NYT Article Pushes Idea That Guns Cause Suicide – Why They Are Wrong

The New York Times recently published yet another article pushing the narrative that owning a firearm increases the risk of suicide.  To most people, this seems logical – but I know that the reasoning leading to this conclusion is false.  I have a great deal of experience with suicide, thanks to 10 years experience in EMS.  As a result, I absolutely know that every study I have ever seen on the issue of guns and suicide is pure bunk, as is this article.  Here’s why.

1) As anyone who has ever been a first responder knows, the vast majority of so called “suicide attempts” are not in fact attempts to commit suicide.

Never the less, that will be the admission diagnosis.  So when is a suicide attempt not a suicide attempt?  Answer: When it is done to manipulate someone or as a “cry for help” – and this intent affects the method chosen.

This is something that I, as an EMT and Paramedic saw all the time.  For instance, we would get a call for an “overdose”.  Arriving at the scene, we would find the person who had overdosed, usually on some over the counter medication.  They had then called the person they wished to manipulate and informed them that they had taken pills in an effort to kill themselves.  Of course, this person then either rushes over to the overdose “victim” or calls 911.  We would arrive and typically find a fully awake patient who now would be placed on a mental health hold due to “attempt suicide”.  Frequently they would be interacting with the person they called.  In many cases they claimed to have taken such a small quantity of pills that it was clear there was no attempt to harm themselves.  Of course, everyone goes forward as if the person really wanted to die.  We would then transport the person to the county hospital on a mental health hold.  They would be admitted as “attempt suicide”, method “medication overdose”.  For every actual suicide attempt I responded to in my 10 years in EMS, I responded to 50 to 100 of these “non-suicide suicide attempts”. 

The problem arises when someone does a statistical study for suicide attempts and methods.  All of these “non-suicide suicide attempts” are counted as actual suicide attempts that did not succeed.  The false conclusion is reflected in the following quote from the NYT article:

“Many suicide attempts are impulsive, and the crisis that leads to them is fleeting,” Dr. Miller said. “The method you use largely determines whether you live or die. And if you use a gun, you are far more likely to die than with other methods, like taking pills. With guns, you usually do not get a second chance.”

That conclusion is written based on faulty information.  The vast majority of people who take pills do not want to die.  Those who use firearms or other deadly methods do.

2) People chose a suicide method based upon their desire to live or their desire to die.

The second lesson I learned as an EMT/Paramedic is that people who really want to die choose a method that is quick and sure.  They do not want to be found and saved.  While the act seems impulsive to those left behind, it has been considered and likely planned for a long time.

In the US, where firearms are available, they are frequently chosen. however, they are not the only method of ending one’s life quickly.  People use rope to hang themselves, they jump from high places and use many other methods.

Even the flawed research supports this conclusion.  Again referring to the NYT article we learn this on paragraph TWELVE:
“Another possibility was so-called reverse causation: that many buyers were bent on suicide before they bought the gun. The findings did provide some evidence of that. In the month immediately after first-time owners obtained their weapons (California has a 10-day waiting period), the risk of shooting themselves on purpose was nearly 500 per 100,000, about 100 times higher than similar non-owners; after several years it tapered off to about twice the rate.”
3) The data from the rest of the world completely refutes the article’s conclusion.
First, the nations that have the highest suicide rates frequently have very low to no legal firearms availability.  These nations include Russia 26.5 (93% higher than US), Belarus 21.4 (56% higher) and South Korea 20.2 (47% higher).  Somehow, people in these nations are able to commit suicide at very high rates without access to firearms.

Second, when we compare similar English speaking nations, that widely differ in their access to firearms, we do not see a huge difference in the suicide rates:

UK (2018) suicide rate of 11.2 per 100k population – firearms in 4% of homes.
US (2017) suicide rate of 14.0 per 100K  population – firearms in 45% of homes.
Canada (2017) suicide rate of 11.3 per 100k population – firearms in 28% of homes.
(Stats from Wikipedia or other official sources)
It is especially notable that Canada has seven times the firearms availability as the UK and virtually the same suicide rate.  If firearms are the factor this article claims, Canada’s suicide rate should be much, much higher.

4) Finally, it is a practical impossibly to eliminate all suicide methods that those who truly wish to die might use.

Even this chart from an anti-gun rights source
shows that as firearms are made less available
suicides do not go down.  People simply use
other methods.
In the UK the most common method is hanging – yet no one is trying to eliminate access to rope and other cordage.  We cannot eliminate access to every high place, or to traffic, or quick acting poisons, and the list goes on.  If we are going to reduce the suicide rate in the US, gun control is not the answer.  That’s why some mental health professionals are speaking out against the idea.
Why do gun control advocates push gun control as the answer to suicide?  Well, as gun ownership and concealed carry have skyrocketed, the murder rate has dropped by 50% and violent crime has plummeted.  Their answer has been to push their own “gun death” figure that combines all firearms related deaths.  However, about 66% of these deaths are suicides.  If people realize that gun control has no hope of reducing suicides, those who are anti-gun rights lose their most powerful argument.   That is why they will continue to push this lie.

Suspected burglar shot, killed by resident in Pierce County

ELK PLAIN, Wash. – A suspected burglar was shot and killed Sunday morning by a resident of a home in the Elk Plain area of Pierce County, sheriff’s officials said.

Deputies responded to the home, in the 20700 block of 46th Avenue East, at about 5:20 a.m. after receiving a 911 call about a burglary and shots fired, said Ed Troyer of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department.

The burglary suspect was found dead of a gunshot wound inside the home.

The occupants of the home, an elderly woman who owns the residence and her adult son, were not injured.

A preliminary investigation found that the homeowner’s son awoke to the sound of rustling inside their home. The son armed himself with a handgun and found a burglar standing next to a safe in the home, Troyer said.

The resident reportedly confronted the suspect and the suspect came at him. The resident fired at the suspect, striking and killing him.

Deputies located a stool and broken window that appears to be the point of entry used by the suspect, Troyer said.

The deceased burglary suspect has not been identified.


Homeowner shoots suspect during an attempted home invasion

BROKEN ARROW, Okla. (KTUL) — The Broken Arrow Police Department says an alleged suspect is dead and another on the run after an attempted home invasion Saturday night.

The BAPD says about 10:35 p.m., officers were dispatched to a reported first-degree burglary call.

While on the way to the call, officers were told that the homeowner had shot one of the suspects and at least one suspect had run from the scene.

When officers arrived and they found a male deceased in the front of the residence.

Detectives and Crime Scene Investigators are interviewing witnesses and processing the scene for evidence.

The deceased man’s information is not being released until positive identification and next of kin notification can be made.

Kansas Legislature Passes Emergency Powers Legislation Protecting 2A

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The Kansas Legislature adjourned from its Special Session after passing Emergency Powers Legislation, House Bill 2054. House Bill 2054 prevents the Governor from using emergency powers to seize ammunition or limit the sale of firearms during a declared state of emergency, including for Covid-19. This bipartisan measure will now be sent to Governor Laura Kelly’s desk for her signature.

Thank you to those lawmakers who voted in support of this important legislation, as well as the original resolution during the 2020 Legislative Session.

Alan Gottlieb & Dave Workman: Violent city protests justify strong Second Amendment rights

Non-stop news coverage of riots in major cities across the country have suddenly underscored the importance and relevance of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, guaranteeing the ability of private citizens to protect their lives, property, neighborhood businesses and one another from violent anarchists.

Gun sales have spiked upward an estimated 80 percent over the same period last year. New data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggests that some 40 percent of all gun buyers in recent weeks were first-timers. They’ve been purchasing semi-auto pistols, semiautomatic modern sporting rifles and shotguns, in that order of preference.

When two looters tried to break into a South Philadelphia gun store, the owner fatally shot one suspect with his Bushmaster semi-auto rifle that gun prohibitionists like to call an “assault weapon.” The other suspect fled.

In Santa Monica, Calif., the owner of a liquor store stood in front of his business with an AR-15 rifle to discourage looters.

In Scottsdale, Arizona, armed citizens gathered at a jewelry store to prevent it from being ransacked.

In Washington state, dozens of armed citizens provided volunteer security to a Bonney Lake business, a commercial district in downtown Snohomish and businesses in Kirkland, outside Seattle. All of those places were alerted that rioters who had trashed downtown Seattle were apparently planning to spread their violence to the suburbs, but armed citizens discouraged them.

Unfortunately, in places such as New York City and Chicago, which have strict anti-gun-rights laws, business owners couldn’t defend their property.

To suggest the Second Amendment is obsolete is indefensible. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many people suddenly remembered the Second Amendment and prepared for the worst. The same principle applies now as we’ve watched small, fragile businesses just beginning to recover from COVID-19 closure orders destroyed by anarchists and looters to whom the name George Floyd — the Minneapolis man whose death sparked national protests — means nothing.

These people aren’t grieving citizens, they’re criminals. They’re not demonstrating against police brutality, they’re exploiting a tragedy to fulfill a wanton need to destroy and loot, and they are organized. Where they may get away with it because police may be under orders to use minimum force, that’s not a certainty when confronted by armed citizens, and they know it. There is a significant deterrent effect with an armed populace.

Polk County, Florida Sheriff Grady Judd observed, “The people in Polk County like guns, they have guns, I encourage them to own guns…”

The Second Amendment is, and always has been, designed to provide law-abiding citizens with the means to defend themselves during emergencies. America’s cities are under attack and the public has a right to defend their lives and property. The Second Amendment makes that possible.

NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigns amid staff fury over Tom Cotton op-ed.

The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning — amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton about the George Floyd unrest last week.

Bennet had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, “Send in the Troops.” Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops to help


The Real History of Antifa.

With riots and civil unrest metastasizing across the United States, the president declared he intends to designate Antifa as a terrorist group. Predictably, the talking heads rushed out to declare that Antifa doesn’t really exist, and even if it did the president couldn’t possibly target it using that legal designation. They argue Antifa is an amorphous blob of discontents, not a functioning organization, and certainly not one which could be designated and targeted for concentrated counterterrorism enforcement.

As usual, the Twitterati don’t know what they are talking about. Reality is both simpler and more complex.

To begin at the beginning: Antifa—real name: Antifaschisitsche Aktion—was born during the street-fights of the 1932 Weimar Republic. It was founded by the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD), although various Communist “anti-fascist defense” units were associated with the KPD much earlier.

Anti-fascist Action’s sole purpose was to help the KPD combat other political parties for control of the streets in the revolutionary politics of the rapidly failing Weimar Republic.

And yes, they fought the Nazis.

But they also fought liberal parties, conservative parties, and anyone and everyone who got in their way. While these early antecedents were short-lived, it is useful to view Antifa in this context. More than anything, Antifa exists to serve as a tool of revolutionary politics in a failed (or failing) state.

Time for Mattis and Kelly to Listen to MacArthur

First of all, let me say that this nation is in debt to former Marine Generals Mattis and Kelly for their service to the United States. Kelly in particular deserves our respect and appreciation. His own son gave his life as a Marine in service to America.

But I have to disagree with their recent public comments in opposition to President Trump. Not that President Trump can’t be exasperating at times. He has a tendency to irritate his supporters as often as he infuriates his enemies. Not one of his most endearing qualities for sure, nor a wise political strategy.

But my question to Generals Mattis and Kelly is, were things better under Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Did you agree with Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States?

If you’re so concerned about the Constitution of the United States that you believe President Trump threatens, then why didn’t you express your concerns about the genuine threats to our Constitution that Barack Obama presented? You had plenty of time and opportunity to speak out then.

Unless you weren’t paying attention, Barack Obama publicly complained about the U.S. Constitution preventing him from what he wanted to do. Barack Obama told us all, “I have a telephone and a pen,” and warned he was going to do whatever he wanted in spite of what the U.S. Constitution allowed.

So who has posed the greater threat, a duly elected president who has been fighting an ongoing coup d’etat since the day he took office, or a closet commie who is hiding behind the scenes and working hard to undermine his successor’s presidency and complete his “fundamental transformation” of our country?

Why aren’t you standing up in solidarity with President Trump who is trying to protect this nation right now against a radical leftist insurrection? Instead of criticizing the president, why aren’t you offering counsel on how to address the insurgency that is underway in our land?

If you haven’t seen what has been taking place, how a coordinated, multifaceted, and expansive conspiracy to undo a presidential election through unconstitutional means that has been underway since November of 2016, then I wonder how you could ever have risen to such a high rank in the United States Marine Corps.

Perhaps it’s time for both Generals Mattis and Kelly to do a little soul searching. The preservation of our liberty and freedoms which President Trump doesn’t threaten at all, but which is indeed threatened by the radical leftists in the Democratic Party, has been on full display for over three years now.

It’s Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and especially Barack Obama who threaten the very future of our country. They are the ones you should be speaking out against. Not the president who is trying his hardest to uncover the corruption and abuse of decades of career politicians from both political parties.

Time to consider what kind of a country we’ll have under another Democratic administration. Weakened and disrespected internationally with American Sailors held at gunpoint on their knees. Or a nation standing proud and strong as it has since President Trump reversed the evisceration of our military under Barack Obama.

President Trump might be brash, irritating at times, and maybe he doesn’t follow the political playbook you spent forty years or so following. But those of us who voted for President Trump support him for that very reason. Enough of the ‘old guard’ political machines and the politicians they control.

It is past time for Generals Mattis and Kelly, and all the other ‘old guard’ military leaders to support President Trump and defend our nation against the destruction our nation will face under another Democratic administration.

Or follow General Douglas MacArthur’s advice, “and just fade away”.

Report: George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Colin Powell Won’t Support Trump’s Re-Election

George W. Bush and Mitt Romney represent the worst of the Republican Party. Republicans who are weak and disloyal. Republicans who would cower to the Left. Republicans who could not fight the MSM. Republicans who would not stand up to China. Republicans who couldn’t engage minority voters, and Republicans who would have caused the Republican Party to go into obsolescence in the coming years. By the way, President Trump’s approval rating with Republican voters is at record levels.

Colin Powell says he ‘cannot in any way support’ Trump; announces he will vote for Biden. So what? The man hasn’t voted Republican for years.

COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO STANDS UP…ANTIFA STANDS DOWN!

If you ventured to downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho last night you would think you had entered a Militia family reunion. No one has an accurate count of how many heavily armed citizens came out to support peaceful protestors and protect local businesses and citizens against shipped in ANTIFA members but it was certainly HUNDREDS, perhaps over a THOUSAND.

“We just drove downtown Coeur d’Alene. It is packed with armed citizens. I’ve never seen so many AR-15s in my life. There’s at least a thousand armed citizens walking on the sidewalks and the streets are packed with cars and trucks with guys in the back with AR-15 and American flags everywhere. We saw two protesters wearing their little black clothing and black masks and sitting on a step quietly with their little poster board sign saying “our system sucks!” Guess why they’re being so polite.”~Keith Gibson, Coeur d’Alene resident.

Word got out that ANTIFA was going to ship in rioters to mingle with peaceful protestors in our quiet little town…and indeed they did as several white Mercedes vans were seen with dozens of people that didn’t belong in our community. It was also made known that they were planning to use the local WINCO store as their staging ground. After learning this, a well organized local group of concerned citizens set up a post in the parking lot to ensure that these unwelcomed invaders clearly understood that the citizens of Coeur d’Alene would have ZERO tolerance for any type of violence or destructive behavior in our town.

Concerned Citizen removing crowbar from ANTIFA member

Don’t tell me you’re peaceful and bring a crowbar to a protest…. not in our town… Was happy to remove it from their possession as we escorted him to his vehicle [ and just to clarify the guy in the beard handed me the crow bar when I requested it, His name is Sam and he did get that guy to leave ] Brett Surplus, Coeur d’Alene resident

The downtown area of Coeur d’Alene, Id was wall to wall with armed citizens, who protected the city for the entire night. Many had posts directly in front of local businesses while others walked the sidewalks making their powerful presence known…………

I did not kill George Floyd.
The attempt to hold all whites responsible for the death of Floyd shows what a dead-end woke politics is.

There’s a new sin. Forget gluttony. Forget sloth. The great moral error today is whiteness. To be white is to be fallen. Whiteness has become a kind of original sin, an inherited moral defect one must atone for throughout one’s life. In the wake of the brutal execution of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, this almost religious treatment of whiteness as an existential flaw has gone uber-mainstream.

Listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday he called on ‘white Christians’ to ‘repent of our own prejudices’. Repent, ye sinners! Or if you prefer your leaders to be secular, how about the high priestess of middle-class decency, Nigella Lawson, who instructs her fellow white people to ‘acknowledge [that] systematic racism exists’ and that we are ‘complicit in it’. That brutal killing in Minneapolis – it’s your doing, white people.

Or read Time, the most mainstream magazine in existence. ‘White people’, says one of its contributors, ‘have inherited this house of white supremacy, built by their forebears and willed to them’. Inherited. The sins of the father shall be visited upon the son. The Time writer says white racism is a spectrum, stretching from those white people who tell a black woman ‘how pretty our hair looks when we wear it straight’ to ‘the more extreme end of the spectrum… cops literally suffocating black people like George Floyd as they beg for their lives’.

To compare a compliment about a woman’s hair to the merciless killing of Floyd is deeply disturbing. It sanitises the crime committed against Floyd and debases his suffering by putting it on a par with a mere uninvited compliment. It also confirms how thoroughly whiteness has been pathologised in mainstream ideology. What was once said about black men – that it is problematic when they compliment women of another race and that their racial make-up drives them towards murderous behaviour – is now said about white men. Perhaps someone can explain how replacing one form of racial fatalism with another is progressive.

Whiteness-as-sin is everywhere. ‘White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror’, cries the Chicago Tribune. ‘White people, you are the problem’, it continues, in case you didn’t get its message that this sinful race, these fallen people, are the scourge of our time.

‘I’m talking about white people’, said James Corden in his monologue on The Late Late Show on Monday. ‘This is our problem to solve’, he said of the murder of Floyd and the problem of racism. White people, all of you, you did this. This is how mainstream the pathologisation of whiteness has become: it is now beamed into suburban living rooms across the US by famously inoffensive TV hosts. A white man telling white people about the sins of white complicity – this is, at the very least, an extremely odd state of affairs.

Let’s be clear about what is happening here: this is an effort to establish racial collective guilt for the murderous suffocation of George Floyd. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that collective guilt on the basis of racial origin is always a wicked ideology to pursue. Whether it’s Jews being held collectively guilty of the alleged excesses of ‘rich Jews’ or blacks being collectively punished for the offences of individual black people, such racial extrapolation always leads to prejudice and suffering. There is a twisted irony in the fact that so many commentators and activists who pose as anti-racist are promoting the ideology of collective racial guilt in response to the killing of George Floyd.

The second problem with this sweeping anti-white reaction to Floyd’s death, and with the pathologisation of whiteness more broadly, is that it acts as a distraction from the real problems facing the US and other societies. Collectivising the crime committed by four police officers in Minneapolis turns attention away from the specificity of police brutality and of structural disarray in modern America, in favour of pursuing a blanket suspicion of all whites. The problem is dissipated, then obscured. We are implicitly discouraged from seriously analysing specific residual political problems in the United States in favour of joining in the thrill-inducing project of bashing all whites.

It is important to understand where this distracting moral project comes from. It is an outlook of the privileged elites, very often white elites. It comes from academia, from the media class, from the younger members of the political establishment. For years now, these privileged elites have promoted hostility to whiteness.

They have projected the sins of the past on to whites living today, claiming that white people are the beneficiaries of slavery and colonialism. They have pushed the ideology of ‘white complicity’ (that is, all whites bear responsibility for racial crimes) and ‘white fragility’ (that is, any white who pushes back against this idea of collective racial guilt is showing his moral weakness). They have encouraged the checking of one’s white privilege, which is really a modern form of penance.

Anyone who thought the cranky woke idea of privilege-checking was confined to PC campuses will have had a rude awakening over the past few days. We’ve had the Archbishop of Canterbury promoting a Christian version of white self-correction. And anyone who has seen the incredibly creepy videos showing groups of white people begging black people for forgiveness for the historic crimes of racism or chanting in a massive crowd about how they will do better in future will know that privilege-checking has become the new religion. Original sin, repentance, public self-flagellation – it has it all.

Anti-whiteness comes from the top. It is most pronounced among privileged whites. It has nothing in common with the noble struggles for racial equality in the past. Rather, it expresses the nihilism and fatalism of the contemporary liberal elites and intellectual classes. It is self-loathing disguised as radicalism. It is not the friend, by any stretch of the imagination, of black people or white people. On the contrary, it condemns both to an interminable status quo in which the former must perform the role of perennial victim and the latter must engage in penitence, publicly and noisily, forever. Elite fatalism sees no way out of inequality or injustice, precisely because it has reimagined these things as ‘traits’, as the Chicago Tribune puts it, of racial behaviour. All it can envisage is a technocratic system of racial management in which black victims are encouraged to speak and weep and whites are encouraged to listen and repent. Like a forever truth and reconciliation commission.

It is striking that where past black campaigners for racial equality spoke in terms of visions, dreams, better futures in which things would be different, today’s self-styled correctors of white privilege can only obsess over the past. History is their stomping ground. Slavery and colonialism are their obsessions. A writer for Slate says these things are America’s ‘original sin’ and George Floyd’s murder shows that they infect us still. This sums up the fatalism of the new racial guardians. In describing racism as America’s ‘original sin’, they utterly demean the agency of the black people, and white people, who fought for rights and equality over the centuries and who tangibly changed America for the better. Worse, they lock America into racial permanence, into round after round of racial accusation and racial repentance, into a never-ending self-whipping for the inherited sins of the past. It is an entirely dispiriting ideology that offers nothing whatsoever to blacks and whites fighting for freer, better futures.

This is why corporate America and the new political elites have no problem at all with the woke ideology of pathologised whiteness. In fact they embrace it. In recent days some of the most powerful corporations in the US have commented on the problem of ‘white supremacy’. Leaders and officials in Minneapolis and elsewhere initially refused to condemn rioting on the basis that, as white people, it wasn’t their place to do so. The academia-born new racialism can be easily internalised by the capitalist and political elites because it poses no threat whatsoever to their influence over society. On the contrary, in dissipating the problems of racism and social inequality, in personalising these things and reducing them to ‘traits’ that exist across the whole of society, the woke ideology takes the heat off the powers-that-be and even creates a space for them to perform their penitence and advertise their awareness and in the process become part of the ‘saved’ people. It empowers them.

This is the great tragedy in the US right now. People are on the streets marching and arguing for some kind of change, but the dominant political ideology and language of our time utterly fails to meet their expectations or even to allow that meaningful change is possible. In accepting today’s ruling-class ideology – the ideology of wokeness and of forever racialism – the leaders of these protests have defeated themselves already. They have embraced an ideology that makes solidarity virtually impossible, by constantly flagging the differential ‘traits’ between blacks and whites, and which elevates backward-looking historic repentance over moving towards a better, wealthier future.

George Floyd’s death has exposed how dominant, destructive and futile the woke worldview has become. Rejecting the new racialism, spurning the woke creed, turning one’s back on elite fatalism that today comes in the garb of caring about black people – these are the preconditions for proper solidarity and real change.

Thankfully, more people see the pro-gun control intellectual’s vacuous vapidity, and basically are telling them where to go and how to get there.


2 Million First-Time Gun Owners in First Half of 2020 Alone

As concerns over self-defense became more pronounced in 2020, initially during the cornonavirus hysteria and then during the current spate of protests and riots, two million Americans became first-time gun owners.

Earlier this week Breitbart News reported that May 2020 shattered the record for the number of National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) checks performed in a given May. FBI numbers show 3,091,455 NICS checks were conducted in May 2020, easily surpassing the previous record of 2,349,309 checks set in May 2019 and dominating the numbers from any other May since records began to be kept in May 1999.

Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting reported that May 2020 gun sales were up 80 percent over sales in May 2019, and they explained the vast majority of the guns sold were handguns. This suggests self-defense is of paramount concern for gun buyers.

Breitbart News reported March and April 2020 both set records for NICS background checks as well.

The number of checks conducted in March 2020 was so high it was not only a record for March but a record for any single month, period. The most checks for any month since the NICS system was adopted in 1998.

Americans are choosing guns rather than gun control.

Intruder shot, killed after confrontation with homeowner in Allegheny Co. neighborhood

ALLEGHENY CO., Pa. — Police are investigating after a home invasion ended in a deadly shooting in an Allegheny County neighborhood.

The incident happened around 10 p.m. Wednesday on West Bellecrest Avenue in Brentwood, according to Allegheny County detectives.

Short Film About Tiananmen Square Hero.

On June 4th and 5th, 1989, the Chinese government violently put down the pro-liberty Tiananmen Square student protest. One man stood alone against a column of tanks, and for his extraordinary heroism became known as “Tank Man,” though nothing more is known about his identity. Some say he was arrested and killed, others that he is still in prison in China, and still others that he is alive and in hiding. Regardless, he has become a symbol for resistance against tyranny.

Tank Man is a powerful short film (15 min.) dramatizing events leading up to his moment of extraordinary courage. He is little known in China, where all images of him have been erased and all mention of him banned. This film does him some small justice.

Auto Defensas Para Mi!™ ( I oughta get some T-Shirts printed up with that)
Families in Florida guard their neighborhood, some with the dreaded AR-15 *gasp* Horrors! Zut Alors!,  and the milquetoast press have the vapors.


Vigilante residents wield their rifles as they block their street in Florida to guard against looters

A group of residents including children held rifles and other weapons as they blocked their road to ‘guard it from looters’.

Footage of the group, who were standing next to their cars to block the street, was posted on website LiveLeak and appears to have been filmed in Belleview, Florida.

The residents were allegedly guarding their street to stop looters after stores in many parts of the country were raided during nationwide unrest caused by the death of black man George Floyd.

The video of the guarding residents was filmed by a family in a passing car.

They are seen driving past them before using a roundabout to drive back the other way.

The group, who number at least 12, are standing next to their cars and some are holding rifles.

One man is wearing a military-style helmet, combat boots and pants and is holding a rifle.

As the family pass the residents, an older woman in the car says, ‘he has a gun in the black shirt’ as she refers to the man in the helmet.

A girl in the car then adds: ‘This is in Belleview.’

The residents were allegedly guarding their street to stop looters after stores in many parts of the country were raided during nationwide unrest caused by the death of black man George Floyd

Changing Your Carry Depending on Your Environment

Change. We’re in the middle of it. Millions of people have purchased their first guns over the last few months. Riots, looting, theft, attacks, murders. We see it daily on the news. Smart people know, or have just realized, that the police can’t be everywhere, and it highly unlikely they will be close when you are attacked.

You are your own first responder. Are you prepared?

Trainers across the country are being flooded with calls asking for private lessons. That’s good.

Let me explain something that’s not obvious to new gun owners, but which can make a big difference in your ability to have a self-defense handgun with you. It requires change.  Specifically, it means you have to change your handgun as conditions change.

I’ve been carrying a pistol since about 1976. Big guns and small guns, big calibers and small calibers, double stack and single stack, short barrels and longish barrels, revolvers and autoloaders. Why so many types?

There is no one handgun that works for every situation.

You have many types of footwear so that you can have the right function for each activity. Tennis shoes, dress shoes, casual shoes, hunting boots, rubber boots, slippers, etc.

Once you get into carrying you quickly realize the need for various sizes of handguns.

Let me give examples of what I have carried, using just one gun manufacturer. I have carried Springfield Armory pistols for many years. I recently bought the XDm 4.5-inch barrel model in 10mm. Why? Because sometimes I’m in the woods where bears, mountain lions, and wolves live. I really like the idea of having 15 rounds in the magazine of special (deep-penetrating) 10mm ammo with me. It’s a full-size pistol, and it is not light weight when fully loaded. That’s okay because I use a good gun belt and a good holster to handle the weight.

But that’s not what I would carry in most concealed carry situations. For that, I often have opted for two Springfields. The XDs single stack is a dream. Slim, great trigger, and you can get a 10-round mag. Honestly, it’s just hard to go wrong there. I can conceal it when wearing almost anything, especially when I use a tuckable holster. I’ll admit, though, that I like the idea of more ammo, so I have more often carried my XDm 3.8 Compact (now discontinued). The logical replacement for that pistol is the even smaller Hellcat in 9mm, and I’d use the 13-round mag as standard. It’s incredibly small and easy to carry.

When I’m going to spend several days at a shooting school, I’ll opt for a full-size 9mm. Easier to shoot. Ammo is fairly inexpensive. I would go for the XD-M Elite 4.5 and a bag full of magazines.

Now, if you are into style, you might just want to add a sweet 1911 to the mix.  Every serious handgunner needs at least one, and after the first magazine of ammo, you’ll fall in love with the trigger. If I could have only one 1911 from the Springfield line, I just might go for the new Ronin Operator in 9mm.

You match the gun to the situation. Where are you carrying? What kind of clothes? Open carry or concealed carry? Just a cover garment or deep concealment? What’s your body type? Pocket carry?

Experienced gun folks know we must change guns from time to time. This example was just using one brand. You can mix and match, of course. You might want to have a revolver in the mix. Just don’t get locked into the idea that now you have “the” gun you need.

Oh, and put serious time and money (!) into the best training you can afford.  A shiny new gun will never replace the vital skills you get from serious instruction.

Be safe. Be kind. Stay dangerous. ~ Tom

Tom Gresham

How “Cops Are Evil” Narrative Destroys Gun Control Argument

“The police will protect you.”

“You don’t need a gun. Who do you think you are, the police?”

“Private citizens don’t need guns like that. Those are for the military and police.”

You’ve heard those arguments before, haven’t you? You’ve heard them and countless others, I’m sure. Anyone who follows the gun control debate has heard them all.

And yet, we’ve also heard many of these same people decrying the police. They’ve labeled them as hateful, corrupt, and dedicated to the eradication of black folks.

As Charles W. Cooke writes of at National Reviewthe two positions cannot co-exist. [already referenced here]

Cooke’s opinion piece is excellent and I recommend you go and read the rest for yourself.

His overall point is also excellent and one we need to see discussed more openly. After all, if the police are such a problem–and I’ll agree that there are serious problems with policing in this country–then why would you entrust them with all the power that comes from being the only ones who can lawfully have a firearm?

The two positions simply don’t make any sense. Either police are lawless and can’t be trusted with their current level of authority or they’re trustworthy souls to a man and there’s no reason to doubt they’ll rush to your rescue in your hour of need. There’s just no way the two can co-exist.

Even claims of nuance fall flat on their face in this case. No, not all police are bad, but if enough are that we need to revamp or, in some cases, even abolish the police, then there’s simply no way we can also believe that these same police should be the only ones trusted with firearms.

Of course, it’s not like this narrative will die. Consistency isn’t exactly a hallmark of the anti-gunners. They’re quite content to vilify the police while simultaneously lionizing them as our personal champions.

The thing is, a lot of other people will see the discrepancy and question the competing narratives. Not all will fall on the pro-gun side, but it should make for some interesting discussions.

Liberal politicians who order police to stand down are the same people who want to ban guns

Minneapolis and other major cities have finally re-opened, at least to looters and arsonists. For three days, police in Minneapolis and St. Paul were ordered to stand down as rioters destroyed their cities. In New York City and Washington, D.C., on Monday night, police stood by as looters destroyed parts of those cities.

The same politicians who ordered police to stand down and released prison inmates are the same people who want to ban guns. These politicians prevent citizens from protecting themselves, at a time when police protection cannot be depended on.

For three days, police in Minneapolis and St. Paul were ordered to stand down as rioters destroyed their cities. Sadly, so many of the victims of this violence have been blacks. Black store owners have lost their businesses. In these heavily black areas, blacks will lose their jobs. Black shoppers worry they “have nowhere to go now.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said it’d be “ridiculous” to break up demonstrators who violate crowd-size rules for the coronavirus. The president of the NAACP is asking police nationwide to stand down to preserve the peace.

In Minnesota, you face a $25,000 fine if you open your business during the current COVID-19 lockdown, but criminals effectively have immunity. The few who were arrested for violent acts in Minneapolis were quickly bailed out of jail with financial help from Joe Biden’s presidential campaign staffers.

As of Sunday morning, more than 255 businesses had been destroyed in the Twin Cities. The looting was extensive. Many large companies have reported that they are “temporarily or indefinitely closed.” Officers even abandoned their own police station, which was then set on fire by protesters.

Across the country, police have had orders to stand down.

“Tonight, I watched Seattle burn. Seattle is dying, by fire, looting, weakness of the political leadership,” wrote Seattle KVI radio talk-show host Kirby Wilbur. “We watched on TV as our law enforcement stood by while vandalism, looting, assaults, pure chaos reigned in the streets of our downtown business district.”

But the violence in Minneapolis would have been much worse if people hadn’t been able to defend themselves and their businesses with guns. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “African-American owners of GM Tobacco told me they were armed and ready to protect their business — and that they stand in solidarity with those who seek justice for [George] Floyd.” Visible from the front of the store was Minneapolis’ Third Police Precinct, which rioters set on fire.

This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. People may remember the Korean store owners who successfully used semi-automatic rifles to protect their businesses during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

One searches in vain for Democratic politicians who have reprimanded the rioters. On Saturday, after several nights of riots, Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat, egged on demonstrators by calling for a continuation of the “righteous protests” and necessary routing out of the “racism” that she said is endemic in Minnesota.

Twitter didn’t seem to mind incitement to violence by liberals such as Colin Kaepernick. He tweeted that “revolting is the only logical reaction. … We have the right to fight back!” Others on Twitter are calling for “a violent rebellion against an entire system.”

Democrats in Minnesota have been forceful advocates for gun control. Mr. Walz and Mrs. Smith have been strongly endorsed by Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control organization, Moms Demand Action. They have supported banning some semi-automatic guns based solely on superficial appearance. They also support limits on magazine sizes.

Especially in a riot, semi-automatic firearms that reload automatically are much more useful for self-defense than are single-shot weapons. Hopefully, the presence of a gun by itself will deter an attack, but if you have to open fire it will be a big help to not have to constantly manually reload.

My research shows that police are the single most important factor in deterring violent crime. But the riots have shown yet again that politicians frequently won’t let the police do their jobs when they are most needed.

The riots have shown several things that liberal politicians don’t seem to understand. The police themselves know that they normally arrive on the scene after the crime has occurred, and that having a gun is by far the safest course of action when you are confronted by a criminal. It is also the most vulnerable in our society — namely blacks who live in high-crime cities — who benefit the most from having the option to be able to defend themselves.