Newsweek Outright Lies to the American People about Firearms Deaths!

Why am I not surprised that another supposed “news” source would publish a article “STUDY: U.S. GUN DEATHS SURGE, EXCEPT FOR TWO STATES WITH RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS – BY ASHER STOCKLER ON 10/8/19” that is not only full of falsehoods, but the headline itself is an outright lie.

Is it any surprise that the American people no longer trust “news” sources like Newsweek? When supposed news sources publish such blatant lies about a topic rather than take 5 minutes to actually research reliable sources, you get results like this:

Screen grab from Newsweek.com

Now if you read that headline you would think they at least were telling you the truth. But would it surprise you if I told you that according to the FBI “2018 Crime in the United States” firearms murders went down the last two years? Firearms murders have decreased since 2016. 2018 was lower again from 2017. So why would Newsweek want to mislead or lie to the American public? Well of course we know why, they want to influence the public into thinking there is a “surge” or “epidemic” or “crisis”. When in reality the only one of those is in the minds of those who manufacture these claims.

From: FBI “2018 Crime in the United States” report.

According to the FBI homicide data, murder over all is down again also in the US. That’s great news so why not share that good news? Isn’t murder being down a good thing? Oh that’s right if they admitted that it would make things like “gun control” the “assault weapons ban” and other things pointless. Well they are pointless.

Here is the homicide rate per 100,000 people in the US over the last 48 years. Notice anything? You can easily see that the Murder rate was much higher from about 1998 and prior. After the rate started dropping in the nineties it has stayed pretty stable until about 2008 when it dropped a little more. With the mass murder in 2016 it climbed but still not to previous levels. And now it has dropped again to 5 murders per 100K like it was back in 2009. Again it is still far lower than in the past prior to 1999.

Graphic by Down Range with Chris Wagoner. (chriswagoner.us)

So one has to also consider this. We are a nation of 350+ MILLION people. And a nation with hundreds of millions of firearms, some estimates are even more firearms than people. If firearms were the issue would we not have far more firearms murders than 10,265 out of 350+ MILLION people with all those firearms in the US? Of course we would. This is a very simple way of showing it is not the inanimate object that is a problem, but the person behind it. Just like it is the driver behind the wheel of a car driving DUI and not the car. It is obvious when you see that “hands and feet”, “Blunt objects” like clubs and hammers, and even “knives and cutting instruments” are used to murder far more people than those “assault rifles” that many say are the biggest threat to people these days.

So to Newsweek I make this challenge, if you want to put anyone up for a debate live online, I will gladly take you up on ti. Subject? The real numbers behind firearms, murder and fake crisis you are trying to manufacture.

I know they won’t take me up on it, but it’s fun to hope! Stay safe out there.

MSNBC Caught Manipulating Poll about Firearms?

Sometimes you do a double-take at a photo and have to say “huh”? Back on September 17th, 2019 I wrote about a poll that MSNBC was hosting about firearms. They had asked the questions “Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?” Excellent question. And the results were very telling. At the time I had made a screen grab of the poll, 573,000+ people had voted and an overwhelming majority had voted “Yes” to that question! actually 92% at that time! That was quite eye opening. When you added one of the other choices “Yes for self defense only” (which is why 99.99% of people carry them anyway) the total was up over 97% for law abiding citizens being allowed to carry firearms in public! Note the numbers on the poll.

September 17th, 2019 screen grab.

Well that was great news and a very enlightening poll, best of all the size of the sampling, over 573K was not something to sneeze at. So I checked back on September 21st to see how it was doing. And to my great surprise it was still going strong. As of September 21st, 2019 the results were 93% in favor of allowing citizens to carry in public. Better yet the sampling size had gone up even more to over 847,000!

September 21st, 2019 screen grab.

So with this sampling size and these results you would think things are pretty obvious, right? Americans (if they limited the poll to US voters only) overwhelmingly were for law abiding citizens carrying firearms in public. To the point that it was not even close, what those in media might even call a “landslide”.

But wait! Remember who is conducting this poll, MSNBC, and as part of the anti-firearms establishment they can’t have a poll on their website that shows that kind of outstanding support for lawful firearms carry. So what can they do? Well here is where things got strange. Checking back on September 28th, 2019 the results had “changed” dramatically.

September 28th, 2019 screen grab.

Now 7 days later they have over 1,840,000 votes!?! And now the percentage of support for public carry is down to 47%. Something does not add up. Where did all of these “NO” votes all of a sudden come from? When all the previous days the overwhelming vote was “yes” now they have to be almost all for no in order to bring the number down to show that the “majority” now does not support public carry of firearms? How did all of a sudden there become this surge of anti-firearms rights votes?

There are only a few possibilities, you can choose for yourself. One, the anti-firearms rights groups got together and had a huge rally to vote in this poll. Since I monitor those groups and their postings, that did not happen. Not a single mention that I saw in any of their groups. So second, hackers. That is a possibility. When I checked with some of the people who had commented on my previous writings on this I found that people had voted multiple times by simply using different browsers. They said you could also use Chrome “incognito” tabs and vote as many times as you wanted. So that might account for a few of the votes (remember we are talking well over 1 million votes being added). Third, MSNBC simply added votes to bring the poll numbers more in line with their anti-firearms and anti-rights agendas? That would be a simple thing to do.

So I have a little challenge for MSNBC. Release the metrics and data on where and who voted for this poll that has over 2 Million votes at the time of this article! Any poll that magically goes for days and days with a 92 & 93% for one answer with over 800,000 votong all of a sudden swings the opposite way?

Come on MSNBC do you really think that people are so stupid they cannot see the manipulation of the numbers right in front of their faces as bold as this one was? And the lame-stream media wonders why people have no faith in the news agencies any longer and why they get accused of fake news, because they create fake news, now its obvious and easy to spot.

The Fallacy of Universal Background Checks.

In the last couple of months it has been a firestorm of proposed legislation at the state and federal levels on many things that pertain to firearms. Everything from the registration of firearms, limitations on the size of the magazine (not a clip), “universal” background checks, to the outright banning of most modern firearms.

The problem that the vast majority of the media have, and those in State and Federal legislative positions also have is that they have no clue about what the current laws are on firearms, and they have zero or very little knowledge of firearms themselves and how they operate and can be used. Shouldn’t a person at least try to learn about the topic they are trying to legislate and restrict others on?

Time and time again I see on the news or read in articles on-line about legislation that proposes something that will make no difference at all in the supposed violence and mass murderers we have recently seen. I have even read about a bill proposing something that is already illegal and part of another law or already prohibited under federal rules or code.

Let’s use the example of the “universal background checks”. I have seen at least 10 legislators on various news outlets say we need to have universal background checks. And when asked about the topic almost every single one of them talks about the “gun show loophole” (which does not exist by the way, kind of like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law”). They say that you do not need a background check to buy a firearm at a gun show. Well that’s a half truth.

Most gun shows I have been to, and that’s a few, and most I know of are by far made up of Federal Firearms Licensed (FFLs) dealers. A very small percentage of those selling at gun shows are private parties selling just a few firearms. So if you buy a firearm from a FFL, no matter if it’s at a gun show or at a firearms store, you MUST complete a Federal background check using NICS (National Instant Background Check System). In fact even those private sellers are required BY FEDERAL LAW not to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. You may ask how do they know if the person they are selling to is prohibited of not unless they have access to NICS. They don’t. But many private sellers will not sell to anyone unless they have a state concealed carry permit. In that case they at least know the person they are selling to at the time they got the concealed carry license was not a prohibited person.

All of the information above is actually kind of pointless when you factor in that less than 1% of felons who used firearms and went to prison got a firearm at a gun show! That according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey in 2004 of inmates in federal prison.

Then they almost always bring up the sale of firearms over the internet. I hate to break it to the folks on national news shows and our supposed educated legislators but the vast majority of internet sales are done by licensed FFLs and as such the buyer has to have the firearm shipped to a local FFL and guess what? Yep you got it, they have to go through a background check to receive the firearm. In addition if its a firearm bought from a private party out of state and brought into the state, the person has to have it shipped to a FFL and again they have to go through a NICS check. That’s right private sales from out of state have a background check done on them before delivery.

So you may ask what are they talking about then? Great question! They are talking about the very few sales between two parties at the local level. And those are even governed already by the same federal laws. One person selling to another is prohibited from selling to a prohibited person. So if you’re selling a firearm, you better be real sure that the person you’re selling to is not prohibited from having a firearm.

And last, I would like to point out that several of the mass murderers who used firearms as the weapon of choice passed background checks. So what is the point of “expanding” background checks? In reality nothing. It will not stop one single mass murderer or criminal from getting a firearm if they want, but will make it more expensive and more time consuming than it already is for law abiding citizens to get firearms they want and need for self defense and home protection.

So a challenge to my news media and legislative friends. If you want to propose new legislation on firearms ownership maybe you should research what it is, how it will affect the criminals and law abiding citizens first? Just a suggestion.

BJS cited above – Report on Firearm Violence 1993 – 2011″

Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016

Background Checks and Red Flag laws and more laws would not have stopped Texas or Ohio Murderers.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

First, there has been a cry for universal background checks for a couple of years. After every mass murder that uses a firearm, there is a cry for “universal background checks”. But what many who are for them don’t want to be said and will try and shout down anyone that dares to bring it up is that many of the mass murderers passed background checks to get the very firearms they used. The most recent two shootings, one in El Paso Texas and the other in Dayton Ohio both passed background checks. So what good would UBC’s do then if mass murderers with obvious questionable backgrounds can still pass them? When put that way kind of sounds stupid doesn’t it?

Then there are the “Red Flag” laws that everyone is touting as part of a possible solution. The only problem is not all of these laws are created equally. Some states, like my own of Florida, have already enacted these types of laws and guess what? They have found they are abused and were not thought out very well. Many states laws do not have any kind of due process written into them. You know that pesky thing called your right to due process under the law. Sound familiar? Anytime that the Government wants to take away a persons property or right (owning and possessing a firearm is both of those) they should have to go before a Judge, and have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. Our system was founded on that very principle. Circumventing that now for firearms can and will lead to further infringements. Don’t get in an argument with a vindictive ex-spouse or such, all they need do is call the police, tell them you own guns and made threats. No need to substantiate it and prove it, you have to prove you did not. Isn’t that twisted around from what our system is supposed to be like?

And for those crying that we have to do something. Why? The Murder rate is actually down by >40% since 1993. People are waking up all across this great country and realizing that self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility, not the government. The last three mass murders, Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton all took place in or as people exited a gun-free zone. Read this excerpt from the El Paso murderer’s supposed manifesto and you see that they (the mass murderers) think about this:


Attack low-security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.


So what would have stopped him? More security? More police in the area? Why do you think they do not attack police stations or federal buildings or other hardened targets? Because the chances of being shot before they can cause much carnage is greater. People wonder why no one in Texas was carrying (big state for carry rights and laws) but all one need do is look at the Walmart and the demographics of the area and you will see why. The Walmart was a posted “gun-free zone” and in Texas, if posted properly with 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 signs, it makes legal carry in the establishment illegal. So again law-abiding citizens are disarmed, and the mass murderer could care less and murdered 22 people, AND NOT ONE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously, it worked in the murderers’ favor.

And last of course is blaming the current President for these shootings. People say it is his “message” that caused the murderers to go out and kill (even though the murderer in Texas made it clear it was not) like he ordered them to go out and kill people. If this is the case why did he post tweets in support of certain specific Democratic candidates before the murderers? Shouldn’t we blame them then instead? Of course not. You don’t blame the actions of a psychopath or sociopath on others. You blame the person themselves.

So let’s just stick to the facts. We now have a mass murderer who clearly said that they pick “low-security targets” that have little chance of them being confronted or engaged by armed resistance. Maybe we should listen to him and use that against the next one? Self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility and not the governments. Police (I was one for 38+ years) only come when called. You have to be alive to call them. And why do you call them? Because they bring firearms to the scene to confront the armed attacker. Would it not be better to not have to wait and be at the mercy of these deranged individuals? When most mass murders are over in minutes and it takes law enforcement minutes to get there, what do you do in the meantime? Hide and hope not to die? Sorry, not in my nature.

So I guess what it all boils down to is the cry from those wanting something done, and something is done now, just what do you propose that would have stopped any one of the last 10 or 20 mass murderers over the past couple of years? Please give us a solution or idea. Since Murder is already illegal and carries the stiffest of penalties in some places (death) and that does not seem to stop them, please don’t propose a law that only disarms more law-abiding citizens. Let’s hear some concrete thought out helpful ideas and stop playing the blame game, blaming President Trump, blaming guns, blaming poor mental health screening, but not blaming the real root causes. Those are for another article.

The internet is good for some things, but not for telling you what firearm is best for you!

Recently on a Facebook group I read and follow a well meaning person asked the group in general what type of handgun she should buy. She gave a little bit of info in that she was a shorter in stature female but that was it.

And of course the responses were many and varied as greatly as the types of firearms recommended. And some of the responses are just plain bad advice.

And while some of those are great suggestions, Firearms are not a one size fits a certain sized person. Also some handguns are not made for concealed carry or for personal defense although almost all will do that if you have it in your hand at the time.

If you are looking at getting a handgun first what are you getting it for? Learning to shoot a handgun? Self defense at home or to concealed carry? There are many factors that go into what you look for in a handgun and to be honest, the internet and complete strangers is not the place to look for help.

If you are looking for a handgun or wanting to learn to shoot a handgun, go to a reputable gun range or gun store. Or find a reputable firearms instructor that you check the references or reviews on and get them to show you different firearms. DO NOT buy a firearm you have not shot the same model on a range! Handguns can look and feel very different. But until you actually shoot it on the range, you can not know how it feels in your hand and how you like or dislike the way it functions. Not all handguns are created equal.

So if you are new to firearms or handguns, do not take advice from the internet. Find a real person who is a professional and knows what they are doing when it comes to handguns or training.

Once you do decide on a handgun, make sure to get training in how to use it properly and how to shoot it. Remember why you were getting it in the first place. Isn’t your life (or the life of your loved ones) worth the time, effort and money to do it right?

FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE ALERT! OUR RIGHTS NEED YOUR VOICE!

HB 6007  – Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms. Removes provision prohibiting concealed carry licensees from openly carrying a handgun or carrying concealed weapon or firearm into college or university facility.

HB 6007 – Sometimes called “Campus Carry”, has been assigned to committees for hearing and review. Yesterday afternoon (01/16/2017) HB 6007 – Referred to Criminal Justice Subcommittee; Higher Education and Career Readiness Subcommittee, and Judiciary Committee. While it has not been scheduled for any hearings yet, if you are a firearms rights and Constitutional supporter you should support this Bill. It is time to make your voices heard. This Bill needs to be scheduled for hearings and a committee vote.

The Chairs of each committee decide what Bills get heard, and they can stop a Bill dead in its tracks by simply ignoring it. If they do not take it up for hearing, it dies a quiet death. We want this Bill to be heard and we need to make sure they know it has support from the law-abiding firearms owners of Florida.

Please take a few minutes in the next couple of days to email or call the Chair of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, Rep. James “J.W.” Grant and Vice Chair Rep. Stan McClain and tell them to put the Bill up for hearing and a vote and that you, a law-abiding citizen of Florida support it! They have a meeting scheduled Jan 23rd, 2019 but the Bill is not on the agenda yet. Let’s see if we can get that changed!

Emails: James “J.W.” Grant – james.grant@myfloridahouse.gov   Twitter: @JamesGrantFl

                                Phone: (850) 717-5064

                Stan McClain – stan.mcclain@myfloridahouse.gov  Twitter: @RepMcClain

                                Phone: (850) 717-5023

While many of us feel very strongly about the Gun Free Zone/ Unarmed Victim Zone issues this Bill would fix, please be respectful and concise when emailing to them. We want them to be on our side, not against it.

In the Subject line, please include “Support HB 6007” as part of your subject.

If you happen to be on Twitter I also use it at @CmdrCW, but I may not be as tolerant of the anti-rights people there as I am here. 😉  

Why do we “need” AR-15 rifles or any other firearm?

Recently during a very one-sided debate, I was shouted at and asked why I “needed” an AR-15 or other rifles like that. I was also told that only the police and government should have those types of firearms.

Those comments made me shiver. The fact that people who are discussing basic Constitutional rights do not know what the basis of a right is, and why we should not allow them to be restricted or removed anymore than they are.

The first question as to why I “need” an AR-15 or other firearm is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I do not ‘need” anything. I have the “right” to peacefully and lawfully possess an AR-15 or other firearm because it’s my choice. A “right” is just that, I can exercise it if I want to or not. Just like I can exercise my right to free speech or not. I can choose to be silent if I do not want to use that right, but if I do, as I am here, then there is nothing that should stop me if I am not harming anyone. Just as my right to own firearms is just that, my right, and should not be restricted if I am not harming anyone unlawfully. That’s why it’s a right and not a “need”.

And when they asked why I thought I should have them and not just the police and government, I almost fell out of my chair. Did they not know basic history? Our forefathers went to war to divest themselves of a government that was trying to do just that, remove arms from the citizens to make ruling over them easier. Of the numerous countries where the removal of the ability of the citizens to defend themselves, especially against a government that became tyrannical, dictatorial or worse, resulted in millions dying at the hands of that very government should have been enough. Then there is the minor issue of the police only having the guns. Having been one for 35 years, I am here to tell you police cannot protect you all the time. You are not able to rely on the few police officers out there that might just be lucky enough to be around the corner and arrive in the nick of time to save you. And the minor issue that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is not the duty of the police to protect you as an individual. So, if not theirs than who’s is it? It’s yours!

So when you ask why does someone need an Ar-15, we don’t need them. We have the right to have them. We don’t need them, unless of course we do to defend our family or country, from the government itself. Then it may be to late since some want them all removed because of the actions of a few murderers. And please don’t use that old worn out, you can never defeat the US Military with AR-15’s. I don’t expect a lot of military folks would go along with orders to attack or harm US Citizens. But that just is coming form a U.S. Army veteran. Had I been ordered to do so I would have simply refused.

So good luck with your arguments we don’t need these firearms. No we have the right to have them and until such a time as that right is repealed (that’s another topic) you have no right to tell me, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, that I don’t. As a side note, of the Bill of Rights, which ones have the words “shall not be infringed” in them? And why? Maybe because our forefathers had seen just that, a government trying to infringe on the citizens it was supposed to serve not rule?