An open letter to all the #guncontrolnow and #gunsense people crying the sky is falling over 3D printed guns.

Stop all the lies or complete ignorance. Like anything else to do with firearms if you only knew about a 10th of what you need to you would know how silly your articles and postings are.

OK, I am going to probably give you a heart attack by what I am about to say if your anti-firearm and worried about these 3D printed guns, but here goes. We have been making un-serialized and homemade guns for decades. Do you need CPR now? Yes, that’s right it has been completely legal to manufacture your own guns at home and use them for many years. In fact, a whole industry has been born out of this. If you would research a bit about the 3D printing of guns, you would realize that they are not printing the entire gun, only parts. And no they are not able to pass through metal detectors undetected, what utter hogwash. You are being lied to and misled by those very people that want to make you helpless and remove your rights.

A 3D printed gun must have certain parts made from metal. In addition, the ammunition is standard ammunition and that alone is made from lots of metal and detectable by metal detectors. Oh, and maybe one of the most important parts, it can only hold and fire 1 round at a time. All of your anti-firearms crying about “high capacity magazines” should be pushing for these guns to become the standard used by everyone! But that is not the most egregious part of all your crying about 3D printed guns.

For many years we have been making our own, workable, well-functioning, “un-serialized” guns from metal without a 3D printer! Yes, that’s right, it’s called making a gun from an 80% lower. Google it. There are many of us out here that like working with our hands, we like firearms for fun, sport, and self-protection. And we like to combine our hobbies, so we create our own firearms. They are perfectly legal, have no serial numbers, and yes, they are untraceable by the government, but what does that matter? You are not allowed to sell them. Once you make it, you must keep it, unless you put a serial number on it and register it with the Feds, but what fun is that?

So, you folks wailing and gnashing your teeth about 3D printed guns are just laughed at by 99% of the gun owning population or anyone that knows anything about them. Why because we realize that only a silly person, with way too much money on their hands, would by a 3D printer, print that huge ugly 3D printed gun, and then try and use it in a crime as a single shot firearm. Not when real guns are cheaper and easier to come by. No, they can’t sneak them on a plane (remember it has metal in it and requires regular ammunition which is made of metal), no people will not be churning them out by the thousands. Why do that when you can buy a nice, commercially available 80% lower and build your own gun for far less than the cost of the 3D printed firearm?

Oh, and to really get the anti-firearms folks going, the 3D printed firearm issue was not a case about the 2nd Amendment. I know you probably have been told otherwise, but the court case was being argued on a First Amendment rights issue. I guess now that you #gunsense and #guncontrolnow people know that you will be against the first amendment also? Please if you do nothing else after reading this, do a google search and learn a little about the topic you are trying to speak on, you’re making your movements look foolish with your sky is falling cry. The sky isn’t falling, intelligence is it seems.

Advertisements

Can an “unarmed” attacker be a threat to your life? What is “disparity of force”?

With the recent shooting in Clearwater Florida of an “unarmed” assailant by a concealed firearms license holder many are questioning why was an unarmed man shot, all he did was violently shove the man to the ground? And even looking further, some saying that you are a coward or not a “real man” if you have to resort to firearms if the attacker is unarmed. To those people, as a 35-year veteran LEO (and LEO Instructor) and U.S. Army veteran I say you’re talking about a subject you have no knowledge of or are being purposefully stupid.

There is an adage that I like to use when younger police recruits talk about the physical part of the job, the fights, the “defensive tactics” we teach in the police academy and other things related to defending yourself. I tell them, “at my age, I don’t fight fair I fight to win”. And go on to elaborate that what I mean is I will use whatever I need to end the fight quickly and without as much injury as I can sustain. If that means throat punching someone, gouging an eye, or otherwise fighting “dirty” then I will do it if I am in fear for my life and cannot get to my self-defense firearm. I am older and have had several medical related issues over the years, I am not able to take as much punishment as when I was 20. So enters the concept of what constitutes a serious bodily injury and what is “disparity of force”?

We teach this in the police academy and teach law enforcement officers all over the nation about it because it can be what they come across on the job, but it applies as much to the everyday citizen as it does law enforcement. What is “serious bodily injury”? It is recognized in court cases and case law as that force which is likely to cause severe pain and injury that will require protracted recovery or permanent scarring is considered serious bodily harm. When it comes to the law of self-defense, you have to look at potential injury from the victim’s point of view, not the attackers or their intent. A blow to the throat, eyes or other soft areas of the body. Hitting someone with a closed fist to the side of the head, or base of the skull can be seriously crippling or even deadly. Throwing or pushing someone down hard onto concrete or asphalt, all can cause serious bodily injury or even death.

That is not even adding in the “disparity of force” factors. If the victim is old or physically disabled in any way, their ability to defend themselves may require the use of a weapon or firearm. A large attacker, even if unarmed, attacking a smaller weaker victim causes the danger of serious bodily harm or death to rise. And in the victims mind (remember that the fear spoken of in law is that of the victim, not the witness or the attackers), a small framed, weaker victim being attacked by a larger more powerful attacker may form in their mind a well-founded fear that they are going to be seriously injured or killed.

Let us use an example to explain this. You are an older person who has some issues with mobility. Nothing that requires a cane or wheelchair but you can’t get around as well as you used to. You are walking down the street when out of nowhere you are hit in the chest with a blow hard enough to send you flying backward several feet and land on your butt. Your dazed and your breathing is hard and painful. Your chest hurts as well as your back and legs from the fall to the ground. You realize you were just physically attacked by a much younger and larger attacker. And the attacker is there just a few feet away. You look up and think to yourself that the attacker is going to attack you again and that this time you may not be so lucky as to not be seriously injured or worse, maybe even killed (remember the law does not say only fear of death, but serious injury also, and rightfully so). Do you have the legal right to draw your self-defense firearm to defend yourself from further attack? Do you have the legal right to fire at the attacker to stop him from attacking you again if that is what you think he is going to do? The answer is of course yes. No one should have to just sit there and be seriously injured (or worse). No one should have to wait to be hit several times and just before losing consciousness be able to fight back. No one should be attacked physically or have to be seriously injured in the first place.

This ladies and gentlemen is what happened in Clearwater, Fl.
Would all people react the same way? Probably not. I doubt that I would have reacted the same way as the victim on the ground in this case. But what people seem to be forgetting is that you don’t get to make that decision based on what you would have done and what you are capable of, you have to look at it from the point of view of the person who used force to defend themselves. A disparity of force is what happens when you have factors that make the victim in a self-defense case more fearful of the attacker and the attackers ability to cause them harm. Size, age, physical ability, number of attackers, weapons, all of those things (and more) need to be taken into account when looking at the attacker verse victim issues in any use of self-defense.

So back to the original question. Can an unarmed attacker seriously injure or kill you? Of course, they can. Can you use force including deadly force to prevent an attack or stop an attack if you (the victim) feel that you are in fear of great bodily harm or death? Of course you can that is the way it should be. Did you look at and consider the possibility of things like the disparity of force in this case? Maybe you should.

Imagine if people had to try and run away or flee before they could defend themselves from criminal attacks. Imagine what the criminals would think and do. Self-defense is a right that we have had long before the Constitution and laws. The laws are there to try and explain it to those who are too stupid to understand that if you do not attack anyone else you have no fear of being shot by someone defending themselves then. Pretty simple when you think of it.

And don’t be foolish and try and bring up other cases that have caused media attention to focus. Especially those that have gone through the court system and been justifiable. That’s why we have a court system.

A simple solution to these supposed problems with the self-defense law is to present the case to the Grand Jury and let them decide if charges should be filed. If they do, the person using force still has the court to present their case, if not it has been reviewed by more than your standard Jury and has been put to rest.

It Happened Again in Santa Fe, Texas, and We Could Have Done Something!

With today’s shooting in Santa Fe Texas, it brings to the forefront once again that the people of the United States are not looking at these issues with logic and experience in how we can help lessen these types of incidents or at least minimize the damage done when they do happen.

Wake up America. Criminals, as the name applies, commit crimes. They violate the laws already on the book and any others that may be thought of. What then can be done to stop these types of attacks? We should look at what has worked other places and in other types of places.

The military has a specialty called “physical security”. It is used to provide security for anything the military considers important. Things like nuclear weapons, specialty equipment, and locations that need protection are “hardened”. Rings of various levels of security measures are put in place to make things secure and safe.

My specialty in the U.S. Army for half my time in the military was as the training coordinator for the security forces in charge of the physical security of several hundred nuclear weapons in what was at the time, West Germany.  We, of course, had fences, alarms, and various other physical barriers, but also had armed security on the sites. These were trained and equipped soldiers that took the security of these special weapons very seriously. We could be up and out into the fray in 30 seconds or less on these sites. We trained daily for it.

While I am not recommending that we place military units in our schools, I am recommending we take some of the lessons learned by the military and by other countries that have school security (Israel comes to mind) and look at what has worked and what could be implemented to protect our schools. It is simple really. As long as have no or little physical security measures in our schools, they will remain a target for depraved minds and those wanting to cause mass casualties. Armed response to an armed attack is also another thing that must be thought about. Why do you think you call the police when something like this happens? Because they are bringing guns to confront the armed suspect. Again I call it common sense.

I train law enforcement for a living. I teach law enforcement firearms and have for over 2 decades. I will be the first to tell you that police for the most part (not including specialty units like SWAT Teams) are not any better at using firearms than many civilian firearms owners and carriers. Putting law enforcement officers in the schools, called school resource officers can and has been effective at stopping mass school shootings. Just this same week in Illinois a school resource officer, Ofc. Mark Dallas, confronted a 19-year-old who was armed and started shooting at Dixon High School in Dixon, Il and was able to stop the shooter, by confronting him with an armed immediate response. Yet that, of course, did not make much in the way of news, because the only casualty was the criminal himself.

So let’s stop panicking and becoming emotional and trying to pass laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and takes away the rights of regular citizens to be able to protect themselves, and we need to make some changes to the physical security in our schools, and allow or place armed security in the schools. For heaven’s sake, we require fire extinguishers in schools. fire alarms,  and fire education. Yet we do not require bullet resistant glass in the doors, or entry control points with armed security or officers or other easy things that can absolutely reduce or mitigate the damage for these types of things.

America, stop listening to the media, stop listening to the right or left, stop getting emotional about things like this and let those with the knowledge and ability of those that know about these types of things help make “common sense” changes to our schools and the security that they have.

There are many things that we can do in the short term to help secure the schools until physical changes are made to help also. Police Officers placed it he schools is not a negative thing, it’s positive. An armed immediate response is what is needed to stop these types of criminals.

Until America realizes that you don’t stop these things with just laws and emotion and demonstrations, we are doomed to continue to repeat it over and over. They say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. So America, let’s stop the insanity, and give our schools the armed security they need and realize you fight fire with fire, in this case, it is you fight an armed attacker with an immediate and armed response.

Get over it America, stop arguing over “common sense gun safety” and focus on the real things that will make a difference. Making changes to our schools and the security we provide them.

What Type of Person Wants to Give up Their Own Rights?

After seeing the groups of people marching around different parts of the country, and watching some of the videos of just how uninformed they are on the real facts and issues surrounding firearms, mass murders and violent crime in general, it brought to my mind a question that I just figured out the answer to.

What kind of person wants to have their own Constitutional Rights taken away? I thought about that for a very long time and could not come up with an answer. Being uninformed on the topic does not excuse it, being misled cannot excuse it. Someone telling you that it is for your own good definitely should not excuse it. Being completely ignorant of the Constitution and what it stands for should not even excuse it.

So what kind of person would rather give up inalienable rights, that we have had for over 240 years, to make absolutely no difference? What kind of person cannot see that regardless of what laws you pass, what kinds of guns you ban, the criminals will still get the guns, or turn to bombs, or turn to trucks to cause their carnage?

The school shooting in Parkland was a tragedy, for everyone, but what we are not addressing is the failures of the system already in place to address these types of people. Instead, we are focusing on the tool used and not one the person pulling the trigger, even though we had plenty of warnings that were not followed up on. Then just a month after Parkland a school shooting in Maryland was stopped by a good guy with a firearm. So which is it, they cannot stop them or they can? Well, obviously firearms can stop mass murderers, and have.

So back to my original question. Why would a person or group of people want the Government to take away their rights? When taking away that right will do nothing to change the outcomes they want to be changed?  Our rights, including the 2nd Amendment, have stood the test of time for more than 240 years and in that time there have been many things this country has gone through. Wars, recessions, many ups, and downs. Men and Women have gone and died in wars to prevent the take over of our world by people who wanted to do just the thing these people are wanting, the removal of your rights.

Despots like Hitler, Stalin, and others did the very thing that these people are asking of their own Governing body, the removal of the ability of the people to defend themselves. The removal of firearms, of the right to own and possess firearms, was one of the first actions taken by these dictators, just before the mass executions began. Why could they get away with it? Because the ability of the people to defend themselves was removed and a defenseless people are nothing more than slaves.

What makes this whole topic insane is that the numbers just do not support the reactions we are seeing. Many more things kill far more people than firearms do every year. Yet we do not see marches in the streets to make cars safer (although the technology is there), we do not see marches to end the drug epidemics, we do not see the marches to end medical malpractice. All of those things kill far more people than firearms. Yet firearms seems to become a lightning rod for anger and hostility from those opposed to ownership and those who want the right to own them. Why? What is it about the firearm that drives what should a be a sane and normal person into a frenzy that they will not listen to rational talk and common sense? Fear of the unknown? Fear of being helpless?

I think it is a lack of the basic understanding of just what our rights are designed to do and why you need them. Violent crime is way down in the U.S., that is a proven fact. Murder is way down, firearms victimization is way down (more than murder!). So why would this equate to people being willing to give away freedom they need to protect themselves? Because they have never had to use it, so they see it as not being needed. You see the U.S. has become soft. Violent crime is so rare people have become used to being safe that when we do have an act of violence like parkland, with the media and instant 24 news cycle we feel like its something out of the ordinary. Even though school shootings are way down since 1990.

So unless you have been the victim of a violent crime, or had to use a firearm to defend yourself, or carried one as part of your profession, I think your perspective is that of a person outside the experience and knowledge base needed to appreciate the need and even necessity for having firearms for personal protection and the ability to defend your rights from those that may wish to remove them.

So I get it, your scared because the news and others tell you that you should be afraid. You should fear those big bad assault rifles. You should fear those who want to keep their rights and be able to defend themselves. Why? Because someone told you that you should or you researched, made up your own mind because of the facts you uncovered? If you are fearful it is not because you should be, it is because you have chosen to not take your own safety into your own hands. You have chosen to be fearful, you have chosen to give your rights away, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to give mine or anyone else’s away.

If you don’t want to own a firearm, that’s fine, don’t buy one. You don’t want to own an assault rifle? Fine don’t, but you have no right to tell me I can’t. That’s the great thing about rights they apply to the individual, not the group. That is why they are called individual rights, not group rights. But most of all, you have no right to give away my rights.

 

Why do I have so little fear? The Answer is Simple Really.

Sitting in Church today and listening to my pastor Philip R Griffin talk about being “confident” and why and how we can misplace our confidence I had a “God Moment”.

Philip talked about how we can misplace our confidence in many things. Titles, education, rituals and good works can all give us false confidence in ourselves. But that confidence really means little when it all comes down to it. I then thought about what I wrote last night about training and being able to handle the fear and stress of a critical incident and the possibility of being hurt or worse, killed.

That is when sitting there listening to Philip I realized why I do not fear these types of situations. Yes, my training and experience have helped me as far as the response and actions to take in those situations, and the repeated mental conditioning has also helped tremendously. But when it came down to it and I thought about it in the light of my faith, I realized I felt confident and able to handle these situations without much fear because of my trust in my faith and Jesus Christ and his promise. I realized it is because I do not fear death like I used to before coming to my faith and Jesus Christ..

Of course, I do not want to die. I especially do not like pain any more than I need to have for life, and I have had my share of pain. But I also realize that ultimately if I were to be killed, in an active shooter situation or any other way, I am OK with that as long as I was acting in accordance with my faith and my beliefs and trying to defend my fellow man. Christ has given me the calm, steady mind that I need to handle these situations. He grants me the quite calm thought process that is vital in emergency situations.

As I sat there today and realized with even more clarity and calmness, that because of my faith in the word of God and my unshakable belief in Jesus Christ, I truly do not fear any evil.

After the service, I walked around looking at some of my fellow church members, and one of our elders and man of God Dr. Steven Jones was standing not far away. So I walked up and talked to him about this very revelation. That is when he just confirmed for me what I was thinking. Dr. Jones simply said he sees me sitting in front of him with the earpiece to our security radios. And he thinks to himself if something tragic like a mass murderer were to come in, he would push his family to the ground and then like me, confront and defend his family. And he went on to voice exactly what I have said here. He has no fear of dying in that case as he knows his faith is unshakable, and he knows his ultimate destination is to be with Jesus Christ. I thank him for his honesty and his faith.

So why do I voice this publically here? Because I think that if you think you know how you will react in an emergency, it is even better to know why you will react the way you will. Mine is my utter and unshakable belief in Jesus Christ and that death has no hold over me. I will not be reckless or easily throw it away, but I know in no uncertain terms, my faith is my shield against the fear that many have and cannot overcome.

Thank you for reading this, and if you ever want to discuss my faith, or yours, please feel free to call, message, or email me and we will talk about it all you want. I can’t think of any better topic that makes a person ready to face life and death situations than having that God confidence in your corner.

Oh and thank you Philip, for being the man of God that I need in my life and a great example for others to look to. If you are looking for a church in the Gainesville area, The Family Church is a great place of God not just a “church”.

https://www.facebook.com/www.thefamilychurch.net/

Florida Firearms Owners! SB 1242 & HB 739 would extend your rights dramatically!

With the recent stopping of several pro-firearms rights Bills in the Florida legislature, Sen. Steube filed a bill today (12/12/17), SB 1242, which is identical to Rep. Fant’s HB 739 which was filed back on 11/117/2017. The Senate website describes SB 1242 as “Carrying of Weapons and Firearms: Providing that specified provisions relating to the carrying of weapons and firearms do not apply to persons engaged in, traveling to, or returning from certain outdoor activities or traveling to or returning from certain motor vehicles, residences, shelters, and other places, etc.”.

These matching Bills attempt to list quite a few new activities that would allow a person to either open carry or concealed carry while participating in, or going to or from these activities. These would create a new set of activities where a person could lawfully possess a firearm without having to have a concealed weapons permit. The list is mostly outdoor activities that a vast majority of Floridians do now, only this would allow you to lawfully possess and carry a firearm for self-defense while participating in any of the listed activities.

Here are the activities that are listed in the Bill:

(i) A person engaged in, traveling to, or returning from a lawful outdoor expedition or activity, including, but not limited to:

  1. Crabbing, gigging, cast netting, lobstering, or any other fishing activity;
  2. Hiking, trekking, backpacking, cross-country running, geocaching, or any other orienteering activity;
  3. Trapping, falconry, or any other hunting activity;
  4. Bicycling, mountain biking, trail riding, or any other cycling activity;
  5. All-terrain vehicle, dirt bike, four-wheeler, or any other off-road vehicle riding activity;
  6. Boating, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, or any other maritime activity;
  7. Dog walking, animal training, mushing, or any other outdoor animal exercising activity;
  8. Speleology, spelunking, or any other caving activity;
  9. Horseback riding or any other equestrian activity;
  10. Rock climbing, rappelling, or any other mountaineering activity;
  11. Nature photography, bird watching, astronomy, or any other outdoor viewing activity; and
  12. Picnicking, mushroom hunting, berry picking, metal detecting, fossil hunting, or any other outdoor recreational, training, scientific, or athletic activity;

(j) A person traveling to or returning from a motor vehicle; a residence, dwelling, apartment, condominium, townhouse, lodge, cabin, motor home, mobile home, recreational vehicle, hotel, motel, or any other place of residence or shelter; or any other place at which a firearm or weapon may be lawfully possessed;

Now as you can see that is quite a list. Notice the very carefully worded “but not limited to;” in the first sentence. Thereby laying the groundwork for what could be interpreted as say that any outdoor activity would be permissible under this Bill if it became law.

And under (j) these Bills try to eliminate the omission in current law that technically makes it illegal to take your firearm from your lawfully carried location in your car to your apartment (residence). Currently, you may possess a firearm in your home any way you wish, and you may have a firearm in your vehicle lawfully also without a permit, but to get it to your vehicle and from your vehicle if the vehicle is on a common property area has been looked at being illegal by some. This subsection addition would prevent that from being a problem any longer.

Yes if you read the Bills and look at the activities and see the common terms “or any other ….  Activity” whether it be fishing, hunting, orienteering, hunting, cycling, off-roading, maritime, animal exercising, caving, equestrian, mountaineering, outdoor viewing, and last but not least – outdoor recreational, training, scientific, or athletic activity, you could legally possess and carry a firearm without a license while going to, taking part in, and going home from any of those, the last one being quite a catch all of the activities.

If you think this is a long list, you would be right. If you think this list should not be needed, you are right, we should be allowed regardless of this list (but currently are not), if you think this list basically makes it OK to carry doing basically any outdoor activity, you would be right. So what is wrong with this Bill? NOTHING! It is an attempt to show the Florida Legislators just how silly restricting the lawful carry of firearms is to a “list” of “allowed” activities. And if passed would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Remember a little at a time is better than nothing at all.

I personally wholeheartedly support this Bill, and it’s not so subtle message and intentions. Floridians should not be restricted as to what action they should have to be doing to be able to protect themselves and their families. But if they are going to make us follow a list, let’s make it a good list! Like this one!

So please when the Bills are assigned to committees for hearings, take the time to send emails, write letters and call your Senators and eventually your Representatives and tell them you support this Bill and what it stands for! I will post more on this as things develop.

You can read the Bills at:

HB 739 – http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=61039&

SB 1242 – http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=62020&

Who Runs Our Media and it’s Agenda? Not People who Support Your Rights…

When people read the news or listen to the news on TV they forget or do not realize (or worse do not want to admit to themselves) that they are hearing and reading only what the news wants them to know. Our press is no longer “investigative” or unbiased like it may have been years ago. Our media these days (with the exception of some independent internet sites) push agendas and ideas that they want the public to think and believe.
 
2017-10-21_12-26-33
What if I told you that the media, for the most part, get their headlines and stories from a few very specific sources and they are required to word the news in a very specific way. You ask how can I prove this? Simply look at the images of a news feed. Notice how all of them word the headlines in very similar style to make sure that people read and see the word “murder insurance”. How more obvious could they be? You know that all of these “news” sources did not arrive at this wording on their own. Don’t you think this is designed to make people think that the NRA is bad and they are offering insurance that will help people get away with murder? Don’t fool yourself, that is exactly the idea the media is pushing.
 
22540083_1853935001583324_3420605044830073877_n
People need to realize you no longer are being given just facts or news, you are being fed an agenda, one determined by the owners and keepers of the media. Read between the lines, read from all sources and sides. Like most stories, there are three sides, the left, the right and the real story somewhere in the middle.
22549634_1853934994916658_4713570096826906832_n
Do not let the media direct your thoughts and ideas, that is just what they are trying to do.