Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM

Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.

Massad Ayoob


Saturday, December 29th, 2012

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?”  There are lots of sound answers.

For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people.  To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped.  History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers.  Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him.  He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench.  That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.

Semiautomatic rifles? Consider this heart-breaking, fatal home invasion in Florida and ask yourself if it might have turned out differently had the homeowners been able to access and competently deploy something like, oh, a Bushmaster AR15 with 30 round magazine.  I teach every year in Southern Arizona, and each year I see more Americans along the border with AR15s and similar rifles in their ranch vehicles and even their regular cars.  There have been cases where innocent ranchers and working cops alike have been jeopardized by multiple, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers in desert fights far from police response and backup.  A semiautomatic rifle with a substantial magazine capacity can be reassuring in such situations, as seen here:

In the last twenty years, we have seen epic mob violence in American streets. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, Korean storekeepers armed with AR15s kept their stores and livelihoods – and lives – from the torches of inflamed crowds because the mob feared their force multipliers. Read this, for a survivor’s account:  There have been bands of roving, violent predators as lately as this year during the Sandy storm. And the “flash mob violence” phenomenon of recent years has left many urban dwellers picturing themselves as the lone victim of a feral human wolfpack.

And, if you will, one more stark and simple thing:  Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried.  When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens.  In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols.  So did the gun-buying public.  Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic.  Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm. The American police establishment has also largely switched from the 12 gauge shotgun which was also the traditional American home defense weapon, to the AR15 patrol rifle with 30-round magazine…and, not surprisingly, the law-abiding citizenry has followed suit there, too.

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .


  1. Jason Burrell Says:

    Amen Mr Ayoob. You’re exactly right.

  2. Lazy Bike Commuter Says:

    I’ve been thinking about it, and it seems to me that 30 round magazines are more useful for defense than offense–a person who is defending themselves in their home isn’t going to be carrying a lot of extra magazines and they won’t be choosing the time and place of an encounter.

    When the Sandy Hook shooter attacked a room full of children, I have a feeling he could have done just as much with 5 round magazines, since he had 20 minutes to do it.

  3. Edge Says:

    I absolutely agree. However, just don’t stock up on ammo for that AR at Cheaper Than Dirt. 1,000 rounds of 5.56 is currently listed at $999. Of course, you won’t be able to afford that ammo after you buy some of their used steel 30 round AR mags at $99 a pop.

    At a time when the Second Amendment community needs to come together because the Constitution is under attack these guys are price gouging at a level that is beyond laughable.

  4. Stu Strickler Says:

    Every responsible gun ower needs to call, write or email their elected Representatives and Senators and tell them NO to any form of gun control.

    Always be polite, brief and stay on message.

    Happy New Year

  5. Jeff in WI Says:

    Thanks Mas. This gives me some good talking points.

  6. Jaji Says:

    Thanks, Mas. I’ve sadly heard way too much from seriously ill-informed people about these firearms lately.

    If there was a way that ANY gun ban would actually work, I’d give up mine in a heartbeat, but there’s no way that’s gonna happen.

    While I thankfully don’t live in her district, Sen. Feinstein has already penned the bill she plans to introduce next session. It includes a “grandfather” clause for those of us who already own “assault weapons” that she wishes to ban…but only if we register them and get fingerprinted.

    Hold on tight; we’re in for a rough ride.

  7. Steve Harris Says:

    Superb. Especially noting the 2009 Pensacola, Florida, mass home invasion, which closed circuit cameras captured and which children were watching out the home windows as it unfolded. A tragedy that likely could have been stopped (when the truck full of miscreants broke through the distant perimeter fence) with a semi-automatic rifle and one or two 30 round magazines. Anyone not a believer before that should have changed their opinion in 2009.

  8. Tommy Sewall Says:

    Thanks! I tend to try and explain too much. A good answer is the experts use it, it only makes good sense for me to do the same.

  9. Howard Says:

    Thank you.

  10. Allan Says:


  11. Andrew Says:

    Outstanding. Mr Ayoob, get on TV now and stay on through this fight!

  12. Wayne Says:

    MAS, how about testifying on our behalf before Congress ? With your credible background, you could make a difference ??

  13. Old Fezzywig Says:

    Mas, yet another fabulous blog. Lance Thomas is my hero.

    Civilians have a greater need for high capacity magazines than the military or police have. The military and police usually go into combat in groups. They can cover each other when it is time to reload. Civilians are usually alone when attacked, and, as you say, they can often be outnumbered. Why do the military and police need high capacity magazines? They don’t, but we trust them, and want them to be safe.

    Readers: You must understand that informed liberals do not believe their own arguments. They are trying to bring about their dream of a socialist utopia. When informed liberals propose gun control laws, they know their ideas won’t work, but they are trying to take baby steps to move us to a time when only the benevolent government will have the power that comes with firearms. President Obama knows his economic ideas won’t fix the economy. He doesn’t want to heal the economy, he wants to kill it, then re-make it. No matter that Karl Marx’s ideas didn’t work in Russia, China, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea or Viet Nam. Well-meaning liberals (that is, Communists) can still bring about Karl’s dream of a socialist utopia in the USA, and then the world, if we unenlightened hicks would just follow them into the promised land. They also believe competitive capitalism turns good people into nasty people. Evil in the world comes from evil in flawed human hearts, it is not produced by an economic system. Liberals believe mankind is perfectable through education. The Founding Fathers, mostly professing Christians, believed mankind is fatally flawed, so they knew it was best to limit the power of government, and use families, churches and schools to promote virtue. Guess which system works best? The Founding Fathers believed that an earthly utopia is impossible, and history proves them right.

  14. BikerDad Says:


    It’s called capitalism. They have a limited supply of product with a skyrocketing demand. Raising the price helps to reduce hoarding and encourages additional supply to come into the market.

  15. Patrick Says:

    Senator (MO)

    December 29, 2012

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

    On Friday, December 14, 2012, a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and began shooting teachers and students before taking his own life. This horrific tragedy took the lives of 27 people, including 20 children seven years of age and younger. As a mother, I’m horrified and stunned by the senseless violence against innocent children and teachers.

    This tragedy has led to renewed and important discussions about gun control, which is often a divisive topic in our nation. The loss of so many beautiful children in a mass shooting that involved an assault rifle with ammunition clips that held large numbers of bullets makes clear that we need to revisit the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and review permissible magazine ammunition sizes. I am also supportive of closing the gun show loophole and making sure that those with court-determined, dangerous mental health diagnoses do not get access to guns. Finally, it is equally clear that we must reconsider the mental health services available to our citizens, knowing that each mass shooting our nation has experienced involved individuals with substantial mental health problems. “Obamacare” will expand important mental health coverage when it is implemented in 2014. Protecting our children and our citizens will require us to come together to find real solutions that cover a broad range of factors that have contributed to these horrific incidents.

    I firmly believe that an attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures can be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or unduly burdening the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri. Weapons designed primarily for the use of soldiers to kill people in war are not used in hunting and can be reasonably limited without jeopardizing any rights under the Second Amendment. I believe the horror of the Newtown shootings makes clear that we must get to work protecting our communities and our children from mass slaughter, while also protecting our Second Amendment rights. I am hopeful that the National Rifle Association, a significant voice in this discussion, will be a constructive part of this dialogue.

    Even as I welcome this renewed debate, please know that I will continue to protect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to safely own and use appropriate firearms. In the past, I have voted to permit residents of the District of Columbia to own and purchase firearms. I also supported an amendment to a spending bill that would prevent funding for any international organization, including the United Nations, that places a tax on any firearm owned by a United States citizen. I have opposed other inappropriate measures, such as forcing Missouri to accept other states’ firearms laws.

    As your United States Senator, I will keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation. In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, my prayers are with the students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary, and with their families. All Americans are outraged at senseless and criminal gun violence no matter where they may fall in the debate on guns in American society. A renewed national conversation has begun and we must all be a constructive and open-minded part of it. There is middle ground here, where this nation can come together with sensible laws that prevent the mass murder of innocent citizens, while we continue to respect our Constitution and its Second Amendment rights.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.


    Claire McCaskill
    United States Senator

  16. Gil Says:

    Since you seem to want to deal in real world situations, at what point in your life have you been confronted by multiple attackers? Were you part of the LA riots? Should we base our laws on the 1/100k rule, or be more reasonable? Whatevs. The world goes on while you sit in your basements with your cold steel and empty lives.

  17. mark Says:

    Edge, you are right on the mark as far as an industry that is taking advantage of the political climate. The ammo and gun industry are loving everytime there is a gun control hysteria. Yes, I understand the law of supply and demand, but these are buisness men. If anybody thinks profit is going to play second fiddle to their rights then they are mistaken. There is a gun and ammo industry out there to make money. I doubt these people are sitting around saying we have to stay in buisness for the sake of the American people, even if it means breaking even or possibly taking some losses. If you or I stopped buying their product, just watch how fast prices will eventually drop even if the supply was there. Nonetheless, supply and demand does push the pricing in markets. However, it is just like the gasoline market. Big oil companies keep the refining capacity low so the supply will always be below the demand enough to justify their price gouging. We were used to $2.00 a gallon gas 12 years ago, now $3.00 a gallon is considered cheap. Gun and ammo prices will drop once the hysteria passes and supply and demand equalizes, but they will always be much higher than they should be. We are a public controlled by the ploy of our corporate puppet masters. The point is the fear of a ban is greater than its execution. Four years ago we were told our guns are going to be taken and nothing changed, but the size of gun and ammo manufacturers coffers. This time around nothing may effectively happen, or something could happen. You see, this uncertainty keeps the money flowing. If a ban were to take place, it would only drive up the prices yet again for civilians and allow the government to be the only buyer of newly manufactured weapons. Either way you cut it, we are manipulated for profit or for control. I do not have to take your gun rights away legislatively, I can also do it economically. Look at pre 1986 automatic weapons. Nobody said you cannot own one, you may just have to pay 10 or 50 thousand dollars for it. The rich will always have more allotted them. Like the vice president of the NRA recently stated, (paraphrased)” for the most part only the wealthy and famous are allowed gun permits in New York city”.

  18. Andy Says:


    Awesome, logical, straight-to-the-point summary with plenty of matter-of-fact details.

    No one can ignore the many valid parallels between LEO choices for duty/self-defense (firearms or otherwise) and their influence on what regular citizens choose. Can’t argue with reality.

    Glad to see yet another bank of logical reasoning we can use to defeat the anti-gunners!

  19. Gary Says:

    I will not put them in the box,
    I will not fit them out with locks.
    You may not take mine oh no no,
    I will not ever let them go.
    You cannot have them Missus Feinstein
    So stick your bill where the sun don’t shine.

    With love, gun owners everywhere…………

  20. Sian Says:

    Since this is the biggest semi-valid topic going around today (The AWB is patently ridiculous, except for people who don’t actually care about crime or saving lives), I appreciate reading your input.

  21. Bonk Says:

    Amen Edge. Has the NRA addressed this issue? I know demand is up but clearly this industry has the bandwidth to fill demand. Gouging because you can is something I’d appreciate the NRA stop as well

  22. frank Says:

    if it were possible to completely get rid of all guns what would the sick killers do? they would switch to something worse. like bombs, chemicals, gas, all much more cruel and horrific. the second amendment was intended to give the citizens the right to the same arms as the government. Too bad we will never get our full auto rights back.

  23. guntotin-mama Says:

    “The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .”

    Because… the police can’t be everywhere at once
    Because… not everyone lives close to town
    Because… criminals don’t make an appointment

    Thanks, Mas.

  24. ray jones Says:

    Don’t forget the police are not obligated to protect you,that has been decided in court decisions

  25. psychebob Says:

    A semi auto 12 gauge with 000 buck shot is safer to use isn’t it? Throwing 30 rounds of, say, 30.06 downrange would likely go right through most homes walls.

  26. Chris - VA Says:

    Agreed Mas.

  27. BigDaddyFromGeorgia Says:

    Great article, Mas.
    Where you say, “…Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried…”, I have a slightly different view.

    ‘Americans’ (should I read that word you chose as ‘civilians’?) have not ‘modeled’ their choices after what ‘the cops’ have done.
    The two groups have simply both responded in the same way to changes in available technology, reliability, calibers, and societal changes.
    One group has not ‘modeled’ the other group…both groups want the best available tools for the job and have responded in the same way.

    In the case of Sandy Hook, unarmed and defenseless women and children hid in closets waiting for ‘help’ to arrive while hoping the shooter would find someone else before he found them.
    When help did arrive, they came equipped with those same “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” that the liberal bed-wetting gun-banners believe have no purpose in society.

    (Why do schools have fire extinguishers, can’t they just wait for the fire department to get there?)

  28. Paul Edwards Says:

    Thanks Mas, you put the truth into words that even the Anti-Gun Crowd will have a hard time refuting.

    Though we don’t think of Revolutionary era weapons as being “State of the Art”, now a days, they were used by both the British Army, our Army, and all of the Civilian Militiamen forces alike, and therefore the Second Amendment clearly protects today’s Citizens Right to Keep and Bear today’s equivalent of those Revolutionary “State of the Art” weaponry..

    Personally, in addition to what the Police use, I tend to rely on those weapons that I trained with, and carried, while serving in the Military as well.

    Your Blog should be required reading for all Politicians, and in all Schools, starting as early as the Children are old enough to understand the situations involved.

  29. Bamadrifter Says:

    Thanks again, Mas. I just finished your book ‘Combat Shooting’ and am thankful for making decades worth of research fit into a handy little book. As one who makes a living selling guns, there was stuff about the aftermath of a shooting that I would never have thought about. And you are spot on as far as “keeping up w/ the cops.” My store has been sold out of .223 & .308 ammo, AR-15 variants; every Beretta, Springfield, Glock, Ruger, and Taurus on hand (all semi-autos out of stock except Kimber), and strangely every last box of .22LR. These are strange times… always pays to be prepared BEFORE the panic hits. Si vis pacem para bellum. Shalom!

  30. Matt Says:

    I dunno.

    Guns are not defensive. To refer to them as “defensive firearms” as Mr Ayoob does is moronic.

    Shields are defensive. Body armor is defensive. Weapons are for offense. They’re called “Assault Rifles” for a reason.

    As far as that article is concerned it is an exercise of straw men. How many one-off situations can be crammed into a single article? Are these everyday occurrences? No. He props up straw man after straw man that are blown over with the lightest breeze. The only one I can agree with is the watch owner fella. He was truly defending himself against bad guys. Too bad he whines like a bitch about having to go out of business – I guess his customers didn’t feel too secure with all that firepower lying about. Maybe selling Rolex watches in a high crime are isn’t a good idea.

    I especially love that he brought up the Billings murders in FL. This fella wants to put an AR-15 into a house full of children with special needs. Genius. Especially after Newtown. And anyone who contends that a well-planned out surprise assault can be prevented is lying to themselves. Pearl Harbor is a great example – it wasn’t a citizen but a naval fleet destroyed by a surprise attack. Bitch of it is they had a little advance warning. If the US Navy can’t do it what makes anyone think that a private citizen can?

    And I sympathize with the ranchers, but they keep voting Republican in the desert SW. I can’t imagine why – their only mantra is “smaller government, lower taxes”. How do we effectively secure the borders like that? Shit costs money, and security is really expensive. I guess the Republican answer is “rugged individualism” aka “go fuck yourself,” which is really sad, but not unexpected. They profit from the drug war suckling at the teat of the judicial-incarceration complex – the more people in jail the better. So what motivation do they have in closing the border and stopping the flow of drugs into the US? Nothing while it lines their pockets with taxpayer $$$. But let’s take a reality check here – how many AR-15’s would it take to match the firepower of a single cartel death squad? Since they have automatic weapons and aren’t too afraid to use them I’d argue this is a moot point. A rancher or group of ranch hands don’t stand a chance against a group armed with high-power automatic weapons (exported from the US to Mexico via Federal Firearms License holders on the black market FTW!), especially in a highly un-defensible position like a house made of wood or cinderblock which bullets cut through like swiss cheese.

    And I love that “Jew without a gun’ story. More Hollywood than reality (go figure). I wonder – he never goes on to explain what happened to the other people in that theater…maybe the story would be more illustrative/poignant if he did. OR. It would have made him out to be a reactionary nutjob who jerks off his ego at every turn in his fantasy, sorry, I mean factual recounting of events from his perspective on reality. My real question is this: What if the rioters had AR-15’s? What a happy day that could have been for the NRA! Heston could have taken the podium with pride at seeing the exercising of so many second amendment remedies in response to the gross exercise of government power – remember Rodney King? Damn that video tape…cops were only beating the shit out of him for his own good! He was drunk and speeding though. So I guess drunk + speeding + (being beaten to within an inch of your life) = happy outcome. And the justice system agreed with the police. Maybe the rioters should have taken up some second amendment remedies and got some real justice – the constitution and justice system sure didn’t have their back.

    I wonder how many rights that the second amendment has abridged? How is it that the second amendment is more important than the first? Or the third? Or the fourth? Or the twenty-second? One amendment does not a constitution make. They work together to provide a framework for the interaction between citizens and the government. Guns themselves are not the answer. Are they part of the answer? Sure. But to say that the only thing standing between the citizenry and a tyrannical government are gun owners is infantile.

    When he talks about “There have been bands of roving, violent predators as lately as this year during the Sandy storm.” I knew he couldn’t find his ass with both hands and should probably step away from the keyboard before he hurts himself – he can’t even get his facts right. I live at the Jersey shore (you know, where Sandy blew through) – no packs of violent predators here. I guess he couldn’t see that too clearly from 4000 miles away in OR. Maybe you can shove that fact back up your ass where you found it. And the profound ignorance of capitalism in the second to last paragraph is absolutely stunning. His last paragraph clinches it for me that he is completely out of touch – basing a private citizens’ needs on the needs of police officers who deal with the scum of the worst inner cities in the US for 8-12 hours a day is absurd – unless you are a law-enforcement officer. Last I checked, the vast majority of Americans don’t live in crime-ridden inner cities.

    I think that what the right has done is to scare gun owners into the idea that sensible regulation is the same as a ban. All of the law put in place over the past 40 years were ineffective because there were loopholes that a child could drive a truck through.

    Gun ownership is a right under the Constitution. But it is also a responsibility, one that far too many gun owners take too lightly. Not only are gun owners protecting themselves and their families with these weapons, but they also have the duty to ensure that their fellow citizens are not harmed/killed by those weapons – too many beat their chests about owning a gun but absolve themselves of their duty to their fellow citizens.

    I know this probably isn’t going to be well received. But that’s too bad. It’s the truth.

  31. Patrick Says:

    Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013
    By By JIM KUHNHENN | Associated Press – 58 mins ago.. .

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Recalling the shooting rampage that killed 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to put his “full weight” behind legislation aimed at preventing gun violence.

    Obama voiced skepticism about the National Rifle Association’s proposal to put armed guards in schools following the Dec. 14 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The president made his comments in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Instead, the president vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines. He left no doubt it will be one of his top priorities next year.

    “It is not enough for us to say, ‘This is too hard so we’re not going to try,'” Obama said.

    “I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” he added. “And, yes, it’s going to be hard.”

    The president added that he’s ready to meet with Republicans and Democrats, anyone with a stake in the issue.

    The schoolhouse shootings, coming as families prepared for the holidays, have elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention. Six adult staff members were also killed at the elementary school. Shooter Adam Lanza committed suicide, apparently as police closed in. Earlier, he had killed his mother at the home they shared.

    The tragedy immediately prompted calls for greater gun controls. But the NRA is strongly resisting those efforts, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection. Some gun enthusiasts have rushed to buy semiautomatic rifles of the type used by Lanza, fearing sales may soon be restricted.

    Obama seemed unimpressed by the NRA proposal. “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” he said. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

    The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.

    “The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away,” Obama said. “It certainly won’t feel like that to me. This is something that – you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it’s not something that I want to see repeated.”

    Separately, a member of the president’s cabinet said Sunday that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment right to bear arms and recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.

    But Vilsack said Newtown has changed the way people see the issue. “I really believe that this is a different circumstance and a different situation,” Vilsack said on CNN.

    Vilsack said he thinks it’s possible for Americans to come together. “It’s potentially a unifying conversation,” he said. “The problem is that these conversations are always couched in the terms of dividing us. This could be a unifying conversation, and Lord knows we need to be unified.”

    Besides passing gun violence legislation, Obama also listed deficit reduction and immigration as top priorities for 2013. A big deficit reduction deal with Republicans proved elusive this month, and Obama is now hoping Senate Democratic and Republican leaders salvage a scaled-back plan that avoids tax increases for virtually all Americans.

    In addition, he issued a defense of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been mentioned as one of the leading candidates to replace Leon Panetta as defense secretary.

    Hagel, who opposed President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq, has been criticized in conservative circles for not being a strong enough ally of Israel. Also, many liberals and gay activists have banded against him for comments he made in 1998 about an openly gay nominee for an ambassadorship

    Obama, who briefly served with Hagel in the Senate, stressed that he had yet to make a decision but called Hagel a “patriot.”

    Hagel “served this country with valor in Vietnam,” the president said. “And (he) is somebody who’s currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job.”

    Obama noted that Hagel had apologized for his 14-year-old remark on gays

  32. Keith Says:

    I’m still waiting for the “left” to come up with an exact definition of an assault weapon! I have an old 1943 Russian Mosin Nagant rifle that only holds 5 rounds but, it could literally be considered an “Assault Rifle”! They keep talking about firearms with a military type part or action, this is a WWII military rifle that was used to “assault the enemy”, could it be banned because of this? Now I hear that Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed gun ban includes a ban on semi-automatic handguns and shotguns in addition to rifles! Where will it stop??

  33. Larry Says:

    Years ago, I had someone break into my home, while my girlfriend,her 3 kids, and I slept. I dropped the bolt onto my AR-15 and a 30 round magazine. I put 1 round into the floor of my living room and ordered the man to lay on the floor, informing him I have 29 more. 8 minutes later the police arrived, arresting him. A 9mm and a 38 was found in his possession. I honestly believe that a “less scary” gun would have let him feel more empowered and the end results would have been much different.

  34. Stephen Says:

    Think about the ability to protect ourselves against tyranny. Should we eventually have to attempt to overthrow the government for some reason you can bet the military of the U.N. will be used to fight us. If the government has their way and disarms us of our semi automatic weapons as they want to do, What will we be left with?

    Oh that’s right we will still have our single shot bolt action rifles to use against an army that has fully automatic weapons…

    Can you see the balance there???

    Imagine how many people in an situation against tyranny would be cut down before they could even reload a second round if it happened…

    That is why we must not allow the current government crazies to take away our “assault rifles” and equipment.

  35. John Says:

    Old Fezzywig-
    Just a heads up: We in the military (I.E. the Infantry) NEED 30 round mags. When you’re in an ambush, the squad/element needs to return as much VOLUME of fire as possible. It’s all about volume. Keep their heads down while you and your buddies get out of the kill zone 🙂

  36. Les Kimbrell Says:

    Mr. Ayoob, once again you have made a point so simple to understand that even those who would take the rights of the people away cannot argue against these simple facts. Thank you for your outstanding writing.

    Patrick, I certainly hope you are as disgusted by your senator’s response as I am. It’s not her place, nor anyone other than the user, to determine what an “appropriate firearm” is.

  37. Mike Says:

    @gil while the author may not have been on a rooftop defending his business from looters during the riots, there were business owners doing that very thing. most people who have faced armed multiple armed attackers and are still here to talk to you about it are still here because they were able to bring lethal force to bear on a lethal threat.

    and since you brought up the 1/100k rule, isn’t that EXACTLY what an assault weapons ban is? there are an estimated 300million civilian owned firearms in the united states. according the to FBI crime statistics report, in 2011 there were 8,583 murders committed with a firearm. of these, 323 were committed with a rifle. basic math and rounding tells us that’s a 1/1,000,000 rule… about 10 times less frequent than your 1/100k rule.

  38. Daniel Says:

    Great article. I am concerned that the “gun grabbers” will read this and think that perhapss they should disarm police and the citizens will follow. Go ahead and laugh but they can and will twist everything.

  39. j Says:

    with climate change, floods/hurricanes/tornadoes will be a more common occurence, which means looting and gangs of looters will be a more common occurence, which means “hicap” mags and semiauto weapons will be more and more valuable tools for safweguarding life and limb in the future, which means the anti gunners are out of their minds if they think they can push through another AWB.

  40. alaskarich Says:

    here is the main reason that all weapons and by products are needed for all. So that you all can have you say in anything like you just did on this blog/chat. You are free, to say what you want. once they start taking away our birth rights then you will no longer be able to say way you want. You have a choice right now because of firearms. You can by that green car will yellow spots if you want. You can own property if you like, which means you can live where you want to and not be told by the government that you will live here, work doing this for 10 bucks a month, and have black scooter like everyone else to get around on, showing off you all black cloths. Please disagree with me while you still can. shortly we will not have blogs/chats, No FB, or phones to call others, no free internet to do as we please. it will be limited. Please take away our guns Obama and his fans, we will no longer be free. I will die before I give up my freedom, my rights and most of all my weapons.

  41. mark martinez Says:

    I’ve been surfing the net looking for the answer why we need semi auto weapons and high capacity magazines,so I could explain it to others who don’t have a clue what it takes to be involved in a shoot out and what goes through the persons mind when the incident doe’s happen.(eventually it will happen).I found your web site by going through other web sites and arrived to yours.I’ve read many of your articles through several gun magazines and hold your advice in high regards.I’ve been in a couple of shoot outs myself while being employed as a security guard and once while working as a gas station attendant,(I was allowed to Cary a gun on the property due to robberies)That was the scariest one of all because I was alone,in a bad neighborhood and was responsible for training a new employee(and his safety).I was so worried that I carried a Colt Trooper .357mag. in a upside down cross draw,a .380 horizontal on the other side,and a.25 auto behind my wallet.Well it happened!we were robbed,he came up behind me with a .32 revolver in my back!Demanded the money from the cash drawer and had us covered the whole time,my mind was going 100mph!I did not have the time or want to draw my gun while being covered at such at close range,so I slowed my thoughts down and tried to look as non threatening as possible,I got the money around and calmly gave it to him without making eye contact,I was watching the gun and his finger on the trigger!He then announced that if we called the Police he would come back and “Kill us!”I was real mad at that remark!He turned and started out the door,I told the new hire to hit the panic button drew my .357 and went after him and yelled out halt!!He spun around and started shooting all in one movement!I checked his background lined up my sights and returned fire!Carefully trying to hit center mass and keep the sights lined up and not shake so much,I fired twice,and on my third shot he grabbed his right side stumbled a little fired again at me and ran between some houses,it was night time and he had street lights on behind him so I had a good sight picture,none the less I was scared as hell!I lost count of how many times I fired so I dumbed the cylinder,reloaded with a speed loader and stood out in the middle of the drive and kept a vigil on the area incase he decided to return!The Police showed up,got out of the car and demanded me to drop my weapon!Great! I thought,now the cops are going to shoot me!Well I placed my gun on the ground slowly and slowly raised my hands up in the air and announced I was the one who was robbed and was in a shoot out with the suspect.He came over took my gun and asked for my gun permit!I showed it to him,he gave it back,then handed me my gun back,asked me how many times I fired?I looked down where I reloaded,saw four empties and two live rounds,told him four shots fired! I think I hit him ’cause he grabbed his side and stumbled a few steps and took off between some houses!He gave me an extra flashlight he had and ask me to go with him,i was scared but complied we searched the area but found nothing,I thought it was funny how no back up arrived!Well he took a statement,left,and I called the manager/owner,I shut down the station,figured out how much we lost($78.00).And when he showed up told him what happened and promptly quit!I was not going to die for a mere $7.50 an hour!Anyways it was your advice on how to act in a gunfight and all the articles I’ve read from you about self defense,is why I’m here today and ready for the next time it ever happens!That was back in 1978 now its 2012,I’ve served in the Army and as a Federal police Officer and survived five shootings,with as many gunshot wounds,nonetheless I’m still alive!Incidents like this are why we want and need semi auto and high capacity mags,Thanks Mas!Now I wish you could go on T.V and tell the rest of the non believers and uninformed the rest of the story why we want and need assault rifles & high capacity mags,and refer them to articles and videos like Lance’s and the the one about the fatal home invasion!Thanks again!And keep up the good work you have been doing.

  42. Patrick Says:

    Sandy Hook Spree Killer Fired AR-15 79 Times Before Stovepipe
    Posted on December 30, 2012 by Robert Farago
    TTAG has learned that spree killer Adam Lanza fired his mother’s Bushmaster AR-15 79 times inside the Sandy Hook Elementary school before experiencing a stovepipe. (An empty, fired cartridge failed to eject from the rifle and became stuck in the action, preventing another cartridge from firing.) Lanza did not clear the weapon. Investigators found the non-functional AR-15 at least five feet away from the killer’s body; he may have thrown the rifle after the malfunction before switching to a handgun. A source close to the investigation says Lanza killed himself within seconds of making eye contact with one of the first responders.

  43. Jason Says:

    “Since you seem to want to deal in real world situations, at what point in your life have you been confronted by multiple attackers? Were you part of the LA riots? Should we base our laws on the 1/100k rule”

    I agree. So let’s take a look at how often “assault” weapons are used for murder. For the last year available, out of roughly 9000 gun murders, all long guns, of which “assault” weapons are a sub-group, were used in about 300 of them.

    So even if we grant that banning a misused tool is the best way to deal with that misuse, going after a class of weapons that is used for murder less than bare hands and feet isn’t the way to do it.

    Old Fezzywig-
    I can’t speak for all liberals, but my social circle is largely liberal, and speaking as a gun-owning, concealed carrying variety of liberal I can tell you one thing: I don’t know one that hates guns because they want to establish a socialist utopia. They favor gun control because they are ignorant. And ignorance is often accompanied by fear. When we are ignorant and fearful, we often act emotionally.

  44. Lorenzo Says:

    Excellent commentary Mas,

    The issue and problem lies in getting the anti’s to see it. Even the ones that are either surrounded by armed security and those who are privileged enough to garner the right to carry above the masses.

  45. sinesterserpentsixxx Says:

    first mama police do not carry guns to protect you/your family/us ….they carry and have guns to protect themselves. and as far as the expertise is concerned i have personally seen on dozens of occasions police abusing there authority in ways that would shock you to the core,and ..because…. when seconds count the police are only minutes away,because you/your family or us cannot realistically have a cop in our back pocket 24/7/365. and as far as the “LAWS” go please explain to me…. like i’m a six yr old how criminals abide by current/future laws?i do agree that all americans should have the exact same types of weapons the military is afforded. to ensure our politicians do not take a tyrannical stance against the very citizens that elect them( as we are currently engaged with…IE feinestein/schumer/biden/obama/clinton/reid). as spoken to in the declaration of independence. facts are facts…. the assault weapons ban did NOT effect the crime in the usa from 1994-2004 when it was removed. we have seen serious crime reductions in state such as vermont/arizona/alaska and even in kennesaw, georgia 1982-today requiring gun ownership. in this whole time only four murders occured 3 of which happened in gun free zones. it only shows that presence of a firearm prevents crime. and in my humble opinion the entire faculty of every school in the nation should be required to carry concealed and trained, this will send a extremely strong message to would be gunmen this is not going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. the teachers are already there, they simply have to be armed and trained and the gun free zones have to go. thank you Mas and i hope you will speak on behalf of gun owners coast to coast. i can think of few others with your respect,skill, and knowledge that could do better. to you and all happy new year.

  46. Jo Ann Says:

    I hope Mas has our beloved senators (ESPECIALLY CA’s) on his email/blog list. Don’t think they will read it of course…. All very positive comments as usual and lots of valid talking points.

  47. Grannie with a gun Says:

    Thank you for giving me the defensible reasons to use when arguing with my scared gun grabbing friends! I know we need these things, I’ve just never been very good at verbalising WHY. You’ve given me some great ammo for my next battle of wits!

  48. John Says:

    Mr. Ayoob has quantified the position I’ve held for years, though with certain modifications.

    When I started with my department, we were armed with .357 revolvers, Ruger Mini-14’s and pump shotguns. In the course of tiime, I purchased several revolvers, several rifles, and several shotguns in order to maintain my personal proficiency, and so that I never faced the situation where I didn’t know how to safely unload the weapons I was coming into contact with.

    When we turned in the revolvers for Smith and Wesson M&P pistols and -15’s, I updated my collection, again in order to maintain my own skills.

    Now that I’m retired and live in a rural area, I feel I need them more than ever – I can’t call for backup and expect it to arrive in a reasonable time, the sheriff’s department is spread too thin as it is.

    Who are these politicans in Washington and the various state houses? They live in virtual fortresses, with 24-hour armed security, and for the most part will retain that security when they retire, but they want me to surrender it all so they can dictate how I live? I don’t think so…

  49. Lonie Says:

    Again, people are missing the big picture. It’s not the criminals or the deranged people that most gun owners are worried about. It’s all about “GOVERNMENT TYRANNY”. If you don’t believe it could happen here in the United States, then you are not a believer of world history. Wake up people. It could happen here and we the people must ensure it dosen’t ever happen in the United States. Protect the Second Amendment and never give an inch because certain people in Washington wants all your guns and to control your rights as a United States citizen.

  50. Allen Says:

    registration is a bad thing. registration is the first step to confiscation.
    Having served as a special agent (special means you have police power and are armed) intelligence, the first thing you are instructed to do when entering a hostil area is to go to whatever hall of records exists, find the gun registration lists and go out and confiscate all weapons. that’s why registration is a bad idea in a free society.

  51. Brian Sluggo52 Williamson Says:

    It’s not just Guns also hunting. I use to Hunt a lot to help feed my large family but sense i now have bad heart i don’t get to as much any more i still want the right. people oh it just guns and hunting no big deal. but do think that is all they want? ask your self do i want Washington to wipe their collective ass on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we need to get involved and stop The Idiots who are in Washington. The People are out of Control. there are Employees but they continually take more an more control of are lives, We need to wake up, I don’t want to live in a Nanny State Cradle to grave The Government Dictating what I do or say. How about you what we are leave are children. they make laws that kill jobs not create them. The Gun Industry makes 100;s of 1000’s jobs good jobs that support other jobs, the same Hunting. Stores,Hotels, Restaurants, gas stations, you name it. The point is can we afford to lose more jobs!! and if you think what can I do just Remember

    ( for you young people that never had to take a civics class it the first line the Constitution of the United States Of America. see and you thought that civics was a little cars from japan ha ha)

    My rant for the Day.

    remember ( The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants)

    ( Thomas Jefferson)

  52. TNT Says:

    Guns were given to citizens as a way of creating a citizen army against the British Invasion. Now we have a military. Time to give up your guns. We have no need for them you paranoid redneck fucks.

  53. Devoted gun owner Says:

    It is quite clear that our government will never be able to take our guns. They have no idea truly who owns and who doesn’t.
    It is also clear that there is an over abundance of ignorance, and manipulation when it comes to people trying to implement gun control. The term “assault rifle” is really being used to persuade us to their ideas, or the person has no idea what a true “assault rifle” is. Whether it’s because they don’t want to know or they are just repeating someone elses ignorance.
    An “assault rifle” is only available to police, military and civilians with special federal permits. Not just anyone can buy them. These are full auto and special burst style weapons. The weapons anyone can buy are only semi-automatic.
    Semi-automatic weapons are what all these crimes in the news have been committed with. Again manipulation to think their way comes to play and ignorance of not knowing the difference when the crimes are reported. They use the words “assault rifle” because of it’s similarity in appearance to a true assault rifle. In these news reports they never talk about the gunmen that were shot by someone with a gun and kept them from committing a bigger crime. That would totally contradict the gun control thought process they want you to have.
    You can say what you want about the AR and AK rifles. People for years have always had a fasination for guns. Some for hunting and others just for sport.


  54. SteveS Says:

    “Since you seem to want to deal in real world situations, at what point in your life have you been confronted by multiple attackers? Were you part of the LA riots? Should we base our laws on the 1/100k rule, or be more reasonable? Whatevs. The world goes on while you sit in your basements with your cold steel and empty lives.”

    Gil: so in your world, ownership of “scary black rifles” and “large capacity clips” is predicated on whether or not you’ve been lucky enough to survive multiple attackers? This argument is nonsensical. I own because I can. I make sure I have enough ammo in enough magazines to ensure that I can stop any number of attackers should the need arise. Any other questions?
    I’d also like to know what the 1/100k rule is. Google can’t seem to make heads nor tails of it.
    Finally, your last sentence makes it clear as to what side of the debate you’re on: the one that has to rely on ad hominem attacks to make its point. FAIL. But thanks for playing.

  55. Stephen Malm Says:

    Mas Ayoob does a good job of presenting the fundamental concepts and arguments that we all of us who really respect the 2nd amendment know about, and adds the depth of knowledge and event history that he has amassed in decades of law enforcement and analysis of real-world defensive shootings. I agree with Ayoob that our defensive firearm choices have closely followed law enforcement for many years for completely valid reasons. Why should I expect to be relegated to anything less than what police use in order to protect themselves and do their mostly reactive shooting. I am law-abiding, and do not shoot in an offensive manner, but I DO expect to prevail in the event that I am forced to defend against an unknown level of force that threatens me, my family and neighbors, and home & country. Telling me how many rounds that will take, what type of gun is permissible for the task, and postulating on how many drug-crazed and numbed assailants I should expect to encounter in an invasion or mob action does not sit well with me, or other responsible citizens. I do not have the luxury of calling for backup while being attacked, and I would expect to not have convenient cover during which I can reload using lower-capacity magazines. I am a member of a police family, but fully understand that the police are not obligated to put themselves in harm’s way to stop a threat against me.

  56. Uncle Dave Says:

    Old Fezzywig has it right. Its all about power. Everything else is just a distractor from the real issue: POWER. The more people who are vested the better. That is why laws are being proposed that do not address the problem, to grab more power, by enacting more laws that do not address the stated out come. Its smoke and mirrors. The more people become vested, the more who have a stake in the game, the stronger our base.

    To the issue of price gouging. Our dollar buys 1/4th of what it did just a few years ago. It buys half of what it did just 4 years ago. Use the base price of metals to compare.

  57. Jim Lovelady Says:

    Just remember……………………..When seconds count, the cops are only MINUTES away. Stay safe by staying prepared. Thirty round mags? Yes sir. Jim

  58. guns are ours Says:

    To Senator McCaskill: you are an idiot. The “assault rifle” was not used in the attack. He used handguns. People like you who have no idea what was or was not used need to keep your ideas to yourselves. Guns are not the problem Government is the problem. We as citizens do not deserve to have our rights taken away by certain fools, likely government sponsored attacks, and people who think they can get rid of problems by writing words on paper to make things illegal. The truth is simple tell your cronies in government to quit poisoning the people and killing innocent children.

  59. AF Ret. Says:

    You are the epitome of ignorance. To say that the 2nd amendment is outdated is appalling. “The right of the people to keep and bare arms, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.” The military’s purpose is to support and defend the constitution of the United States and protect America’s people and her interests. As a 10 year combat disabled veteran, I feel more than qualified to tell you to get bent. It is the people’s responsibility to keep our government in check. I will take up my so called “assault rifle” if need be. You may choose words as your weapon, good luck with that when that boot heel is crushing your larynx. Just call them a redneck fuck as well, I’m sure that’s all the weapon you need and really the only weapon I’d trust you with.

  60. Marc-Wi Says:

    As usual you have hit the nail squarely on the head, it’s gonna take one hell of a big sledge hammer to drive it home tho.
    Take care and stay safe

  61. TNT's Moms' Manwhore Says:

    TNT….The fact that we do have an armed military is one reason i will keep my weapons. Also, you can come back and tell us we don’t need guns after you have been robbed, raped, assaulted, or killed. You dumb liberal fuck.

  62. Marc-Wi Says:

    Mas, I don’t follow “A Girl” ‘s blog but she has a very touching and telling post on 29dec12. The end sums it up very well….
    Please take a look at it you get a chance.

  63. Mas Says:

    Both sides of the debate are welcome here; I believe natural, mutual discussion will help sort out who’s right and who’s wrong.

    However, the Backwoods Home Blogs are intended to be “family friendly.” I’m asking both sides to leave the “F-bombs” out of the discussion. It doesn’t add any credibility to either side.


  64. Jon Says:

    The shooting of innocent children is terrible to say the least. But the real problem is not guns. The liberals use this opportunity for their communist agenda. The real problem is the drugs that 80% of these school shooters were given while attending school. Check out the records of how many kids the schools have put on these drugs. If the military finds out you have taken them, you can not join WHY this is a bigger problem than guns. The LAW worked he was denied 5 times from buying a gun. He killed and stole the guns no law will prevent that. What about the guy in Thailand who slit the throat of 20 some kids. Sick people will kill. Wait till they start using bombs. What of the guy awhile back who drove his car into a crowd standing on the sidewalk. The liberals are using everyone’s emotions which by the way is sick in its self to pass laws to further their communist plans of total take over. Give up your gun, give up your life. The constitution has served us well keep all of it. And by the way saying a prayer now and again helps. Maybe forsaking GOD and a society with no morale’s or belief in the ten commandments just might have something to do with it. I mean just look at what Clinton did. They made him a icon in the democratic party. Where was the women’s lib over that one. Instead women idolize that disgusting excuse of a man. We have lots of problems and the gun is not it.

  65. PeeJay Says:

    1. 30-rd. mags for HD won’t wash! The cops NEED to carry out “offensive maneuvers” when opposing heavily armed thugs. All we as citizens need to do is hold on until the police arrive. I have encountered some punks in my time, and in my experience; “when the going gets tough, the punks get going”. If, God forbid, I have to shoot at two/three intruders, I honestly doubt the second guy is going to go;”man, you shot my friend, I’M GONNA GET YOU!” Far more likely is, “Oh shit, the crazy asshole has a gun. I’M OUTTA HERE!”
    2. If semi-auto battle-style rifles weren’t available AT ALL for the civilian market, just how many would be sold to the criminal market by LEO’s or NG/Reserve personnel? Where would they get them? When the shotgun was the PD’s long arm, a criminal with a .45ACP was considered very well armed. The criminals just got people with clean records to buy their firepower for them. The kook in New York had his neighbor get his murder implement for him, the system would’ve caught him.
    3. Guns for HD, I have a few, but no military-style. I carried on for a long time, and know what they can do and what they can’t. Of course we should have arms if we want, we just have no business with military-implements.
    4. If Lanza has only 10-rd. mags, one wonders if some of the kids might have had a chance to run, or someone to tackle him during a magazine change. That’s how they got Laughner, he shot nine people before running out of 32 rounds. How many might have run away successfully if he had to change mags after 10?

  66. dave Says:

    No AR15 was used the gun in his mothers car was a Saiga 12 ga semi auto. Wake up, it’s a fact that they are just using this to attack so called assualt rifles. Something we in Texas call modern sporting rifles. Probably one in ten pickup trucks has one in it. You don’t hear about them being used cept on coyotes and hogs. Don’t fear the firearm, fear the on that wants to take yours from you.

  67. HarryHydro Says:

    ” The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family,…”

    The cops don’t carry that kind of firepower to protect the people,

    They carry it to Protect Themselves !!

  68. drake Says:

    Obama on Gun Control: Resistance is Futile
    Posted on December 30, 2012 by Dan Zimmerman
    Excerpt from President Obama’s interview on Meet The Guy Who Broke the D.C. Law on Standard Capacity AR-15 Magazines But Wants More Gun Laws, via
    “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem . . . Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance. The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away. It certainly won’t feel like that to me. This is something that – you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it’s not something that I want to see repeated.”

  69. Tom from WNY Says:

    For the most part, I am a M1 Garand/bolt rifle/1911/12 ga. pump fan and strive to maintian competency with those. I do not worship on the altar of magazine capacity nor rifle type. When the Critical Incident occurs, it will usually not be at a time or place of your choosing.

    Most Police Officers can and do call for backup when they answer a call of trouble. An Armed Citizen does not always have that option. Therefore, the Armed Citizen needs the best equipment and must take the responsibility to train well with it to be as competent as they can be. Where I live, dial 911 and 20 minutes is considered a reasonable response time.

    However, I am a strident believer in the Slippery Slope philosophy; rooted in Pastor Neimoller’s statements. Giving an inch to these folks will lead to disaster for all of us. Remember Gun Control is not about Guns, it is all about Control.

  70. Gordon Says:

    confused. msnbc reported that the sandy shooter was found with 4 handguns near his body and his mother ar style rifle in his mother’s car. which was parked outside the schools entrance. so the attacks on ar or msr (modern sports rifles) is unfounded in this case. while it makes the horror of the killings are no less terrible….grandfather of 5 with 2 on the way. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11.

  71. Bran Downey Says:

    Thanks for the really excellent summary in the last paragraph of your post – clear and concise, as usual. My siser asked me that very question during our Christmas get-together and I wish I’d had your “short version” answer then.

    Her husband is from England and is now talking about getting a rifle or shotgun for their farm near Chicago. He gets really upset with US bureaucracy – this should be quite an “education” for him!

    Hope you have a Happy New Year (inspite of the antics of Obama)!

  72. Tom Y. Says:

    I have them and will keep them until they pry them from my dead hands, I will not surrender mine to anyone.
    This is exactly the reason we had our first Revolutionary war. How Germany started two world wars, how North Korea, The Soviet Union and China got to be where they are.
    Those who say the will protect us need to remember Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge, Waco and Kent State . . . who protected them from our .gov
    If we can’t protect ourselves who will? Even the SCOTUS has ruled we are not to expect the police to protect us 24/7 Castle Rock vs Gonzales

    worth reading,2933,162325,00.html

  73. Jess Says:

    ” the entire faculty of every school in the nation should be required to carry concealed and trained, this will send a extremely strong message to would be gunmen this is not going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.”

    You going to pay for this training/guns? Or the pay raise to teachers for protecting your children with thier lives? Educate yourself on contract hours for teachers and how many hours they acually put in, or the supplies that they buy because parents wont buy their own kids supplies, but hey, buy the teachers a gun and let them fend for 20 kids and pray they hit their target and not your kid. Put more guns in schools will make it safer…Moron.

  74. Fruitbat44 Says:

    Hmmm . . . not a definite argument, but just some random observations.

    The people who post about needing firearms to defeat a tyrannical government; I well whole heartedly agree that politicians need to be kept an eye on, and that a healthy scepticism about “The Great & Good” is, well, healthy.

    But . . .

    Some of the posts – to me anyway – give the impression – hopefully a false impression – that gun-owners are people who enjoy having paranoid fantasies about the time when they have an excuse to shoot their fellow Americans. As I said that’s just how some of the posts come across to me.

    As to high-capacity magazines, I suspect that their desirability for self-defence is inversely proportional to the possibility of their being banned.

    Jeff Cooper (or at least it was attributed to him) once said, “High capacity magazines are only any use if you plan to miss a lot.”

    And I think it was Massad Ayood who in ‘Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement’ (Again I think) who told the anecdote of two cops, one old and one young, whose agency had recently changed from revolvers to high-capacity autos. They had a lethal encounter; the youngster got off fourteen rounds and missed with all of them, while the old-timer got down and got off one round which solved the problem.

    And it was definitely Mas who pointed out that in the Aurora cinema murders it would have only taken *one* shot to have stopped the, high-capacity magazine toting, murderer. (Of course since the murderer was – apparently – wearing body armour it does give an excellent case for revising the ‘Law Enforcement Only’ policies about the sale of “armour-piercing” ammunition.)

    OTOH I have always thought that the obvious comeback to the (alleged) Cooper quote would be:
    “Well small capacity magazines are only any use if you plan to hit every target first shot every time.”
    “Well that is exactly what I plan to do.”
    “Well do things always go to plan in a gunfight?”

    And to my way of thinking if you find yourself in a gunfight, then it’s very likely that things are NOT going to plan . . .

  75. Concealed Carrying Cyclist Says:

    I love reading Mas’ blog; it’s informative and instructive when it comes to issues regarding self-defense.

    I like the comments section for the same reason. There are quite a number of people who have valuable information to share regarding self-defense. Their opinions on economics, however, leave something to be desired.

  76. Doc Martin Says:

    Whew! What a ride through the comments. I need a shower.

    But what I do remember is “Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried….The American police establishment has also largely switched from the 12 gauge shotgun which was also the traditional American home defense weapon, to the AR15 patrol rifle with 30-round magazine…and, not surprisingly, the law-abiding citizenry has followed suit there, too.”

    OK Mas, I’m ready for Part 2!

  77. Justin Says:

    Senator McCaskill of Missouri misses the point of the 2nd Amendment. It is not about hunting, or the shooting sports. The 2nd Amendment exists specifically to give we the people the means to fight an oppressive and tyrannical government. Such as the one we currently have.

  78. Jeanetta Says:

    Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook elementary school we now face renewed threats to our Constitutional rights. While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.

    We already have laws that were violated by a man who was likely psychotic and heavily medicated. This man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. He then decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms to commit this tragedy.

    If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1% of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies, that was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban. Do something meaningful, please. Make committing the insane easier. Put armed security guards in our schools. But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.

  79. Jack Says:

    I will give you all examples where people should be allowed to own semi autos and have magazines with more than 10 rounds.
    I am a retired Law enforcement officer and have had several attempts on my life over the years by person(s) I previously arrested. The assault weapon ban punishes me for serving my community honorably I have to defend myself with 10 rounds or less and in one instance they came to my home all armed with four individuals.
    Say what you want the assault weapons ban does not keep guns away from criminals and only disarms honest law abiding citizens even retired law enforcement who need to have access to these type of weapons even after their retirement date.

  80. Jason Says:

    To the multiple people insisting that no AR was used in the Newtown incident:

    You are relying on very early reports that proved incorrect later. When a story is breaking, you can count on journalists to get stuff wrong as they rush to be the first to get information out, and the chaos of this type of event amplifies this. This was one such instance.

    Do you remember all of the reports that came at us during 9/11? A bomb on the helicopter pad at the Pentagon, a bomb at the State Department… For crying out loud, the early reports said it was a small commuter plane that hit the first tower.

  81. jason Says:

    it’s ironic that your argument that we need these guns, that they can kill a bunch of people quickly, is the fucking reason you had to write this terribly stupid article in the first place. oh, but some murderers are good guys. of course.

  82. Christopher Hoffman Says:

    Great perspective as always, Mas. My (somewhat overlapping) two cents:

    In America, we don’t set the bar for liberty based on the horrible acts of a few criminally insane people. After 236 years, we aren’t going to start now.

    There is a plethora of regulatory measures that can be enacted that are certainly well within the confines of the second amendment, but banning most ubiquitous rifle in the land that’s owned by literally millions of law abiding Americans isn’t one of them.

    The Supreme court in Heller vs DC tells us that the type of arms that the 2nd amendment protects are those in common use at the present time. There is no more common rifle than the AR15-pattern, semi-automatic rifle. No matter what you may read to the contrary, it is widely employed for literally every known lawful purpose for which a rifle can be used.

    Common sense tells us that if the 2nd amendment is to serve any purpose, then the arms it protects must be equal or greater in their performance characteristics than the arms that the citizens may lawfully confront.

    Only if terrorists, cartels, gang members, and any future tyrannical governments can no longer access 30 round magazines would an argument for banning them have even a rational basis.

    What, after all, should a small arm that’s designed to protect the security of a free state look like, if not EXACTLY like a semi-automatic only, civilian version of the very rifle placed in the hands of every eighteen year-old capable of signing his or her name on recruitment papers?

    Even if there was any weight to the absurd argument that the only purpose of AR15 pattern rifles is to kill as many people as possible, then why does every police department issue or authorize their use for their officers? Doesn’t that fact perfectly illustrate that a weapon can equally benefit both evil and good?

    If we truly believe that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, then there is a means within the constitution to change it, if we dare. Knee-jerk legislation that throws the constitutional baby out with the bath water serves only to weaken a document that sets this country apart from any other in history in the preservation of human dignity, liberty, and self-government.

  83. Exurbankevin Says:

    Knowledge is power.

    You have made the firearms community very powerful indeed with this post. Thank you!

  84. sean Says:

    What a bunch of hypocritical socialists…..complaining about free markets.

    Seriously? Failing to plan is planning to fail. Why didn’t you buy your guns/mags/spare parts BEFORE we re-elected Obama? You SERIOUSLY didn’t see this coming? Romney’s record was no better on gun control. You should have been stocking up prior to the election b/c this was foreseeable.

    It’s supply and demand. Don’t like the price? Don’t buy. It’s that simple.

    Don’t blame the market for your unwillingness to be prepared.

    Time to learn an important LIFE SAVING lesson here. When the food shortages come, you had better have been more prepared and have some on hand or you’ll be “gouged” to keep yourself alive.

    This isn’t really even a by product of free markets. After all, there wouldn’t be a price spike if the US Government honored the Bill of Rights and followed the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” language. OUR GOVERNMENT is to blame for the increase in prices by market manipulation.

    What if your livelihood was about to be done away with by tyrannical governmental legislative fiat? You’d need to charge more for your wares in order to survive the next few years in this horrible economic environment while tooling up to do something else…..yet you begrudge the industry that is facing the same dilemma.

  85. Nick Says:

    An interesting view point published in Pravda the Russian newspaper.

  86. John Reynolds Says:

    There is nothing that is not true about this subject. Everything is true to some degree. What I don’t see, however, is one word about security. In Washington state, there is no state sales tax on a gun safe. That is a baby step in the right direction. How about our federal government? What can it do to promote security? Cost of a gun safe tax deductable? The non shooting public is not looking for miracles, but baby steps to show a good attitude. This would be a well received baby step.

  87. Mas Says:

    Good to see that the “drive by posters” from the anti-gun side are limited to F-bomb epithets and cries of “moron” when they face logical discussion. Kinda proves who’s on the right side of the debate. That’s one reason I allow posts to appear here, you know…:-)

  88. Long Island Mike Says:

    Mas with all due respect, what the hell is a “COPS ONLY TEXTBOOK “? Under what authority is a freaking BOOK somehow banned from civilians (whatever that is)? Is that really what you meant?

  89. Matt Says:

    Police around here REGULARLY fire numerous rounds into – or at – one individual in shootouts or other deadly-force incidents. One memorable one a mile or two from here involved 16 rounds fired by one or more officers at a bank robber – and only four rounds hit him.

  90. Lyle Says:

    I like the post, as far as it goes, but with all due respect, Sir, we have a Bill of Rights. It is not a Bill of Needs. Wrong premise.

    We do not have to justify our choices in keeping and bearing arms, so let’s not play along when our rights are questioned.

    The ideal behind the second amendment is that power is vested in the people, as individuals, and not in government. It is about power balance. The millisecond that someone in government starts to question our rights, they are out of line and need to be called on it. They are advocating criminal behavior.

    Reference; 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242

  91. Johny Gee Says:

    This is why I have loved reading your writings for over 30 years. Keep up the good work.

  92. Chris - VA Says:


    Good guys/gals don’t murder…

    Great guys/gals stop murder.

  93. Mas Says:

    Long Island Mike, the Street Survival textbook was sold to “cops only” as a policy of the publisher, Calibre Press. I knew most of the authors, and the original publishers, and had to respect their wishes for their product. That said, there are many retired cops who’ve put their copies up for sale on EBay and Amazon.

  94. Isaac Says:

    To those bashing the article because it uses many “1/100k” stories, aren’t the gun grabbers doing the same? As soon as the school shooting happened the libtards jumped at the oportunity to bring up gun control. Senator frankenstein said herself that she has been working on her new assault weapons ban for over a year. So why has it just come up after a shooting?

  95. Jeff Timmerman Says:

    Why does someone need a sports car that goes well over 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph? Because we live in America and good men died so we could live free that’s why! Why do we need so many good reasons when you have the best reason the 2A! Why do so many what to pick and choose what parts so the constitution they want to stand behind like freedom of speech! And for the love of God why do people not look at the fact that gun control does not work has lots of proof.

  96. KB - in S.C. Says:

    I wrote my congressman and noted that as terrible as the Newtown shooting was, that also on that day, and each and every other day 27 people (average) are killed as a result of drunk drivers. That’s almost 10, 000 every year!!! Yet there are no background checks to purchase a vehicle, alcoholic beverages are available on every corner, and drinking games have not been removed from Spencer’s at the local mall. Wanna save some lives?? help the states keep drunk drivers off the road!

  97. John Reynolds Says:

    We suffer 33,000 traffic each year.

  98. 2WarAbnVet Says:

    Law-abiding people use guns to defend themselves between two and two and a half million times each year. Denied a means of self-defense they would add massive numbers to the crime rate.
    I, thankfully, was only needed a firearm once (in this country). Many years ago I was traveling with my young wife and baby when we were approached, and a highway rest stop area late at night, by three predators. I didn’t need to fire a shot; it was sufficient for me to rack the slide of my P-38 to cause them to determine that their presence was required elsewhere.
    As I said, I only needed a gun once. But, without it we’d have been murdered or scarred for life forty-six years ago.
    Individual defense, incidentally, is not the reason the Founders championed gun ownership. The ability of citizens to be victimized by tyrannical government was uppermost in their minds.
    So, I only needed a gun once – so far.

  99. Brian Says:

    People need to research the Battle of Athens which took place in TN in 1946. It was an armed rebellion which stopped the stealing of votes in a small county.

  100. Hutch Says:

    Mas, great blog post as always.

    @Sean, regarding: “Seriously? Failing to plan is planning to fail. Why didn’t you buy your guns/mags/spare parts BEFORE we re-elected Obama?”

    You beat me to the comment and I couldn’t have said it better.

    All: great points and good restraint in replying to the drive-by liberals that resort to personal attacks when confronted with logic. I fear that we are outnumbered though; logic is no longer valued by the majority of Americans or Obama wouldn’t have been re-elected. I’m afraid we, as a country, need a re-boot of the system. Perhaps going off the fiscal cliff, as painful as that will be, is what is needed to make people realize that hard work and resourcefulness is what made this country great and is what is needed to keep it great.

  101. Jeff Timmerman Says:

    I got it all you anti’s have the answer of the “Gun Free Zones” this is a great idea. I think we should expand it lets get ride of the Secret Service and make the area around the President a Gun Free Zone! If it works for schools why not the President?

  102. Ronin Says:

    My home defense weapon only holds 10 rounds—-OF 12ga 00 BUCKSHOT MAGNUM ROUNDS.—-a SEIGA with 4 clips. I live in the country and it would take the Police 30 mins to get there to save me from the time I called them. Can I wait that long?


  103. Scott Wilson Says:

    Brilliantly pithy and poignant. Thank you.

    For home defense, I’ll stick with my shotgun. But in a civil disruption, the milspec rifle is the obvious choice.

    And the civilian arms buildup after the mere mention of a coming piece of gun ban legislation is a clear statement that we’re not turning anything in and in fact are ready to resist if necessary and left no alternative.

  104. Trevor Sullivan Says:

    Self-defense is an inherent, human right. If criminals (government or citizens) infringe upon my property rights, then I have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to defend my property!

  105. johndillinger Says:

    Right on. There will be blood, but if not, we will end up dead or in a gulag anyway.

  106. TwelveB Says:

    The emphasis in the comments on mags of greater than 10 round capacity is misplaced –a red herring. The proposed bill bans ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and handguns that “can accept” a magazine of greater than 10 round capacity. That means that every semi-auto firearm that uses detachable magazines will be banned, including the 1911, and every other semi-auto magazine fed handgun.

    As to the ignorant assertion that no assault rifles would be available to criminals if they were all banned, unless acquired somehow from the police and military….geez….have you ever heard of the AK47? They make them by hand in Pakistan. They’re prolific, and most of those in Mexico were imported from other Latin American countries, not the US. Criminals will still be able to get all the AKs they want even if it were possible to eliminate all ARs in the US –which it isn’t.

  107. Paul E. Mason Says:

    Since when is the 2nd Amendment debatable ?
    Why is it 80 million lawful firearm owners are abused and blamed for a despicable act of unhuman proportion. Anyone not brought to their knees by acts of terror and mass murder surely lack human traits such as love and feelings for others. And, by the same grace, no one ought to be depriving lawfuly firearm owners their right to personal protection.
    Why is the “close the barn doors after the cows get out” mentality thriving. Just look at all the prohibitionists
    running around with their heads cut off proclaiming “ban, assault weapons, ban the magazines.
    Excuse me, I have a dirty little secret to tell you. Lawful firearm owners do not/ can not own “assault weapons”! Since when? 1934!
    So what is the debate? I fail to see it, unless you are the one who falls for the folly or myth of “assault weapons” and of course, “gun control”.
    You see folks, it is the ploy the prohibitionists have been using from day one. Time to get over it prohibitionist, grow up. You want all our firearms, do you not.
    Well, you can not have them, period!
    Oh, by the way, when is the Revolution.

  108. Martin in UK Says:

    Here in the UK we have draconian gun control laws that effectively amount to prohibition for the majority of the population. It is also illegal to carry a knife in public unless it has a non-locking blade under 3 inches long. Does this make our streets safe? No, because criminals do not respect the law. Fatal stabbings are rife and if you care to check out the murder of two unarmed police women in Manchester last year you will read that criminals in the UK are buying guns and even hand grenades with ease.

    So, we have a situation where the law abiding public are unarmed and the criminals are armed with guns, knives and explosive devices because, as I have said, they do not respect the law. Our only defense is to phone the police and wait for an armed response unit to arrive. That works every time: “I say old chap, would you mind waiting while I get my telephone and contact the local constabulary. Jolly good”.

    Follow our example. Ban guns. Then ban knives. Your streets will be safe.

  109. Micro compact Says:

    To the anti-gun, confiscation supporting folks- especially those like Piers Morgan, the US was established by and for people who wanted freedom from tyranny of Britain. Britain has the gun laws that seem to be so desired by you all- stop trying to change our way of life and Constitution. The answer is simple, if gun laws, regulations and big government control are what you desire, go to Britain or one of the many countries that already have that foundation.

  110. charlie Says:

    F u TNT.

  111. charlie Says:

    TNT……Redneck? Really? is that the best insult you can dish out?

  112. Elm Creek Smith Says:


    I carry a .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson Model 686 in a duty holster at work with a .38 Special Smith & Wesson Model 37 in pocket as backup. (Yes, I’m the resident dinosaur in my agency.) I also am currently the top gun in my unit, shooting 100% in our last semiannual qualification against the rest of the guys and gals with their .40 S&W Glock 22 semiautomatic pistols. Does this mean that I don’t like or need a semiautomatic pistol?

    Nope. It means that I standardized on Smith & Wesson pattern revolvers because my wife can’t get past the brass ejecting from a semiautomatic pistol. She calls them “…guns that shoot back…” and develops a flinch in less than a magazine. On the other hand, she is very good with my old .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson Model 681 loaded with .38 Special +P. My standardization means that she can pick up anything I carry on or off duty and use it effectively. Since I am not independently wealthy, my collection of (mostly old) Smith & Wesson and Taurus revolvers will do until I can afford some 1911A1s like I carried in the Army.

    What I do have since we live out in the county is a .223 Rem/5.56X45mm NATO Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (581-series) wearing an old Weaver K2.5 scope with an ammo can of 20 and 30 round magazines. This is my “Get off my property!” rifle. Senator Feinstein’s effort to ban “assault weapons” (meaning all semiautomatic firearms) would affect my Mini-14, too, since magazines large and small fit it. I shall not comply.

    All together now: I SHALL NOT COMPLY. That’s what we have to make clear to our congresscritters and senatecritters: WE SHALL NOT COMPLY.


  113. WILDBILLofSOFLO Says:

    Our government have laws in place to incarcerate / murders/thieves/thugs that car jack, thugs that do home invasions here in South Florida kill inocent people and either there not prosicuted or let out early to be animals on our streets. Why does this country allow the government not to impliment our laws presently vs making laws to take away securities a gun provides a good person? Taking away auto weapons is only the first step or the beginning of takes our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! Would you want your family invaded in the middle of the night and see your children or wife slaughtered/RAPED with no defense of a weapon to protect your family??

  114. PaulB Says:

    Mas, this is a good blog entry but I have one problem with it: it takes the utilitarian approach. The fact is, even if you could find no example where semi-auto rifles with large magazines were useful, it would still be completely illegitimate for the government to confiscate these arms.

    Folks, they can only take our guns IF WE AGREE TO LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE THEM. This is a matter of will, not rights. Do you agree to let the government have your guns? Do you agree to let them turn you into a slave? Arms are the distinguishing characteristic of a free man.

    You won’t be alone. In the New Jersey semi-auto confiscation attempt (a state not known for rabid gun-nuttery), in the face of draconian penalties, the percentage of compliance with the law was down in the single digits.

    This government is completely ILLEGITIMATE. We all know it. Start treating it as such, and man up.

  115. ontheotherhand Says:

    It would be really helpful in expanding the appeal of the numerous good arguments against gun control if some of the opponents would stop making the inaccurate generalizations that this is mostly a “liberal” vs. “conservative” issue.

    There are many second amendment supporters who don’t fit either definition exclusively but agree with different sides on different issues. I consider myself in this group and I even know a few people who are much more liberal who still oppose most gun control because they also love individual liberty. (You can argue elsewhere about whether that love conflicts with their positions.)

    It would also help if some of the more militant “conservatives” would recognize that politicians who agree with all of their views are gradually becoming unelectable. More moderate GOP candidates (or at least ones willing to compromise on some important matters) will have a better chance of getting elected for those of us for whom issues other than gun rights are also important. I voted against Sen. Feinstein this year but I had to hold my nose while doing it. I suspect many others voted for her while holding their noses.

  116. DannyL Says:



    I’m so glad I live on the other side of the world from you lunatics.

  117. Peerless Monarch Says:

    So we’re all busy chattering amongst ourselves. How many folks are beating on their Congress Critters? Why not? Every Senator can be Emailed – for 80 of 100 I’m on round 5. (Several have called- they do read.)

    The House? Only your CongressCriter will accept your Email- but they all publish their FAX numbers.

    Melt them down!!

  118. Peerless Monarch Says:

    Then start calling. Early and often!

  119. the Northwestern Diamondback of THR Says:

    Mas, Feinstein hasn’t introduced her bill yet per THOMAS ( , the word on current legislation status straight from Library of Congress).

    One site that ANYONE who cares about their freedom should peruse regularly…

  120. matt Says:

    All true. Of course, the issue of NEED has nothing to do with it. This is America, and we are supposed to have FREEDOM. Not just freedom to do what is needed.

    If we allow NEED to be the basis for what the government can take away, we will have very little left.

  121. the Northwestern Diamondback of THR Says:

    On a related note… I’ve been seeing it suggested, and find it plausible, that the Feinstein noisemaking may just be a “Show of Force” to distract us from a real flanking attack in some other bill. So, while we need to hammer it hard when it comes up, we also need to keep a wary eye out for other threats, like slipping it into “Must Pass” legislation or gutting a bill in Conference Committee (which The McCain Mutineer for one likes to use as an avenue for mischief and backstabbing) and stuffing a ban in as a substitute bill, since once out of Conference it’s limited to up-or-down vote only IIRC.

    The other side has, after all, demonstrated that NOTHING is beneath them…

  122. Julia Says:

    everyone is talking about banning guns…this will not work because criminals do not fallow the law. So why not make it harder for them to use? It is my personal belief that all guns should be registered with ones own neighborhood police, for any lawful person this should not be a problem. Seeing as how criminals find ways to get their hands on guns anyway, court shouldn’t be necessary, however there should be something on guns that scans either your finger print or eye in order to be used. If this is not done the gun should not be able to fire. I understand that there are over 283 million guns out there right now and it would be impossible to get them all and replace them, but if something is to be done about tomorrow, something must be done today. I sure don’t want my son going to school one day where I believe he is safe, and then rushing to school to find his limp, cold, blood soaked body laying on the hard school floor…would you?

  123. the Northwestern Diamondback of THR Says:

    “Registration is just a first step. Confiscation is the ultimate goal.”
    –then-Attorney General Janet Reno

    So, Julia, I trust that that statement plus many more by others of simiular ideologue, ESPECIALLY after California started out as “we just want ’em registered” and then moved to full ban, bent will help you see why so many of us see registration as such an issue, and so many on the “further restriction of any kind” side as trying to “negotiate” in bad faith.

    Fix the mental-health system that lets these lunatics loose on the street and leave my great-uncle’s M1 Carbine that he liberated the Mauthausen concentration-camp with out of it! (Which most banners single out by name second only to the “dreaded” semiauto-lookalike Thompsons, ’cause ya know something near-identical in performance to a .45 pistol that weighs TEN FREAKIN’ POUNDS is just WAY TOO DANGEROUS FOR PEASANTS… *snort* Come on… A Thompson with a 50-round drum. THREE fully-loaded doublestack Glocks in the same caliber which by the way are each a hell of a lot more concealable, and together add up to 39 rounds ready-to-go with factory magazines or 81 with extended. A little more weight for a LOT more handling ease and ready ammo… Do The Freakin’ Math and you’ll see why Thompson owners keep them in safes only to be used on the range rather than in a “ready rack”. For most the Glocks would be the easy choice on either the offense or defense end, and the ONLY reason I’d choose the Thompson is it’s the only one of the two I can actually HIT with, though outside of this “X or Y” theoretical I’d stick to my single-stack 1911’s. WHICH, oh by the way, the idiots in Illinois want to ban TOO…)

    Oh, by the way, what happens if your fancy retina scanner malfunctions when 400# Mongo wanting to shove a tire iron where the sun don’t shine is breathing down your neck? In a hostile encounter, every last microsecond counts and the police are at BEST several minutes away, so you’re On Your Own until they can get there, and electronics have a strange way of failing at the worst possible times…

  124. the Northwestern Diamondback of THR Says:

    Elaborating on prior point… what about us who require corrective optics? Far as I know even big fixed-location retina scanners won’t play nice with eyeglasses, and when something goes bump in the night you can’t afford the time to take your glasses off, stop to scan and put ’em back on, and you DARN sure can’t afford the “skip the glasses” option because IMO to fire a weapon when you cannot see where you are firing without reasonable clarity is gross negligence at best.

  125. alext Says:

    I think it’s great that there are justification based on pure utilitarian logic of why citizens ought to have the right to have access to high capacity mags and semi-auto weapons (i am not going to refer to the liberal term of “assault weapons”, any semi-auto in the right hand can do the job).

    I would offer a more philosophical and theoretical view of why we ought to have access to all the things the liberals want to ban. It has to do with balance of power, which i think the 2nd amendment was meant to do. The right for citizen to own weapons is essentially to deter despotism and totalitarian government when all other avenues fail.

    by having the ability to arm ourselves without governmental restrictions and knowledge, we can, if needed, rise up against an unjust government. I know I am going down a slippery slope but as the people are willing to give up their rights for a small measure of false safety, we move closer to a police states.

    1st, we gave up rights as americans because of 9/11 w/ all the airport security, invasion of privacy, laws taking away rights as americans if they deem you a terrorist.

    Now, with the recent events, more and more americans are saying “i want the government to protect me”. this is so sad. where’s the sense of self-reliance, where’s the ideal of individualism and self-determination.

    The perfect storm for the liberals to take a shot at taking away our rights to further their cause of a socialist society with a benevolent dictatorship.

    I hope we never get to the point where all our rights are given up!

  126. Boris Badenoff Says:

    You need to understand that the politicians do not actually care about the gun related deaths.

    They are simply taking advantage of the emotional situation to further their goal of dis-arming the American citizenry..

    The liberal mantra of : “Never let a good crisis go to waste” is in play here…

    That’s how liberals roll…

  127. Jim Says:


    You’re right. To put it even more simply: liberals condemn the far rights reliance on a a higher power, but then use demagoguery to rationalize their approach.

    Chicken, fearful hypocrites, pure and simple

  128. Randall Says:

    I think those of you including Mas, who feel the need to address the question of “need” for a particular type of firearm, are making a HUGE MISTAKE. This debate should not be about “need”. Since when does one have to demonstrate “need” to buy a type of house, car, shoes, collectibles or any other silly stuff people buy. Its a basic right! Until someone demonstrates when a law abiding person owns a certain rifle that it represents a clear and present danger to the public at large (which they cannot), then that’s the angle we should use to fight these bans with.

  129. Mas Says:

    Understood, Randall. My own feeling is that “rights” COUPLED with “needs” is a stronger argument together than either of them separate. That’s why I address both in this blog.

  130. Russ Says:


    Sir, I know this might be a stretch, so I apologize in advance… but do you remember the article you wrote about 20 years ago (I’m thinking ’92, ’93, ’94… “ish”) wherein you related the account of some bad guy being shot multiple times and not going down? If my aging memory recalls correctly… I think it took place at a coffee shop; I believe the bad guy was rather large in stature and was robbing the cashier at the counter. If I remember, the manager of the coffee shop shot him six times with a .357 Magnum revolver and reloaded TWICE more and emptied all chambers TWICE more (3×6=18)… before the guy finally dropped. The bad guy was hopped up on drugs and I believe you described his blood as “orangish-green.” I’m 99.999999% sure the piece was written by you and I’ve always referred to that incident as to “why” people need LOTS of extra ammo. If I could make an official request, could you look through your older articles and reprint that one, please? I think it would be very pertinent to the discussion on banning “hi-cap” magazines.



  131. Mas Says:

    Russ, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the case you describe.

    Somewhere around that time I wrote about the Steve Chaney incident in Baton Rouge, where two officers had to shoot a man a total of ten times with .38 Special +P ammunition before he finally stopped his violent attack. By that time, he had killed one of the two officers and wounded the other, Officer Chaney. Baton Rouge PD subsequently switched to 16-shot Glock .40 caliber semiautomatic service pistols.

  132. Russ Says:


    Thanks, sir, for the reply. There’s a needle-in-a-haystack remote chance I have the article somewhere… I used to snip and save articles like that, back then. I’ll see if I can find it.

    I can certainly see why Chaney went to the Glock.

  133. Chase Says:

    You r right the people pulled the trigger not the gun.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.