Demand For Firarms Increases with Swedish Migrant Crises

Now, this country is a night-watchman state -- each man is on his own. When the Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking the law, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants expected this year -- equivalent to 2% of Sweden's current population. The number is as if 6.4 million penniless migrants who did not speak English arrived in U.S. in one year, or 1.3 million in Britain.

And the Swedes are preparing: demand for firearms licenses is increasing; more and more Swedes are joining shooting clubs and starting vigilante groups. After a slight dip in 2014, the number of new gun permits has gone up significantly again this year. According to police statistics, there are 1,901,325 licensed guns, owned by 567,733 people, in Sweden. Add to this an unknown number of illegal weapons. To get a gun permit in Sweden, you need to be at least 18 years old; law-abiding; well-behaved, and have a hunting license or be a member of an approved shooting club. In 2014, 11,000 people got a hunting license: 10% more than the year before. One out of five was a woman.

More Here

TX: Brother of Owner Fires at Officer Breaking into House; Officer Fires Back

The officer, presuming the people were intruders, then forced his way inside, McManus said.

"He kicked the door in to make an apprehension and the person inside opened fire on who he thought was a burglar,” McManus said.

The officer fired back, grazing the man’s side. McManus said he was treated by EMS workers at the scene and refused a ride to the hospital.

It turns out both of them, according to McManus, were mistaken.
More Here

KY: Video of Clerk Turning Tables on Robber

Surveillance video shows Kenneth Graves buying cigarettes and then pointing a gun in Mian's face and demanding money.

"You're ready to die. I mean, you don't know if you're going to die the next second or not. So, you kind of think about from your childhood all the way up here, like, all the things you have done to hurt some feelings, or stuff like that, and you want to apologize, or you want to say your last words to your family,” Mian said.

But then Mian turns the tables and pulls out his own gun. Graves instantly surrenders, admits the gun is fake and hands it over.

Link to Video and rest of Article

John Lott: As Paris Attacks Show, Europe In Denial About Gun Rights

French citizens were sitting ducks last Friday. For at least 10 uninterrupted minutes, terrorists mowed down attendants at Paris' Bataclan Concert Hall. In five other coordinated attacks, terrorists were given far too much time to go about their business.

But European politicians are in denial.

French President Francois Hollande immediately ordered 1,500 additional soldiers to protect the streets of Paris. After January's Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, France placed 10,000 uniformed soldiers in front of Jewish sites across the country. These troops gave only the illusion of protection.

Israel learned this lesson the hard way. In its first decades of existence, the nation responded to attacks by placing more soldiers and armed police on streets.

Unfortunately, a mass killer can target the uniformed officers first or wait for a moment when they are not present. It didn't matter how much money Israel spent. With a little patience, terrorists would find their moments to strike.

In recent years, 12% to 15% of adult Jewish civilians in Israel have been able to carry licensed firearms.

This complicates things for terrorists. Even when uniformed police leave an area, terrorists don't know whom they have to worry about.

More Here

The Political Consequences of Trump's Support for Armed Defense

Donald Trump came out in favor of armed defense of the individual and the Country on Wednesday, 18 November, 2015.  In an exclusive to Brietbart.com, Donald Trump has called for Americans to bear arms to increase the security of the United States.  From Brietbart.com:

There are nearly 13 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States who are part of the 100 million gun owners who defend the Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” This fundamental liberty is held closest by those who have gone through the process of vetting required to be entrusted with the ability to defend themselves, their families and their property with concealed weapons.

(snip)

 Each permit holder must make the decision to carry or not carry. I will carry more often than I have in the past, and I am sure other concealed permit holders will do the same. Do we have an obligation to carry? The answer is “yes,” but we must do it in such a way as to raise serious doubts in the minds of those who might be considering violence in America.

This is not much of a surprise; Trump has championed the Second Amendment in speeches and in his proposed policies for years.  This confounds political correctness, which makes the claim attempting to defend oneself or one's country is a fools errand that is only engaged in by those who believe in outdated ideologies, such as patriotism or Christianity.   President Obama's characterization of people who cling to their Bibles and their guns is "progressive" shorthand for such a view.

But those who hold such a politically correct view are a tiny minority of the population.  Trump has successfully connected with large majorities of the voting public.  Here are the results of a Gallup poll taken this year, about public attitudes about concealed carry:

That is a 15% advantage, and those are only the ones willing to buck the ongoing propaganda from the media cartel.  I suspect that it is a larger percentage in the privacy of the voting booth.

If you look at guns in the home, a 2014 poll shows and even greater disparity:

Americans see arms as providing more safety, not less, by a two to one margin.

This has been the historically prevalent view.  It was only challenged after World War One, as post WWI elites, worried about violent revolution, used mass media to sell the idea that being disarmed made people safer.  That idea has now been discredited.

The Gallup poll from 2014 shows that 81% of Republicans support armed defense, which shows the wisdom of Trump supporting this policy.  But so do 64% of Independents, and 41% of Democrats.  That translates into a blowout issue for a general election.

President Clinton confirmed that electoral reality when confronted with the Republican blowout in 1994.  Lack of support for the Second Amendment is widely credited with the loss of Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000.  That was with lukewarm support for the Second Amendment from candidate George W. Bush.  From pbs.org:

NEWSCASTER: What we found in an exit poll is gun owners— 40 percent of the voters in Ohio are gun owners, and they went almost 60 percent for George W. Bush.

NEWSCASTER: George W. Bush gets West Virginia—

NARRATOR: West Virginia—

NEWSCASTER: West Virginia, which has been solidly in the Democratic column for a long, long time—

NEWSCASTER: Bill Clinton’s home state has gone Bush—

NARRATOR: And Arkansas—

NEWSCASTER: —six electoral votes, and they go for Bush—

NARRATOR: And even Al Gore’s home state of Tennessee.

NEWSCASTER: —embarrassing Vice President Gore by snatching his state’s 11 electoral votes—

Image the differential created between Donald Trump, who proudly supports (and leads by example) the concept of armed defense, contrasted with Hillary, who denigrates and dismisses the concept altogether.

This issue creates a large positive voter advantage for Trump in both the Republican primary and the general election.

I expect other candidates will see the obvious advantages of this position, and will follow the Donald's lead.  If they do not, it may become impossible to overcome Donald Trump's momentum.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Ari Armstrong: Criminologist Gary Kleck on Guns, Crime, and Their Study

Recently I cited the work of criminologist Gary Kleck to rebut claims about defensive gun use and the relative risks of gun ownership; see “Michael Shermer’s Bogus Claims about Defensive Gun Use: Why the ’22 Times’ Statistic Is Nonsense.”

As a follow-up to that article, I contacted Kleck to see if he’d be interested in being interviewed; he graciously agreed. I interviewed him by phone on November 2; the transcript (lightly edited and approved by Kleck) is below. I’ve added some headers for ease of navigation.

One need not agree with all of Kleck’s conclusions to find his remarks enormously insightful. I have four main concerns that might make interesting research topics for later. First, I wonder if factors other than the planning requirements and lethality of suicide methods impact the likeliness of a person attempting suicide. In particular, I wonder if the painfulness (real or perceived) of a method makes a difference. Second, I know quite a few people in Colorado who did not carry a handgun prior to liberalized licensing who do carry now. I find it hard to believe that my experiences are atypical; thus, I’m skeptical of the survey that Kleck cites indicating that carry laws didn’t affect carrying practices. Third, I wonder if Kleck is too skeptical of the possibility of more proactive policing in cases where people make direct threats of violence or articulate plans to commit violence. Fourth, I wonder how much of a difference, if any, expanded records for background checks would make in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. But these concerns are minor relative to the enormous value of Kleck’s expert and deeply researched discussions.

Kleck’s remarks will not settle every debate in these areas, but they are an excellent place to start in thinking through the complexities of gun ownership and crime. —Ari Armstrong
Estimating Defensive Gun Use

Ari Armstrong: Over the years various researchers, including you, have attempted to estimate the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. Of course, defensive gun uses have probably decreased over the years as violent crime has fallen. In your view, what is the best estimate at this point?

Gary Kleck: I think your premise is correct, that defensive gun uses would go down proportionally as the need for defensive gun use goes down, and thus as the crime rate goes down.

The violent crime rate is about half now of what it was circa 1993, when we did that survey on defensive gun uses, so, best guess, the number of defensive gun uses would be about half. So, if it was 2.5 million then, it would be 1.2 million or so now.

But, I have to tell you, there hasn’t actually been a national survey on the subject that I know of since 2000. It’s as if, once people found out what kind of answers they would be getting if they did a national, probability-based survey, they ceased doing them. They didn’t ask the question anymore.

The defensive gun-use question has been asked in quite a few non-academic surveys—Gallup or whoever would ask the question as a single, isolated question in a survey largely about other topics. But nobody’s done a survey since a Washington Post survey way back in 2000. So we’re fifteen years out of date. So that’s why I have to guestimate what it would be, but I think that’s a pretty reasonable guestimate.

More Here

Ari Armstrong: John Lott Defends More Guns, Less Crime Thesis

Recently I interviewed criminologist Gary Kleck about gun ownership and crime. In the course of that interview, Kleck expressed skepticism regarding economist John Lott‘s claims that expanded concealed carry of handguns reduces crime. I asked Lott if he wanted to reply, and he graciously agreed to do so. He also addressed a number of other questions regarding gun ownership and crime.

I think there’s still much work to be done to square all of the seemingly conflicting claims regarding guns and crime in the United States and across different regions in and out of the country. (Perhaps I’ll look more deeply into such issues in the future.) However, Lott’s remarks provide some excellent leads. Below are his unedited replies to my questions. —Ari Armstrong

Ari Armstrong: Americans who want to regulate guns more heavily (or even ban guns) often invoke international comparisons. Rates of violent crime generally, and rates of gun-related violent crime specifically, are higher in the United States than in Canada, Australia, and various western European nations. What do you think is the significance of such international comparisons?

John Lott: We can learn something from international comparisons, but it is important to recognize that crime rates vary across countries for a large number of reasons. A common comparison is to look at the low homicide rate in the UK compared to the US and assume that is just because of the UK’s strict gun control laws. But after the January 1997 ban on handguns, the UK’s homicide rate actually rose by 50 percent over the next eight years. It only declined after that back down to its pre-ban rates after an 18 percent increase in the number of police.

Indeed, the same thing happens elsewhere. In every country in the world that has banned guns, murder rates have gone up.

The UK has lower homicide rates than the US, but their homicide rate actually rose relative to the US after they had a gun ban. There is something else besides gun ownership that explains the difference between the two countries.

Australia’s crime rates also haven’t changed the way that gun control advocates would have predicted. The buyback in 1996 and 1997 resulted in more than 1 million firearms being turned in and destroyed. This reduced the number of guns in the country from 3.2 million to about 2.2 million guns. Since then, however, there has been a steady increase in the number of privately owned guns. In 2010, private gun ownership was back to 1996 levels.

Their firearms homicide rate had been falling for a decade prior to the buyback. It continued falling at the same rate after the buyback. There was no sudden drop, just a fairly constant decline that continued even as gun ownership rose back up to previous levels.

More Here

Donald Trump is now the Leading Second Amendment Supporter

In an exclusive to Brietbart.com, Donald Trump has called for Americans to bear arms to increase security in the United States.  From Brietbart.com:

Carrying a weapon is not always feasible or appropriate. However, given the increased tensions that are the result of continued, escalating terrorism around the world, more legitimately armed individuals on the streets is a positive outcome. Each permit holder must make the decision to carry or not carry. I will carry more often than I have in the past, and I am sure other concealed permit holders will do the same. Do we have an obligation to carry? The answer is “yes,” but we must do it in such a way as to raise serious doubts in the minds of those who might be considering violence in America. Deterring violence is far better than dealing with the aftermath of an act of terror. Less blood, more security. That is what will make America great again.

Donald Trump shows that he understands reality better than most of the politicians in the nation.  This continues his breakthrough strategy of ignoring the censorship imposed by the media cartel in the name of "political correctness".    The concept of the citizenry being armed to defend against threats is as old and as obvious as mankind.  Only in the last hundred years, with the rise of "progressivism", has the weird idea that people are safer when disarmed been marketed to the public as a sane concept.

In Europe, people carried arms all over the continent before WWI.  In the British Empire, British Citizens had the right to keep and carry arms.  It was only after WWI that elites all around the world marketed the idea that the public would be "safer" if they were disarmed.

The elites feared an overthrow of their elite order, and believed that the elites would be safer if the public were disarmed.  That is how British elites imposed "gun control" by deception.  What the empire had imposed on its subjects, they now imposed on its citizens.

The idea of disarming citizens in the United States had started in the South, where permit systems were designed to keep blacks, who had not been citizens, disarmed.  The laws were never meant to disarm the majority of the citizenry.  That strategy backfired, as more and more "progressives" were elected, and started to apply those prohibitions to all.

The concept was promoted by the increasing power of the "progressive" movement,  a movement that rested on the theory that the majority of the people were too stupid to govern themselves, and that the "consent of the governed" must be manufactured by the elite, particularly the elite that controlled mass media.

"Progressives" spread the concept into states outside the South.  In New York, with the infamous Sullivan law, meant to protect the corrupt criminal/political Tammany Gang of New York, and California, where the elite wanted to be able to keep Hispanics and Chinese minorities disarmed and controlled.  Notably, neither New York or California have a state constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.  They are two of only six states that lack such protection.

The "progressive" media cartel, formed by the early newspaper chains and the Associated Press, nurtured and strengthened by the FCC, censorship during WWII, and the leftist takeover of the journalism schools and the networks in the 1960's, pushed the notion of citizen disarmament relentlessly.

The media cartel no longer has the ability to control the information flow.  It has been superseded by technological advances, just as it was made possible by the rise of the mass media.  It can no longer prop up the absurd notion that people are safer when they are disarmed.

The last shreds of disinformation used to create that illusion have disintegrated with the victory of concealed carry activists across the United States.  Those victories forced the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment.  In practical terms, it has shown that armed citizens are more law biding than the average police officer.

Donald Trump is speaking a truth that cannot be denied.  Long ago, before the media cartel started its incessant propaganda to convince Americans that they were safer when disarmed, Niccolo Machiavelli, the archetypal scholar of power politics said it this way:

There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe.... - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537.

Donald Trump, leading by example, is becoming the armed leader that a free people can respect.  Not long ago, we learned, unsurprisingly, that Ronald Reagan routinely went about armed. 

Can  anyone imagine the current "progressive" leadership having the sense to extol an armed citizenry as one of the great defensive resources of the Republic?  Can anyone imagine one of the "progressive" candidates leading by example?   In a recent debate, all three Democrat candidates fell over themselves, trying to find ways that they could disarm Americans through deceit.

That horse has left the stable.

Donald Trump has shown that he trusts the American people.  "Progressives" show that they fear and distrust the people, who they believe are too stupid to govern themselves.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch

From Breitbart.com, Donald Trump CCW Holder "Have an Obligation to Carry"

GOP Presidential front runner Donald Trump says the 13 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States have an obligation to carry, “but we must do it in such a way as to raise serious doubts in the minds of those who might be considering violence in America.”

In a statement on concealed carry responsibility released exclusively to Breitbart News Trump says:

There are nearly 13 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States who are part of the 100 million gun owners who defend the Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” This fundamental liberty is held closest by those who have gone through the process of vetting required to be entrusted with the ability to defend themselves, their families and their property with concealed weapons.

More Here

AL: Stand Your Ground Saves Innocent Marine from Prosecution

- The woman continued to aggressively approach Watson and threatened to kill him even after he fired a warning shot towards the ground.

- "Scarred (sic) for his life as well as his families, the defendant had to make a split-second decision and fired a second shot at her."

- Watson testified clearly he had not choice.

- Watson had no criminal history and was honorably discharged from the Marines.

- "There was no evidence that the defendant had any animosity toward Ms. Langston that he was motivated by anything other than reasonable fear of serious bodily harm to himself or others present."

More Here

PA: Homeowner Shoots 2 of 3 Robbery Suspects

Police say the homeowner pulled out a gun when three masked males attempted to rob him. He reportedly shot an 18-year-old multiple times in the chest and right side and a 15-year-old male in the finger. The third suspect was not injured.

More Here

PA: Resident and two Intruders Wounded in Gun fight

A resident of Mill Road told police he was awakened at 1:06 a.m. by a man pointing a gun at him. He grabbed his own weapon and fired rounds at the intruder and chased him to the steps, police said.

The victim saw someone pointing a gun at him at the bottom of the steps, and additional shots were fired, police said.

More Here

GA: Homeowner Shoots Suspect

According to police, the owner of the home woke up and heard someone trying to steal his vehicle when he fired shots at the suspect.

The suspect was hit and then driven to Grady Hospital by another person. Police have questioned that person to try to figure out what led up to the shooting.

More Here

MO: Armed Clerk wins Gunfight

The clerk told police responding to a holdup alarm that a gunman had walked in and tried to rob the store. The clerk said he drew his own gun and the gunman ran but pointed his weapon back at the clerk. The clerk fired one shot at the would-be robber.

The clerk said he believed the bullet struck the robber.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article45169377.html#storylink=cpy

More  Here

MT: Attacking Grizzly Killed at Close Range

Investigators are planning to interview the man. They aren’t sure of the sex of the bear and aren’t sure if they will be able to visit the site where it happened because of the weather. They also could not say how long the investigation might take.


This incident comes on the heels of two other grizzly deaths in recent weeks, one in Gardiner and one in West Yellowstone. In both of those incidents, hunters reported shooting the animals after bear spray failed to stop them from charging.
More Here

NE: Dog Harrasses Livestock, is Shot

The neighbors who shot the dog say they were in a bad situation and they did not want to shot the dog. Neighbors tell WOWT 6 News this time was different. They say Sky would not stop, they could not get her to respond and she was putting their livestock in danger. They say they had no other choice but to shoot.

“Nobody wants to see a pet get killed, but again, they have to be responsible for their animal. If they have a pet you just can’t let them run loose, even if it’s out in the country. You can’t let them run loose,” said Sheriff Jeff Danker.
More Here

OK: Homeowner Shoots Burglary Suspect in Leg

Strange things have been afoot around 2 a.m. recently.

A suspected burglar was shot in the leg and hospitalized Sunday morning after, police said, he picked an armed resident's home.

More Here

OH: Homeowner Wounds two Invaders

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A south Columbus home invasion ended in gunfire Monday morning.

Police said two people broke into a home around midnight on East Hanford Street near Parsons Avenue. Officers said the homeowner opened fire at the alleged intruders.
More Here

MO: Third Victim was Armed, Shot and Killed Robber

The robber took wallets from the two men, 49 and 58 years old, at gunpoint before turning his attention to a third man, 22, nearby, police said. The robber told the third man to give him his belongings that were inside of a work truck, according to police.

That third robbery victim had a handgun stored inside the truck, and as the robber held him at gunpoint, the victim fired one shot at the robber, striking him in the chest. The robber died at the scene, police said.
More Here

Book Review: Intrepid Explorer: The Autobiography of the World's Best Mine Finder

Intrepid Explorer: The Autobiography of the World's Best Mine Finder, by J. David Lowell

496 pages, Published by Sentinel Peak Press, University of Arizona, 2014

J. David Lowell is a hero directly out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but in real life.  This little promoted book is an inspirational account of a life built on the American dream, a questioning and active mind, physical courage and achievement that enriched the entire world.  The book is a true life adventure novel.  It was hard to put down.  I read longer into the night than I should have.

It was impossible for me to read the book without a sense of sorrow for the freedoms that the United States has lost over the lifetime of the author.  David was born in 1928.   As a child, he recalled his father buying dynamite at the local hardware store, and loading it into their truck.  Safety was assured by keeping the blasting caps on the side of the truck away from the dynamite.  You could legally buy explosives over the counter in Arizona into the 1990's.

Crossing the border with firearms was not a huge problem.  David and his new wife transported firearms down to Mexico without a hitch or question.  While guns are not a central theme in the book, it is clear that they have often been an everyday working tool for David Lowell.  Hunting was his primary recreation at his first job as a mining engineer in Mexico.  He was a member of his college rifle team, and later in life, he shot a marauding mountain lion with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver.

The central thesis in the book is how David Lowell created great wealth for the world with his mind and courage.  He was able to understand and, importantly, act, on the information that he perceived, to convert useless rock into enormous wealth.  He became wealthy in the process, but his wealth was but a tiny fraction of the wealth that he created for the world.  Make no mistake, in spite of David Lowell characterising himself as a "Treasure Finder", he created the wealth.  It was his knowledge, ability, drive, and organization that turned useless rock into valuable ore and metal to keep our industrial civilization going.

What were David's primary enemies?  Ignorance, stupidity, corruption, fraud, and irrational bureaucracy.   Physical danger, while significant, was a smaller obstacle to overcome.  Fortunately for the world, David's several brushes with death were near misses.

Disclaimer: I have a degree in mining engineering, was on my college pistol team, worked in a military bureaucracy for 30 years, and own a couple of mining properties.

If you wish to read an inspirational true story about how giants among us create wealth for all, read this book.

Link to Amazon page for the book

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch