Category Archives: Guns

No One Needs an AR-15

Scary, scary assault gun.

No one needs assault weapons. Why do you need an AR-15? Only criminals need these high-powered assault guns designed to kill a lot of people very quickly!

That’s what gun grabbers will tell you. As arbiters of what you need, they arrogantly remind you that this evil, high-powered assault gun, which you can spray fire indiscriminately and consequently kill multiple nuns and small children, should be banned, because no one needs it.

Until one does.

Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.

Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.


Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.

Subsequent updates to the story say the shooter was actually 23 years old, and the suspects were armed, with one wielding a knife, and another brass knuckles. To give the Washington Post credit, they did not hyperventilate over “assault” weapon use in this incident. They didn’t even mention the word. It’s nice to see.

Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.


BBC’s Harry Law: Pushing political agenda and displaying cultural ignorance

second-amendmentAs I said previously, I do consider BBC’s straight journalism considerably superior to almost any American “news” outlet. Someone pointed out that BBC does lean considerably left, but it is easy to discern their reporting efforts from their features/editorials, so while I respect their journalism, their other work leaves a lot of be desired.

A few days ago, a writer named Harry Low decided it was time to add some spittle-flecked ignorance to the already-vast library of anti-gun loonery that the “journalists” of the world dutifully created in order to advance a global anti-freedom agenda. He penned a piece for BBC Magazine entitled “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime.” This is hardly a news piece in any way, shape, or form, nor does it explore any new ideas. The author’s only goal with this dull-witted screed was to emphasize one message: GUNZ BAD!

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

suicidesNow, let’s start with the fact that the gun rate cited in the United States also includes cases of legal self defense as well as suicides. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the 33,599 deaths via firearms in 2014 – or 21,334 were suicides, according to the CDC.

Do you want to know how many people committed suicide in Japan in 2014? According to the BBC itself, in 2014 on average 70 Japanese people committed suicide every day.

Every. Day.

That’s 25,550 people per year, which may be a function of another problem, which I will discuss below.

So comparing deaths by firearm in 2014 and including suicides in the United States, which comprise 63 percent of the deaths being compared is abject inability to analyze data at best, and outright disingenuous manipulation of data at worst.

A country that banned handguns and has incredibly tight controls on all other types of firearms in 2014 saw a higher suicide rate than the United States.

So point one: Harry Law is either a liar or an idiot.

But let’s remove the suicides from the picture. Out of the remaining 12,265 deaths by firearm, 464 were listed as legal intervention. That means a thug got ventilated by a would-be victim, which leaves 11,801 firearm deaths. Now, remember, these are legal interventions which resulted in the death of the violent vermin in question. This does not include incidents in which the gun was merely brandished, or the vermin was only injured. We have no idea how many lives were saved by those acts of bravery, but let’s leave those alone for a bit.

There were also 586 unintentional deaths – or accidents – which leaves 11,215, and there were 270 firearm deaths in which the intent could not be determined. This brings the gun homicide level to 10,945.

Still, Harry Law might say, nearly 11,000 firearm deaths compared to six is a big difference! While Japan in 2014 had a 0.3 gun homicide rate, the United States came in at a whopping 3.43 percent! And of course, Harry Law’s answer to the disparity is the lack of guns.

If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too – and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That’s not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan’s 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit.

And this is where point two comes in: Harry Law is ignorant on Japanese culture writ large.

The people are comfortable, he says.

There’s no clamor for a relaxation of firearms laws, he says.

And Japanese police officers rarely use guys, he says.

Japanese police officers rarely use guns and put much greater emphasis on martial arts – all are expected to become a black belt in judo. They spend more time practising kendo (fighting with bamboo swords) than learning how to use firearms.

“The response to violence is never violence, it’s always to de-escalate it. Only six shots were fired by Japanese police nationwide [in 2015],” says journalist Anthony Berteaux. “What most Japanese police will do is get huge futons and essentially roll up a person who is being violent or drunk into a little burrito and carry them back to the station to calm them down.”

Now, my juvenile giggling at a perp being turned into a burrito aside, I’m also not a fan of the militarization of police. I’m much more a proponent of effective training, whether with firearms, a baton, or hand-to-hand combat.


That said, what Harry Law wrote demonstrates a remarkable lack of cultural awareness.

First, despite the lack of guns in Japan, the homicide rate actually increased by 6.76 percent from 2013 to 2014, according to the World Data Atlas.

But more than that what Harry Law is missing is the fact that the homicide rate writ large in Japan has always been significantly lower than in the United States. Japan saw 697 homicides in 2003 overall, compared with 11,920 firearm deaths in the United States. But while gun ownership has been on the rise since 2003, the gun homicide rates have generally declined.

Gee, maybe there’s something else at play that Harry Law, in his ridiculous zeal to advance a “GUNZ BAD!” message is missing?

In 1988 Dave Kopel wrote an article about Japanese culture that might clear up Harry Law’s confusion a bit.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors’ judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask “suspicious” characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police — even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community.

Bottom line: The Japanese public has had a historically very different relationship with law enforcement, police have broad powers, including the power to stop, search, and coerce confessions during interrogations. The Japanese culturally respect police officers as much as they respect teachers, and have willingly ceded their rights. I don’t know a whole lot of people in the West, and especially not in the United States, who are willing to scrap their constitutional rights in the way the Japanese have. Additionally, crime rates are generally low because culturally, to commit a crime is to bring shame to one’s family.

And in Japan, culturally, the sense of shame is significant. Shame, honor, and duty are a historic part of Japanese culture. Going to jail carries with it an extraordinary social stigma, which compared to other countries, where prison time gives you street cred, would make more sense in explaining the low crime rates than the presence or absence of firearms. And at the same time, there is a focus on keeping crime statistics low, and violent crimes such as rape go underreported in a society that is apparently still male-dominated and so intent on keeping its image clean, that no autopsies are performed, on even most obvious cases of foul play, and no crime is reported.

The existence of chikan (“perverts”, meaning men groping women in public) is a massive problem and has led to the creation of “women-only” carriages in most major cities. Japanese police are also criticized for failing to take victims of sexual crimes seriously time and again as a result of either chauvinist bias or an inability to investigate such crimes.

What are most disturbing are however arguments that the low crime is partially a result of a police culture that are obsessed with keeping crime statistics low. Former detectives claim that police is unwilling to investigate homicides unless there is a clear suspects and frequently labels unnatural deaths as suicides without performing autopsies. Coincidentally, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

This brings me to point three: Harry Law apparently knows fuckall about Japanese culture, and uses that ignorance to his advantage when pushing a political agenda.

Point four: Harry Law shouldn’t be taken seriously.

World’s Dumbest Criminals Try to Rob Gun Store

One gets capped.

The owner of Dixie Gun and Pawn on Veterans Memorial Parkway in Cobb County, along with one other worker, had just opened the store when two men with ski masks and guns came in, according to investigators. Police say the owner pulled out his gun and fired, hitting one of the gunmen.

The second gunman took off in a silver Dodge Magnum and headed east down Veterans Memorial Parkway. Police are still searching for that man, and said they believe he is armed.

I wonder what kind of defective genetic material created two sub-moron cretins so stupid, they would try to rob an establishment in which the would-be victims are sure to be armed!

potatoSomeone so imbecilic, that I had to take time out from spending holiday time with family to point and laugh at the desiccated carcass of the glue-sniffing retard that was created when two idiots had drunken intercourse one night to spawn this nitwit!

DERP POTATO must have been strong with those two!

Good for the store owner! This is what I like to refer to as chlorinating the gene pool. Anyone who is stupid enough to attempt to rob a gun store, where they sell… you know… GUNS, and where the employees or owners are… you know… more than likely armed, because their establishment sells valuable merchandise that’s in high demand by savages who think they’re entitled to use violence to relieve others of their property, is much too stupid to be allowed to walk the streets without adult supervision, and probably would have throttled himself with his own shoelaces while trying to tie his shoes one fine morning in the not too distant future.

I wonder how long before the donors of the defective genetic material I mentioned above come forward and complain about how the gun store owner didn’t have to shoot their precious little boy!

In 3…2…1…

Guest Post: Why Police Training in America is Failing and How to Fix it

ap910452024326_0In light of police shootings in the past couple of years and the resultant protests that have driven a gargantuan wedge between those who support police officers and those who believe police departments are inherently racist and disproportionately target minorities, I thought it would be relevant to publish this longer piece on police training.

As mentioned below, the author is a law enforcement and security expert. He understands training, stress situations, and security matters and approaches them from a realistic, educational perspective, rather than emotionalist rhetoric.

It’s something we should all consider.

Police shootings of innocent people aren’t necessarily the result of racism or a desire to kill black men. Stephen Didier presents another possibility and offers some possible solutions.

We would all do well to seriously consider his essay.

Law enforcement training and preparedness in the United States today is largely ineffective and irrelevant.  This is due to its failure to adapt necessary training methodologies to address evolutionary changes both in technology and public expectations. However, there are effective solutions with accompanying practical policies that had been previously implemented on a national level, only later to be abandoned for political and fiscal ease.  Such abandonment has turned out to be penny-wise and pound foolish in light of the increasing number of criminal and terrorist attacks on law enforcement and the concomitant fear such attacks create among the public at large.  Before offering these solutions it is necessary to understand the complex social and human performance dynamics underlying this problem. It must also be noted that this article is not intended to be disrespectful of the courageous men and women who serve in blue.  Rather, it is written to present realistic solutions to the problems they are facing both personally and professionally.

The rule of law and the peace officers entrusted with the responsibility to uphold it is the fabric of a safe and prosperous republic.  Constitutional Republics like the United States, where a person’s private property rights and security supersede the wants of a government run by a communist despot or fanatical theocracy need virtuous men and women to keep the peace and uphold law and order.  When selfless individuals volunteer to do so, society owes them leadership and consistent and fair rules.  Moreover, it owes these officers the training, knowledge, skills, and equipment needed for the protection and betterment of society. These needs are not mutually exclusive from the needs of the people the officers serve. In fact, the better trained officers are, the less likely they are to infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens.  

The average junior high school ball player practices about four hundred (400) hours per year, and for the most part these players are mediocre: only their parents and fellow students come to watch the games. Sadly, most law enforcement agencies spend less than four (4) hours per year – after entry-level academies – training their personnel on the ethical, legal, and tactical dynamics of deadly force encounters.

The public expects officers to demonstrate professional ball player-level performance.  This training-performance disconnect will not be solved by body cameras or more restrictive rules for the use of force.  Rules are generally written by the tactically unknowing in response to political demands for deadly force encounters to unfold as they wish them to rather than how they truly do.  This is another reason why judgment-based training is far superior to rules-based training.  Rules-based training is a linear solution to a nonlinear problem.

Despite all the negative press, police officers in America have and continue to do an incredible, and often thankless job, protecting and promoting the societies and secure communities in which many of us live and work.  They are the people who respond at 2:00 AM when something goes “bump in the night.” Moreover, the actual number of suspects who succumb to police officers’ use of deadly force is astoundingly low (Note: an increase in media coverage is almost certainly responsible for the perception that police shootings are at epidemic levels).  Annually, in a nation of 330 million persons, police officers are assaulted at least 66,000 times.  Of those assaults, at least 15,500 are committed with a dangerous and deadly weapon. (As discussed, below, this trend is getting worse). As a matter of law, if a suspect assaults a police officer with a deadly weapon, that officer can use deadly force in self-defense.  Yet, despite these numbers, police officers only kill approximately 600 suspects per year nationwide: about the same number of murder victims in Chicago in that same timeframe. So, this notion – repeated time and again by woefully or willfully ignorant members of the press – that police are on a rampant killing spree is a nothing less than a lie.  

Nonetheless, as communities grow and evolve, whether due to population increases, changing political and cultural norms, values, criminal activity, etc., so must the police. Since the 1960’s, there have been innumerable police reform initiatives in America, with several recent efforts driven by both political and social demand.  Given the broad responsibilities of the police, and often-limited resources, police leaders continually develop policies to prioritize and focus their activities.  Unfortunately for the individual police officer, most of the evolution and changes occur within the realm of administration, policing programs, enforcement initiatives, law changes and service orientations, and not in the individual officer’s physiological and psychological ability to be effective against the ensuing increase of personal attacks or terrorist threats against them or the public. 

Continue reading →

“OK, Done!” My Response to an Open Letter to Levi’s Customers by its CEO

Dear Chip –

As an Army veteran, a mother, and a Second Amendment rights advocate I feel a “tremendous responsibility” to address your November 30th letter to your customers in which you “respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores.”

My husband and I will, of course, respect your wishes and never enter any of your stores again. If you don’t value our business (nor our safety concerns about having to leave our defensive tools at home, or worse – in our cars without positive control) enough to keep your politics away from your company, we will certainly oblige by keeping our business away from you and your products.

To be sure, you have every right to make this request. The stores are Levi’s property. I fully understand that, and I accept your choice to only do business with disarmed potential victims. That’s fine. Your property rights are as important as my right to defend myself, so I will abide by your request and never take my gun into your stores again.

But I do want to address some of your claims, so bear with me.

Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss Photograph by Stuart Isett/Fortune Brainstorm Green 2014

Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss
Photograph by Stuart Isett/Fortune Brainstorm Green 2014

You claim to be a former Army officer and a father. I’m sure, if you have ever deployed to a war zone (probably not, judging by your dates of service), you remember that your firearm has kept you safe in some pretty hazardous situations. That’s why it is interesting to me that as someone who has served his country, you have so little understanding about the safety and security carrying an effective tool of self defense can provide. Actually, maybe it’s not interesting… given that you even fail to  capitalize the word, “Army” in your open letter (out of respect, if nothing else), tells me a lot about what you thought of your military service. Four and a half years in the military from 1979 to 1983 should have given you some perspective, but I guess not.

I’m also puzzled that as a father, you prefer to see customers cowering and parents trying desperately to shield their children from those who will undoubtedly ignore your respectful request, rather than armed citizens who are accountable for their own safety and the safety of those around them and are willing to take responsibility for said safety.

You describe how impacted you were by the attacks in Nice, Paris, and Orlando, and yet, you fail to mention that France has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world, which somehow failed to stop the attacks there, and that the Orlando shooting took place despite the Florida state law that prohibits carrying concealed firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. This tells me you’re either acting from a place of emotional hysteria, or you intentionally ignore the facts in your effort to genuflect in front of unhinged cowards, whose petty little feelings of dread at seeing a regular citizen carrying a self defense tool are more important to you than the actual safety of your customers.

“It boils down to this,” you claim, “you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”

I agree with you, Chip. You shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping, which is why neither my family nor I will ever shop in a Levi Strauss & Company store again. Rather, we will spend our hard-earned money in an establishment that respects our right to defend ourselves, rather than bowing to cowards who soil themselves at the sight of a tool.


%d bloggers like this: