Concealed Carry

Attacker opens fire outside American nightclub and is shot by victim with concealed carry permit

Last week an armed gunman opened fire outside an American nightclub. You haven’t read about it in the news because it was not a massacre and because it runs counter to the anti-gun-lobby narrative. Not only was it not a massacre, there was no loss of life at all. Unlike the situation in the Orlando gay nightclub, this nightclub was not a gun-free zone. Because of this, one of the victims was armed. He fired back and hit the attacker. Imagine if the men inside the Orlando nightclub had been allowed to arm themselves. Fifty people would not have died if that had been the case. In fact, the cowardly terrorist may not have even targeted that nightclub if he had known that his victims could shoot back.

On June 12, a Muslim terrorist attacked a gay night club called Pulse in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 and wounding 53 in a three-hour ordeal that was the nation?s most drawn-out mass killing, and the deadliest domestic terror attack since 9/11.

This past Sunday, exactly two weeks to the day after the Pulse attack, there was a mass shooting outside a night club in South Carolina. I?m sure you haven?t heard about it, and for two good reasons. The first reason is that the attempted murderer was unsuccessful in killing any of his victims.?The second reason is because the attempted murderer was stopped by a concealed carrier at the club drawing his weapon and putting a bullet into the bad guy.

Read more »

The newest ACT policy might blow you away


Arun Kumar , Henderson Dairy owner, was stabbed to death – via RNZ

ACT is looking at allowing shop keepers to be able to legally have a firearm in the shop.

ACT says shopkeepers should be free to keep guns under their counter, but National leader John Key has dismissed the policy as “dangerous.”

Leader Jamie?Whyte?said today his party would strengthen the law for self-defence and ensure it is not illegal for a dairy owner to keep a weapon on the premises.

I can assure you that no 12 year old with a knife would have taken the risk if there is so much as a possibility of the shop owner having a firearm under the counter. ? Read more »

Crime drops in Chicago…you’ll never guess why

Crime has dropped dramatically in Chicago.

What has caused this?

Is it better welfare payments to the poor? Nope.

What about increased resources to Police? Nope.

What then?

Gun rights activists have often held up Chicago as an example of the failures of gun control. The city has historically had some of the strictest laws against gun ownership while also suffering under some of the worst crime rates in the US. In 2012,?Chicago surpassed New York?as America?s murder capital. However, after the?US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit?struck down Illinois??ban?on concealed carry in December of 2012, a concealed carry program was implemented in the state this year, finally and for the first time allowing law-abiding Chicago residents to arm themselves in public against the city?s seemingly-perpetual crime wave.

According to?The Washington Times,?now that citizens in Chicago can legally defend themselves, the city?s historically disastrous crime rates have begun to plummet precipitously. Police department crime statistics note that, in the first quarter of 2014, the homicide rate in Chicago has dropped to a 56-year low. In 2014 so far, burglaries are down by 20%, auto theft rates have dropped by 26%, and robberies leading to arrests are down by 20%.

The Chicago Police Department wasted no time in declaring victory and claiming credit for the drop in crime, but Illinois?State Rifle Association executive director Richard Pearson told?The Washington Times,??The police department hasn?t changed a single tactic ? they haven?t announced a shift in policy or of course ? and yet you have these incredible numbers.? He feels that the drop in crime can at least in part be attributed to the implementation of concealed carry in Illinois. Said Pearson, ?It isn?t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don?t know who?s armed and who isn?t has a deterrence effect.?

Read more »

Wonders will never cease, armed citizens experience less crime

Who would’ve ever thought that if citizens armed themselves against criminals that the murder rate would decrease.

Wonder’s will never cease.

A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The?study by the Crime Prevention Research Center?found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

?When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals,” said the center?s president, John R. Lott, a Fox News contributor. ?Some criminals stop committing crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don?t come into contact with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear of being confronted by armed victims.?

Increasing gun ownership, litigation and new state laws have all contributed to the rise in concealed carry permits. In March, Illinois became the 50th?state to begin issuing concealed weapons permits. But the cost and other requirements for obtaining the permits varies greatly, from South Dakota, where a permit requires $10, a background check and no training, to Illinois, where the cost of obtaining a permit comes to more than $600 when the fee and cost of training programs are taken into account.

Six states don?t require a permit for legal gun owners to conceal their weapons, and Lott notes those states have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. ? Read more »

Concealed Carry Works

? Boing Boing

This?surveillance video clip?shows 71-year-old?Samuel Williams thwarting an armed robbery?at an internet cafe in Marion, Florida on Friday, July 13, 2012. Williams, a licensed gun owner, may now become the poster child for those who support “concealed carry” rights in the state.

Williams was present when two masked thugs walked into the Palms Internet Cafe in Marion County, Florida. One of the men was brandishing a gun while the other had a bat. They started ordering patrons around and one smashes a computer screen. That’s when Williams took action.

Williams was seated toward the back of the cafe dressed in a white shirt, shorts and baseball cap. One of the masked men, identified as Duwayne Henderson, 19, comes in pointing a handgun at customers. The second man, Davis Dawkins, 19, is seen swinging a bat at something off screen, which was later identified as a $1,200 computer screen.

As Henderson turns his back, Williams pulls out a .380-caliber semi-automatic handgun, stands from his chair, takes two steps, nearly drops to one knee, and fires two shots at Henderson, who bolts for the front door. Williams takes several more steps toward the door and continues firing as Henderson and Dawkins fall over one another trying to exit the building. The two eventually run off screen.

Both suspects?received non-life threatening gunshot wounds, and were later captured by police.?Williams will not face any charges, according to a rep from the State Attorney’s Office?(via?Joe Sabia).

Not only did he hit what he aimed at, he thwarted the robbers. In New Zealand there would now be a room full of victims awaiting Police to take statements about what was taken from them by force by robbers.

No one ever raped a .38

? Andrew Sullivan

The best defense is an armed offense. Andrew Sullivan notes that?”the fastest-growing group of concealed handgun owners in the state has been, for at least five years, black women.”?One woman?explains?why she is one of them:

?For women, part of the tension around this topic is that women with guns are marginalized in a feminist culture that promotes unarmed resistance and “clean” fighting techniques. These send the message that as long as a woman does not have a lethal means of protecting herself, she is still feminine and worthy of “real” protection?either from a man, or from the police. To be a gun-owning feminist, to prepare to protect oneself against two of the most frightening enemies of female-identified people?rape and/or domestic violence?still strikes at the heart of what could be described as a feminist identity crisis, wherein women oppress each other with our inability to make room for alternative models of self-protection.

Would Norway have happened in Texas?

There has been a great of talk about the actions of the nutter in Norway who was able to wander aimlessly around an island and systematically kill. For those that don’t know Norway has very strict gun control laws. Once again though we have seen what happens in a dis-armed population when criminals ignore laws. That is kind of what criminals do though so as per usual in such situations it si the innocent who suffer ebcause the politicians dis-armed the population, ironically to allegedly protect them.

But could Norway have happened in Texas? Probably not.

Making Sense, by Michael Reagan

How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise: in Texas, 3 minutes; in Montana, 7 to 8 minutes; in Arizona, 2 minutes; and in Nevada, 3 to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts, and allowed Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns, the massacre might well have been prevented. There?s a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

That was certainly true in Norway where Anders Breivik, a lone gunman, launched his assault on youth campers of Utoya Island. According to press reports he fully expected Norway?s special forces to swoop down and stop him at any minute. It didn?t happen. Faced with unarmed victims he was given plenty of time to kill 68 innocent people who could not defend themselves. Had just one of them been armed, Breivik could have been stopped dead and lives would have been spared.

Moreover, if anyone had paid attention to Breivik?s rants they would not have been surprised when he acted on them, especially since Breivik had preceded his attack by setting off a car bomb in the heart of Oslo.

Tragically, Norway?s anti-gun hysteria resulted in laws restricting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, leaving them exposed to gun violence at the hands of criminals such as Breivik, who simply ignore anti-gun ownership laws. Despite the Second Amendment, which protects American citizens? rights to access to guns for self-protection, the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms is under constant assault.

Sure mass murders have happened in the US but always in ?areas where the victims have been dis-armed by rules and regulations that the killer conveniently ignores.

In an interview with the University of Chicago, Lott said that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws ? called ?shall-issue? laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

He noted that criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. He shows that there is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens who have gun permits and the crime rate, noting that as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. He adds that for each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Why does?concealed?carry deter crime?

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. That?s just common sense.

This is commonsense. Go hunting in the Kaingaroa Forest. There are plenty of people there with guns. Many are people that in any given city just the mere sight of them would bring a shudder from the general citizenry and that is just in their everyday attire. Gang members, rough types, all sorts…yet in Kaingaroa a nice bunch of blokes you’ve never met…you see everyone is armed…and everyone knows how to use them and so civility breaks out. People you wouldn’t normally have a chat with or cross the street to avoid are suddenly very human and chatty. There is no animosity and no threats, just civility. It is because everyone is equal and no one is in a more powerful position either through fear or through intimidation.

Would Norway have happened in Texas? No way. Would it have happened in Switzerland? Nope. THese sorts of terrible crimes only ever happen where politicians have dis-armed the population.

Every human has the right to self-defence, so why do our politicians always try to remove the tools that aid in self defence. Dis-arming the population always leads to trouble.