Doesn’t The 2nd Amendment Give You The Right To Defend Yourself Even If You Are Defending Yourself From The Police?

Last week it was Dallas; this week it’s Baton Rouge. The ambush of law-enforcement officers by a deranged individual acting out of God knows what kind of motive is becoming commonplace, and has finally given Don Trump a campaign issue that even he shouldn’t be able to screw up.

2A           But where is Gun-nut Nation in all this?  If you check the news stories and commentaries on the NRA-ILA website, the latest postings consist of the weekly anti-Hillary rant, a nasty dig at Shannon Watts and the announcement that NRA chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, will help fill in the Cleveland Convention program with a speech that will remind the audience that ”for voters who believe in their constitutional freedoms, the choice in this Presidential election is clear.”

But what constitutional freedoms is Chris Cox talking about?  Oops – I forgot. The NRA claims to be America’s oldest civil rights organization.  By defending the 2nd Amendment, the boys in Fairfax are defending all our freedoms, because the whole point of the 2nd Amendment, in case you’ve forgotten, is to let you keep and use your gun to defend yourself, not just against predators and street criminals, but against a ‘tyrannical’ government whose power and authority, left unchecked, would take all your liberties away.

Now what I just said isn’t some kind of crazy, right-wing paranoid fantasy that the NRA has concocted to keep alive the images from Tiananmen Square.  In fact, the idea that the 2nd Amendment represents protection from the excesses of government was most forcefully stated by a liberal constitutional scholar, Sanford Levinson, who published a 1989 article in which he admonished liberals for not giving the 2nd Amendment its proper respect since the notion that government might behave in a tyrannical way was counter to liberal, big-government beliefs.

Had Levinson been an ideological conservative, his article would probably have been dismissed out of hand. But the fact that he was, and still is a noted liberal authority on constitutional law turned his argument into a red-meat screed with which the NRA and the right-wing noise machine panders to the Mob every day.  And since Hillary represents government tyranny to the nth degree, she’s against 2nd Amendment ‘rights’ which threatens all freedoms, not just the freedom to own a gun.  Okay, got it?

So why is the NRA being so silent about the shootings of cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge?  First, because the shooters in both cases were military veterans (one of the NRA’s most prized constituencies, so they think) who used legally-purchased guns. And while we can quibble over whether or not the AK-74 used in Dallas is an assault weapon or not, both guns were designed to kill lots of people as quickly as possible. Yet thanks to the NRA, such guns can be owned by every ‘law-abiding’ gun guy whether he intends to shoot other people or not.

But behind the refusal/reluctance of the NRA to open up on the issue of assault rifles lurks a much more vexing issue that Gun-nut Nation would rather not face.  Because if government wanted to behave tyrannically, wouldn’t this behavior be represented first and foremost by the actions of the police? And if a cop pulls out a gun and shoots an unarmed guy who was reaching for his driver’s license, since the cop represents government, wouldn’t Philando Castile have been within his 2-Amendment rights to protect himself with his gun?

Please understand: I am as pro-cop as anyone can be.  I always give the men and women in blue every conceivable break. So this is in no way an attempt to justify the shooting of police.  But if Gun-nut Nation really wants the 2nd Amendment to mean that we can use guns against government force, then the argument cuts both ways.  What’s law and order to one person might be an exercise in government tyranny to someone else.  And both these folks have the right to protect themselves (and others) with a gun, right?


ABC-News Talks About Gun Violence And Gets It Right.

Earlier this week ABC-News ran a long story, complete with videos, interviews and a national map showing the location of recent shootings about gun violence.  As far as I am concerned, this was the most detailed, comprehensive, honest and fairly-reported major media story on gun violence which I have ever seen. And in case you don’t know, I have been closely following the gun violence debate, argument, discussion, whatever you want to call it, for more than fifty years.   That’s right.  I first started paying attention this to issue when went to North Carolina and helped my great-Uncle Ben manufacture a small 22-caliber revolver in 1955.  So when I say that I have been involved in guns for more than fifty years, I mean what I say.

conference-program-pic           The ABC story is remarkable in many ways. First is the choice of title, using the words ‘gun violence’ in a straight and unvarnished way.  Know what?  You’ll never see or hear the words ‘gun’ and ‘violence’ linked together by Gun-nut Nation or its loudspeakers such as the NRA.  Because to that bunch, guns aren’t violent; people are violent, and the real value of gun ownership is that people with guns can protect themselves from violent crime, violent terrorists, even perhaps violent law enforcement, although Gun-nut Nation isn’t exactly sure how to handle all those shootings of unarmed inner-city residents by cops, even though every law-abiding, God-fearing American should be, indeed must be walking around with a gun.

Once you get past the title of the story, you are presented with a map of the United States showing the location of shootings throughout the United States, with more than 350 gun deaths and more than 1,200 shooting incidents occurring between June 24th and July 4th, which is about average for any 11-day period during the current year.  This data is drawn from the remarkable website and aggregating engine known as the Gun Violence Archive, and it’s about time that major media outlets began to recognize and promote the work of Mark Bryant and his energetic and talented GVA staff.

The story not only gives the GVA project its due, but also is built on discussions with other important Gun Violence Prevention experts, like Harvard’s Cathy Barber, who has built an impressive program to deal with gun suicide, another type of gun violence that claims more than 20,000 lives every year.  When it comes to the use of guns in suicides, Gun-nut Nation of course will tell you there’s no connection between suicide rates and gun ownership, citing the fact that there are other countries without gun access that register similar or higher suicide rates than ours.  Meanwhile, this link will take you to a listing of a dozen studies which clearly indicate that guns increase suicide risk, but since when did Gun-nut Nation base any of their arguments on science or facts?

In 1986, less than 40% of Americans stated that they had read or heard anything about what was called the ‘greenhouse effect.’  Know what the percentage was in 2007?  91%.  Does this mean that 91% of Americans believe that global warming is a threat?  No, but what it does demonstrate is that an awareness about global warming has become part of the general culture, it was now an accepted world view.

I believe that the key to building a society that no longer suffers from gun violence must first begin and ultimately rest on a cultural shift which makes a phrase like ‘gun violence’ as normal and as much a part of the everyday lexicon as the phrase ‘global warming’ has become. And the fact that a national media outlet like ABC-News would run a major story on gun violence based largely on the work of the Gun Violence Archive tells me that this fundamental cultural change may be starting to take place.  And it’s a change which I have never previously witnessed and I have been involved with guns for a very, very long time.

Why Was Philando Castle Shot? Because The Cop Had A Gun.

So it turns out that the cop who shot and killed Philando Castle during a traffic stop in a Minneapolis suburb not only received 23 hours of training on active shooters, use of force and de-escalation methods, but also recently completed a private course called ‘Bulletproof Warrior,’ run by a for-profit outfit called Calibre Press.  So if nothing else, we can say that Officer Yanez, now in the middle of the shooting controversy following an on-scene video that went viral, has spent some time learning what to do with his gun.


             Jeff Cooper

Jeff Cooper

Unfortunately, the average cop probably doesn’t receive sufficient training in how to determine whether an incident in which he or she is involved may require the use of lethal force.  And police often encounter individuals whose behavior doesn’t necessarily indicate that the officer is placing himself in harm’s way until it’s too late.  So in every, single case where a cop might need to use lethal force, there’s always an element of personal judgement and on-the-job experience that comes into play.

Which is why I found the news of Officer Yanez’s attendance at a ‘Bulletproof Warrior’ seminar both interesting and disturbing; interesting because there has been a growth in companies that promote all kinds of lethal-force training, officially sanctioned or not, and disturbing because this type of training goes hand-in-hand with the extent to which Americans are fed a daily diet about the alleged increase in lawlessness and violence against which they need to be more vigilant and more prepared, meaning – walk around with a gun.

The idea that the world is a dangerous, threatening place didn’t first crop up after the Twin Towers were attacked.  In fact, it was the theme song of one of Gun-nut Nation’s most venerable icons, a World War II veteran and former Marine named Jeff Cooper, who opened a commercial shooting range where he taught close-combat and self-defense methods called the Gunsite Academy in 1976.  Cooper also wrote prodigiously for gun publications and published a whole pile of books, including his most famous tome, Principles of Personal Defense, which became something of a mini-best seller in Gun-nut Land, and is still quoted today, even if the folks who quote the book don’t realize that what they are saying is what Cooper said decades ago.

Cooper’s success was a perfect example of being in the right place at the right time, because it was in the late 1970s that the NRA adopted a much more combative stance, began promoting concealed-carry as an expression of 2nd-Amendment rights, and wrapped the whole argument around the notion that without an armed citizenry, violent crime would spiral out of control.  To further the idea that a personally-carried weapon was the only true defense against a world filled with predators and thugs, Cooper developed a color code ranging from “condition white” to “condition red,” the former being a state in which an individual is totally unprepared for an attack, the latter being the point at which a lethal response is in the process of being made.

This may sound like nothing more than fantasies now scripted into video games, but there appear to be lots of folks walking around who are willing to engage in lethal-force combat games at Thunder Ranch, or join a clever web marketing promotion like United States Concealed Carry Association, or take a course in lethal defense from companies like Calibre Press. And what all three have in common is the idea that we are always on the verge of being victims of violent crime, and that the only valid response is to protect ourselves and others with a gun.

Let’s forget that violent crime continues to decline.  Let’s forget that the number of times that guns are used to prevent crimes is too small to be found.  Let’s remember how we felt when we were given our first toy gun.  And let’s remember how we feel now that the toys are real.

How Do We Keep A Law-Abiding Gun Owner From Doing Something Crazy With A Gun?

In the aftermath of Orlando and Dallas, Gun Violence Prevention advocates find themselves coming face-to-face with the veritable elephant in the living room, namely, how to prevent someone from using a gun who acquired the weapon legally?  Expanding background checks to private transaction, a worthwhile goal, wouldn’t have made any difference in these two tragedies at all. For that matter, instituting a permit-to-purchase requirement for handguns or highly-lethal assault rifles also wouldn’t have prevented either shooter from getting his hands on a gun.

dallas           Of course Gun-nut Nation has a ready-made answer to this problem, consisting of eliminating all ‘gun-free’ zones and convincing every ‘law-abiding’ citizen to walk around with a gun. So even if a law-abiding citizen like the Orlando shooter yanked out his AR and started shooting up a club, there would be a few armed citizens in the crowd who would immediately respond and bring things under control.  If you actually believe that there’s any truth whatsoever in the previous sentence, do me a favor, okay?  Go lay brick.

Now back to reality.  The problem we face in this respect is both very simple and very complicated.  It’s simple because what we are looking at is an aberrant form of behavior which every year costs more than 30,000 Americans their lives and another 60,000+ Americans their health because gun injuries happen to be the most medically devastating injury of all.  That’s the simple part.

The complicated part is that trying to control or (God forbid) change human behavior through imposing new rules or regulations can work, but only if the rules reflect a collaboration of a large and diverse group of stakeholders, all of whom agree that something needs to be done.  Who had to jump on the bandwagon to cut the fatality rate from auto accidents? Try government, manufacturers, insurance companies, school systems, law enforcement, and most of all, the driving public.  Can you imagine a similar conglomeration of stakeholders sitting down to come up with a set of comprehensive mandates to make it more difficult for Mister Average Joe Gun Owner to do something stupid or destructive with his gun?

And even if you could convene these relevant participants, and even if they could produce some new mandates that might alter the current regulatory environment in a positive way, how could such changes create any kind of barrier to a law-abiding individual who wants to own a gun? Which is why I said above that the Gun Violence Prevention community is looking at an elephant in the living room when it comes to figuring out how to prevent an otherwise harmless-looking and harmless-behaving fellow from taking his gun and going to the extreme.

But I also have a suggestion that might actually make a difference in terms of identifying the elephant and bringing him under control.  And it’s a suggestion that doesn’t need any mandates or regulation at all, just the ability of some concerned individuals or organizations to communicate the following idea.

And the idea is based on what appears to be one thing that most law-abiding, mass shooters have in common before they committed their dreadful acts, namely, that in the run up to their destructive behavior, they divulged their plans to at least one other person who then made the conscious decision not to intervene.  This was true of the shooter at Charleston, true for the shooter who walked into The Pulse, certainly true of the shooter at San Bernardino, I suspect it’s true of so many more.

What we really need is messaging which tells people they need to get involved and alert others if they learn that someone is planning to use a gun in a harmful way.  Conversations, Facebook posts, emails, I don’t care how the possible mass shooter announces his plans.  If you know a gun owner who tells others that he’s going to do something ‘big’ with his gun, don’t just dismiss it as a harmless gesture.  Ask yourself whether you want to be around if and when he moves from words to an act.

A Little Seminar On Gun Lethality: Let’s Start With Handguns.

What follows is a work in progress so please feel free to respond with ideas, reactions, etc.  Last week I published a New York Times op-ed in which I called for the regulation of guns based on their lethality as a more efficient and logical way to keep guns out of the ‘wrong hands.’ Because otherwise we run into a dead end when someone like the Orlando shooter acquires gunslegally and then uses them for a bad end.

What I am proposing is that that persons who want to own highly-lethal weapons do more than simply pass a background check.  This is not the Canadian or the European approach, which imposes stiff regulations on just about every kind of gun.  Instead, it borrows a page from the ATF which currently approves applications for importing guns based on whether the particular model is judged to be a safe, ‘sporting’ gun or not.

So what I have done is create four different categories of lethality: concealability, caliber, ammunition capacity and flexibility (e.g., how quickly a gun can be reloaded or made ready to fire), with the guns that score highest total being the most lethal and therefore requiring a greater degree of regulation in order to be bought or owned.  Next week I am going to publish a detailed study covering lethality measurements for every kind of gun, but today I thought I would give you a little preview of how a lethality scorecard might actually work.

For this exercise I chose nine different gun models currently manufactured by Smith & Wesson, including two standard revolvers (586, 67,) one very concealable revolver (351PD,) two target pistols (SW22, 41,) two full-size pistols (M&P 40, 1911SC,) and two very small pistols (Shield, BGA360.)

Here are the pictures and lethality scores for each gun.  Remember, the higher the score, the more lethal the gun:

Model 586, 357 magnum revolver, 6″ barrel, LETHALITY – 17



Model 67, 38 special revolver, 4” barrel, LETHALITY – 16



Model 351 PD, 357 magnum revolver, 2” barrel,  LETHALITY – 21



Model 22, 22LR caliber, 5” barrel, LETHALITY – 15



Model 41, 22LR caliber, 7” barrel,  LETHALITY – 12



Model M&P 40, 40 S&W caliber, 4” barrel, LETHALITY – 23



Model 1911SC, 45acp caliber, 4” barrel, LETHALITY – 22



Model SHIELD, 40 S&W caliber, 3” barrel, LETHALITY –  21


Model BGA380, 380acp caliber, 2” barrel, LETHALITY – 19

And the winner is – the M&P 40 pistol, which happens to be Smith & Wesson’s standard gun carried by police.  The reason it gets the most lethal score is because it holds more than 15 rounds of a very powerful cartridge; in fact, the only cartridge more powerful in the above list is the 357 magnum, and while the 351PD revolver only holds 5 rounds of this extremely lethal ammunition, the gun scores high on the scale because the ammo is very powerful and the gun is very small. Let’s not forget that lethality is not just a function of the amount of ammo loaded into the gun; it’s also based on how easy it is to carry the gun around.

Notice that the BGA380 gets a score that is not in the range of the bigger guns because while it is very concealable it also loads with only a moderately powerful round.  But Smith & Wesson also markets a version of this gun with an integral laser, which means that you don’t have to aim the gun at all.  Just pull the trigger halfway and the laser lights up; now you’re playing a video game with a real, live gun.  And I have decided to award 3 points to gun with integral lasers, which means the laser model of the tiny BGA380 would almost match the lethality of the full-size M&P.

The lowest lethality score was awarded to the Model 41, which is a beautiful, hand-crafted target gun designed specifically for sport and competitive shooting at the range.  But the barrel length makes it very difficult to conceal, and hence I don’t consider it to be an extremely lethal gun.

Over the next few days I am going to publish similar lethality lists for other handgun manufacturers plus rifles and shotguns as well.  Feel free to offer suggestions or comments so that I can tighten and improve my work.


Rudy Giuliani Thinks He Understands Gun Violence. He Doesn’t.

When I was a kid, we used the term ‘racist’ to describe the actions or views of people who justified racial inequality because the racial group on the ‘bottom’ didn’t have the intelligence or the motivation of the racial group on the ‘top.’  And while there were always African-Americans who made stupid or hateful statements about Caucasians (think Jesse Jackson’s ‘Hymietown,’) these dopey attitudes didn’t qualify as racism because Whites who were sometimes demonized by Blacks were still on top.

BLM           This rather obvious Black-White interrelation blurred when the legal barriers upholding racial segregation began to collapse.  It blurred some more as African-Americans, some African-Americans, a few African-Americans made it into the middle class or became visible and successful in entertainment and sports.  And of course the idea that racism presupposed inequality became blurred even further when a certain Kenyan-born person moved his family into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address from which, unfortunately, he will soon have to depart.

But what has really confused the issue of racism is a conscious and continuous effort by the right-wing noise machine, aided and abetted by the Republican party and Fox News, to pretend that African-Americans are also racists whenever they raise concerns about their own status, as if questioning the behavior of Whites toward Blacks is some kind of ‘proof’ that Whites can be victimized by racism and racist attitudes as well.

This nonsense erupted in response to the emergence of Black Lives Matter following the execution of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood-watch activist who happened to be walking around with a gun.  “What do you mean, Black lives matter?” thundered Rush Limbaugh, “Don’t all lives matter?’  And since BLM is only concerned about their ‘own’ kind, this is proof pari passu that the organization’s perspective and strategies are racist to the core.

Now the fact is that police violence is endemic to inner-city communities where most African-Americans happen to live. The fact is, the fact is, the fact is, but who cares about facts when you can earn a living by running your mouth off on television and say whatever happens to be in your stupid head?

And the numbskull I am referring to is Rudy Giuliani, who went on Fox and accused BLM of being ‘inherently racist’ because the real danger of a Black kid getting shot was not from a cop but from another Black kid. So why does the BLM movement spend all its time talking about the behavior of racist cops?  Because the cops are White, the BLM movement is Black, and it’s the racism of the BLM movement which keeps them from talking about Blacks shooting other Blacks.

I’m not trying to posture myself as an expert either on politics or race.  My expertise extends only to the issue of guns.  So I’m going to correct Rudy G not from a racial perspective, but from the facts (here’s that damn word again) about gun violence no matter whose skin color happens to be involved.

Gun violence between civilians is overwhelmingly intra-racial, and in eight out of ten instances gun violence occurs because two or more people get into an ongoing argument and sooner or later someone pulls out a gun. With whom do people have disputes?  With people they know because they live together, or they live on the same block, or they go to the same school. And even if it’s an argument over drugs, Rudy’s favorite form of gun violence, the argument erupts between two members of the same gang.

On the other hand, police are supposed to be trained to keep the lid on disputes with citizens so that violence between law enforcement and civilians, particularly gun violence, is kept under control. If the shootings in Louisiana and Minneapolis are part of a wider problem of cops too often using their guns on minorities, than the problem has to be corrected now, and no amount of demagoguery from nincompoops like Giuliani should prevent that from taking place.

Think Carrying A Gun Makes You Tough? Think Again.

Anyone remember a New York City gang known as the Westies?  They were a bunch of Irish hoods from the West Side dock area known as Hell’s Kitchen who basically were responsible for maybe more than 60 murders from the 1960s until the gang was finally busted up around 1985 or 1986.  Actually, what led to the gang’s demise was the gentrification of Manhattan’s West Side, the appearance of a new neighborhood called Clinton, and the replacement of block upon block of tenement, slum housing with condos and co-ops costing a million dollars or more. But in their heyday, the Westies gang were considered a bunch of guys you didn’t mess with, because if you did, there was a good chance you would wind up dead.

then westies            In fact, it’s not clear that the Westies actually did a job on most of the victims whom the Gambino crime family paid them to rub out. Because I happened to live in another neighborhood in ‘da city’ and the gang on my street corner, who called themselves the Spades, were the guys to whom the Westies actually sub-contracted out most of the Gambino crime family work.  Imagine that – a gang of white kids who called themselves the Spades.  Oh well, those were the days.

Anyway, the guys I knew who called themselves the Spades worked construction, which meant that every day they showed up at some high-rise being built somewhere in Manhattan and hung around.  And when they did a job for the Westies, what this meant was that a van would pull up at the construction site, some guy with a bag over his head would be hustled out, then grabbed by the Spades who would trundle him up a few flights of stairs.  Six guys would go up the stairs, five guys would walk back down.  The other guy would fly back down through the elevator shaft, or out of a window, or whichever way worked best.

Dig this. The Spades were very dangerous and very violent but none of them ever carried guns.  And the reason they didn’t carry guns is because they knew that on a regular basis, usually once every evening as they were hanging around on the corner, the cops would come by, push them up against a wall and administer the Miranda warning which meant taking out a blackjack and clopping them over their heads. And if anyone was found with a gun, he was going away.  A knock on the side of the head was nothing compared to three to five in the joint.

Now you would think that guys like this would always have guns.  But what was the point of carrying a gun?  They didn’t need one to do what they did for the Westies; heaving someone off a roof had a much cleaner and guaranteed end.  And they didn’t need guns for self-protection; after all, who was going to mess with them?

I thought about the Spades and their attitude towards guns when I saw those jerks in Texas swaggering along with assault rifles slung over their backs. Do any of these open-carry morons actually believe that walking around with that gun is going to protect them from who knows what?  For that matter, would it make any difference if instead of an assault rifle openly displayed they had a Glock stuck in their pants?

I think that someone who goes around carrying a gun, particularly someone with absolutely no idea of how to use the damn thing, is just a case of arrested development playing out a childish fantasy about how big and tough he’d really like to be.  Because it’s easy to pretend standing your ground by pulling out your banger and firing away.  But what would you do if you had to deal with a difficult or dangerous situation and had to use your brain?  Oh my God! Behave like an adult?  Why me?

Gun Sales Up Again In June? Only If You Count Background Checks That Have Nothing To Do With Sales.

Once again Gun-nut Nation is celebrating another month of soaring gun sales with the publication of the June NICS background check report from the FBI.  And here is how the report was summarized by the NRA: “One way or the other, though, Americans are continuing to acquire guns at an unprecedented level.”  And no sooner did this celebratory announcement pop out of the mouths of the folks down in Fairfax than it was immediately picked up and blasted all around Gun-nut Nation because, after all, why miss an opportunity to congratulate America for buying all those guns?

fbi           But before my friends in the Gun Violence Prevention community shake their heads and wonder why their energy and efforts appear to be so much in vain, perhaps we might actually take the trouble to read the FBI report on background checks, because what the report says is not what the NRA and Gun-nut Nation would like you to believe.

In fact, the total number of background checks run in June by those hardy folks who sit on the phones in West Virginia was 2,131,485, which was an increase of 12% over the previous month and an increase of just under 30% from June of 2015.  Other than May’s number, June was also the lowest monthly total in 2016, but summer is the slow season for guns because shooting ranges don’t usually compete very well with the beach.

What do those June numbers really mean?  First and most important, the number of gun transfers that are covered by NICS doesn’t not allow us to determine how many guns were sold by dealers to customers, as opposed to how many guns were transferred from one individual to another with a background check conducted when the gun was received. Washington State, for example, recorded 21,000 gun checks in June, 2015 and 32,000 checks in June, 2016, before and after the law requiring universal background checks went into effect.  So at least some of the 50% increase from one June to the next had to reflect not sales by dealers, but transfers of guns that were previously owned.  There are now 10 states that require background checks for private transfers (MD and PA only require checks for handgun transfers,) and these states accounted for nearly 300,000 background checks for gun transfers in June. Get it?

But the bigger news about the ‘surge’ in background checks is that it is mostly due to increased use of the FBI-NICS system to validate gun license applications as opposed to the purchase of guns.  Ready?  Last month, the busy little beavers at the FBI-NICS phone center processed 1,076,592 calls for background checks on guns.  They also processed 983,256 calls to verify license information.  In other words, of the 2,131,485 calls that Gun-nut Nation’s media hacks proclaimed as reflecting this tremendous and continued increase in gun sales, in fact, only half the calls had anything to do with the sale of guns. And almost as many calls, 46% of the total telephone traffic, were for licensing issues and had absolutely nothing to do with gun purchases at all.

Guess what happened in June, 2015?  Out of a total of 1,518,852 calls to NICS, 825,111 (54%) were for gun sales, 632,027 (40%) were for licensing.  In other words, from one June to the next, the percentage of calls for gun sales went down and the percentage of calls for licensing went up.  And yes, thanks to The Pulse, gun background checks did increase, but nowhere to the degree that Gun-nut Nation would lead you to believe.

I’m not trying to promote the idea that America is becoming a gun-free zone.  What I am saying is that if the goal of Gun Violence Prevention is to regulate gun ownership by strategies such as licensing to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then slowly but surely this is exactly what’s beginning to take place.  Figures don’t lie, but there are some liars out there who will always try to figure.

My Little Gun Manual – Revised And A Section Added On Hi-Cap Magazines.



Thank you all for your feedback yesterday.  In light of some responses, I have revised the manual slightly and added a section on hi-cap magazines.


I will probably add a brief reader’s quiz next.


You can download the new version here.

A Little Book About Gun Lethality – Written By Me!

conference program pic


I wanted to write a little book about gun lethality to make it easier for folks to understand the nomenclature and technical issues surrounding guns.


I hope this book will make it easier for everyone to respond to folks with whom they might find themselves in disagreement about gun violence.


Download it here.