Defensive Shotgun 101

Do you own a shotgun? Is it your primary defensive weapon for protecting your home and family. If not, it should be. In the realm of defending one's home, there is no better choice than a shotgun. If things have gotten bad enough that you must use a firearm inside your home, understand, you are in a desperate situation. Your first shot must be accurate and decisive. It must count. It must incapacitate your intruder. It must end your confrontation. Experts, overwhelmingly agree that no other weapon can provide the assurance of instantaneous incapacitation like a shotgun can.

Various shot sizes provide the user a wide range of choices in power and caliber of projectiles. When listening to people about what size shot they use in their home, I've heard it all. From #12 birdshot to four-ought Buckshot and one ounce slugs. It can be quite confusing. Your choice may prove to be lethal not only to your intruder but also to your family, or your neighbors. At a velocity of over 1200 feet per second for heavy buckshot loads, over penetration is an issue that must be considered.

00 (pronounced "double ought") buckshot is a very common load for Law Enforcement, Military, and home defense. In fact it is the most popular. But is it the best choice? Here comes my "opinion" backed up with a few facts. It is my belief that 00 Buck is best suited for "offensive" situations, such as those which would commonly be encountered by Law Enforcement and Military. There are tactical situations where it is conceivable that they would need a great deal of penetration. If their target is behind soft to medium cover, lighter loads just won't cut it. 00 Buck provides adequate penetration and an excellent transfer of energy into the target. But what is right for a police officer or soldier in the field is not necessarily right for the home owner in a defensive situation. My choice is #1 Buck and I'll try to explain why.

It is first important to understand what exactly is the "stopping force" behind a shotgun, or any firearm for that matter. In stark contrast to what Hollywood would have you believe, men are not knocked off their feet from the blast of a firearm, shotguns included. Though the sheer pain and shock of being shot by any firearm over 30 caliber is usually enough to halt most attackers, if they are juiced up on some type of drug such as PCP, methamphetamine or cocaine, it is very likely that they won't feel it at all. So then what? A defender's shot must be accurately placed center mass (torso) and must reliably penetrate deep enough to intersect a major cardiovascular structure or organ causing the rapid hemorrhaging and loss of oxygenated blood to the brain needed to remain conscious. This must happen very quickly. The large vascular structures in the abdomen and upper torso including the heart are the primary targets for such a rapid incapacitation to take place. This may seem like a gruesome subject. It is. But understanding it is necessary to taking proper action should the unfortunate situation of having to defend your own life or that of your loved ones befall you. Be crystal clear on this point, you are not shooting to kill. You are shooting to stop, and the quickest way to stop someone is to cause the rapid loss of consciousness and the most reliable way to cause the rapid loss of consciousness is to deny oxygenated blood to the brain. Dying is merely a side affect to being quickly incapacitated and one with which one ought not have to concern themselves should a defensive situation arise where they must use their firearm.

The FBI has determined that to effectively stop a human, a projectile must penetrate at least 12 inches. While the heavier buckshot loads have no problem penetrating this deep, they sacrifice mass and surface area in order to project a larger caliber pellet and they have the real possibility of over penetrating the target and harming or killing an innocent person behind. Remember, you are responsible for the projectile from the time it exits the barrel to its terminal resting place. If that terminal resting place is inside your neighbor or your family member, not only will you have a heavy weight to live with but you'll very likely live with it in prison. #1 buckshot is the smallest load that reliably penetrates 12-14 inches of ballistic gelatin. A typical 2-3/4 inch tactical 00 buckshot load will have a total of nine .33 caliber pellets providing a combined cross-sectional surface area of .77 inches. However, a typical 2-3/4 inch #1 buckshot load has sixteen .30 caliber pellets providing a combined cross-sectional surface area of 1.3 inches. Thus #1 Buckshot has the capacity to produce 30% more wound trauma. The added comfort of the pellets having a minimal likelihood of over penetrating makes #1 buckshot ideally suited for home defense.

So don't get overzealous by loading slugs or heavy buckshot for home defense. It is a personal choice but one that should be made by an informed homeowner. Keep your family safe. Don't accept more risk than necessary when choosing a defensive shotgun load for the home. Remember too that shotguns do not produce a hallway sized spread of pellets at typical combat range. You must aim the gun. Though it is more forgiving than a centerfire cartridge in terms of accuracy, merely pointing it in the general direction of your assailant is not sufficient, you can and will miss if you don't shoulder and aim the gun.

Abusus non tollit usum. (Misuse does not preclude proper use)

In keeping with the subject matter of the past three posts, I've felt it necessary to compose yet another. Why? Because I have more to say, that's why. And the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get.

Take a look at the map above. You'll see that there are 4 colors on this map of the 50 States. The blue States are called "Shall Issue" States and have adopted a "Florida style" policy on the issuance of concealed weapons permits. That simply means that when applying to obtain a concealed weapons permit, unless you are legally disqualified you "shall be issued" the license provided you complete all of the required steps.

The yellow States are known as "May Issue" States. In these States, you must demonstrate a "need" above and beyond the simple desire to obtain one to be issued a license to carry a firearm. For instance, carrying large sums of money as a condition of one's employment might be a qualifying "need" to be issued a concealed weapons permit in California or New York.

The green States have little or no restrictions on firearms. Anyone, save convicted felons and children under 18 can purchase, obtain, possess, and carry a firearm on or about his or her person, either concealed or openly with no licensing or registration requirements.

Then there are the red States. In these States, the right to bear arms is unconstitutionally denied. No one is issued concealed weapons permits. No demonstrated "need" is good enough. No one can carry a gun on their person under any circumstances except law enforcement and criminals. Everyone else must fall into the inevitable and unfortunate category of "hapless and helpless victims".

One of those red States, you may notice, is Illinois. Illinois is where the most recent university shooting happened. Illinois is where the department store shooting that killed 5 women happened. Illinois is also where one of the most violent cities in America happens to be. No one had a snowball's chance in hell of stopping these men because no one had a firearm. Had one not killed himself and the other not fled, more people would have surely died in a cowering heap of pathetic pleadings for mercy.

How can this not anger the hell out of you? Who the hell is the State Legislature to tell you that you cannot protect yourself? Who the hell are these self-righteous imbeciles at the Brady Campaign to assume that you cannot safely handle the situation of using a firearm to protect your own life and should therefore just die? What gives them the right? Who gives them the authority?

I am constantly outraged by the audacity of those who speak for the Brady Campaign when they argue against legislation that would allow law abiding, adult citizens to purchase, own, or carry firearms. Their arguments are never based on statistical data or facts. On the contrary, they are nearly always based on assumptions and opinions and always presented as though they were fact. They cannot argue with statistics that show that States with looser gun laws suffer less violent crime. They cannot discount the factual data that shows that legal gun owners are far less likely to commit violent crimes. They cannot argue, intelligently so they don't. Instead, they appeal to the audience's emotions by postulating, speculating and theorizing based solely on conjecture or otherwise using the SWAG method to presuppose what they think might happen. SWAG...that stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess!

In a recent Newsweek interview with a nonprofit organization called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus or SCCC (referenced in a post below), Brian Malte, the State Legislation and Politics Director at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, of course, that the legislation that SCCC seeks simply would not work. He had no valid reasoning for such a conclusion, mind you...just speculation. "It's ridiculous to say someone with a gun could have saved the day"..."with people running all over the place and people getting caught in the crossfire." Newsweek went on to quote Malte as saying that "...his group opposes the concealed-carry legislation, because allowing firearms to saturate college campuses, where young people drink heavily and live communally, would only heighten the danger of deadly violence."

Did you see that? Did you see what he did? He made an assumption and then projected that assumption onto you as fact. How does he know that people would be running into the line of fire and not taking the natural reaction of getting as low as possible? How does he know that the person who may be carrying concealed would not exercise due caution so as not to shoot innocent bystanders? How can he say that college campuses would be "saturated" with guns if this legislation is passed? Saturated? Not everyone qualifies. Not everyone would want to carry a gun. One would have no reason to believe that any different proportion of the campus population would choose to carry concealed firearms than the general population as a whole. And because stereotypical college students binge drink on movies like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds, it would be irresponsible to allow such an out of control group to have guns. Never mind the fact that these same people already have the permits necessary to carry guns concealed in places like restaurants and malls and marketplaces. Somehow, this genius concludes that the specific surrounding of a college campus makes it too dangerous for these same people to carry those same guns under the same constraints of the law with the same responsibilities and with the same standards and expectations of reasonable behavior. Why? How?

Can you smell the bullshit? These people are living in a fantasy land. A land where they honestly believe that it is possible to get control of all of the hundreds of millions of guns out on the street. They envision a day where guns are only in the hands of the police and the military....preferably only the military. They are delusioned idealists who couldn't rub two statistical facts together to come up with a coherent conclusion to save their pathetic pacifist butts. If you could magically wave a wand and make all privately owned guns, both legal and illegal just disappear from within the borders of our country today...then tomorrow, people would kill, rob and carjack other people with knives, baseball bats, claw hammers and power drills. History supports this. People have been killing people since Caine smacked Abel over the head with a rock! And people will continue to kill people no matter what sorts of primitive or technologically advanced weapons are afforded them. But the simple fact is, you have no magic wand. You can never get control over all of the guns available on the black market...ever. The German Gestapo couldn't do it in WWII, and you most certainly cannot do it with any of the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States intact.

Guns aren't going anywhere, folks. This is about evening the odds. This is about allowing victims to have a sporting chance at survival and giving predators a legitimate deterrent. This is about recognizing that the right to live and the right of self-preservation is inherent and inalienable to all sapient beings and cannot by their very nature be relieved from one by another because, despite any law prohibiting them, they will be enacted anyway as a natural course of instinctual reaction. You cannot make it illegal for me to meet a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm with the same or a greater amount of force anymore than you can make it illegal for me to breath. My life depends on both and despite any law to the contrary I will continue to do both. On the same side of that coin, depriving me of the very means of self preservation is akin, in my opinion, of depriving me of oxygen to breath....tantamount to murder. It is not for the law to presume whether I will act reasonably in any given hypothetical life threatening situation. It is only for the law to decide whether I have acted reasonably after the fact. For the law to step in and preemptively judge that I might act unreasonably and then, for that reason, remove from me the right or ability to act in that instance, forces the law to act in my place. Any failure of the law to act in my place under such circumstances should thus constitute negligence or malpractice, up to and including not having any representatives (ie, law enforcement) nearby.

Now I know that might be a far reach in legal interpretation on my part but theoretically it is sound and there are integral parts of that theory that cannot be refuted, such as the inherent instinctual compulsion to act with deadly force in defense of one's own life. If it is true that access to black market firearms cannot be feasibly curtailed, especially in a free state, and it is also true that all humans have the right to defend themselves and others with deadly force if a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is met and it is also true that to deny a person either the right or the ability to apply that force in a situation where it is needed might cost that person their life, then it must be reasonably concluded that a person has the inherent right to arm themselves with weapons likely to be capable of deterring, repelling, or quashing an encountered deadly force. Whether I act reasonably and in accordance with the law is up to a jury to decide after the fact, not for legislators to decide before it ever happens under hypothetical presumptions.

How to keep your kids safe from gun accidents

In light of recent events, I thought I'd take a some time to dispel a nasty little myth about firearms often peddled by anti-gun scaremongers. The loony "Brady Bunch" would have you believe that guns kill kids. Bullshit! Careless, untrained kids kill kids. You want your kids to be safe behind the wheel of a car, you teach them to drive safely. You want them to remain safe from gun accidents? The solution is no different. You teach them. You shoot with them. You remove the Hollywood instilled novelty of guns by giving them plenty of supervised time putting lead down range. Make them fully aware of what happens on the business end of a handgun, rifle or shotgun.

Both my 12 year old daughter and my 14 year old autistic son know how to safely handle a firearm. Both of them have a great deal of respect for firearms and understand the immense responsibility that comes with handling one. They understand this because they've grown up around guns. They've been taught and they will continue to be taught. For instance, our next range lesson will focus on safely clearing various feed and ejection malfunctions and misfires. I'm proud of their progress. They have both become quite proficient shooters. Neither of them have any desire to play with a gun because they see it as a tool not a toy. That's my daughter showing perfect form in the photo above. Warms the cockles of my heart! She's got a mean right hook too! Keep yer hands to yourself boy!

Fish In A Barrel

It's just too damned bad that no one told the suicidal gunman at Northern Illinois University that he was in a "Gun Free Zone". Maybe if he knew that it were "against the law" to have a gun on campus, he would have refrained from going on this rampage. Good thing that everyone else there was following the law, though huh? I mean at least they died as "law abiding citizens", right? That's all that really counts, isn't it? I wonder how come you never hear of a "crazed gunman" going on a shooting spree at an NRA convention? Quite puzzling.

This is getting old, folks. It's getting ridiculous. Anti-gun moonbats continue to demand that college students remain defenseless while a crazy man takes as many as he can with him to his grave. The law protects no one. No law ever has. The law punishes offenders "after" they have committed their crime. So what if it's "illegal" to have a gun on campus? It's also illegal to shoot people! So when a man sets out fully intent on killing a bunch of people and then ending his own life, he surely doesn't care that it's illegal to possess the tool with which he plans to execute them. Any laws that supposedly "prohibit" such actions mean absolutely nothing! And this is not unique to college campuses, either. It is true of any place where the government says you cannot carry a weapon to defend yourself.

I propose that instead of posting a sign that reads "No Firearms Allowed", or "This is a Gun Free Zone", that they advertise with the following words: "It is illegal for you to defend yourself in this place. If attacked by someone with a gun, yell, scream, pray, or cower but you may not use deadly force to protect your own life." As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, one thing will always remain true: The only thing that will ever stop a person with a gun, is another person with a gun. That is an indisputable fact. The question is: Who will that person be? A cop? Yes, that would be nice and tidy provided there happens to be one nearby. But just as a kid doesn't stick gum under the desk when the teacher is looking, neither will a criminal decide to act when a police officer is present.

So let's say you're the helpless citizen trapped in a building with a crazed gunman or worse yet, more than one. What will you do? Call the police? Yeah, that's a good idea. What's that? They're on the way, you say? Oh, OK! Well then, that makes it all better now doesn't it? We'll just wait for them to arrive and put a stop to this madness. Good thing this gunman is busy shooting "other people" while we all wait on the police to arrive and not YOU, right? Oh, look! Look out there! There's a policeman outside. Hurry, dude! What's he doing? He's hiding behind his car with his gun drawn and talking on his radio! Why is he not rushing in to save the day? My God, there are people dying in here! What the hell is he waiting for!!?? BACK UP? We don't have time for back up! He's coming my way, I'm going to be next. Oh my God, here he comes! Please! Please! Oh God, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!

So what will you do when there's no cop around? You don't know? I'll tell you what you're going to do. If you are a law abiding citizen in a "Gun Free Zone", YOU WILL DIE! In an horrific and grotesque fashion, you will meet your end at a time of someone else's choosing. No glory or purpose shall have come from your sacrifice. No greater good shall have been served by your willingness to adopt no means of protection. All of your struggles and pleadings will have been in vain and it will be then, amidst your suffering that you will come to the stark realization that no sign, no policy, no law, no court opinion or interpretation, no blind faith in the gentleness of mankind, no pacifist philosophy and no chanted slogans, could have saved you nor prevented the tragedy you have become a part of. Like so many cattle, you and those around you will have been put down, all without a single means of protest. Death will be the only release from your pain. You will have been forced to this point. You will have followed the wide, paved, well beaten path of law abiding citizenship to this very cliff's edge. You will have had no choice. You will have had no alternative. You will have had no escape and above all....You will have had no protection. You will have met this demise....because the government says so.

How long can we stand for this madness?

Empty Holster Protest

The SCCC or “Students For Concealed Carry on Campus” will stage another “Empty Holster Protest” for the week of April 21-25, 2008. At campuses all over the United States, students will wear empty holsters to school. This is the second such protest staged by this organization, now some 11,000 members strong. The first protest was held in October of last year on the campuses of 125 separate US Colleges and Universities. SCCC says this protest will be different from the last in that it will focus more on educating the uninformed on the facts of concealed carry laws and how they differ on college campuses. I applaud their effort but “educating the uninformed” on a college campus is akin to bouncing one’s head off of a brick wall repeatedly in hopes that the wall will get out of the way. Nevertheless…off comes my hat to this courageous group of students.

SCCC shares my view that state laws and school policies that forbid duly licensed students and faculty members from carrying their weapons on campus tilts the scales dramatically in the odds of criminals and murderers by disarming the only people who are willing to follow the law in the first place. They drive this point home quite well in my opinion with the graphic on a t-shirt they’ve designed, which has the following caption:

"THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE. If you were planning on shooting a bunch of innocent people and then yourself, we’re sorry, but that is not allowed here."

Funny stuff, but I think it illustrates the ignorance that permeates the anti-gun left and those that think that if you pass a law, criminals are bound to follow it.

Those who have read this site on any semi-regular basis know that this is a subject near and dear to my heart. Having endured the unfortunate experiences of being robbed at gunpoint, mugged twice and stabbed in the stomach, I can speak with a certain degree of authority when I tell you that if you think it can’t happen to you…you are sorely mistaken. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to convince someone who hasn’t personally experienced the terror of having to fight for his life of the need to arm himself today in case he needs to defend himself tomorrow. Excuses abound. “I don’t frequent dangerous areas.” “I’d never put myself in that situation.” “I’d just run away.” “I don’t think I could ever pull the trigger on another human being.” “That’s what the police are for.” All of these excuses are useless drivel to the man or woman being beaten, raped, or robbed in what they thought was a safe place like their home, their car, or the mall.

I’d never insinuate that I think everyone should carry a gun. Some people just don’t want to. That’s fine. I personally don’t understand that decision but I certainly won’t trample on your right to not defend yourself. But, dammit don’t trample on mine either. How can anyone say that they just wouldn’t feel safe if his or her fellow college students might be carrying a gun? They wouldn’t know! The gun would be “concealed”! How could anyone say that they would feel safer knowing it was illegal for an otherwise duly licensed, law abiding adult college student to carry his or her personal sidearm to class when the otherwise non-licensed, non law abiding, mentally disturbed psychopath who writes poetry about killing people might be sitting in the chair right next to them with 10 guns in his backpack because he doesn’t give a flying crap about some damned policy forbidding him from doing so or some toothless law which threatens to punish him AFTER he’s committed his crime? What other alternative is there besides a Gestapo style Police State where “Big Brother” is lurking in every shadow and there are cameras in the locker rooms? Who the hell wants that?

I finally got my mother “retrained” and “un-indoctrinated”. Now she has three handguns and just mailed in her application for her Concealed Weapon License. I literally drug and cattle prodded my wife to her concealed weapons class this weekend and she is finally completed with the application process, though she still cannot fathom why it is so important to me. With eyes rolling and big nagging sighs and smart-assed little comments about how boring it was, she reluctantly agreed to sit through the class (at my expense) and fill out the appropriate paperwork to get her license. She doesn’t object to the right to keep and bear arms, mind you. She’s just not very enthusiastic about exercising that right herself. Normally, I’d say “whatever float’s your boat, lady” but this is a little different. She is my wife and she is the mother of my children. When I’m not around, the safety of those children falls squarely on her. It boggles my mind, though, how I can work in Public Safety and tell her of all the carjackings, home invasions, rapes, robberies, murders and mayhem that I encounter on a daily basis and her still remain indifferent to it all…living in a bubble. She was there when I stumbled into our little apartment, blood pouring from my abdomen after being stabbed. She saw it. She remembers when two men who wanted my wallet and the measly 10 bucks that was in it, knocked me unconscious. Yet still, she nonchalantly skips through her day, oblivious to the potential danger. If I have to work this hard to convince someone who has lived through this crap with me and who does not object to the right to carry a gun to do so, these students have a long hard road to convince the liberal academia that they should be able to exercise their right to carry an evil firearm. Good luck.

Guns are dangerous? Yeah, so is electricity!

• Hundreds of people die and thousands are injured each year in electrical accidents.
• There are, on average, 500 civilian deaths and 5300 injuries related to electrical fires in and around the home.
• About 150 people are electrocuted while using consumer products each year.
• Nearly ten people are electrocuted in the United States each week.
• Electrocution is now the fifth leading cause of work-related deaths in the United States.
• Over 600 people are electrocuted on the job yearly.
• Nearly 10 people are electrocuted by their lawnmowers every year.
• 20 percent of all electrocutions result in a fatality.
• About 25 people are electrocuted in their bathtubs every year.
• Around 20 people are electrocuted while using hair dryers each year.
• Approximately 17 people are electrocuted by faulty home appliances each year.
• Property damage due to home fires caused by electrical distribution, appliances and equipment and heating and air conditioning systems amounts to nearly $1.6 billion annually.
  

THEREFORE:

• The Federal Government should enact sweeping legislation to protect its citizens from this dangerous element.
• Power Companies should be required to pay punitive damages to victims and their families who are injured or killed by their product.
• All electrical appliances and devices should have to be registered with the Government.
• One must be licensed to operate any device which is powered by electricity.
• All internal combustion engines should be cranked by hand, not by electrical power.
• Anyone who uses electricity within 500 feet of a school should be subject to criminal penalties.
• Anyone who carelessly leaves unguarded electrical devices or appliances in the presence of a minor should be sent to jail.
• All electrically powered products should have a child safety lock installed and stored unplugged.
• Children should never be educated about the proper and safe usage of electricity...only that it is dangerous and therefore evil.
• Anyone caught concealing a battery shall be subject to mandatory prison sentences.

Absurd, right? Well, this is the very mindset and logic behind gun control. One could go on and on and on drawing ridiculous parallels to the warped concept of gun control legislation. Pencils cause misspelled words. Spoons make people fat. Chairs discourage exercise. Clocks make people late. Crowbars cause car thefts. We live in an age where it is acceptable, in fact, fashionable to hold anyone and anything responsible for criminal acts, mistakes and negligence except the people who commit them. It's not the criminals fault, it was someone else's. If you hadn't have left your car there, he would not have been able to steal it. Criminals should not be punished, they should be "rehabilitated" while the people who made the gun he committed the crime with...THEY should be punished! When that drunk plows into your car and puts you in the hospital, why not sue General Motors, Ford or Chrysler? If they hadn't have made the car, then he wouldn't have been able to drive it into your mini-van. They should've installed blood alcohol testers on all of their vehicles...it's THEIR fault, not the drunk's. While you're at it, why not sue Anheuser-Busch, or the Miller Brewing Company or whoever made the products he tanked up on before driving? Because it surely cannot come down to the fault of one poor old drunk and his lack of judgment.

Society will never be able to rid itself of the irresponsible. We will never be able to legislate protection for ourselves from anyone who has made up their mind to do us harm. We can legislate away, all of our freedoms and liberties into the hands of a police state. Or we can remain true to the spirit which built this country from a bunch of King's subjects to a Superpower of Free Citizens. We are not bound to social classes and predetermined standards of living, we are free to create for ourselves our own livelihoods. We are free to build a life for ourselves, but no one owes us a living. We are free to pursue happiness but it is not guaranteed. We are free to take chances but we are responsible for what comes of them. We are given opportunity in this country. What we do with it is our business and our responsibility. We are responsible for our own successes and failures. We are responsible for our own actions. If we screw up, we are to blame. The government has forces in place to protect it's citizens from predators but they cannot be posted on every street corner. We should be responsible for the protection of our families. We should be responsible for the defense of our homes. We should be our own first responders. This is the spirit which freed us from the bonds of tyranny. Let me make my own way. Let me be responsible for myself. Let ME reap the rewards of my own work. Let ME be the King of my castle.

Government has it's place and it should be a very small and well defined place with large fences and hardened borders and it should never be able to relieve me of my own right to self preservation. It should encourage me to be self sufficient and not to consume its social resources. A free people should never have to rely solely on their government for the provision of anything, including the preservation and defense of one's own self and one's own property.

I'll give you $100 for that $500 gun. Whadaya say?

Chicago...nice town, huh? It's one of the most dangerous cities in America. Violent crime is nearly epidemic. Murder, rape, robbery.... it's all just another day in the "Windy City". No surprise that it happens to be in one of the most "gun unfriendly" states in the union. Your Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist in Illiniois. The "State" somehow overrides the Federation and just catagorically "denies" it's citizens the protection afforded them by the nation's Bill of Rights......because "guns are dangerous".

Despite the State's longstanding effort to disarm its citizenry, crime abounds and apparently no one is safe, not even the most "affluent" of its citizens. NBA stars, and Chicago area residents, Eddy Curry and Antoine Walker recently learned that fact the hard way. Within weeks of each other, both had armed men invade their homes and rob them at gunpoint. Nothing could be more frightening or make a person feel more vulnerable than to be held hostage in their own home by a stranger with a gun. Did those gun laws protect these two men and their families? What do you think?

What's the answer? Well, here's how the liberal mind works...if what we're doing isn't working, don't change, just keep doing the same thing. And in typical liberal fashion, The City of Chicago has done just that. Apparently, taxpayers have just had their pockets cleaned out by a phenomenally STUPID "Gun buy back" to the tune of $670, 000! The Chicago Police gave anyone and everyone who would bring in a gun a prepaid $100 Mastercard....no questions asked! Any ol' piece of shit pea shooter is worth $100 to the Chicago Police Department. This half million dollar disaster was touted as "the most successful single-day event in the country" when, in fact, what it did was attract 6700 people who were down on their luck and hard up for a hundred bucks. Do they really want you to believe that some thug drug dealer with all that "diamond bling" hanging around his neck and the $5K 22 inch spinners on his ghetto sled had a change of heart and turned in his gun? Do they really want you to believe that someone would give up a decent $600 handgun for $100 just to benefit the "greater good"? Are they friggin' serious? Well that's the bait they're wigglin' and apparently there are plenty of dumb sheep liberals out there willing to bite.

WGN showed this "cache" of guns that were turned in on the evening news and what I saw were rows upon rows of single shot hunting rifles and shotguns, tables full of rusty old revolvers (some even without cylinders or grips), ancient pieces of crap! How many people do you think were robbed or murdered in Illinois last year with a single shot shotgun? How many drug dealers are packing a bolt action hunting rifle with a 26 inch barrel? How many folks do you think were victimized by someone wielding a rusted up inoperable revolver? The true victims here are the Chicago tax payers. What a joke! If their gun laws work then where the hell did these 6700 guns come from?

Smile Chicago....you just got raped...and you still have no protection against a criminal with a gun.

Wadical's Armed Citizen Award!

Chris Chappell is the first recipient of Wight Wing Wadical's "Armed Citizen Award". Mr Chappel was instrumental in the apprehension of a murdering bank robber and exemplifies the purpose and value of an armed populous.

On May 14th, just after 9 am, Chappell was standing in line waiting for a teller when a thug with a gun entered the bank and with no warning at all, began shooting. Chappell along with some other bank patrons was able to scramble out of the bank, and retrieved his own firearm before taking cover.Meanwhile, unknown to Chappell, inside the bank people were dying.

Though she did not resist, the cowardly thug, piece of shit criminal, William Merriweather Jr. killed bank teller, Eva Lovelady Hudson by shooting her in the face. Then he systematically began shooting each teller, also killing Sheila Prevo and seriously wounding Anita Gordon and LaToya Freeman before ordering Bank Manager, Myron Gooding to open the vault. Money in hand, Merriweather exited the bank only to find himself on the business end of Chris Chappell's firearm and forcing him to retreat back into the bank. Again he attempted to exit but found Chappell standing firm with his firearm drawn. A short while later Sheriff's Deputies arrived and joined Chappell in securing the bank's exit. Merriweather, attempted to escape using Gooding as a hostage but stumbled, giving Deputy Alan Rhea a clear shot which he skillfully placed right in the groin! Falling to the ground and still clutching his bag of illgotten gain, the money had to be pried out of Merriweather's hands so that he could be handcuffed.

Along with the armed robbery charge, Merriweather faces two counts of Capital Murder, and two counts of attempted murder and Chris Chappell stands as one solid reason why this piece of shit predator isn't still out there robbing and killing. True to the criminal justice standard in the south, The Great State of Alabama will most certainly expedite Merriweathers meeting with his maker via a potent cocktail in the arm. But let us imagine for a moment if Chappell's firearm hadn't been in his vehicle that day. Merriweather may well have gotten away only to kill again. While you're considering that, imagine still that instead of in his vehicle, Chappell's firearm had been securly fastened to his hip! Might Hudson and Prevo still be alive? You ponder. I'm giving the guy an award.