There are three of them, all favoring the Right of an individual not to retreat and stand his ground when defending himself and dating as far back to 1895.

Beard v. United States – 158 U.S. 550 (1895)

The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.
Next:

Rowe v. U S, (1896)

if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or to do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.’

and:

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)

The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

It will be tough for any group hating SYG to go against one SCOTUS established case, much less three of them.  Which might be the reason that after all the scandal and all the screaming, tearing at clothes and tossing ashes up in the air, not one single Gun Control group has even tried to challenge the laws in Superior Courts.

Back in the early 20th Century, women were quite adept about getting rid of somebody they hated or needed to get rid of. But interestingly and contrary to the article, Guns, although used, were not the favorite tool nor were one of the most common. Poison was the choice, followed by knives and even hiring third parties to do the killing.

So when I found this Congresswoman (the second to be elected in history) demanding that her gender be prohibited to own guns, it struck me as odd and a lot stupid. But as my wife reminds me every so often, the worse enemy of a woman is another woman.

Oh dear God. Who let the door of the Socialist Asylum open? All of the sudden, the most ridiculous Liberal idea is a valid electoral platform for this election cycle. Never get high on your own supply.

Anyway, local Republicans should support this guy and allow him to be the candidate for the Democrats. It should be easy to beat come November.

So, it is the caliber that kills people and not the shooter.

The likelihood that a shooting will be fatal is directly related to the caliber of the firearm used, according to a new study released Friday by Northeastern University and Duke University. The researchers conclude that in their sample of 367 shooting cases in Boston during a five-year period, there would have been nearly 40 percent fewer deaths if only low-caliber weapons had been used.
New study on firearm caliber questions the notion that ‘guns don’t kill people’

They discovered water is wet and fire burns, holy crap, we are talking Nobel prize stuff right here.

“Our study gets to the heart of the notion that ‘guns don’t kill people; people kill people,’” said Anthony Braga, a Distinguished Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern.

Must have discovered them infamous “possessed guns” that shoot on their own without the intervention of human manipulation.

“That slogan is based on the contention that gun control is ineffective because if a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it, no matter what types of weapons are available.”

No, you Dumb Diploma-Bearer, that is not what it means and it never was. It simply states that unless there is a human behind the gun pulling the trigger. But thanks for admitting your focus is Gun Control.

The study, which was published in JAMA Network Open and funded by the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance, concludes that it is incorrect to dismiss firepower as a factor in shooting fatalities. The authors do not propose any specific gun control measures and acknowledge that both the intent of the shooter and chance also play a role in whether the victim lives or dies.

I reckon they mean that the shooter after all needs to pull the trigger (contrary to their opening statement) , be accurate and intend to hit the victim. Something along the lines that  a hit with a .22LR will hurt much more than a miss with a .45 ACP, another slogan we share on the gun community. And, of course that a gun cannot shoot itself while somebody walks in front of it.

“People who oppose gun control are not convinced that the type of weapon matters,” he said. “We are not saying caliber is more important than intent.

Yes, that is what you are saying. Problem is that it is not that simple.

I have to come to the conclusion that these PhD Idiots are being particularly dense about the issue. a .22LR and a .223 are the same caliber class, yet the amount of damage they create is so different that it is not even funny.  They do not know what they are talking about and here is the proof, remember, this study is about what calibers do to people. So what is caliber?

So how did these distinguished members of intelligentsia performed their research?

For those Ballistically Impaired, .38 and .357 are the same caliber. Yet it is grouped with the .45. The 7.62×39 is a 30 caliber bullet which it also gets put in the same .45 ACP & .44 Magnum goulash. This is a monumental mistake that can only be explained by people with an absolute ignorance in the matter decided to try to do a study without understanding the basic principles of ballistics. These are principles that any gun owner has and that any “redneck” that reloads knows by heart. Who knows how much time and money they spent in creating this study and yet they failed to do some simple reading of material that could be found no further than your Amazon account or public library: A reloading manual.

Let’ me give you some examples:

These are the same diameter of bullets and anybody that shoots revolvers know so. But according to the study, the one on the left is of less diameter that the one on the right.

The one on the left is a 7.62×39 round which has a .30 round caliber bullet a top,  rifle round. yet the geniuses put it in the same category as the .357 Magnum even though as awesome as it is, it does not do the same amount for damage even when it is a bigger caliber than the rifle bullet.

Again the same idiocy: The 7,62×39 a rifle round allegedly makes the same amount of damage than the venerable .45 ACP. Even the most die-hard fan of John Moses Browning will not commit the indecency of saying that a handgun round will outmatch that rifle round.

Anybody that shoots and most that do not shoot understand that what makes a bullet exact more or less damage is not one factor but a combination of (at the very basic) caliber, weight, shape and velocity. Our “researchers” either simply  ignored the very basics of terminal ballistics or were ignorant about it.

I think this whole study was a “woke” attempt to cause ruckus and maybe to get some research funding which is the number one priority is College for the Intelligentsia as I reckon the salary might not be enough.

The sad part? This “break-through study” is not only poorly structured and research, but already done by true scientists. Once again, Amazon would have come to the rescue:

This is one of several books in the subject. I’d say that whoever gave the grant to the people who did the “research” should demand his money back.

PS: I would love to get hand in the raw data. I want to see how many people were killed/injured with 10mm and .44 Magnums. Those are calibers you do not hear much being involved in crime or other criminal mischiefs.

So tonight at midnight, the blueprints for the Liberator 3D gun and possibly others will be once again available to the public. Gun Control groups and other relevant idiots are making so much noise, you would think by Monday night, every gangbanger in NY or Chicago will have an untraceable mini gun or a .50 caliber sniper rifle rather than this:

Basically we are getting the plans for an 80cc bicycle 2-stroke engine and Shannon Watts swears we are getting a free Bugatti Veyron.

Pay attention and see if you can catch the big “oops!”

“Slap it like it was kinky girlfriend.” applies to pistols and not necessarily ARs, but I was told that when I was learning and always loved the line.

Some people have taste. They can decorate and make it useful at the same time..

Stolen from @Tactical_review