Previous Post
Next Post

Yesterday, I began the Herculean task of answering mikeb’s (and every other gun grabber’s) unspoken question, “Why are you gun-nuts against reasonable, common-sense gun laws?” Taking this on – and doing it justice – is no small job. Not if it’s going to be done right, anyway. There are just too many facets to the antis’ “common sense” proposals and how they would work in the real world where people actually live. So on with part two…

The next section of the Scorecard addresses strengthening Brady background checks. As I mentioned in this piece last spring, I’m not a fan of these types of checks: once we concede that there are some people who can’t be trusted with guns, it’s a very slippery slope. To my mind there is no sort of background check system that’s either reasonable or common-sense.

The antis will argue that more than 1.9 million ‘prohibited persons’ have been prevented from getting guns since the law’s inception in 1994. But when making this statement, they’re either ignorant or lying. It’s true that 1.9 million attempted purchases have been blocked by the Brady checks since 1994. But the vast majority (something in excess of 90%…I can’t find the exact numbers at the moment) of these are “false positives” resulting from typos or a legitimate purchaser having a name that is similar to or the same as a prohibited person.

But even if we concede the point, New York State Attorney General Schneiderman’s recently completed gun show sting shows perfectly why gunnies don’t trust the reasonableness of the antis. As I point out here, New York state closed their “gun-show loophole” over 10 years ago and the AG’s sting caught 10 sellers (not dealers, private sellers who probably had no idea they were breaking the law) violating this malum prohibitum law. But instead of saying that people broke the law and now they’re going to pay a penalty, Schneiderman says that people broke the law which proves it isn’t working and therefore needs to be strengthened.

This leads to digression number one: the constant ratcheting efforts of the antis. Every law they pass seems to be “a good first step” which they promise will prevent certain problems. When the problems are not eliminated, they don’t conclude, “obviously the law doesn’t prevent bad behavior so let’s chuck it.” No they say “we just have to close this loophole or tighten that restriction.” Tent…camel’s nose.

Witness AG (I’m not typing his whole smegging name over and over), witness AG Eric’s reaction to the gun show sting. Better yet, witness the antis’ reaction to gun manufacturers compliance with the Clinton “assault weapons” ban.

The ban outlawed cosmetic features which supposedly made these weapons more deadly. The manufacturers, being the rational businesspeople they are, removed or changed the cosmetic features. Instead of rejoicing that gun makers were complying with the law, antis said that manufacturers were “exploiting loopholes” in the law and pushed for the nefarious ‘loopholes’ to be closed. Once the ban expired, all attempts to “renew” it have been much more restrictive than the original Clinton ban. End of digression number one.

On to the next section of the Brady Scorecard, the assault weapons ban section. This is a little confusing because no one seems to be able to decide exactly what an “assault weapon” is. Heck, in California even the cops have trouble figuring out what constitutes an assault weapon under California law.

But the Bradys decided that any ban was better than none, so they award points based on how many features it takes to turn a regular, everyday semi-automatic weapon into an evil people-killing black rifle. What makes these sorts of laws neither reasonable nor common-sense is that the designations are so utterly arbitrary and usually based on purely cosmetic features. Indeed I have heard from several different sources that the original Clinton-era AWB banned bayonet lugs purely because they made a rifle look “too military.”

Along with their assault weapons ban, this section includes restrictions on normal capacity magazines (what erroneously became known as “high-capacity” magazines during the AWB). The idea is that if you are gunning down a mall-full of people, having to stop shooting and change magazines will let more people escape. Or something.

In fact, the Tucson shooter (I refuse to use the names of mass shooters if I can possibly avoid it…let them rot in obscurity as far as I’m concerned) was disarmed when, after 30-some rounds, he went into slide-lock and had to change magazines. I contend that if he’d been limited to 10-round magazines (which seems to be the antis’ magic number of choice) it is entirely possible he A) would have been able to keep track of rounds fired and swapped magazines while he still had one up the pipe to discourage pesky bystanders and B) would have practiced his magazine changes, possibly becoming as good as this guy. Or this guy, or this guy.

Of course the other aspect of magazine capacity limits is that, like assault weapon bans, they are utterly arbitrary. Why pick 10 rounds as the maximum capacity? Wouldn’t we be “safer” if people only had seven shots before they had to reload? You can see how these arguments eventually lead to single-shot rifles and pistols being the only legal guns remaining.

Next on the Brady hit list is that old heart-tugger Child Safety. Right up front I’m going to have to disagree with their entire premise that gun locks and child access prevention laws make children safer. I can almost hear the anguished screeches from the antis now: “Oh, but a little inconvenience is nothing if just one life is saved!”

Let me introduce you to the Carpenter family. They lived in California so dad made sure the gun was stored unloaded and out of reach of the kids, as required by state law. When a lunatic broke in and started stabbing her younger siblings with a pitchfork, 14 year-old Jessica (who had gotten her hunter safety certification at age 12) was unable to retrieve her dad’s .357 revolver and shoot the madman. As a result, her 9 year-old sister and 7 year-old brother were killed and her 13 year-old sister seriously injured before the cops could arrive and shoot the intruder. So how do you weigh possible lives saved with actual lives lost?

But don’t you know 13 children a day die from gun violence?!?,” shrieks my internal anti. And the answer is, no, I don’t know that. In fact I know that this little sound bite is utterly false. To reach 13 deaths a day, you have to include “children” up to 21 years of age. Most of the definitions of child that I find set puberty as the upper limit for children, and most descriptions of puberty place it occurring at between 12 and 13 years of age. Let’s go with the upper limit so I can’t be accused of trying to ‘cook’ the data (which, by the way, I am getting from the CDC’s WISQARS site, averaging the data over the nine years from 1999 to 2007).

Resetting the age to a more reasonable one, we find that instead of 13 deaths a day we are down to less than one, just a shade more than 283 a year. Still, five to six child deaths a week from gun violence seems awfully high; isn’t it possible that Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws will help reduce that number? Well, according to this brief by Public Health Law Research the answer is, “there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.”

Although I am not a statistician (nor have I ever played one on TV), digging a little deeper into the CDC’s numbers reveals what I believe may be the reason for the inconclusive results. It appears that CAP laws will have the greatest effect on accidental shootings, and looking at strictly accidental deaths in the age group, we find that they average 57 1/3 deaths per year which works out to about one in a million (it’s actually 1 in 986,777). So even relatively large changes in the absolute number of deaths will have a relatively tiny effect on the aggregate.

We now reach the final part of the scorecard, the Guns in Public Places section. They score on 4 criteria:


  • No Guns in Workplace: Employers not forced to allow firearms in parking lots
  • No Guns on College Campuses: Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus
  • Not A CCW Shall Issue State: Law enforcement discretion when issuing CCW permits
  • No State Preemption: Local control of firearm regulations

The first item is a classic case of bait-and-switch: The Bradys talk about guns in the workplace. But look closer and you find out what they’re really talking about is whether employees are allowed to have firearms locked in their cars while they are at work. Beyond that I have to ask, just who does a parking lot ban protect people from? Co-workers are protected from someone:

    1. Who is cool-headed and law-abiding enough to obey the employer’s restrictions and not bring a gun into work with them.
    2. Who is hot-tempered and psychotic enough that if they did have a gun in their car at work and lost their temper to a sufficient extent, would be willing to go out to the car, get their gun and come back in to commit murder.
    3. Who’s cool-headed enough that if they leave their gun at home, lose their temper and decide to kill someone,  instead of just walking out to the parking lotm they have to go home to get their gun. Then, upon arriving home, say to themselves “You know I think I’ll just make myself a sandwich instead of going back and going postal my co-workers.”


Next is the ever-popular campus ban. Personally, given the outcomes of shootings at the Appalachian School of Law versus VA Tech, Northern Illinois University, etc., I think we’d be safer if schools were forced to allow permit holders to carry on campus. Given the lack of problems on campuses in Utah (currently the only state with a history of guns on campuses) I would say we would definitely be safer if students and professors with permits could carry.

Let’s move on to CCW ‘shall-issue’ states and law enforcement given discretion when issuing permits. You know, the two are not incompatible. I see the Bradys say Minnesota LEOs do not have discretion when issuing permits but, quelle surprise, they lie. Minnesota statute 624.714, Subdivision 6(a)(3) specifically states that the issuing authority may “deny the application on the grounds that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit“. If that doesn’t constitute discretion, I don’t know what does.

I think I know what the Bradys are after, though. They want LEOs to have the “discretion” shown by the former Maplewood, MN Chief when he said he didn’t care if someone was chasing you down the street with a bloody knife, as far as he was concerned, no ‘civilian’ would ever have ‘need’ as required (at that time) by Minnesota law.

They want the cops to have the sort of “discretion” allowed a Minneapolis officer to deny my friend Joel’s permit renewal on the grounds that the death threats and vandalism of his house constituted harassment – not stalking – because (and this is a direct quote) “you haven’t been killed yet”. That is the kind of “discretion” the Brady Campaign wants to see police exercising.

And then there’s the Bradys’ final point, gun law pre-emption. The Bradys think that having large political entities (like state legislatures) telling smaller entities what gun laws they may pass is absolutely horrible. Unless, of course, the large entity is the federal government telling states that they have to ban “assault weapons”, or prohibit “large capacity” magazines, or close the “gun show loophole” or the “terror gap.”

It’s interesting to note, however, that their concern for “states’ rights” is rekindled when it comes to the “Packing Heat on Your Street” Act. It’s almost as if they have a double standard or something. “Of course they don’t have a double standard,” my internal anti shrieks! “They are for gun safety which means sometimes you have to override state laws to protect people.” Unfortunately for my internal anti, I know better.

The peer-reviewed Lott-Mustard study and the expansion of the study publish by John Lott in More Guns, Less Crime has been validated more than two dozen times. In fact every academic group that did not have an anti-gun track record validated these findings. In addition, years more experience with ‘shall-issue’ laws across the nation (40 states are either constitutional carry or shall-issue by statute or practice) has shown that permit-holders are just about the single most law-abiding demographic you can find. There hasn’t been “blood in the streets” or “fender-bender firefights.” Permit holders have not turned the various shall-issue states into recreations of the proverbial “wild west”. At this point, the worst that people opposed to shall-issue laws can say is that they don’t reduce crime the way they are supposed to.

So while we’re at it…what else is on the typical anti’s legislative wish-list?

One of the perennial favorites for the antis is requiring a “waiting period” between buying a weapon and actually taking possession of it. According to the Legal Community Against Violence’s publication Model Laws for a Safer America:

“The purpose of a waiting period is to: 1) give law enforcement officials adequate time to perform a thorough background check; and 2) provide a cooling-off period to help guard against impulsive acts of violence.”

I’ve already stated my objections to background checks, but even if I were to admit their validity or desirability, we are well into the computer age nowadays. According to FBI figures, over 90% of NICS checks are completed within 30 seconds, so how will ten days facilitate the background check process?

As for “cooling off” to prevent “impulsive acts of violence,” lawyers have a very descriptive word to describe someone who loses their temper, goes to their car, drives to a gun store, chooses a gun, fills out paperwork, buys the gun and ammo, drives back to the scene of the argument and shoots dead the person with whom they are angry. Here’s a clue; that word is not impulsive. No, that word is pre-meditated.

Last, but certainly not least, let’s look at that oldie but goodie, registration. Now I know that the antis don’t really mean it when they say “treat guns like cars,” so let’s just look at the gun registration issue for what it is.

According to LCAV, registration will allow police to trace guns found at crime scenes, return stolen firearms to their lawful owners, discourage illegal sales and allow officers to know whether there are firearms at a house they are called to. There are just a few problems with this registration thing, though: guns at crime scenes won’t be traceable if they aren’t registered. And the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Haynes (1968) that criminals could not be required to register because that constituted self-incrimination.

So although gunnies often complain about criminals not following the laws, registration is a law that literally will only apply to the law-abiding. As for returning stolen guns to their owners, you don’t need registration to do that. If you did, people would never get back stolen TVs, jewelry, artwork, etc.. Registration will no more discourage illegal sales than requiring that owners report stolen firearms would. Someone who is planning on selling guns illegally is not going to be dissuaded by mere registration.

For the other “benefits” of registration, we only need to look north of the border to our friends in Canada where they’ve had registration of all firearms since 1995. Cops there say that registration is utterly useless for warning them about locations where guns are because 1) criminals don’t register their weapons and 2) no sane cop is going to bet his life on the accuracy of a government-run database.

Then there is the cost to consider. The Canadian firearms registry was initially projected to cost $2 million Canadian; it has now surpassed $1 billion Canadian and still counting. According to the Brady Campaign, the U.S. had 283 million guns in private hands in 2004 and that number is increasing by 4.5 million  year. By 2011 we should have somewhere in the neighborhood of 315 million privately owned guns.

Also according to the Bradys, there are 2 million second-hand gun sales a year. According to the 2010 Census, about 47 million people move each year. So, assuming each household that moves has an average number of firearms (yeah, I know, not really a valid assumption but I’m treating this as a Fermi problem), and given 112.6 million households in the US we have 315/112.6 = 2.8 firearms per household which means we would have about 131.5 million moving registrations per year. Plus 4.5 million new sale registrations and 4 million secondary sale registrations (remember each sale requires 2 registration entries) giving us our final S.W.A.G. of 140 million registrations per year.

Now, if we take the BATFE’s National Firearms Act registry as the exemplar, we can expect about a 20% to 30% error rate…or 35 million incorrect entries. If, however, we attempt to impose some discipline and get a 1% error rate that would still give us 1.4 million registration errors each year. If the government’s records say one thing and reality is something else, who do you think the judge is going to believe? Especially if the government’s agents are directed to commit perjury by their supervisors and testify that the registration records are 100% accurate?

As in all things governmental, the devil is in the details, so let’s try to detail just how much this registry would cost. Taking another SWAG at it, assume that it takes five man-minutes to process each registration from entry into the mailroom to entry into the computer. What with meetings, coffee breaks, Angry Birds sessions, bathroom runs, etc., an average government worker will perform about five hours of productive work per 8 hour day.

That means that one worker will process about sixty registrations a day. Working 47 weeks a year (2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days and 10 holidays per year) the average worker will be able to process 14,100 registrations a year. So  to process 140 million registrations will require a staff of about 10,000. Given that the average .gov employee costs $120K per year (salary, benefits, etc.) that translates to $1.2 billion a year just in personnel costs for the registry.

So tell me one more time what the benefits of registration will be and just how these benefits will recoup the billions of dollars that will be required to get this system up and running and the billion plus in operating expenses?

hope I’ve answered mikeb’s unspoken question of why we gun nuts are opposed to “reasonable, common-sense gun laws.” I know that if and when he responds to any of this, he’ll provide the level of detail I have to support his arguments.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Good post. In my opinion, the basic flawed premise of gun control is that guns are magic talismans the mere possession of which will turn an otherwise sane person into a raging, murderous psychopath. One question though: it does seem to me that if someone actually is a raging, murderous psychopath, it might not be a good idea to make it easy for them to get weapons. I understand your point about the slippery slope, but that point gives me some pause.

    • The thing is… if we “know” someone is a raging, murderous psychopath they are already under lock and key. If we don’t “know” that well enough to put them away, do we know it well enough to remove their other basic rights?

      Maybe you could have firearms removed at a preponderance of the evidence standard, or something, but then you’d need to be able to have it restored much more easily as well.

      • I could get behind that, especially the easier restoration part. I think it’s generally much too difficult for people to get their rights restored after they’ve paid their debt to society. They either have paid or they haven’t. If they have, then they should be citizens in good standing again. If they haven’t, then they should still be paying.

    • There’s that slippery slope thing again. Anyone is capable of being a “raging, murderous psychopath”. Someone isn’t a murderer until they kill someone. So by that logic, no one should be able to own a gun easily because there is always the potential that they could go bonkers and start taking people out. See the problem? You can walk off a bridge to oblivion by taking one baby step at a time.

      • The thing is that “slippery slope” is actually a logical fallacy. Laws make distinctions all the time, some of them completely arbitrary. Sometimes those dividing lines get moved in one direction, sometimes they get moved in another. There isn’t any actual logical entailment that it go either way.

  2. mikeb actually once answered his own question, and on this very blog:

    mikeb: ” If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

    And as has been pointed out in this post, if we suddenly cooperated with the gun control laws that mikeb proposes and we saw NO decrease in gun violence at all, he would still want stricter laws anyway, claiming that the first round of laws were not “strong” enough or had “loopholes.”

    In the end, he would still “conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

    mikeb wrote that here, and still asks why all the opposition?

    • What I have to say is this. That quote requires a link to the original in order for us, even me, to know if it’s been edited at all.

      I do remember writing it and the ensuing bruhaha. I began referring to it as the “if-if-if” statement, you know, “if” you agree to this, and “if” we’re not satisfied with the results, we “might” decide to ask for more. Something like that. Maybe it was rally an “iff-would-would” statement.

      I distinguish the description of that kind of highly-unlikely scenario from a simple summation that I want to ban all guns. I insist on that distinction even upon first reading of what I said, but even more so with you guys who’ve had the pleasure of reading what I do say and say clearly.

      If the best you can do with me is come up with some kind of contrived inconsistency in what I write, great. Have at it. The truth is I’m pretty clear about what I think and what I want.

  3. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence.

    All other objections aside, one would hope you’d hold out for a significant decrease in overall violence. Unless you really think being beaten to death with a tire iron is preferable to getting shot.

    • In gun free Hong Kong machete slashing is a preferred method of dispensing with enemies as is poisoning, drowning, and gravity. Plenty of tall places to throw someone off.

    • Really mike? That’s the best you can do?

      If you are on the side of truth, you should be able to blast everyone of these assertions into oblivion with true, hard examples of absolute fact.

      Isn’t that what we’re talking about – truth? Don’t you want to be on the side of truth? How false and bankrupt do anti-arguments and emotional hyperbole have to be proven before you come to terms with the truth.

      This article and its predecessor have laid out truth as much as Bruce can organize and present it, and you give a 4 word response to his invitation to rebut but only with truth.

      I think the lack of response on your part is evidence that on some level you know your viewpoint is not true. I want to believe it is subconscious, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you are deliberately suppressing the truth.

  4. Mr. Krafft, are you familiar with the Gun Facts ebook? The latest version is available at It pretty much covers almost every facet of the concept of refuting the Antis’ Myths about firearms and gun control. However, I feel the arguments that you are making have a much more real world application while the ebook approaches it in more sterile statistical manner. In any case, the American gun owner can never have too much ammunition to use in a debate against an Anti. Maybe you could contribute to the Gun Facts project. Anyway, great job expressing your arguments. Keep them coming, I could read this shit all day.

  5. I went to the range Saturday and a father was teaching his 12 year old daughter to shoot his .45/ We need much more of that activity today. Unless, like mikeb302000 we put our trust in 911 and the tender mercies our our assailants.
    In light of F&F I think the notion of firearms laws preventing crime went out the window. They didn’t just arm unauthorized buyers, they armed people they knew were killers, leaving no doubt as to what they would do with the guns. Shame on them.

  6. mikeb will regret his honesty in having written:

    “Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

    That’s because vehemently denying that, and asking:

    “Why are you gun-nuts against reasonable, common-sense gun laws?”

    are such important parts of antigunowner dogma that mikeb will be unable to resist continuing to use them, but every time he tries that his admission of truth will come back to haunt him.

    • The “if-if-if” statement was part of a lengthy discussion. My idea at the time was that the first “if” was obviously not going to happen, making the enitre thing hypothetical.

      Look at it like this. On a scale of one to ten, we have gun control laws right now at number 4, a clear advantage to your side. 5, everyone knows, would be fair to both sides. 6 would be to the advantage of the gun controllers.

      You guys not only refuse to allow it to move to 5, you fight like hell to move it to number 3, even though you know it’s wrong.

      I think your side should allow the marker to shift to 5, by perhaps agreeing to background checks on all private sales, and a few other common sense regulations. Then you take your hard stand and fight for what you have.

      That would be the honorable thing. But by pushing and pushing like you do you are in the wrong.

      • Wow, I can’t believe you actually said that! You don’t have facts to back up your assertions, empirical evidence proves you wrong and even public sentiment has turned against your “no guns” argument over the last few decades. Yet, your best defense is, in a nutshell, “Since I don’t have anything going for me you all should spot me some points to make it fair.” Sorry, but I’m not interested in what you would call a “fair” fight…..I’m interested in “just” fight—-and you have lost. Big time!

      • Mike, that’s the gray fallacy in that you’re assuming that the answer lies precisely between the two positions. It could very well be that the correct position on the scale is 3, or even 2 or 1, and your efforts to move us towards 5 are wrongheaded.

        Policies have to be evaluated on their merits and what they achieve, not their position relative to some scale. Reality is what it is, and a policy will either achieve a worthy goal without unduly burdening honest citizens or it won’t. The vast majority of gun control measures fail that test.

  7. Some part of me desperately wants to believe that if this was sent to Congress as an open letter (or hell, even mailed to every Congressman in office right now) that at least some minds would change.

    I can keep dreaming, right? Right?

  8. Quit trying to be “reasonable” with these idiots, willya?

    It’s really quite simple: I don’t shoot people, I don’t rob convenience stores, none of that, so leave me the hell alone. I refuse to be held accountable for the misdeeds of others, and if you try, I will kill you.

    There. Argument settled. Now you can get back to whatever you usually write about.

  9. Would it make you feel better if all these people were stabbed, beaten to death or pushed out of windows instead of shot?

    • Would it make you feel better if all these people were stabbed, beaten to death or pushed out of windows instead of shot?

      It’s not about the deaths or their mechanism. It’s about growing the leviathan, one government to rule us all. The nature of power is to seek absolute dominion over everything. Once people are disarmed everything else is easier.

  10. Maybe it should be sent to Congress?? Nice job on the article and the research. Well written with extensive research and data to back it up….The way it should be.

    • +1. The true antis will probably never change, but if even a few Congressmen read this and actually wrestled with the ideas, it’d still be a step forward.

      Baby steps don’t always have to lead to oblivion.

  11. Indeed I have heard from several different sources that the original Clinton-era AWB banned bayonet lugs purely because they made a rifle look “too military.”

    And here, I always thought it was the rash of bayonettings back in the ’80s that prompted this.

  12. You’re a smart guy, Bruce, and I appreciate your writing.

    I think you’re on the wrong track here, though. You won’t persuade anyone- you get bogged down in a detailed argument like this, and people stop listening. When people form opinions based on something other than facts, you can be pretty sure facts won’t change their minds.

    Far as I can tell, there are three kinds of people who disagree with you:

    1 – People who are who are unrealistically optimistic. These are the sort of people who believe that world peace is possible. They’re not concerned about facts- it’s just that their idea of an ideal society doesn’t include guns.

    2- People who aren’t up front about their motives– ie, politicians and others for whom the issue is ‘control’, not ‘guns’.

    3- People who think of themselves as liberals and democrats, and who see changing their minds about guns as equivalent to becoming a conservative and a republican. The assume that supporting gun rights automatically imply taking a certain position on abortion, civil rights, immigration, fiscal policy, foreign policy, and big business. They see guns as inseparable from the Republican platform.

    None of these people will be persuaded by facts. That doesn’t mean they’re unreasonable, or that they can’t be persuaded at all- it just means we’ve got to re-evaluate our strategy.

  13. Way back in the early 60’s, when the gun debate really began, added to by the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and whoever else, I was just out of the Army, just out of college, on my first real job, and had been a shooter and gun owner ever since I was 12. I just couldn’t understand, this being a “free” country, why anyone would want to deny ME the ownership, and use of my guns. As time went on I began to better understand the people behind this thinking. The antiwar protests of the 60’s and 70’s were a big part of it. The “War on poverty” is a big part of it. the “war on drugs” is a big part.

    What really disturbs me is the anti’s really believe a LAW will keep something from happening or will MAKE something happen. They have no understanding of human nature, at least those humans who ten toward lawlessness. The state rep in Wisconsin who wants to ban guns from gas stations because there are a lot of holdups there, what warped thinking can conclude that this law would prevent scum from bringing a gun to rob the place? He wouldn’t dare. Oh but he might have a big knife, or a baseball bat. I have seen news items where a happless young lady or senior citizen, was forced to give up his vehicle while filling it with gas, by a criminal. No defense available for these victims.

    Bruce, even though your essay is long, you covered exactly the thoughts I have had for years, and mikeb can go munch on pork rinds and think it over if he has the ability to think rationally at all.

  14. I hate to dissapoint you Mike , but I just finished a present for my 13yr old son.

    An AR-15A3 with a 20″ krieger heavy barrel, floating forarm, 3 point sling, and 5-20rd mags. Included is both a hard case AND a soft case.

    And I just picked up a 500rd case of SS-109 to shoot in it.

    Happy Days


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here