Moms Demand Stupidity outrageously outraged or something

Here they go again

You’ve got to be stunned at the gall of the the joyless bullies of Moms Demand Action: they think they have the right to lay claim to entire cities as gun free zones, starting with Orlando, Florida.

Just an hour outside Tampa Bay, Orlando’s newest attraction,and perhaps its most controversial, is set to open this weekend. It’s called Machine Gun America and it’s already become a target for gun-control advocates.

Machine Gun America bills itself as Orlando’s first automatic adrenaline attraction.

“Everybody has something they always wanted to try,” says General Manager Bruce Nierenberg, “this would be on people’s bucket list to try it and have a new experience.”

Machine gun America is itself coming under fire from critics who say the Orlando region was built on a history of child and family-friendly entertainment, and is no place for this concept.

“You’ve got Holy Land right there in Orlando. You’ve got Disney World, and Epcot,” said Lucia Kay McBath, a member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, “All places for family fun where they should feel protected.”

Ah, “feel” protected? Well that is at the core of all Liberal beliefs, feelings, but, don’t the Moms Demand Inanity realize that indoor gun rangers are, well, bulletproof? Bob Owens explains

Machine Gun America is an indoor range. The walls, floors, dividers between shooting stations and backstop are bulletproof.

See, bulletproof, sort of like the brains of the Moms Demand Gun Bans are fact proof, because facts are like icky and interfere with Leftist rhetroric

Of course, the REAL treason that Moms Demand Marxism members are upset is, well, Bob Owens explains it very well. Well, what are you waiting for, go read it my friends.

Your Self-Defense Story of the Day

Another case of home defense that the Cult of Gun Control insists never happens

A 68-year-old Alabama man was surprised by two robbers that came into his home through an unsecured window, but he wasn’t nearly as surprised as the two home invaders were when they started taking fire.

The burglars, [Birmingham police spokesman Lt. Sean] Edwards said, enter the home through a window on the side of the house. “Obviously they didn’t know he was home,” he said.“He discharged his gun several times.”

The suspects fled the scene. Police said it appears they had a getaway car parked around the corner.

A short time later, two men with gunshot wounds showed up at St. Vincent’s East. They were later transferred to UAB Hospital for treatment.

One of the suspects is expected to survive. Police said the condition of the second suspect is critical. He was shot in the neck area.

The victim apparently didn’t know whether or not he had hit the intruders.  When officer told them they had been struck, he said, “I hope they are OK.”

The Birmingham home owner is like the vast majority of law-abiding Americans. He didn’t go looking for trouble. Trouble came looking for him.

He didn’t want to hurt anyone. He just wanted to protect himself from predators.

And, thankfully he did just that!

The media’s war on police

There can be little doubt that the Left continues to use the death of Trayvon Martin as a tool in waging a war on self-defense, and concealed carry laws. There can also be little doubt that these miscreants are using the deaths of Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice as tools to wage war on police departments. And, sadly, there is little doubt as to the role the media is playing in these wars. Bob Owens cites a piece, which reads more like an op-ed than a news story by Ryllie Danylko, a crime beat writer for the Northeast Ohio Media Group which attempts to sell a lie that police officers “shoot to kill”.

Shooting to kill: Why police are trained to fire fatal shots.

She claims in the lede of her article:

After the shooting death of a 12-year-old Cleveland boy at the hands of a police officer came the familiar question: Why did they have to kill him? Why didn’t they shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg?

Police responded with the familiar refrain: We don’t shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill.

This is—to put it mildly—a massive, steaming pile of bovine excrement.

I’ve trained with numerous police firearms training officers from numerous states (California, Missouri, North Carolina). I’m good friends with a man who “trains the trainers,” developing the handgun training for federal law enforcement that is then emulated on the state and local levels.

Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot to stop the threat.

They are not trained to shoot to kill, and there is a clear and massive difference between the two schools of thought.

Law enforcement officers are trained—like concealed carriers—that they may use lethal force to stop a lethal force threat. Once that threat is not longer a threat, they may no longer use lethal force. Our streets are not battlefields, where you can eliminate all opposition with extreme prejudice.

For example, if a suspect pulls a weapon and the officer pulls his sidearm in return and the suspect then drops his weapon and surrenders, then the officer is no longer facing a lethal force threat, and may not legally fire.

Likewise, if the officer in that same situation fires shots and strikes the suspect causing him to quit the fight voluntarily (a psychological stop) or involuntarily (a physical stop), the officer must stop firing when the offender ceases to be a continuing threat.

In contrast, “shooting to kill” means that once an officer deploys his weapon that he shoots again and again and again until the suspect ceases to live, even if they’ve stopped fighting, even if they are attempting to flee,even if they are attempting to surrender.

When people claim that officers are trained to “shoot to kill,” they’re essentially claiming that officers are soulless killing machines that will keep locked on a target and will keep firing, reloading, and firing again until they have terminated their target.

This is decidedly not how police officers are trained.

The media should report and INFORM, and in this venture, they fail far too often, opting instead for getting ratings and headlines. The reporter in this piece, you can read it all here beats the “police shoot to kill” drum as if it were a fact, it is not. As Owens explained the police, as well as those who carry firearms are taught to shoot only if their life is in danger and to shoot to “stop the threat”. The most effective way to do that is to aim “center mass” because the torso is the easiest place to hit your assailant and stop the threat. Aiming for the legs, or the gun or knife in the assailants hand is fine for movies, but in the real world, it is not practical. It is far more likely that you or the police officer would miss, and guess what, that bullet does not stop when it misses the assailant. It keeps going, posing a threat to anyone in its path. The fact is that shooting at the legs, or the weapon in the assailants hand is more dangerous to innocents in the area. But, facts too often are not the goal of the media. And they are certainly NOT the aim of the Left.

Krogers profits soar, Moms Demand Statism hardest hit

As I have often said, if corporations stand up to whiny Liberals, they gain costumers!

Our friend AWR Hawkins at Breitbart made me smile with his headline, Kroger Profits Up 21 Percent After Refusing To Ban Guns.

In mid-August Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched a campaign pressuring Kroger to bar law-abiding citizens from openly carrying guns for self-defense in their stores. Kroger refused to change its policy and in the third quarter–“ending Nov. 8″–Kroger saw a “21 percent increase in profit…compared with the same period last year.”

According to Supermarket News, Kroger’s “net earnings for the quarter were $362 million.”

Breitbart News previously reported that Moms Demand launched their campaign on August 18. On that day Kroger subsidiary grocer Fred Meyer said it would not change its polices and less than two weeks later, Kroger said it would not be changing policies either. Both said they would continue to honor state and municipal laws at their store locations.

Bottom line? Standing up to the Bloomberg flunkees pays off

The owners of TBonz Steakhouse in Augusta, Georgia, decided to be proactive when Republican Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law one of the most comprehensive pro-gun bills in the country this April, which allowed firearms into the state’s bars and restaurants.

The eatery hung up a “No Guns” sign on its front door.

Its customer backlash was so harsh and quick that the steakhouse immediately took down the sign and then posted a mea culpa on its Facebook page.

“The sign that was put up regarding firearms has been removed,” TBonz said in its Facebook posting this May. “It was our intention to get the attention of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners. But then we realized that irresponsible gun owners do not pay attention to signs.”


Home intruder gets it through his head that he is not welcome

Good shooting reverend!

A minister in Valley Center, Kan. defended himself and his family on Sunday morning by shooting a would-be intruder in the head.

The suspect, Cory Landon, sustained a graze wound to the forehead and was picked up by police while walking down the road in a rural area just north of Wichita.

The minister was home with his wife and three children, one of them only six months old, when he heard his home alarm going off and found Landon trying to enter the residence through a window.

The minister, who has not been named, grabbed his gun and fired, hitting Landon.

To all those who keep holding onto the “shoot to wound” fantasy

Bob Owens links to Michael Yon,a former Green Beret who knows a great deal about deadly force, fire fights, and shooting to “wound”

After a self-defense shooting where the aggressor dies, we often hear the same questions asked time and again.

“He didn’t have a weapon. Why was he shot in the chest/head?”

“He only had a bat/knife/fist. Why wasn’t he shot in the shoulder/arm?”

“Why didn’t they just shooting him in the arm/leg?”

When specifically discussing a shooting involving a uniformed law enforcement officer with his duty belt full of tools, we often hear, “Why didn’t they use pepper spray/nightstick/taser instead of a gun?”

One person in a unique position to answer that question is Michael Yon.

Yon is a former Green Beret who left the service after killing a much larger man in a bar fight in self-defense with a single punch.

He then worked private security, including Michael Jackson’s personal security detail.

He is best known, however,  as a combat journalist.

Yon rose to prominence during the hottest parts of the Iraq war nearly a decade ago, when he embedded with American and British combat units who experienced heavy fighting. During one battle particular battle in Mosul, Iraq, Yon witnessed an American officer and an insurgent both take multiple serious hits and keep fighting as Yon kept snapping photos.

The ensuing article, Gates of Fire, is one of Yon’s  most widely read articles (and is well worth a read).

Yon went on to spend more time embedded in combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other journalist in either war. He’s seen a lot of fighting.

Here are his thoughts on “shooting to wound.”

Ferguson: Why did the officer not shoot Brown in the legs?

Many people are innocently asking this question. The answer could go on for pages, but to be succinct, a couple handfuls of reasons:

1) This ain’t the movies
2) Most police do not fire their weapons much. Most are not great shots.
3) He would have to be an incredible shot to be crazy enough to fire wounding shots.
4) Nearly all firefights are “stress shoots.” The other guy is moving. Heart is beating fast, often out of breath. The officer in Ferguson had just been punched in the face and had been in a wrestling match for his pistol, according to him.
5) Bullets that miss can hit someone else.
6) You always are low on ammo, and you do not want to waste a single bullet.
7) Time spent reloading is dangerous
8) I have seen many people shot who kept fighting. Shot with weapons far more powerful than any officer’s pistol. Many police and combat troops have seen this and will verify.
9) Police and Soldiers never train to shoot to wound. (None that I know of.) All combat shots are center mass of any part of the target that you can see. If you see only a foot. Shoot the foot. If you see a chest — aim for the middle. That is the way troops and police train. If the officer is pointing his pistol at someone, he is one click away from going lethal. There is no in between.
10) This ain’t the movies.

During the firefight at the link below, I was photographing when two people were shot a total of seven times. Two men, shot seven times. (US Soldier three times, al Qaeda four times with M4 point blank.)

After the US Soldier was hit three times in front of me, he continued to fight well. He was hit badly at nearly point blank. The al Qaeda terrorist was hit 4x times. He was still standing trying to shoot. One shot took off a testicle, and then he got tackled by a US Soldier, and despite being hit 4x, he then engaged in aggressive hand to hand combat.

Again, this ain’t the movies…

And it is not fairy tale land, despite the fact that many continue to try to make it one. Yon knows, directly, of what he speaks. Bob Owens sums it up nicely

Police officers and self-defense shooters all learn the same thing: you shoot to stop the threat. The best way to stop that threat is to put bullets in the largest possible part of the body (typically, the upper torso). If that fails to stop the threat, you then rely on your “failure drill” training and move to the head, and if that fails, the pelvis. You “work the problem” by moving your shots from the torso to the head and pelvis.

Killing isn’t a goal, but it is often a side effect of an aggressor who refuses to comply with lawful commands and who continues to demand ballistic attention.

If you don’t want to be shot, you shouldn’t attack other human beings, especially those who are armed.

That last line is key. This is the part that escapes most of those who criticize police, or civilians who use deadly force in self-defense. They were attacked, the bad guy chose to attack, or to enter some one elses home, the bad guy chose. Trying to shift responsibility for that onto the person defending themselves is morally irresponsible.