Gun Owners of the San Fernando Valley Posts

Michigan Congressman Mike Bishop has reportedly stated that the assassination attempt on House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and other GOP members of Congress was foiled, in large part, by an armed civilian who engaged the shooter

“The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us,” said Bishop. “He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.”

No details are available at this moment as to the identity of the shooter or the brave civilian who risked his life to protect others.

News Self-defense

No, not the watery kind like we’re having here in California; We’re talking about the .22LR ammo drought. (The watery kind may be over too, but we’ll have to see what the next winter is like!)

Wally-World has reportedly told its sales associates in their sporting goods departments that they can sell as much .22 ammo to a single customer as they’d like. Walmart is the largest retailer of guns and ammo in the US. If they think that there’s plenty of ammo to go around, then there probably is. This marks the end of a lingering influence of the Obama regime’s years in power. Greater manufacturing capacity combined with less of a tendency to hoard is returning the ammo supply in the US to normal.


News Shooting sports

Once a people have lost a right, those in power over them will not, as a rule, willingly return that right. Asking politely, hat in hand, just won’t do the trick. American history teaches us that a more direct approach is what’s needed; something a little more emphatic than just asking nicely.

Something lethal.

In the wake of the latest terror attack in the UK, British gun owners (and those who would like to be gun owners in the UK) are asking for their rights back. There’s a much chance of that happening as there is of Her Majesty sprouting wings and flying off to Mumbai for some curried lamb.

I’ll be blunt about this: You folks in the UK aren’t getting your gun rights back anytime soon. You pissed them away over the course of the last century. Every time you were asked to compromise with the gun banners, you cooperated. Sure, you grumbled a little, but then you caved and turned your guns in like good little minions. Here in the US, anti-gun laws do sometimes get passed over the objections of the People; but we don’t cooperate. We adapt an old Soviet joke: They pretend to pass laws and we pretend to obey them. We don’t limit ourselves to mere civil disobedience either. The NRA and others have waged a successful legislative and legal campaign to overturn unconstitutional laws and to strengthen the right to keep and bear arms. But even with these successes, there still lurks, just under the surface, the threat that we’ll start killing people again to protect our liberties.

Once lost, rights are reclaimed only through bloodshed. If you’re not willing to kill for your rights, then you’re not getting them back. It’s that simple. Over 200 years ago, the American People made it clear that they were willing to kill people to regain their rights. The British People never held their right to armed self protection so dearly. They traded that right away for imagined protection from the hand of government. Now that deal isn’t working out so well.

Yup another attack featuring motor vehicles and knifes. More innocent people injured or killed and still our government won’t change our self defence laws and classifies bloody pepper spray as a section 5 firearm!!! Remember they have the 24 hour armed bodyguards protecting them while they continue to sell the lie that firearms are not suitable for personal protection and continue to harass legal gun owners.

They can’t guarantee your safety but deny you any means to prepare for your own safety.

A side note: Those here who are the loudest proponents of civilian disarmament are also those with access to armed, private security. Go figure!

Violence, like it or not, is what regains liberties that have been lost. The threat of renewed violence is what keeps those liberties once they’ve been regained. The American People learned this hard lesson from history; our British cousins did not.

…until now.

News Self-defense

Federal Legislation News Pro-gun Safety

Legal News

As if on cue, here’s another letter writer going on about his imagined right to feel safe from non-existent threats. This one is willing to admit to your right to keep and bear arms, but only a version of that right that ends at your front door. The “simple logic” he offers in support of his argument is that “The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.” This argument, however, is not borne out by the facts.

As we recently discussed, areas where gun ownership is at its highest are the areas of the country that are the safest. Homicides and other violent crimes occur in those areas where legal gun ownership is at its lowest. The letter writer’s “simple logic” falls apart in the face of real data. The very restrictions he calls for have, at best, no positive effect on violent crime rates. At worst, they make violent crime worse by making it safer to be a criminal. (Think of gun laws as workplace safety regulations for criminals!) The corollary to his argument would be that the fewer loaded guns there are in public, the fewer bullets will fly. But this is also false. Other factors, such as poverty and the presence of the illicit narcotics trade, decide how many bullets will fly; not the availability of loaded firearms.


News Self-defense

The Declaration of Independence states that among our “unalienable rights” are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given to us by God; meaning that they were not granted to us by a king or any other human government. That they are “unalienable” means that these are rights that we are, in fact, powerless to reject. We do so only at our own peril. Rejecting these rights would be like saying that you do not want your kidneys anymore. Perhaps you don’t like their color. Sure, you could have them removed, but you wouldn’t last long!

From the right to life comes the right to protect that life. From that right flows the right to the means to do so. This is where the right protected by (not granted by or created by) the 2nd Amendment comes from. What does not spring from the right to life is a right to be protected from imagined threats.

But this is precisely the right craved by so many on the anti-gun Left. An example comes from a letter writer to the Des Moines Register who asks…

When will legislators on the state and national level stop catering to gun lobbies and do something to make all Americans safer? Everyone should realize we have a Second Amendment that allows people to own guns and that right is not going to be taken away. But where does that amendment stop and my right to live safely begin?

The writer submitted this letter following several shootings in her Beaverdale neighborhood; including at least one homicide. These were not, however, random shootings. They were drug related. In other words, these were criminals shooting other criminals. These weren’t 3-gun shooters or duck hunters running amok. So unless the letter writer is in the illegal narcotics trade, these shooting pose little to no tangible threat to her. The threat exists only in her imagination.

The letter states that “we have a Second Amendment that allows people to own guns and that right is not going to be taken away”, but how else are we to interpret her demand to “live safely”? She focuses on acts committed by criminals, but later laments new Iowa laws that protect the rights of law abiding gun owners in that State. This is a demand that those who threaten no one be disarmed so that others can enjoy the right to feel safe; not actually be safe. That right doesn’t exist.


News Self-defense

As it turns out, the same three things that matter in real estate also matter in homicide: Location, location, location.

According to the accepted legacy media narrative, since America is awash in guns, it’s thus a violent, Mad Max hellscape of mass murder and carnage. It’s a wonder that any of us are still alive! 321,400,000 enter, 1 leaves! But like most of the ripping yarns the MSM tells, this one isn’t true either.

Murder in the US is not a national phenomenon; i.e a map of murder scenes across the US wouldn’t be an even distribution of black dots all across the fruited plain. It’s not even regional. It’s highly localized, in fact. As John Lott points out, “The vast majority of murders in the United States occur in just a tiny percentage of counties. In fact, the country can be divided up into three types of places: those where there are no murders; those where there are a few murders; and those where murders are very common.” Those little black dots on the map are mostly confined to a few, small areas. Remove crimes from these areas and the US murder rate starts to look a lot different. It starts to look more like the rates in the European countries that the Left holds up as examples of gun control that we should emulate.

Let’s look at the largest State in the Union. There were 1697 homicides in the California in 2014. During that year, there were counties with no homicides. Then there’s Los Angeles County. There were 526 murders that year making it the worst county in the nation. But, as John Lott points out, murders in L.A. County are not evenly distributed across the county. There are clearly defined hot spots.

L.A. County Homicides 2014

There are huge parts of the county there were zero murders. The vast majority are concentrated in a few neighborhoods; East L.A. and South Central.

Now I’m sure that there are a few pinheads out there who will look at this map and try to make this about race. It’s arguably about culture, but not race. This is a map of L.A.’s poorest neighborhoods. This map also shows us where there’s the most gang activity and the most illegal narcotics. It’s only about race to the extent that certain politicians try to make it about race; those who preach bitterness, class envy, and hatred to the residents of these neighborhoods to get themselves re-elected year after year after year. (One in particular has represented South Central since 1977. Nothing much has changed there in those 40 years. Perhaps that’s why she lives 10 miles away in Hancock Park!)

Now getting back to murder rates nationally, there are also those pinheads who will try to make this about legal gun ownership. But the facts get in the way of that simplistic analysis. The urban areas where US murders are concentrated are also the areas with the lowest rates of legal gun ownership. The boring, rural counties with no homicides are the areas with the highest rates of legal gun ownership! In other words, the US counties which produce the most YouTube videos of heavily armed rednecks blowing stuff up with Tannerite are also the counties with the fewest homicides.


I promise, I didn’t go looking for this article just to make a point about this post.

SFWeekly writer Nuala Sawyer starts out her article on gun violence rates in San Francisco on a good note. She laments the fact that most people in Babylon on the Bay only know about the city’s crime rates from what they read in social media; i.e. anecdotal evidence. She then goes on to cite the FBI’s data from the Universal Crime Reporting program. In this program, the FBI (Now under new management!) collects and reports crime data from across the US. San Francisco, which actually is part of the United States, is included in this database. Violent crime there, like the rest of the country, is down. Crimes involving firearms, however, have seen a recent uptick…

But one area where crime did not decline was rates of gun violence. In 2016, homicides by firearm increased by 15 percent, people shot non-fatally increased by 27 percent, and 12 percent more firearms were seized from people than in the year prior. In 2016, 451 people were arrested for having a firearm. And in a depressing turn, the city’s gun buyback program — where SFPD offers cash for the public’s guns — dove a dismal 36 percent, with only 212 guns being taken off the streets last year.

But here’s where she goes off the rails. The very next paragraph reads…

While San Francisco’s gun trends appear to be on the rise, it isn’t just us. In 2016, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives released data from U.S. gun-makers that firearm production doubled between 2010 and 2013. In 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, 11 million guns were produced. Gun ownership nationwide has doubled since 1968, with more than 300 million guns estimated to exist in the U.S. alone. But this doesn’t mean everyone has a gun — only one in three households.

She then concludes that “it’s only natural that firearm-related crimes will also grow” with all of these firearms out there remaining unconfiscated. But the UCR data say the exact opposite of this! Violent crime, of which gun related violent crime is but a subset, is down nationally. Looking at homicides, of which gun related homicides are a subset, the rate in 2014 is less than half of what it was in 1980; 10.2 per 100,000 versus 4.5 per 100,000. (2014 is the last complete data set.) The overall violent crime rate in 1980 was 596.6 per 100,000. In 2014 it was 375.7 per 100,000. All of this is despite, some would argue because of, vastly increased rates of gun ownership in the US.

This information is nothing new. John Lott and David Mustard first published in 1997. Their study focused on concealed carry laws, but also looked at overall gun ownership. The very least that can be said, given the publically available data they used, is that increased gun ownership neither increases nor decreases rates of gun violence. So why didn’t Ms. Sawyer seem to know this?

Because it didn’t fit the narrative.

To her, it was simply obvious that increased gun ownership translates to more gun crime. The thought of verifying this with actual data never occurred to her. To those with this type of bias, looking up the real data on gun crime versus gun ownership would be like checking a compass in the morning to see if the sun is really rising in the east. So rather than seeking out uncomfortable truths, she wrapped herself in the warm blanket of anecdote.

(H/T: Chuck Michel)


So who woulda thought that the Washington Post would find itself repeating ISIS propaganda? I’m guessing that no one at the WP would have thought it, but that’s precisely what happened last week. The legacy news outlet repeated, unquestioningly, ISIS claims about how “easy” it is to purchase a firearm in the US. A ripping yarn to be sure, but not at all true.

Did the Post set out to become a mouthpiece for ISIS? Of course not. So how did it happen? Quite simply, the claims by the Islamofascist terror organization fit in with beliefs the writers and editors at the Post already held. To their minds, it was ISIS that was parroting the Post. The Post, and most of the dead tree media, reflexively accept as fact what ISIS claimed about American gun laws, even though they reject ISIS itself. Conversely, they reflexively reject what doesn’t fit their existing narrative. Tell them, for example, that the CDC found that gun laws are ineffective for reducing violence and you’ll be on the receiving end of blank stares.

Pro-RKBA activists need to be aware that the MSM will go beyond simply ignoring facts that they disagree with. If need be, they’ll just make s**t up. Which means that they’ll misquote you, mischaracterize your statements, or flat out lie about you to make a point. Never think that these people are in the business of telling the objective truth. That’s not what drove them to attend journalism school! They’re out to change the world, even if the facts get in the way.

Keep that in mind the next time some reporter asks you for a comment.