Do You Have a Plan for Date Night?

I just put up a post about some of the things you might want to consider if you are going to go out in public wearing a firearm with your loved ones. It isn't as simple or intuitive as you think. There are some real decisions that need to be made, and some important conversations that should happen. I know everyone wants to take care of your family and significant other, but have you considered what happens to THEM when the SHTF and you are armed?

If You Carry Concealed, What’s Your Plan for Date Night?

New Interesting Blog at SouthTexasArmory.com

We have started a new blog associated with our store at SouthTexasArmory. In it we will cover many topics that are specific to the sales of firearms, including reviews and announcements of new rifles, pistols, revolvers and shotguns from some of the major manufacturers. We also will have some general info you might find useful, although it won't be in any way political. It is primarily a vehicle to communicate with our customer base.

We hope you might check it out, and maybe find something useful or interesting.

The store is located here:

http://www.southtexasarmory.com 

Why are guns so expensive now?

I think everyone has noticed that most firearms have been hard to find lately. And I know everyone understand this is thanks to what I call "Banic" buying, meaning people were afraid their favorite guns were going to be restricted or outright banned. The backlog is starting to ease a little, and more suppliers and distributors actually have guns available. There was a time when 4 out of my 9 firearms suppliers had ZERO (none, nada, zilch, zip) handguns available, and the only rifles were oddball calibers of lever action cowboy guns.

But what we are seeing is that the prices have all gone up (or mostly, there are a few that have held the line). Manufacturers are raising their distributor costs, which causes them to raise their dealer price, which causes us dealers to raise our prices. By how much? Well, that actually varies by model even within a certain manufacturer. We do have a free market system, and people are entitled to charge whatever they want for something. That is the law of supply and demand.

But what I wanted to get across here is that it isn't the dealers who are really raking in the dough. In most cases, we are the ones who are getting squeezed on these items because we are the ones that have to walk the fine line between making a buck and keeping customers happy.

A lot of people seem to think the "markup" on firearms is pretty high. I am here to tell you that this IS NOT the case. While every manufacturer and distributor sets their own prices, the difference between MSRP (what the manufacturer says is the "Retail" price) and distributor cost is generally 10% for guns under $1,200 and maybe 15-18% for more expensive guns. That is GENERALLY, and many brands are WELL BELOW that.

Well, you say, 10% is not bad on $1000, right? Making $100 is not bad for 10 minutes work. Except for the fact that that 10% is MSRP to cost, not what we can actually sell it for. When was the last time you paid MSRP for a gun? For some folks, probably NEVER. If I can make 5-6%, that is pretty good.

And that is on a gun that I put out my money on, and HOPE that someone will buy it at some point. It may sit on my shelf for 2 days, or 2 years. All the while that is money not available to buy more guns, pay bills, or anything else.

One other thing people don't stop to consider is credit card fees. The only time I ever have a "Cash Discount" price where I try to get back any credit card fees is if I put something on auction starting at $0.01. In more than 50% of the cases, I end up selling this gun for less than my cost, so I try to stop some of my loses by not eating the credit card fees. Other than that, I count this as a cost of doing business and it is a part of the cost of the gun.

These credit card fees are NOT insignificant. They run anywhere from 1.75 to 3.5% of the purchase amount. It depends on the credit card you use. Why are some fees so high? Well, those are the cards where YOU get your cash back, or airline miles, or whatever perk you have chosen. You didn't think those were really free, did you? Someone is paying those, and that would be the store (and ultimately everyone who buys things, because we have to build a little extra in to our prices to make up for that).

So, now the nitty gritty; how much do I really make on a sale? Let's take a fictional gun (I am actually using a real gun here, just not telling you which one it is). So the Fireball 550 has an MSRP of $1040, and Bud's Gun Shop has it for $914 so I pretty much have to match that price. Well, that gun costs me $827, so my gross margin is $87. But 3% credit card fees takes $27.50 right off that, so I'm down to $59.50. From that I pay for my federal license, my business insurance and all the other advertising and associated costs to do business. If that sale was through Gunbroker, or GunsAmerica or any other online forms, there are fees associated with that as well (from about 1-2.5% usually) Fortunately I am a small dealer and don't have employees or big overhead expenses, because I am working in the 4-6% markup range.

The last thing I will mention is when I do specials on my Facebook page. In these cases, I am literally making no money if you use a credit card. Take in point my SGL31-95 special I just ran. I put it out there at $1240, shipping included. If you use a credit card, that brings what I get down to $1202 after fees. Shipping of a long gun is going to run me around $23-29 depending on where you live. So we are down to $1181-1175 (depending on shipping). This rifle, shipped to me, is costing me $1171. So, you can see that if I did all my figuring properly and no one lives a long way away (like Alaska or Hawaii) or uses a high rewards credit card I am making between $4-10.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying or saying it isn't fair. I do this because the Facebook group are good people, and because I like having good will from potential customers who MIGHT come back and buy something that will make me $40-50 later. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't.

I just want folks to know that most gun dealers are NOT getting rich at your expense. Most are like me; trying to walk that line between making enough to stay in business and keeping prices low to keep our customers happy.

If you REALLY want to make a dealer like me happy, send us a check. It is the same amount of money to you as putting it on a card, but it really helps on the dealers end. It may mean that at some point I can do an extra Facebook special, or be able to offer a Military Discount to one of our warfighters that I may not be able to do otherwise. At the end of the day, all I really want to do is not lose money and be able to keep selling guns to people at good prices if I can.

Rate of Criminal Conviction of Concealed Handgun License Holders in Texas

Proof: CHL holders in Texas are NOT the 'Bad Guys'

If you listen to some, anyone who feels the need to carry a dangerous firearm in public is paranoid, are going to cause more harm than good and the streets will run red with blood from our John McClain inspired delusions ("Die Hard" reference for those that don't get it). But a study by the Texas Department of Public Safety (our state law enforcement group) shows during 2011 CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders were responsible for less than 0.19% of the major crimes committed. This includes gun crimes, child abuse, kidnapping, sexual assaults and the like. Out of 63,679 convictions, only 120 were legal CHL holders. And of those, less than half actual involved the use of a gun.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

Let's go 1 step further; population of Texas in 2011 was 25.9 million, about 17 million of which are over 21. TxDPS reports show there were 518,625 active CHL holders that year, or about 3% of the population. But that 3% accounted for less that 0.19% of the major crimes. Sounds like a pretty safe group of people to trust to me.

I am not cast doubt on any group, but I wonder how these statistics stack up against other groups, including police and other law enforcement. Because I think the numbers would show that CHL holders are as responsible, or maybe even more responsible, than this group that we hold in such rightfully high esteem.

And I bet that the same holds true for every state that keeps these types of statistics. By definition we are the law abiding citizens, because we jump through the hoops and follow all the rules and actually GET the piece of paper instead of being a criminal that skirts the laws.

For or Against, let's STOP the Political Theater that fuels the current Gun Control Debate

Neither side gets a pass on this. Both Pro and Con sides are using emotional arguments unrelated to the actual problem to try to sway people to one side or the other on this very important topic. If there was ever a topic that needed level head debate, this is it. But neither side is letting that happen because they are too afraid to give an inch to do what is really right for everyone.

On the Pro Control side, let's look at the Chief Executive. He made his way up to Newtown again to use it as a backdrop for his agenda (which he is counting on being part of his legacy). He had all those people who lost loved ones around him during his speech, and then loaded them on Air Force One to fly back to DC and make the rounds of Capital Hill in advance of the coming debates. They will bring their sad pictures and truly unbearably sad story to legislators in an attempt to sway votes.

Why is this reprehensible? Because they are being used as emotional red herrings by the Pro Control crowd. Because NOT A SINGLE PROVISION of the current expected Gun Control bill would have done anything to even minimize the tragedy. If the complete bill had passed unanimously months or years prior to Sandy Hook, the outcome would have been EXACTLY THE SAME. So not a single one of these people are victims of us not passing this "common sense" legislation earlier, because it does not address any of the problems attendant in this case. Maybe an assault weapons ban would have kept the rifle out of play,  BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills  (and evidence remains out if the rifle was ever actually used or to what extent). Mental Health records MAY have kept his mother from being able to have any weapons in her home, BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills. And so on and so on.

I am tired of people holding up pictures of sad eyed children cut down at the very beginning of their lives because of a madman's actions, and trying to use that emotional appeal to push forward an agenda and laws that would do NOTHING to fix the problems that caused that loss. Those children (and adults, we often forget the brave adults who gave their lives as well) deserve our deepest sympathy and regrets, but using them as a pawn in this way actually demeans their memory.

But, as I said neither side gets a pass. Just as repulsive is the jingoistic rattling of the NRA and the GOA about 2nd Amendment Rights. They tell us NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to deny us those rights as  enumerated. And anyone who even tries to tread on them is a traitor, moron, Communist, (insert favorite epithet here)..

Yes, there is a right to bear arms, and it is in the Bill of Rights and is the law of the land. But it is a basic tenet of human existence that no one has the right to do something that endangers others. It has been held up in courts literally hundreds or thousands of times, for everything from freedom of speech to human rights violations. Everyone has heard the analogy of "Screaming :FIRE" in a crowded theater'. While doing so might be your right under the 1st Amendment, the fact that the hysterical mob would probably trample to death dozens of people means you can not do that.

Let's bring it back to the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully no one thinks that it is OK to allow violent criminals unfettered access to guns. Or the violent mental patient. Or under-aged children without supervision who don't understand the consequences. So everyone agrees that SOME restraints to the 2nd Amendment are required.

Now comes the hard part; which restraints? That isn't up to me, but what I am saying is let's have a meaningful discussion of this without name calling, bullying and histrionics. Just because someone else believes in different ideas does not make them evil, or traitorous. It makes them different. RIGHT or WRONG is always right or wrong, but it is not always so easily quantified in things that have this much passion around them.

So please, this topic already has a high enough emotional quotient just by itself that we don't need to bring in martyred children or patriotic blinders to get our juices flowing. If the law being floated is about magazine restrictions, then bring up the pictures of the people who would have been saved by having smaller magazines (good luck proving that). And Gun Rights people, get over the fact that the hallowed 2nd Amendment does in fact NOT APPLY to everyone in every situation. Some people are just not able to own firearms for the good of everyone around them.

And let's start taking it seriously that what we need to do is determine HOW we are going to identify those people, and how we are going to ensure they don't get guns. Maybe it is background checks (I personally don't believe so, but it is a solution some have offered). Maybe it is extremely painful mandatory sentences for violent acts with a weapon. Maybe it is a return to real parenting and teaching people to be accountable for their actions instead of blaming someone else that they can then hunt down. Most likely, it is a little bit of all of tehse, and many more things.

I'm a gun owner, a CHL holder and a licensed gun dealer. And I am appalled at the number of people who die each year/month/day/hour from firearms. And not just the violent crime, but suicides as well (which many on the Gun Rights side forget to talk about). And the people whose lives are changed by that loss, or a non-fatal wounding, or even property damage caused by irresponsible gun use. So I believe this country does have a responsibility to do something. I don't believe laws, or restrictions and constraints are the way to do it, but something has to change.

Let's be the ones to lead the charge to a better future. Let's be the people we want to see in that future. Let's argue about the right things, for the right reasons.

Guns and Mental Health - Priority No 1?

Like most people, I have been hearing all the talk about mental health and gun violence. Intuitively it makes sense, and several of the larger losses of life lately have been at the hands of ill people. But an article I just read makes me wonder if that is really what we should be talking about exclusively.

In this article, author Paul Mountjoy discusses the actual break-down of the number of people who are a threat to the general populous, and it turns out the mentally ill with guns are not at the top of the list. Yes, as mentioned above there have been several tragedies invoking these people, and those are horrific and inexcusable. But let's liken this to people dying in crashes. Plane crashes always make the news because of the loss in a single event, but the number of people killed on the highways far outstrips the number in planes crashes. The car crashes just don't all make the news.

The fact of the matter is very few people suffering from mental illness own guns, and even fewer actual use them to commit crimes. A Columbia University study places the number at 4% of crime is caused by mental illness. It is much more likely for someone suffering from mental illness to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator.

The mental disorders most associated with gun related violence against others are schizophrenia, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), and untreated Bipolar Disorder (BPD). Mental health statistics indicate that in the United States, there are approximately 1,300,000 individuals who fall into those categories (of which a very small number will ever commit a gun crime).

By comparison, DoJ numbers place the number of people currently incarcerated is 2.3 million, and another 5 million are on parole. Every year 2.22 million people are convicted of violent crimes, of which 1.2 million use guns. 67% of homicides use guns, but less than 1% use "assault rifles". And somewhere around 25% of the people jailed or on probation/parole committed drug offense.

So, let's summarize. The current media frenzy talks about mental illness and assault weapons. But the mentally ill people most likely to commit a violent crime make up just 4% of society, a small percentage of these will be involved in any crime and even then they are more likely to be the victim than the perp. And the dreaded assault weapons are used in 1% of all homicides.

But on the other hand there are 7.5 million people (5 times as many as there are mentally ill) currently convicted of crimes, 1/3 of those committed VIOLENT crimes already and 25% of the total are known to be involved with drugs.

What's the answer? Well, let's keep guns out of the hands of all these people, mentally ill or criminal. Since none of them have signs around their necks saying "I will commit a violent crime" or "I will not commit a crime", we have to play it safe.

But let's not dislocate our shoulders by patting ourselves on the back because we got this "Guns and Mental Illness" problem under control. It's a problem, yes. But let's remember that a violent crime is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be committed by a repeat violent offender than a mentally ill person. So we should be putting much more emphasis on making sure these convicted criminals do not get guns by whatever means we can.

I would bet every one of them knows they will not be able to pass a background check, so they aren't likely to try to buy one in any scenario where a check will be done. They buy them out of the trunks of cars on the streets, or steal them from relatives. Or are just GIVEN the gun by someone else they know. THESE are the places we need to come down hard on in enforcement.

Just keep passing the same laws - It worked the first time, didn't it?

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted and passed a bill that does absolutely nothing to make anyone more secure, and whose only purpose is to make penalties for already illegal activity so high it will make ordinary gun owners think twice about buying or selling firearms. The bill was approved in an 11-7 vote largely along party lines. Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was the only GOP lawmaker to vote yes.

 Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa)

Excerpt for The Hill:

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act sponsored by Leahy would stiffen penalties for trafficking, increasing jail terms in some cases up to 25 years. It would cover sellers and purchasers involved in illegal transactions and would lower the threshold for determining the criminal intent of the parties involved.

Grassley agreed to back the measure after Leahy agreed to an amendment to prohibit the Department of Justice (DOJ) from conducting gun-walking operations such as “Fast and Furious,” an operation that may have resulted in the death of a U.S. border patrol agent.

Under the Grassley amendment, the DOJ could engage in similar sting operations only if the attorney general, deputy attorney general or head of the criminal division personally approves them after determining sufficient safeguards are in place.

The bill also strengthens the law prohibiting material false statements in connection with purchasing a firearm and increases penalties for purchasing a gun with intent to transfer it to someone involved in a violent crime or drug trafficking.

It would also outlaw illegal purchasers of firearms from smuggling weapons out of the country.

So, exactly what part of this law actually helps PREVENT gun violence? Doesn't it seem kind of counter-productive to raise  penalties on laws that the FBI chooses not to strictly enforce in the first place? In 2010 the NICS did almost 14.5 million background checks. Of those, 72,659 were denied (about 1/2 of 1%). Of those, 62 were prosecuted and 13 convicted. So even though lying on the 4473 form is a federal offense, our Justice Department managed to get a .01% (1/100th of a percent) conviction rate on crimes that were identified by the FBI themselves.

Hold your legislators responsible. Stop allowing them to pass the buck on these shoddy bills. I know everyone wants less gun violence, and no politician wants to back legislation that could actually be politically painful. But let's all agree to stop letting them think they are fooling us by claiming to be making things better by passing useless bills.

What constitutes an "Assault Rifle"?

Grammatically, an "assault weapon" would be any weapon used in an assault.

So, we could be talking about an assault hammer, and assault knife, or even assault fists. As pointed out in a previous blog, in Connecticut in the seven (7) years  prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy there had been exactly 2 homicides that involved rifles. In contrast, every year there are about 40 homicides from knives, 340 from clubs or similar items, and even 20 from the use of just the hand or foot. My guess is that this statistic would ring true pretty much everywhere.

But let's just constrain our talk to rifles here. According to the original Assault Weapon Ban, and as fundamentally renewed in the latest suggestions from Ms Feinstein, an assault rifle has a detachable magazine and two (2) or more of the following purely cosmetic characteristics:

• Folding or telescoping stock,
• pistol grip,
• bayonet lug,
• rocket or grenade launcher, or
• flash suppressor or threaded barrel to allow the attachment on such.

In some strange world, these characteristics change a rifle suitable for use in sport to a death-dealing instrument of homicide just by their inclusion in the makeup of an otherwise benign firearm. How exactly, I do not know. Not a single one of these characteristics cause the rifle to be more powerful. None cause it to be more lethal when shot by it. None of these cause it to shoot faster, or to carry more ammunition in and of itself.

Does the fact that the rifle is a little shorter with the replacement folding stock make a difference? The requirement is already for the barrel to be no less than 16" long, plus there is some length required for the main receiver part of the rifle making it highly unlikely any modern rifle is going to come in much shorter than 24" overall. In fact, shorter rifles are in general more difficult to shoot accurately, so wouldn't that be a good thing?

Pistol grips and thumb-hole stocks have been used in competition target shooting rifles in classifications that allow them for years. Yet for some reason there isn't much concern about these being used as implements of mass destruction. So it apparently isn't the pistol grip itself at fault here.

Bayonet lugs are used to attach, well, a bayonet to the end of a rifle. Excuse me, but are bayonet attacks actually that big of a problem that we have to outlaw the attachment points? And somehow a bayonet someone is waving around in their hand is so much better than one attached to a rifle?

Rocket and grenade launchers also aren't as big of a problem here in Texas as they obviously are in New York or California. Evidently they are so common there that again we need to make sure that people can't have them. And, by the way, it is pretty hard to get an actual grenade or rocket, without which the launcher seems to be a bit superfluous.

And then the dreaded flash suppressor. How exactly is a simple piece of perforated metal whose sole purpose is to mitigate the plume of partially unburned powder that causes a bright "flash" at the end of a short barreled rifle causing additional danger to anyone?

Truth of the matter is the cited characteristics that contribute to being an "assault rifle" do nothing more than make a rifle look different. It now looks more like a military weapon. But it doesn't shot like one. It does not fire in full-auto or select fire modes. For those that don't know, full-auto is when you pull the trigger back and the firearms continues to fire until you release the trigger. Select fire is a system whereby the firearm shoots a specific number of times with 1 pull of the trigger. The standard semi-auto MODERN SPORTING RIFLE does neither of these things. You pull the trigger 1 time, you get 1 bullet out.

And one more "by the way": it's can actually be completely legal to own fully automatic or select fire firearms in 39 states right now. It requires a lot of paperwork, special licenses and tax stamps from the federal government, but it can be done perfectly legally. Once you file your paperwork, pay your tax and wait for the approval, you can own and shoot your very own machine gun.

The sad part is, most folks who don't know much about guns think THESE are what is being banned. But that is not the case. With all the work that goes in to obtaining permission to own a fully automatic weapon, plus the $200 tax stamp to transfer it, there has never been an attempt to include fully automatic rifles in any ban. The only firearms included are ones that LOOK like that, but in fact work exactly like your Uncle Lou's 50 year old recreational rifle.

Why am I not surprised that our elected officials have once again chosen to highlight form over function in the gun debate. It apparently doesn't matter how a rifle works, or how it shoots, or if it has a perfectly legitimate use. The fact that it LOOKS scary is enough to send people screaming in terror in to the night and demand that they be removed from our society.

Another voice added against the debate on Gun Control

Steve Sanetti, NSSF President: “The Industry Isn’t the Bad Guys”

For those of you who may not know, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)  is the industry voice for firearms and associated manufacturers. While they certainly represent gun manufacturers and want the industry to do well, they are also one of the leading organizations pushing gun safety as well as regularly working with the FBI and ATF to promote balance in gun regulation. And, coincidently, they are headquartered in Newtown, CT.

In a recent interview (Jan 24) with PBS for a Frontline episode, Sanetti discussed a wide range of topics from his own background to the current gun control fervor. One of the reasons I like listening to the NSSF over some of the other organizations is they don't speak down to people who have beliefs other than theirs. I personally think in-your-face speeches such as what sometimes comes from the NRA and Wayne La Pierre does more harm than good, by polarizing audiences and steeling people's resolve.

One of the interesting things Sanetti points out is that in Connecticut prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy, in the last seven (7) years there had been exactly 2 homicides that involved rifles. In contrast, every year there are about 40 homicides from knives, 340 from clubs or similar items, and even 20 from the use of just the hand or foot. My guess is that this statistic would ring true pretty much everywhere. But for some reason the assault rifle has been singled out and demonized as the most vile weapon to remove from our streets.

One other thing I really like about the way Sanetti communicates the message is by not taking on stupid arguments head on. When gun-haters say things to inflame the listener, the best argument is to show the foolishness of the comment and not attack back in kind. When Sanetti talks about gun-haters who say AR rifles are only meant for killing people, he points out that millions of people have passed the required checks and own them legally, that essentially none of them will ever be used to hurt or kill anyone, and that by implying those millions of people are nascent murderers only ensures that they will never cooperate in finding a suitable solution to the problem.

The last point he makes is truly interesting, and shows that as a group and as an industry there is a lot of care and concern. He notes that there has been a huge spike in firearms sales since the Sandy Hook incident. Being a representative of the firearms industry, you would think he views that as a good thing. But in fact he notes that much of this buying is for the wrong reasons. He says 

"we want people to own firearms for the right reasons because they understand, respect them, enjoy them, and will use them safely, properly, and responsibly. So the idea of a mad rush for everybody to buy a firearm I don’t think is necessarily the best trend in the world ...."

If you would like to read the transcript of this conversation, you can find it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/newtown-divided/steve-sanetti-nssf-president-the-industry-isnt-the-bad-guys/

If citizens can't have banned items, should LEOs?

I am a firm supporter of the law enforcement community. These are people who run towards danger when everyone else runs away. They have a difficult job to do, and one that is dangerous in ways others of us can't even imagine.

With the recent increase in restrictions to firearms and accessories taking place in many jurisdiction, some manufactures and suppliers have decided that they will not sell restricted items even to law enforcement in those areas as long as the everyday law abiding citizen can not have them. Others have decided that law enforcement duties require exceptional resources, regardless of what may be commonly available to the general populous. It can make for a heated debate, and is in fact a very complex topic that brings a lot of attention in to sharp focus.

Here is my opinion on the subject. Is is just my opinion, and it is certainly not perfect because of the range of issues involved.

Police officers put themselves in harms way as a part of their every day employment, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge them the very best equipment to help preserve their lives and those they protect. But that is precisely it; it is a part of the JOB. If they have access to better tools to do this job, it should be restricted to use ON THE JOB. If the general population can not own a specific style of rifle, or a certain sized magazine, then the off duty police office should not be able to have them either.

In fact, why not even say that in Illinois, because no one can have a concealed carry permit, that they even have to leave all their firearms at the station. I'm originally from the Chicago area, and I know a good many off-duty cops moonlight doing security. Often the security has to do with safeguarding the political elite. What if these elite suddenly had to face the fact that their bodyguards can no longer carry firearms, just like the rest of the population. Suddenly, things might seem a little different to them.

As great as I think law enforcement is, their lives and the lives of those they love ARE NOT more important than mine. If a jurisdiction has decided that myself or another citizen can not have a tool to protect our lives, then just because another citizen has a different job (LEO) does not mean they should have special privileges. To allow otherwise is in essence saying that certain peoples lives are more valuable than others.

If a LEO works in NY and needs an AR for their patrol vehicle, they should have it. But when they go off shift, that rifle should be secured within their offices and not taken out by off duty officers. If they have 15 round magazines for their duty weapons, they should remove those and replace them with appropriately sized civilian legal magazines prior to leaving.

My point here is not that LEO do not deserve having these very useful tools, but that if there is a reason LEO need them then there is also a reason civilians need them as well. My life as a civilian concealed carry holder is just as precious as that off duty LEO.

Many will make the comments that the street officer does not impose the laws or restrictions on society, so why should they suffer because of political hubris. Or that in many cases officers don't agree with the laws. I appreciate those feelings, and I thank these brave men and women for their support of my 2nd Amendment rights. The problem is I don't get an exemption from the law just because I don't agree with it. If the law is unfair, it is unfair for everyone. If the law puts LEO in danger (just as it puts ordinary citizens in danger) then they need to be a part of the solution that fixes these laws. Having a badge should not be a free pass to do something ordinary citizens can not.

What is important here is that we don't start having 2 classes of citizens, for whom the law is enforced differently. It is illegal for the common citizen to steal. It is also illegal for LEO to steal. So laws do apply to everyone.

Let's take it one giant step further. In the course of their work, officers are sometimes called upon to shoot and kill bad guys. But killing someone is always homicide, and is against the law even if you are a cop. That is why there is always an investigation. What happens is a judgment is made on justifiable homicide, based on the concept that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another. Just like what happens in a civilian self defense case. So again, the police agent is not given any different treatment than a civilian, even though the actual mechanics of it may look different. The law applies equally.

As I said, I don't want to withhold tools from cops. I want them to have the best of everything to do their jobs. But I want that to be available for everyone. By saying that one class of person has more of a right to their life and safety than another goes against everything we believe in here in this country.

Joe Biden is a f*****g idiot

On Tuesday, Feb 19 Vice President Joe Biden took part in a live video Town Hall meeting on Facebbok, presented by Parents Magazine. I'm sure he had some very valuable things to say on a lot of topics, but where he really went off the rails was in response to a question posted by a user. This user asked if the ban on military style weapons would hurt the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Mr Biden's suggestion was "Buy a shotgun".

The funniest part was when he said he told his wife Jill that if there was ever someone breaking in to the house, she should take their shotgun outside and fire off 2 rounds. You would never need more than that. Presumably that was BEFORE they had heavily armed Secret Service agents guarding them 24/7.

The following are some of the things that this totally misinformed political attack dog said, and why he is so incredibly ignorant of reality.

• Shotguns are easier to aim. Mr Biden obviously watches a lot of movies where a shotgun takes down an entire room full of bad guys, fired from the hip. Realty shows us that at normal across the room distances (in my house, maybe 15 feet), a shotgun blast is no more than 4" in diameter. Even that in generous with some of the chokes used on modern shotguns. So I need to make a 4" circle of lead impact the vital center chest area (perhaps 8" in diameter) without aiming? And if you are going to aim a shotgun, you would have an even more devastating effect with the single projectile of a rifle
• Shotguns are easier to shoot. Sure, ask any unsuspecting small person or child who has ever been handed a shotgun by a jokester, only to watch them get knocked to the ground by the recoil. If you are not prepared, pulling the trigger once on a shotgun will make darn sure you never pull it a second time without flinching.
• If someone is breaking in to your house go outside -----  well, sure. Leave the protection of your home, which you know better than anyone, and go outside where the bad guys are. Maybe there are more outside you can try to scare. Instead of taking a firearm, retreating in to a safe defend-able area of your home and waiting for help to arrive. You did call for help, didn't you?
• and fire off 2 rounds ----- great, and exactly where do you shoot them? Into the ground, where you are likely to hit your own foot, a pet, someone else with you? Or which will throw up so much dirt and debris that the bad guys will know exactly where you are (but that won't matter, because you won't see them coming). Or in to the air? Now we have lead pellets flying around (or maybe even 1 oz slugs of lead, depends on how your shotgun is loaded), coming back to earth who knows where. I live out in the country here in Texas, and I know there are several houses nearby that could potentially be in danger.
• ------ discharging a firearm should only be done if you life is in imminent danger. You shouldn't be shooting because you hear noises. You shouldn't be shooting because you see a vague shadow on the other side of the house. You shouldn't be chasing people running away and shooting them. You shoot when there are identified targets that mean to do you immediate and permanent harm. So how much effect fo you think you will have on a bad guy who is staring you in the eyes when you shoot in the other direction?
• ------ oh yeah, by the way,   you just went from a double barreled firearm capable of defeating most attackers, and turned it in to a club.
• You won't need more than 2 shots. Well, first of all you didn't actually DO anything with the 2 shots you had. Statistics prove that people who are not scared off by just the presence of a firearm are probably not going to be scared off by a warning shot. These are bad people intent on bad things, and often actually even being shot doesn't stop them.
• By shooting ineffectually in a non-threatening direction, you have just shown the intruder that you are probably incapable of actually shooting at a person, so they actually have LESS fear now.
• No body needs a 30 round magazine. Granted, most people do not need 30 rounds to stop a normal perpetrator entering their home for a simple burglary. But say, for instance, a hopped up drug addict has decided that you might have some good prescription medications, and brings along a couple of his friends. They don't care about you, they are just as likely to kill you if they find you as anything else. And in their highly charged, totally anesthetized state, you are probably going to have to shoot them at least 3 or 4 times to get them to stop. Plus, you are going to be so pumped up that you will probably only actually hit them 50% of the time (and you would be a pretty remarkable shot if you got that good). So three bad guys, times 6-8 shots each.... boy, I'm glad I didn't just bring a double barreled shotgun to this fight for my life.

I'm not going to tell you what to use to protect your loved ones. It depends on the time, the situation and the people involved. Pistols are very easy to maneuver within the confines of the house. Rifles have good stopping power, and studies show that a smaller round like the 223 will actually penetrate FEWER internal walls and structure before coming to a stop than even a 9mm pistol round. Pump action shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, even double and single barrel shotguns all have their place in defense. However, the purpose of a firearm is to STOP a bad guy from doing bad things to you or the ones you love.

If all that stands between my loved ones and a bad guy are 2 shotgun blasts, I am pretty sure I know which way MY shots are going to be aimed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a "Military-style" firearm

One complaint you hear a lot of people making about the Modern Sporting Rifle (or AR rifle, or the so-called assault rifle) is that it is a military style rifle that was never designed for the civilian marketplace. Well, I own AR rifles and I am here to tell you: they're absolutely right.

Eugene Stoner never thought about the ways that people are currently using his rifle design. It was made to be the modern follow-up to the previous battle rifle, the M-14. It was meant to be lighter to carry, more reliable and generally just be a better rifle for the modern soldier.

And those are in fact exactly why it is so good at all the other things people now use it for. For most people in Texas and other places in the South and Southwest, it has become the de-facto Hog Gun. It has quickly worked its way to being a very popular predator gun, that takes numerous coyotes and other species very well. In places where it is legal, it is being used for deer. It is without equal in the shooting competitions that it is allowed in. All in all, you will not find a better all around rifle that combines this mix of features than the MSR. In fact, if you get yours in the stouter 308 caliber and forget about the Jeff Cooper imposed bolt action requirement, it can be made to hit all the high points of his Scout Rifle concept: under 3kg, under 1m in length, hit a man sized target at 450m with iron sights.

And in this way it is exactly like every other popular evolution of firearm that has happened in the history of us as a race. Every single improvement, most of which are now common practice in firearms that aren't on Sen Feinstein's ban list, has been precipitated by conflict and the need for an efficient military weapon.

Like what, you ask? How about:

• Gunpowder in the first place,
• Black powder weapons that increased the range and power of the soldier past the bow and arrow,
• Rifling used to spin projectiles to make them more accurate than the smooth bores of earlier firearms,
• Paper cartridges that increased the speed and convenience of loading these weapons,
• metallic cartridges that made loading even faster, and eventually lead to,
• Bolt and lever action firearms, that lead to
• multi-shot and magazine fed firearms.

Every rifle in existence owes its roots to a military weapon. It was work done to make the soldier better equipped for battle that allows us to have accurate hunting rifles and shotguns. Nobody seems to worry that the modern hunting rifle is descendant from the military rifles that were considered state of the art in 1900. When they first came out, trapdoor levers and bolt action rifles must have seemed like science fiction to the enemy that had to stare down the barrel of these rapid shooting weapons. And exactly the same thing is happening now; after a generation of seeing what a truly fine tool these firearms are, people who have used them and become comfortable with them are finding non-military uses for them.

So, let's quit fearing things just because they have a military origin. Guns have been used to fight wars, but they also put food on the table and allow recreation and competition for those so inclined. Knives have been used in battle since the beginning of time. People used to bludgeon each other with essentially big hammers and axes.

And we do all remember that originally the Internet was a DARPA project, right? Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency? And just like the AR rifle, it is now a force for good as well as evil.

Reload - Back in the game again

Well, its been a long while since my last post. You know how it gets, life gets in the way. But I am still here, still carrying a gun, still passionate about taking care of those I love.

I'm going to try getting back in to putting my thoughts down on this blog again. You might agree with some of them, you might not. Feel free to express your feelings, as long as it is in a respectful and thought out tone. As promised before, I promise to not censor anyone who thinks differently than I. As long as you think, and don't attack or try to bully or demean anyone, I will let every reader make up their own mind who they agree with. As with most things, I find when there is conflict of opinion, the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle.

I'm going to hit up a couple posts on what I think of as "Responsible Gun Owner" issues. That concept coves a lot of ground in my mind, and I think you will see that play out in this series of posts.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully we will all learn something from this process of sharing.