Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance

(GunReports.com) -- Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens is a new publication from the Cato Institute that uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

Written by Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett, the paper says federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in "road rage" or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

Cramer and Burnett write, "The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce."

Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.

Tweet

Reader Comments

Well, this is a terribly uninformative little blurb.

Comment by: ajwrangler | February 9, 2012

In state after state anecdotal data indicates a cause and effect relationship between increases in concealed carry and decreases in violent crime. Given that governments readily use anecdotal data to bolster the vailidity of many of their activities, perhaps lawmakers might take this evidence into consideration in lowering barriers to concealed carry and firearms legislation generally.

Comment by: claytong | February 9, 2012

While some may see this as a "ho hum" sort of post, when we consider that this, along with a number of other tomes written along this same theme, do play a positive role in firearms related legislation, I believe that we just can't get enough of this sort of writing out there in the public eye. The more the benefits of firearms ownership are touted in the media, the better informed our legislators will be, leading to more pro-Second Amendment legislation.

Comment by: canovack | February 9, 2012

You can read the report (with some difficulty) at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14031. Go toward the bottom of the page where it says "Full Text." The 58 page text appears in a small box starting with an image of the cover. If you can increase the magnification of your screen to 200%, it is easier to read.

Comment by: James H | February 9, 2012

I saw this a few days ago and managed to download the entire thing to my desktop. Just search for the title, followed by "download" and you'll get a copy, I'm sure.

The problem with attacks discouraged is that they won't constitute 'proof' because there are no police reports - and even where there are the Brady bunch won't acknowledge them. And then too, if all those violent criminals were to be shot - legal gun owners would be blamed for the carnage.

Comment by: david b | February 9, 2012

Here's the link: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

Comment by: JetJock | February 9, 2012

Thanks JetJock. I couldn't remember where I'd found it.

Comment by: david b | February 9, 2012

Criminals are predators, and predators will avoid potential prey that MIGHT injure them or cause them damage. It works that way in the wilds, among the wildlife; predators are careful to pick helpless prey. They could starve if their potential meal fought back too effectively and injured them. Now what makes ANYONE think that we upright apes are any different? Huh?

Comment by: KMacK | February 9, 2012

Although the statement that more guns equal less crime is correct,let's not forget that fighting crime was/is the lie/coverstory for disarmment and subjugation by government. Anyone not seeing that is niave beyond belief.It has always and every where been about power of government(people who think themselves better than others) over the little people.At it's extreme you find places like cuba,venezula and china,canada,australia,england and US.I would hope for a middle ground where everyone who desires a self defense weapon can have one or more with no infringement of their their personal life.

Comment by: Robert T | February 13, 2012

Although the statement that more guns equal less crime is correct,let's not forget that fighting crime was/is the lie/coverstory for disarmment and subjugation by government. Anyone not seeing that is niave beyond belief.It has always and every where been about power of government(people who think themselves better than others) over the little people.At it's extreme you find places like cuba,venezula and china,canada,australia,england and US.I would hope for a middle ground where everyone who desires a self defense weapon can have one or more with no infringement of their their personal life.

Comment by: Robert T | February 13, 2012

As Robert T states, more guns DO equal less crime. This is becoming increasingly obvious in the statistics that we are seeing from federal, state, and local government law enforcement agencies. These are facts that the gun control fanatics would like to discredit, but the plain truth is.....they can't.

One of the premises that has been used by anti-Second Amendment forces, is that "REASONABLE" gun control laws should be palatable to all of us. This is patently clap trap nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as "reasonable" gun control legislation, for two reasons: 1) Any gun control legislation is unconstitutional, because it DOES infringe on our Second Amendment rights. 2) The gun control fanatics have always used step-by-step "reasonable" gun control legislation to mount an attack that will ultimately result in a total ban on firearms ownership of any kind. It is becoming obvious that our current administration has an agenda of gun control that can be traced back to the earliest efforts of such personalities as Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, etc, etc. These people will not relax in their quest to disarm America. They must be removed from office before they can do any more damage to our nation. All Americans must support and act in the principle of ABI.....Anyone But Incumbents. If we mobilize our forces to remove any and all incumbents from office in the November election, we can clean out the administration, and we can put Congress on notice that we will no longer tolerate their unproductive ways of doing business. If half of the Congress were voted out this November, a shock wave would vibrate the entire legislative branch that would convince our senators and congressmen/women that we mean business. And.....If the remaining incumbents don't shape up, they can be fired in 2014.

Comment by: canovack | February 13, 2012

Also, canovack, let us not forget that most citizens will not accept any 'reasonable' controls on their right to free speech, nor to be secure in their homes and property, nor any 'reasonable' amount of quartering soldiers in their homes. And in spite of NDAA and other federal 'laws' passed in the last 10 years, we're not really accepting 'reasonable' controls on our right to habeas corpus either. We might as well ask for 'reasonable' controls on our right to vote, or to breed, or to marry the partner of our choice.

The simple fact is that there is no 'reasonable' limit or control over a natural right.

Comment by: david b | February 13, 2012

Roger that! Gotcha loud and clear!

Comment by: canovack | February 13, 2012