September 5th, 2009

The Media are a Bunch of Idiots (from


Jon Stewart got it wrong. Stephen Colbert got it wrong. Every major media outlet talking about “guns in bars” got it 100% wrong.

You can’t carry a firearm into a bar in Tennessee. Period. It’s simply a lie.

Check out the rest of the post.

March 11th, 2009

Tactical Analysis of Armed Citizen Intervention in a Shooting Spree

Below is a great analysis of two separate (and unrelated) shootings in a public place with a gunman who had abandoned all reason, and gone after innocent human beings. The original article can be found here:

When Being a Good Guy Isn’t Enough
A Tactical Analysis of the Tyler Courthouse Shooting and the Tacoma Mall Shooting
By Syd

For the second time this year, a legally armed citizen armed with a pistol faced a crazed gunman armed with a rifle and did not prevail. In February 2005, Mark Wilson engaged David Arroyo on the steps of the courthouse in Tyler, Texas. Arroyo was wearing body armor and was armed with a Mak-90 7.62x39mm rifle. While Wilson was able to land hits from his .45 pistol on Arroyo, Arroyo’s body armor stopped them and Arroyo was able to kill Wilson. On the 20th of November, at a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, Dominick Maldonado opened fire on shoppers with a Norinco Mak-90 rifle. Maldonado, who at the age of 20 already had an extensive arrest record, had been taking methamphetamine for five days. He decided to take out his “rage” against the world by shooting complete strangers. A legally armed citizen, Brendan McKown, chose to intervene. He drew his 9mm pistol but did not fire. Instead, he verbally ordered Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado responded by firing four rounds into McKown’s torso. McKown survived his wounds but was grievously injured including a hit to the spine which may leave him unable to walk. Both Mark Wilson and Brendan McKown are the finest kind of people, heroes in truest sense. I would be proud to call either man my friend. Nevertheless, both men were shot and did not succeed in stopping the bad guy in their engagement. The good guys got shot and the bad guys walked away.

These incidents raise troubling questions. This is not the way things are supposed to go. The good guys are supposed to come out on top, or at least they shouldn’t lose their lives or become paralyzed. Were these outcomes simply fate, or could things have been done differently and a different outcome obtained? How do our ethics and religious principles affect our tactical decisions? And most importantly, are there lessons which can be learned from these incidents that could improve the outcome of a similar encounter in the future?

Analysis of these two fights runs the risk of criticizing two brave men who I consider to be heroes, and it’s my hope to avoid “Monday morning quarterbacking” although some of that will be necessary. Everything said here is in the context of deepest respect and appreciation for the sacrifices these men made.


It’s an interesting coincidence that in both of these incidents the bad guy was armed with a Mak-90, a semi-automatic AK-47 clone chambered in 7.62x39mm. This is a formidable weapon. At first glance, it would be easy to say, “Well, duh. Rifle trumps pistol. End of story.” Closer examination, however, would suggest that the rifle versus pistol matching made less difference in the outcome of these incidents than the first glance might suggest. Wilson landed body hits on Arroyo before Wilson was shot but the body armor worn by Arroyo stopped the bullets. A rifle capable of punching through body armor would have been of great benefit to Wilson in countering Arroyo. McKown did not fire his weapon so the comparison of guns is irrelevant. Maldonado was willing to shoot and shoot fast whereas McKown was not. At the range that Wilson first engaged, about 40 to 50 feet, the rifle wielded by Arroyo might have been an advantage, but the fatal shots fired by Arroyo were fired at close range when Arroyo came around the truck behind which Wilson had taken cover. The fatal shots were fired at point blank range. McKown engaged Maldonado at approximately 20 feet; so again, the rifle’s advantage at range is irrelevant.

Ethics and Religious Principles

The issue of ethics and religious principles comes into play at two distinct junctures in these incidents. The first is the deeply felt obligation to defend the innocent and the second is the Christian affirmation of the sanctity of life.

Both of these brave men chose to engage voluntarily. They were not personally under an immediate threat. Mark Wilson was in his apartment when he heard gunfire. His apartment had a clear view of the courthouse steps so he could see what was happening before he grabbed his Colt and went into the street to intervene. McKown was in another shop when he heard gunfire and went toward the sound to try to stop the mayhem. Both men could have opted to stay where they were and would have remained safe, but they chose to do otherwise. A hard-nosed, pragmatic analysis viewed from the perspective of personal survival would say that the wisest course of action would be to take cover and stay safe. Another CCW holder at the Tacoma mall who was there with his family chose to get his family to a safe place behind cover and defend them, but not to engage the crazy shooter. Had I been there with my family, I’m sure that I would have made a similar choice on the basis that my first obligation would be to defend and protect my loved ones.

It is clear in both cases that Wilson and McKown felt a moral obligation to intervene to save the lives of complete strangers, and they did. For guys like McKown and Wilson, simply taking cover and protecting themselves is not an ethically acceptable response. The clearest tactical judgment would tell us to take cover and defend ourselves, but there are times when our ethical convictions supersede our better tactical judgment.

McKown is the progeny of a deeply committed Christian family. His parents are involved in a prison outreach ministry, and he shares their convictions. By his own report, when he looked at the boyish Maldonado, he could not bring himself to take the shot. Instead, he chose to draw his gun and attempt to command Maldonado to drop his gun. (There is some confusion about what happened next. Some reports have McKown re-holstering his pistol and attempting verbal commands. Another report said that when the CZ pistol was found it appeared to have fired one round and then suffered a “double-feed.” McKown’s own report is not clear about this. At one point he says that he couldn’t fire at Maldonado because he looked like a kid and at another point he relates his attempt to crawl after Maldonado after he was shot because “I missed him.”) Maldonado’s response was to spin around and put four rounds into McKown’s torso. McKown’s compassion and respect for human life had prevented him from taking the shot on Maldonado, even though Maldonado was already firing and had shot people. God bless McKown, and I’d love to have him for a next door neighbor. However, the cold tactical analysis would suggest that the most effective course of action would be to take the shot when he had it, and make no attempt to verbally confront or command Maldonado.

Criminal Psychology

For the purposes of this discussion, I will divide those who criminally use firearms into two broad categories: rational criminals and crazy shooters. I am aware that other categories could be suggested such as thrill killers, “crimes of passion” and terrorists, but those aren’t particularly relevant for this analysis. By “rational criminals” I mean the folks whose basic “job” is some kind of crime, such as stick-up guys, burglars and dope dealers. While they may suffer from poor judgment and other character flaws, they are relatively “sane” and rational. They use their firearms as tools of the trade and only employ them to coerce and intimidate others or to defend themselves. These folks tend to react in more or less predictable and rational ways, and their responses can often be anticipated. If they’re cornered and you have the drop on them, they are more likely to surrender and cease their behavior, since, like other rational people, they don’t want to be shot and they know they can go to jail, call their lawyer, and be back out on the street in a few hours. If they aren’t cornered, they will flee – a rational response to the instinct for self-preservation. This is not to say that you should ever let your guard down, but with the rational criminal you have at least a common basis for communication and expectations.

The “crazy shooter” is a different breed of cat. He may be truly psychotic and hallucinating, very high on drugs, or in some other way distressed and no longer operating in a rational framework. His responses cannot be anticipated. He may be insensible to pain because of drugs and/or suicidal. He may be hoping for a “suicide by cop.” The values of the crazy shooter are totally different from those of rational people, and rational people are rarely able to empathize with or understand a crazy shooter without advanced professional training. He is a failed personality who has run out of options. These folks almost never have a realistic exit strategy for the situation because most often they are not really planning to live through the encounter.

Both Maldonado and Arroyo fall into this second category of crazy shooters. Maldonado has a long felony rap sheet and had been taking methamphetamine for five days prior to his shooting spree. Arroyo was perhaps more rational and capable of planning but he was ultimately suicidal. In the midst of a contentious divorce, he went to the courthouse to kill his ex-wife and his own son. He put on body armor which demonstrates planning, but the expectation that he could just get into his pickup and drive away shows that he was not thinking rationally and did not really expect to survive the day. He was stopped by the local police on his way out of town and killed in an exchange of gunfire with them.

When McKown ordered Maldonado to put down his gun, he was relating to Maldonado as if he were a rational criminal, but Maldonado was a crazy shooter, high on methamphetamine, and operating on a set of values which are totally alien to rational people. Our tactics must be appropriate for the adversary we face. It is safe to assume that a person standing in a public place and shooting total strangers is a crazy shooter and will not respond in rational ways. For a rational criminal, just the sight of a gun may dissuade him from further action, although you can’t count on that. With a crazy shooter, an “enemy” to shoot it out with may be just what he’s looking for.

Movement, Cover and Marksmanship

One factor that was present in both cases is that neither Wilson nor McKown were moving at the time they were shot. McKown went into a fixed stance with his gun drawn and issued verbal commands. He was in an open area of the store and there was no hard cover available to him. Wilson went prone behind a pickup. Witness Nelson Clyde III said that Wilson was hit and then went down into the prone position. Arroyo then came around the pickup and delivered the fatal shots. This is a report from a friend of Mark’s, Robert Langham, who viewed the courthouse security camera tape:

“Mark had heard the boom of gunfire from his loft apartment overlooking the Spring Street side of downtown Tyler… A glance out his windows would have shown the scene completely: the gunman advancing, the victims sprawled on concrete. Mark grabbed his Colt, bounded down the staircase to the sidewalk, crossed the corner intersection and sprinted to cover behind the first vehicle on the end of the block… David Arroyo was at that moment stepping forward to finish killing his own son on the courthouse steps… Mark lined up the sights on the gunman’s bulky back. He shot once, perhaps twice. The range is inside 20 yards. Less than 60 seconds had passed since he heard the first shot… Mark Wilson was in street, firing. The courthouse security camera shows Arroyo turning away from his son bleeding on the steps and running back to his truck… On camera, three sheriff deputies in the courthouse door began to fire steadily. Mark shoots again to no effect. The gunman is wearing an army flak jacket over body armor. Pistol shots will not penetrate… Wilson and Arroyo exchange shots across the truck bed popping up and down, perhaps three shots each before Mark falls to the red bricks, face down. Arroyo walks around the end of the truck, steps over him and shoots repeatedly…”

It’s hard to find fault with Mark Wilson’s performance that day from a tactical viewpoint, nor is that my desire. Wilson did almost everything right. It’s tragic that he couldn’t accomplish a head shot, that he didn’t grab a rifle to start with or retreat when Arroyo began to move toward him. If, if, if. If frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts when they hop. These are the facts and the fact is that Arroyo landed a disabling shot before Wilson did. It should be noted that, against a rifle such as an AK, the bed of a truck is concealment but it is not hard cover. An FMJ 7.62x39mm round will shoot through the bed of a truck.

What Can Be Learned Here?

“The faster you shoot, the less shot you will get.” – Jim Higginbotham
Act decisively. When your internal “go” signal is tripped, don’t hesitate. He who hesitates loses.

Use hard cover when possible. Learn the difference between hard cover and concealment.
“Hard cover” is a barrier that will stop bullets and protect you from incoming fire. “Concealment” is a barrier that hides you from the adversary but does not stop bullets. Weapons like the AK-47 will penetrate most building materials. They will also penetrate car bodies.

Moving targets are hard to hit. Especially when hard cover is not available, keep moving. Retreat is an honorable strategy. “He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.” Practice shooting on the move, the faster the better.

Do a “gut check”
Are you really able and willing to pull the trigger on another human being? If you aren’t, don’t draw a gun on someone who is. I have talked to a number of people who choose not to carry a firearm for personal defense. Almost without exception, the reasons given are, “I just don’t think I could do it,” (meaning, “I can’t shoot someone.”), or “It would probably just get me in trouble,” (Meaning, “I don’t feel competent to fight with a firearm.”). I respect that position and I respect that level of self awareness. If that is your personal truth, then find other means and strategies for self-defense. On the other hand, no right thinking human being ever wants to shoot another, and being repelled by the idea does not necessarily mean that one would be incapable of armed self defense faced with a real threat. But in all things, “Know thyself.” Many folks seem to subscribe to a notion that I have come to call “The Magic Talisman” theory of pistolcraft. They seem to believe that somehow simply brandishing a handgun will solve the problem and make the bad guy act right. It might and it might not. The reality is that pistols require skill, training, and self control to employ effectively. If you draw it, be prepared to fire.

“A man’s got to know his limitations.” – Dirty Harry
Despite some of our negative stereotypes about police officers, most police officers have years of specialized training that the rest of us don’t have. Police officers will always appear more tentative than we might like in situations such as the Tacoma mall because they are trained to gather as much information as possible before acting. They know that sometimes bad guys set bombs and lay ambushes. They have to determine how many bad guys there are, their locations, if there are hostages and the locations of possible hostages. Many have seen colleagues fall because they didn’t have adequate information or backup. Armed citizens are not police officers, but sometimes it pays to take a cue from the way law enforcement approaches these kinds of situations.

Know what you can do. Know what your gun can do. Know what you can do with your gun. A fight is a terrible venue for new product testing.

Practice hard shots
Practice shooting from weird positions. Practice weak hand shooting. Practice for head shots. Practice on moving targets if possible. Practice malfunction clearances. Practice emergency reloads. Practice everything. Practice a lot. Get some training. Ammo is cheap and Murphy is alive and well.

Be flexible.
If what you are doing isn’t working, do something else.

“When going to a gunfight, take a long gun and a friend with a long gun.”
Pistols are close quarters self-defense weapons. All pistols are a trade-off of performance for convenience. When you go on the offensive, i.e., attack, all of the shortcomings of the pistol come into play with a vengeance – puny ballistics, limited firepower, limited range and difficulty in achieving accuracy quickly. Despite the silly propaganda from the gun grabbers, no pistols are “assault weapons.” If they were we wouldn’t bother with equipping our soldiers with rifles and machine guns.


I still feel a great reluctance to say anything at all about these two incidents. No matter how carefully one proceeds and chooses his words, commenting on the sacrifices made by McKown and Wilson still feels disrespectful. My reluctance to talk about these incidents was only overcome by the idea that lessons should be learned and by doing so we honor the fallen and make their sacrifices more significant by applying their lessons to the next incident that may arise.

I have tried to avoid using the language of “winning” and “losing” in reference to Wilson and McKown because winning and losing is not a simple matter in these incidents. McKown and Wilson did what they felt they had to do. They were true to themselves, and both men saved the lives of others even though they paid a terrible price. You can’t call getting shot “winning” and you can’t call standing up for what you believe and saving the lives of others “losing.”

Analysis such as this traps us at a point of abstraction. We can’t be there and we can’t get into the heads of the people who were. We can guess and speculate about things which might have been done differently but we cannot re-create the situation in order to test our theories. Ultimately, we are left with our revulsion for the bad guys and reverence for the good guys, fear that we may face a similar test and hope that somehow things will turn out better for us.

March 8th, 2009

Harvard Study Shows Lott Was Right: More Guns = Less Crime


Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide

By now, any informed American is familiar with Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.’s famous axiom of “More Guns, Less Crime.” In other words, American jurisdictions that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are far safer and more crime-free than jurisdictions that enact stringent “gun control” laws.

Very simply, the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms has helped reduce violent crime in America.

Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.” In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world’s highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia’s extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary’s murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria’s, but Austria’s gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary’s. “Norway,” they note, “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands,” in contrast, “has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) … yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian.”

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, “murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced.” As the authors note, “strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world.”

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that “when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime.” By the late 1990s, however, “England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns.” As a result, “by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.” In America, on the other hand, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.”

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that “the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world,” where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

The reason that gun ownership doesn’t correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. “Ordinary people,” they note, “simply do not murder.” Rather, “the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership” in their society.

Therefore, “banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates.” According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, “there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive.”

John Lott couldn’t have stated it better himself.

Original story found here:

March 7th, 2009

Biased Liberal Media Favors Dog Safety to Human Safety

Human Safety or Animal Safety - Which one is more important?  Gun control advocates in the media want you to believe that guns are dangerous, and that nothing can prevent that.

One might extrapolate that the death of a human being – a young teenage woman – is apparently of little or no importance when compared with a story illustrating how Gorilla Glue poses a low-risk danger to dogs’ health, at least that’s how it might appear when reading news from KSL. ran two stories in as many days, one describing the ill effects Gorilla Glue can have on canines, and the other indicating that a young woman was accidentally shot in the head and killed by a negligent discharge of a firearm yesterday evening. Yet, the story involving the tragic loss of human life only amounted to a 90 word essay, while the doggie drama garnered a full 14x more attention, totaling 1,285 words in all.

The story of a labrador who had ingested the honey-like glue spoke at length about the details of how the dog became sick over a few weeks time, underwent an operation, and eventually returned to health. Following the story were numerous tips for keeping your dog safe, healthy, and happy, all details which were apparently mined from the ASPCA website.

Our question is simple: where are the safety tips and information for gun handling after the article which discusses the terrible loss of human life due to gun negligence, (which also stems from simple ignorance just like the glue incident)? Isn’t this a much bigger issue than all the world’s glue-eating dogs? Why doesn’t KSL (or the other media outlets) take time to list out, for example, the four rules of gun safety, or point to websites that teach parents to educate children on matters of safe gun handling and respect? The disparity between these two topics on a site such as KSL’s makes the answer ever more clear: the liberal media wants you and I to think guns are the problem, and that the only solution is to rid ourselves of these dangerous threats permanently.

Fortunately, we have an extensive amount of data from both the UK and Australia’s gun control scheme to know that less guns means more crime (in the UK, violent crimes skyrocketed after guns were banned – to a rate of more than 10 times that of some our most violent cities here in the US), and we also learn that when you take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, you simply create more victims for the criminals who will never disarm.

It’s upsetting to see the subtle (and not so subtle) attack on human rights and our basic freedoms by the left-wing liberal media simply because they fear that which they don’t understand. I myself grew up fearing guns. My parents taught me they were bad. Once I decided to learn for myself whether or not guns were volatile and evil, I soon realized that as with many tools, firearms have specific uses, purposes, and rules. If you disrespect any of these uses, purposes, or rules, you risk endangering the lives or safety of yourself and others.

During my research, I have also noted that the same dangers exists with bodies of water such as pools or bathtubs, with dangerous drugs, substances, and chemicals, and with automobiles. Yet, nobody is calling for an out and out ban of bleach, bathtubs, or Buicks, when in fact all of these are far more responsible for death than annual firearm accidents, and in most cases, even all firearm deaths combined each year (suicides, murders, and deaths through negligence/accident).


Drunk Drivers commit more homicides annually than gun carriers

For instance, in 2005 there were a reported 43,667 automobile deaths in the U.S., compared with 30,694 gun-related deaths. Of those automobile related deaths, 16,885 were a result of drunk driving, compared with gun related homicides which totaled 12,352 total deaths. However, this number includes homicides by law enforcement, and self defense (justifiable or excusable homicides), a total number which is best estimated to be between 2,000-3,000 of those total homicides. This means that drunk driving deaths are anywhere between 150%-200% higher annually than homicides, and 2,100% higher than gun accidents. Why not call for the banning of alcohol instead of stripping people of their God-given right and responsibility to defend themselves? Then again, prohibition didn’t seem to work, either.

KSL and Nadine Wimmer have once again shown their true colors when it comes to dishonest, biased reporting. They simply abuse the power of their position in order to push their agenda to the unsuspecting public. Shame on you, KSL and Nadine Wimmer. Your bias is evident. You’re an insult to America, and an insult to Utah.

February 26th, 2009

Strong Arguments in Favor of the Fifth

I came across an interesting set of videos recently in which a law professor and a police officer take time to discuss the topic of speaking with the police – or rather why you should never do it in connection with any crime. According to Dr. James Duane, (and confirmed by co-speaker Officer George Bruch), you should never talk to the police. Be you innocent, guilty, lying or as honest as the day is long, these two say in no uncertain terms: DON’T SPEAK!

So, what should you do? Dr. J says you’re best off waiting for the case to find it’s way into court, with a jury and a judge, (the way the law intended), or wait for the case against you to die and ultimately disappear. He had some strong arguments, so I present this to you here, and welcome any feedback or additional perspectives on this. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

Talking to the Police Part 1 of 2




Talking to the Police Part 2 of 2



Download FREE from iTunes here (Universal Video format, large size):

Original Files (h.264 quicktime format, yummy size):
Talking to the Police – Part 1 of 2
Talking to the Police – Part 2 of 2

Original full length video found here (windows media format, small size):

February 20th, 2009

Non-Resident Defends Utah Concealed Weapons Permit

I have to say I generally agree with Arlo’s arguments, and feel that instead of whining about it, those in charge should consider how they can continue licensing out-of-staters properly, while eliminating the “cons” (no pun intended). For instance, Arlo urges BCI to charge more for non-res. permits, toughen requirements, and to everyone else: get a reality check. Protecting our God-Given and Constitutionally protected freedoms is a good thing, even if Utah has to do it for other states who find this unimportant!

I have a nonresident Utah concealed weapon permit. The editorial “Gun battle: Reserve Utah permits for Utahns” (Our View, Jan. 21) cites “three good reasons” to prevent nonresidents from acquiring Utah permits. Here’s my rebuttal:

1. Utah taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize the cost of nonresident gun permits. Agreed. Raise nonresident fees to subsidize Utahns or at least cover the cost.

2. There are no guarantees that out-of-state residents are properly trained. Utah requires that instructors be authorized by the state and teach according to its requirements. Toughen the requirements.

3. Disqualifying crimes committed in other states following permit issuance cannot be detected by Utah. Felonies committed anywhere disqualify one from owning guns. Local law enforcement checks backgrounds of armed felony suspects.

I work in Japan and am a resident of Hawaii, a “may issue” state that does not issue permits to private citizens. I was trained by a Utah-authorized instructor in Hawaii and took the required classroom instruction and live-fire training.

I haven’t used my permit in Utah or other states, but I am grateful I have the ability to do so. Utah is protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

Arlo A. Brown
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan


February 20th, 2009

Liberal Media KSL 5 Reports, So does StandardNet…

Once again, liberal media portrays guns as an unsafe and irresponsible dangerous weapon that only the “professionals” should handle. In the latest installment, KSL 5 in Utah reports that the Brady Campaign against the Bill of Rights to Prevent Violence has graded Utah on the safety of their gun laws. The score: 4 out of 100 possible points.

Dee Rowland of the “center for abolishing rights of responsible citizens, but not criminals” Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center agrees with the Brady Campaign and it’s claim that Utah’s laws help feed the illegal gun market.’

There’s really no such thing as Utah’s illegal gun market, at least not what they’re referring to. They are simply using propagandist and inflammatory catch phrases here.

‘”Such as the gun show loophole (doesn’t exist), where you can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon without a background check,” she said.’

This is not true. Any gun sale completed involving an FFL gun dealer in any gun show in Utah requires a background check. Private sales, however, don’t require such a check. So, by their definition of the “gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist) we also have the Catholic Church Loophole, the Police Station Loophole, the Elementary School Loophole, the College Campus Loophole, the Private Residence Loophole, the Chucky Cheese Loophole, the trashtalking-liberal media-Civil Rights hating-morally inept KSL Classifieds Loophole, and even the Golden Grandma Luncheon at the Senior Citizen Home Loophole. This, my friends, is much MUCH more dire than previously thought. This must certainly mean that virtually every gun in Utah is illegal, and it’s all due to these dangerous loopholes. meh.

‘The report card also criticizes Utah’s lack of limiting bulk gun sales’

You can buy a 6, 12, or even 24 pack of beer at any major convenience store. Drunk driving deaths are twice what gun deaths are annually, why not limit “bulk beer sales” first if saving lives is really the concern of these morons?

Paul Helmke, spokesman for the Brady Campaign says lawmakers “have done nothing to improve the state’s reputation when it comes to common sense gun laws.”

Good. Keep it that way. “Common sense gun laws” is an oxymoron. This is akin to saying “Friendly Murderers”, or “Responsible Rapists”. Gun laws don’t stop criminals, they simply aid and abet them.

StandardNet Puts It Into Perspective For Us

The highest score, 79, went to California. Utah, with a score of 4, was tied for next-to-last place. We’re presumably meant to infer that California, with its extensive and complex web of state and local gun restrictions, is a much safer place to live than Utah, where, for example, virtually any law-abiding adult can get a permit to carry a loaded handgun. However, the Brady report says nothing about actual crime rates. According to the 2007 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, California’s violent-crime rate (522 violent crimes per 100,000 population) was more than twice as high as Utah’s (235 per 100,000), and the murder rate in California (6.2 per 100,000) was nearly triple that of the Beehive state (2.2 per 100,000).

Furthermore, preliminary figures for 2008 put Utah’s murder rate at about 1.5 per 100,000, which is lower than Canada’s. Ergo, Utahns needn’t necessarily feel distressed about their state’s low Brady score. For that matter, perhaps they should even be proud of it.

N. W. Clayton
Director of Communications
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)

February 20th, 2009

Yakima homicide justified

Originally reported on January 22, 2009 over at

YAKIMA — A robbery suspect was shot dead by an armed civilian late Monday, the first incident of justifiable homicide city police said they could recall in recent memory.

Franklin McWain, 33, died at a hospital from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. An autopsy was performed Tuesday.

A police news release said the shooting occurred in the 800 block of North Second Street about 11 p.m. Monday.

According to the release, a 27-year-old Yakima man told officers he was waiting outside a residence for a friend when he was approached by McWain.

The man, identified as Michael Valadez, 27, said McWain struck him on the head with a stick and demanded money. Valadez told police he was struck several more times before firing two shots at McWain. Valadez had a valid concealed weapons permit.

Valadez ran from the area and flagged down a passing police officer. He was taken to a hospital for treatment of a head wound and a broken left arm.

The release said police found evidence at the scene that backed up the man’s story.

He has not been charged with a crime. The case is being referred to the Yakima County prosecutor.

McWain was a longtime Yakima resident whose criminal history included six felonies, police said.

Court records show he was found guilty of charges related to eluding, theft and drugs, among other offenses.

February 19th, 2009

Big Government

There’s always a tradeoff:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

-Barry Goldwater 1968

Something to think about amidst all of this sentiment from Washington about how only government spending can save us now. The New Deal was a very invasive program back in the 30’s, and it’s influence – as it is still today found crawling forward – is being revived once again by a new wave of “big government” mentalities. You may not see a tremendous dissipation of liberty immediately, but as time has shown, the impact is abhorrent and long lasting.

I believe the solution is confidence, faith, creativity, and hard work. In my opinion, anyone that tells you otherwise has an agenda.

February 18th, 2009

NY Senator, Husband Keep 2 Rifles Under Their Bed

Get this: a New York Democrat senator who believes that the right to keep and bear arms to protect one’s family and home is just that – a right. These are the stories I LOVE coming across. Read on below…

NY senator, husband keep 2 rifles under their bed

NEW YORK (AP) – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has drawn criticism from fellow Democrats in New York because of her pro-gun stance, says she keeps two rifles under her bed.

Gillibrand says she and her husband, Jonathan, keep the firearms to protect their upstate home.

“If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right,” Gillibrand, who has two small children, said in an interview published in Monday’s Newsday.

Her spokesman, Matt Canter, said Monday that the rifles are not loaded and the Gillibrands follow gun-safety procedures. He would not say if they keep ammunition nearby.

Gillibrand was a little-known second-term congresswoman from a rural Republican district when she was tapped by Gov. David Paterson to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As a member of the House, she had earned a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association.

The day her appointment was announced, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy threatened a 2010 primary challenge. She was elected to Congress after her husband was killed and her son wounded in a shooting rampage on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993.

Gillibrand has said that her views are broadening as she moves from representing one rural district to the entire state. She has said she would work to fight gun violence while still protecting hunters’ rights.

Gillibrand told Newsday that while she and her husband don’t hunt, her mother, brother and father do.

“I grew up in a house where my mom owns about eight guns,” she said. “She keeps them in a gun case.”

(This version CORRECTS last name of spokesman to Canter.)

(Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

© 2008 - All Rights Reserved.