COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GUNS & MASS SHOOTINGS

Noted gun control advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has urged President Obama to get serious about firearm laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre (Getty Images)

Following the terrifying events in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 people dead — including 20 children — the nation has turned its attention to the topic of guns and gun control.

Considering the fact that Adam Lanza’s murderous rampage occurred just five months after James Holmes stormed a theater in Aurora, Colo., shooting 70 people and killing 12, it seems that the nation, to a certain degree, is determined to speak more frankly about guns and gun-related violence and debate what should be done.

However, this is where we get into an odd area.

It appears that the gun control debate is being dominated by bad information and that the chance for thoughtful and meaningful dialogue — let alone solutions — is being lost.

For instance, in what appears to be an attempt by one side to push for stricter gun laws, there is a wealth of misinformation out there regarding semi-automatic rifles. One side argues semi-auto rifles are the real root of the problem, the other side would like a focus on safety and mental health.

However, if U.S. lawmakers are actually going to enact laws aimed at semi-automatic rifles (or “scary looking” semi-automatic rifles, as Glenn Beck has pointed out), the legislation should be based only on the best and most accurate data. Unfortunately, much of what’s being said today about semi-automatic rifles is either misleading or flat-out untrue.

So what’s the truth behind those so-called “assault weapons”?

We’re glad you asked. In order to answer some of these gun-related questions, TheBlazeconsulted with the experts at Daniel Defense, a Georgia-based group that specializes in providing “small arms product solutions to our Military and Law Enforcement community” with “innovative engineering and our state of the art manufacturing facility.”

In a debate on gun control involving technical and historical questions on firearms, we thought it would be best to involve those who have dedicated their careers to understanding firearms. Similarly, if we were talking about legislation that proposed to confiscate, say, all Gibson Les Paul Recording models from U.S. guitar players, we’d ask a professional luthier about the guitar, not a politician.

Please, Sen. Feinstein, this is gun safety 101: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction and take your finger off the trigger unless prepared to fire (Photo: Dennis Cook/AP).

So, in an attempt to wrap our minds around the current debate on gun control, TheBlaze and Daniel Defense worked to identify the five most common misconceptions regarding semi-automatic rifles and mass shootings in the U.S.

1. DON’T CONFUSE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN-STYLE RIFLES

Getty Images

Focusing specifically on the difference between M-16s and AR-15s (i.e “the most popular rifle in America”), TheBlaze’s Liz Klimas covered this exact topic in great detail last week.

“Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant, told TheBlaze the only difference [between the civilian AR-15 and the M-16] is that one is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic,” Klimaswrites.

“It’s a small yet simultaneously big distinction. Firearms for use by the military are able to shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger, machine-gun style. Civilian firearms, on the other hand, only allow one shot per trigger pull,” she adds.

Daniel Defense chimes in on the distinction between military and civilian-style weapons: “The Firearms Owners Protection Act banned the manufacture of fully automatic guns in the United States in 1986 with the exception of military and law enforcement purposes.”

“AR-15s that are currently being manufactured for the civilian markets are semi-automatic, which means only one projectile is fired with each trigger pull,” explains Jordan Hunter, Director of Marketing for Daniel Defense.

“This puts them functionally in the same category with greater than 50 percent of all guns sold in the United States in 2012,” he adds.

However, if we didn’t know better, many of those who support stricter gun laws don’t seem to understand that rifles such as the AR-15 are not a fully automatic weapon and they are notmilitary-grade “assault weapons.”

“It was the Left who needed a term to call them,” Glenn Beck said on radio last Thursday. “They are trying to make you think …’an AR-15, nobody needs that.’ An AR-15 is just a rifle, unless it has a fully automatic switch on it and then it becomes a machine gun — and you can’t buy that.”

“It’s a way to demonize something for a political agenda and misconstrue [the guns] and the public on the Second Amendment,” Alwood told Klimas.

2. WILL A BAN ON AR-15S OR SIMILAR RIFLES PUT AN END TO MASS SHOOTINGS AND VIOLENT GUN CRIMES?

Getty Images

“An ‘assault weapons’ ban will not end mass shootings or stop mentally unstable and/or criminals from committing violent acts,” Hunter told TheBlaze in an email. “The type of firearm is of little consequence when in a bad guy’s hand and we must look at other ways to prevent violent acts.”

Indeed, whether for good or bad, as long as the person holding the firearm knows what they’re doing, the damage can be devastating:

In the hands of an expert, here’s what a revolver can do:

And a pump-action shotgun:

And a semi-automatic handgun:

“We tracked 62 mass shootings wherein 5 or more people were either shot or killed from the early 1980’s to now; 41 times pistols were used, 12 times shotguns or some type of hunting-styled rifle was used, and 9 times semi-automatic rifles were used (14 percent),” Hunter told TheBlaze.

“Of the 62 incidents that we were able to track, 42 of the shooters had some kind of mental illness or mental illness history of some kind, 16 of the shooters had unknown or unclear history of mental illness, and only 4 of the shooters had no mental illness history.

“Chicago, Illinois, has some of the country’s strictest gun laws, and because of this, some might think that it should be one of the safest cities in the America. However, in 2012, 1.5 people were killed every day after being shot by a bad guy with a gun.  That makes 532 people killed in 2012 alone,” he adds.

3. DO MASS MURDERERS USUALLY USE GUNS?

Getty Images

News flash: Psychopaths will use whatever they can to inflict pain on people. Consider the following:

• March 25, 2008, Sitka, Alaska: An 18 year killed 4 people with a 5-inch knife.
• June 8, 2001, Osaka, Japan: A school janitor killed 8 children with a kitchen knife.
• July 1, 2008, Shanghai, China: A man stabbed 6 police officers to death and wounded 4 others with a knife.

“According to the FBI’s website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 8,967 people that were murdered with knives or cutting instruments; during that same time period, there were 3,918 people that were murdered with either rifles or shotguns,” Hunter told TheBlaze.

And, of course, murderers aren’t restricted to just sharp objects and guns. Some have used explosives:

• April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Okla.: Timothy McVay murdered 168 people and injured 680 when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building using, among other components, fertilizer.
• May 18, 1927, Bath, Mich.: A man murdered 44 people, 38 of which were elementary school children. Another 58 were wounded when he blew up the Bath Consolidated School. To date, this is still the worst school massacre in US history.
• November 1, 1955: John “Jack” Gilbert Graham murdered 44 people by planting a dynamite bomb in his mother’s suitcase that was subsequently loaded aboard United Airlines Flight 629. The bomb detonated shortly after takeoff.

Others transportation:

• September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people on American soil by intentionally flying passenger planes into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. A fourth plane was also hijacked and was intended to be crashed into the U.S. Capitol, but passengers overcame the hijackers and the plane crashed inShanksville, Pa.
• June 8, 2008, Tokyo, Japan: A man drove his truck into a crowd of people, killing three. He then exited the vehicle and stabbed 12 people. In all, seven people were killed as a result.
• April 30, 2009, Apeldoorn, Netherlands: A man intentionally drove his car into a group of people amassed for a parade. He killed six and seriously injured another 12 before dying from the crash himself.

Others blunt objects:

• August 6, 2004, Deltona, Fla.: Four men decided to bludgeon 6 people using baseball bats because they wanted to steal an Xbox belonging to one of the victims. All of the attackers were old enough to buy firearms.
• July 20, 2009, Sydney, Australia: A family of 5 was bludgeoned to death as they slept. Most likely baseball bats were used in the attack.

“According to the FBI’s website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 2,918 people that were murdered with blunt objects (baseball bats, hammers, etc.),” Hunter reminds us. “During that same time period, there were 1,874 people that were murdered with rifles.”

4. WHAT’S THE POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT ANYWAY?

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — House Resolutions and Articles of Amendment; August 24, 1789. (Getty Images)

“The Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison and adopted in 1789, later ratified in 1791. Our forefathers witnessed firsthand what an oppressive government was capable of, and because of that, they planned and participated in the overthrow of that oppressive government,” Hunt explained to TheBlaze in an email.

“Those great men, our forefathers, carefully crafted The Bill of Rights with the hopes of protecting the personal freedoms of America’s citizens while limiting the power of their government.

“Contrary to some of our current politicians’ rhetoric … the Second Amendment was not intended to protect hunting rights, nor does the Second Amendment make any mention of a list of firearms that cannot be owned, as Senator Feinstein has proposed.

“In fact, the Second Amendment was clearly designed with the mindset of protecting America’s citizens from people like Senator Feinstein: government officials, who want to impose their own will on the citizens of this country by any means necessary. The Second Amendment gives the American citizens the right to own firearms in order to protect themselves, their family, their property, their freedoms, and the idea that this country’s government is ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ of this country,” he adds, citing a notable quote from American statesman Daniel Webster:

We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land — nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution

5. MAYBE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH GUN LAWS

Getty Images

“Another gun law isn’t the answer,” Hunter flatly states. “Nationally, there are currently 243 pages of federal gun laws and 480 pages of state gun laws in effect.”

Bet you didn’t know that.

“Criminals and mass murders are not law-abiding citizens. Regardless of what the law states, what the consequences may be, it will not prevent a would-be thief, a predator, or a murderer from breaking every law imaginable while in the process of committing a crime. A law-abiding citizen obeys the law; a criminal does not.

“In a private school, it is the private school’s responsibility to protect children who are not old enough to protect themselves. However, in a government school, it is the government’s responsibility to protect children who are not old enough to protect themselves from murderers. Our government officials may be pointing their finger at guns in order to take responsibilities off themselves for what they have failed to do,” he adds.

–

So there you have it.

That’s Daniel Defense’s contribution to the nation’s ongoing gun control debate. Hopefully, now that we have some of the misinformation cleared up, we can go forward with  responsible, practical, and effective plans for preventing further gun-related tragedies.

 Becket Adams