Why I Stay Armed All The Time
Gregory Kielma • September 19, 2025
This Is Why I Always stay armed: God Bless Iryna Zarutska
Federal hate crime charge sought in Charlotte stabbing
The Center Square
Alan Wooten
(The Center Square) – When a federal charge was levied this week against Decarlos Brown Jr. in the killing of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light rail, authorities said more charges were possible.
North Carolina’s chapter of the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the nation has formally requested federal prosecutors charge Brown with a hate crime.
“We join calls for the U.S. attorney to investigate the murder of Iryna Zarutska as a possible hate crime given video footage that appears to show the perpetrator commenting on her race and gender after brutally attacking her,” the North Carolina chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement. “Whenever someone commits similar acts of violence while engaging in racist or bigoted rhetoric, law enforcement should automatically investigate a bias motive.”
Zarutska, 23, was killed while aboard the Lynx Blue Line light rail train about 10 p.m. Aug. 22 alongside Camden Road near the East/West station, according to the Charlotte Area Transit System video. Brown, arrested a 15th time in as many years, is charged with first-degree murder on the state level and charged on the federal level with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system.
While in the local news immediately, the story went viral over the weekend and into this week when Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police released video from the transit system. Congressional proposals are in the works; state Republicans in the U.S. House have requested the chief judge in the district remove the magistrate signing off on cashless bail for Brown in January; and a probe of safety and budget for the transit system is underway by the state auditor.
CAIR-North Carolina said, “Video footage from the incident reportedly shows the alleged attacker, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr., pacing through the train and twice saying, ‘I got that white girl.’”
The Center Square has not confirmed the comments. Video released by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police is from cameras aboard the Charlotte Area Transit System light rail train.
General Assembly leaders planned a noon press conference connected to the stabbing.
CAIR-North Carolina said, “As we condemn Ms. Zarutska’s horrific murder and call for a hate crime probe, we also condemn those using this crime to resurrect racist talking points about the Black community. This selective outrage is dangerous, hypocritical, and racially motivated, especially given that white supremacists fall silent about other stabbings, mass shootings, hate crimes, financial crimes, rapes, and various other misconduct committed by people of all races and backgrounds. Our society must secure justice for victims of crimes, not turn them into pawns for extremists.”
Bill Would Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Act Mark Chesnut Following the recent shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which resulted in two children dead and 17 others injured, a U.S. congressman is proposing to abolish the law that allows only criminals to be armed near public schools. On August 29, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced the “Safe Students Act,” H.R. 5066, which would repeal the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” (GFSZA) and eliminate that law’s one-size-fits-all federal ban on guns in school zones. According to Rep. Massie, enactment of the “Safe Students Act” would make it easier for state and local governments and school boards to set their own firearms policies unambiguously. “Gun-free zones are ineffective and make our schools less safe,” Rep. Massie said in a news release announcing the measure. “Since 1950, 94% of mass public shootings have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns. Banks, churches, sports stadiums and many of my colleagues in Congress are protected with firearms. Yet children inside the classroom are too frequently left vulnerable.” In fact, statistics support Rep. Massie’s argument. Recent data shows a 200% increase in targeted school shootings in the United States since the act was enacted, and a 327% rise in shootings on or near school campuses during the same period. Rep. Massie’s bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in 2007, repeals GFSZA, a law that makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended act.
Armed Citizens: Not Just an American Concept Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support NRA-ILA We frequently post stories about law-abiding citizens who, by exercising their rights protected under the Second Amendment, bring an end to violent criminal assaults. We covered two instances earlier this year in Michigan, one involving an attack at a Walmart and another at a church. We’ve also covered reports that show the benefits of armed citizens. Of course, most of what we cover takes place here in the United States, where we have the benefit of our Founders recognizing and safeguarding our inherent right to self-defense through the protections of the Second Amendment. Occasionally, we will report on other countries that appear to be moving in the right direction when it comes to recognizing the benefits of law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves and others. We’ve recently seen this in Argentina, Finland, and Poland, and hope to see it elsewhere. Israel has seen a mix of good and bad when it comes to gun control. In March, we reported Iranian-linked hackers were able to penetrate Israel’s databases containing sensitive gun owner data and leaked the information online in early February. This exemplified just one of the numerous problems NRA has long pointed out with registration schemes involving law-abiding gun owners. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens possessing and carrying firearms are generally more restrictive in Israel than in most states here in the U.S., but their firearm laws have fluctuated over the years based on perceived internal and external threats. While the 1970s and ‘80s saw firearm ownership in Israel as somewhat ubiquitous, the ‘90s brought increased restrictions. In 2018, however, Israel began loosening some restrictions. In 2023, following the unprecedented terrorist attacks of October 7, Israel began loosening restrictions again. While the country continues to face threats, Breitbart recently reported that “a number of civilians” helped an off-duty Israeli soldier end a terrorist attack on vehicles and pedestrians near a bus stop in Jerusalem’s Ramot Junction. Although six innocent lives were lost, the casualties could have been far greater had the two terrorists responsible for the attack not been killed. According to The Times of Israel, “Police said that a soldier and a number of civilians who were present at the scene fired at the terrorists and killed them.” The paper also noted that National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, commenting on the policy he spearheaded to put more arms in the hands of civilians, said, “Weapons save lives.”
“Sensitive Places” Embolden Criminals and Threaten the Law-abiding Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support NRA-ILA A beyond horrific murder flashed before our eyes in recent weeks, and a nation collectively mourned Iryna Zarutska after the sickening attack that took her life on a public train in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was yet another stark reminder that evil strikes quickly, and it can happen at any time, in any place (particularly when, as in the case of the Charlotte suspect, the legal system appears incapable or unwilling to incapacitate repeat offenders). Because of that very fact, the law-abiding citizens who choose to carry firearms for self-defense in public are again left frustrated by imaginary boundaries that continue to limit their ability to defend themselves. Firearm prohibitionists argue, “The presence of guns make places more dangerous.” Wrong. Bad people make places more dangerous. And some places may be more likely to attract or accommodate bad people than others, not the least of which are public transportation facilities, including subway stations, bus stops, etc. If citizens cannot count on courts or policymakers to prioritize their safety, they are left to their own devices when situational awareness is simply not enough. Rules that restrict an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense advantage criminals, and as public officials dither, lives are in danger. NRA has often reported on the safety ills of the NYC subway system, even documenting that it was deemed contractually too dangerous for former New York Giants Quarterback, Eli Manning. Recall that in the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Heller v. District of Columbia, it was noted that the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms did not cast doubt on the validity of “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen later warned that the expansion of “sensitive places” beyond historical precedents is unconstitutional: [E]xpanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. [New York’s] argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense...” Justice Thomas’s warning continues to be ignored. Just last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Schoenthal v. Raoul, a case out of Chicago in which NRA-ILA filed an amicus brief, that broad limits on self-defense can continue. The Chicago Transit Authority and Illinois state law prohibit carrying firearms on public transit. The Seventh Circuit, in reversing an earlier district court ruling, held that the Second Amendment “does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws-consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms.” Not only is carrying firearms in public for self-defense clearly covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms on public transit, even though forms of it existed in the Founding era. The Seventh Circuit essentially admitted as much, when it asserted: “We are in the project of comparing regulations, not places.” Then, “reasoning” from mid to late 19th Century bans on places like “ball[s] and fandango[es],” the court came up with a broad rule that firearm prohibitions in “in crowded and confined places” are presumptively permissible. This tendency of courts to stretch historical analogies on “sensitive places” far past their breaking point is leaving far too many people in vulnerable locations to be victimized. Judge Kolar writes that the “sensitive places doctrine tells us that the appropriate balance allows for temporary restrictions in scattered discrete places where the risk is simply different…” The risk on public transit is indeed different. These places are inherently more dangerous and call for even more accommodation for self-defense rights. No one in the Founding era thought the solution to robberies of stage coaches and trains was to ban passengers from carrying guns. Judge Kolar is concerned about the people’s representatives being able to ensure “public transportation systems remaining free from accessible firearms,” yet the people’s representatives are doing precious little to ensure the transportation systems remain free of violent criminals. Public transportation in Chicago, in fact, is about as “insensitive” a place as exists in public life. According to a 2024 study done by the Illinois Policy Institute, over 1 in every 100,000 Chicago Transit Authority rides resulted in a crime. That’s about 1 crime every 3 hours, considering 765,566 rides per weekday on average. About 45% of all crimes reported at CTA stations result in an arrest, according to analysis of city data, meaning criminals have a better than even chance of getting away with their predations. And those are just the crimes that get reported. Many more do not, as few victims expect justice. Daily there are headlines nationwide featuring the safety hazards of public transit. Attacks are often random. Carrying a gun on Chicago public transportation is illegal, but so are assaults, thefts, and harassment. Gun owners are obeying the law, but Chicago criminals are not. Violence prevention and mental healthcare sometimes pose complex questions, but the self-defense part of the equation is simple: the need can arise wherever a person happens to be. Rulings like the one from the Seventh Circuit demonstrate the continued work needed to fend off ever-expanding “gun-free zones” that, like the may-issue permitting condemned by the Supreme Court, make carry the exception, rather than the rule. Simply put, “sensitive places” show an insensitivity to the Second Amendment and the lives of the people it is meant to protect.
Trump’s DOJ Will Participate in Oral Arguments in Illinois Semi-Auto Ban Case Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support The NRA-ILA Within six months of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision of NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), Illinois disregarded the Court’s clear directives and enacted into law H.B. 5741, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). PICA banned certain semi-automatic rifles and other so-called “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, and other devices, and required existing owners to register with the police as a condition of their continued lawful possession. An NRA-backed lawsuit, Caleb Barnett et al. v. Kwame Raoul et al., was quickly filed in federal court to challenge the law as unconstitutional. Citing the Bruen decision, the complaint in the case points out that “[a]lmost no other state in the union has ever tried to adopt such an extreme measure — and for good reason, as no less an authority than the Supreme Court has already recognized that semiautomatic rifles ‘traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful’ … All of that dooms any effort to claim that prohibiting these ubiquitous arms is consistent with ‘the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.’” In the last two years, the case has moved between the federal district court in Illinois (which preliminarily enjoined the bans as a likely violation of the Second Amendment), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which reversed), and back to the district court after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case at its early stage of the litigation. After the district court again ruled that the bans are unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement, the State appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which stayed the district court’s ruling pending its latest decision in the case. Notably, in June the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 34-page amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the United States and in support of the plaintiffs-appellees. The brief represents a stark and welcome contrast to the position of the previous administration with respect to Second Amendment rights. While President Biden’s gun control wish list included banning “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, a background check mandate for all gun sales, and a repeal of the PLCAA, for instance, the brief cites, among other authorities, an April 2025 memo from the U.S. Attorney General that begins, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” (The brief also cites a paper co-written by Joseph Greenlee, now Managing Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel at NRA-ILA.) Since then, the DOJ has filed an unopposed motion, now granted, to participate in oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, noting the federal government’s interest in protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans and its belief that “its participation in oral argument will be helpful to the Court.” The argument would be limited to five minutes of time that has been ceded by the plaintiffs-appellees. While we’ll have to wait until September 22, the date on which oral arguments are scheduled to be held, to find out exactly what the federal government has to say, its amicus brief provides some helpful indications. Because PICA bans arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes – including AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines – it is “flatly unconstitutional” under the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges. The brief also explains how the Seventh Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s test the last time it ruled on this case, and urged the court to affirm the district court’s permanent injunction. In addition to signaling a momentous shift in how the federal government views the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the DOJ’s participation is particularly meaningful because similar bans are being litigated in other states: for instance, an NRA-supported challenge to New Jersey’s prohibitions on so-called “assault firearms” and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds is scheduled to be argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, in mid-October.
As a Democrat, David asks, I really think I need to buy a gun to guard against MAGA crazies. Am I wrong? From an avid reader of my blog... Of course you’re wrong, David! Here at the David Schadenfreude Institute for Advanced Progressivism, David has determined that: • Having a gun increases your risk of suicide • Having a gun increases your risk of being murdered • Having a gun increases the risk of unintentional child deaths • Having a gun increases the risk of unintentional household member deaths • Having a gun increases the risk of unintentional pet deaths • Having a gun increases the risk of you being involved in a mass shooting • Having a gun promotes tooth decay Per David, you must resist the gun culture with every fiber of your being! Trying to join it will only reveal your weak, feminine nature. You will be outed immediately. They have been trained since childhood and all you know is what we tell you and— quite frankly— we have no idea what we’re talking about. Just keep your rape whistle handy and hope for the best. Don't be a David
Open carry is "the law of the state," Florida's top cop says The open carry of firearms is now legal in Florida thanks to a recent court decision deeming the state's ban on the practice unconstitutional, Attorney General James Uthmeier announced Monday. Why it matters: His guidance provides a statewide read of the appellate court decision amid differing interpretations by local law enforcement leaders. Driving the news: "As of last week, open carry is the law of the state," Uthmeier posted on X about the First District Court of Appeal's ruling, issued Wednesday. • Attached was a memo to Florida law enforcement agencies and state attorney's offices saying they "should refrain from arresting or prosecuting law-abiding citizens carrying a firearm in a manner that is visible to others." Between the lines: Although the nearly 40-year-old law banning the practice can only be repealed by the Legislature, several agencies indicated prior to Uthmeier's guidance that they would stop enforcing it. Yes, but: Some sheriffs — including those in Pinellas, Polk, Hernando and Manatee — said that open carry remains illegal until Sept. 25, after the 15-day window during which parties can appeal the court ruling. • "To be on the safe side, you probably don't want to change your actions until Sept. 25," Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis said Monday in a Facebook Live video. • Uthmeier refuted that in his memo, citing legal precedent that says the effective date "is the date appearing on the face of the decision." The intrigue: Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who has long been against open carry, further questioned the reach of the ruling, saying Friday in a statement that Pinellas is under the jurisdiction of the Second District Court of Appeal, not the First. • Gualtieri also noted a previous Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban, saying that it may trump the lower court's decision. What they're saying: "We will follow the law and respect statutes and court decisions," said Gualtieri, who is also a lawyer. "However, we must know 'what' the law is and where it is applicable before we can decide 'what' and 'how' we enforce the law." • The agency will publish additional guidance to the public before Sept. 25, Gualtieri said, "but in the meantime, please remember, the open carry of guns in Florida is still unlawful." • Gualtieri did not immediately return Axios' request for comment Monday. Zoom out: Both local sheriffs and Uthmeier emphasized that last week's decision doesn't impact where you can bring a gun. • Private property owners maintain their right to ask those bearing arms to leave. • Guns remain banned at government buildings and meetings, schools, polling places, college campuses and bars.
They killed the man… but they could never slay the idea. Charlie Kirk drew his last breath at the hands of a depraved assassin. He leaves behind a widow and two small children – one of whom instinctively ran to him for comfort after hearing the shot ring out. Charlie was a family man. A believer in fair, open-minded dialogue. A champion of good-faith debate. These things carried him… until that bullet stole his life. Take a moment. Let grief wash over you. Feel the ache for his wife, his children, his loved ones. This was no political encounter. This was an innocent soul, cut down while standing for what he believed. But here’s what they won’t understand: Charlie may have fallen, but the ideals he championed swirl stronger now than ever. A single bullet might end a heartbeat… but it cannot end the idea that beat within that heart. That idea is you. Millions across this nation stand in that very heartbeat. With courage. With conviction. With eyes wide open to the evil forces rising among people who are fundamentally at war against the principles that make this nation great, forces that traffic in coercion, in censorship, in an unhinged thirst for power. These are not abstract threats: they seek to break you, your family, your freedom. When they require silence, we must roar. When they want you cowed, we must stand tall. Now is no time for quiet compliance. Now is the time to organize, to rally, to fortify yourself politically and spiritually. To that end, Tactical K Training and Firearms is donating $1,000 to Turning Point USA… because we can’t think of a better way to pay tribute to this fallen Patriot, a God and family loving man for truth and freedom. We invite you to stand beside us. Please donate today. Every dollar you give fuels: • The courage to speak truth… even when the mob demands silence • The training to understand politics, policy, and our rights… so we can defend them • The infrastructure to build movements rooted in grace, strength, and unyielding hope Invest in the idea. Invest in your children’s future. Because they killed the man, but never the idea. And you are that idea alive, beating, and refusing to yield. Stand with us. Honor him. Protect your family’s freedom. Please give to Turning Point USA God Bless America, Charlie Kirk and his family.
Recently a friend learned someone they know owns a firearm. How do I 'red flag' them so the government takes the firearm away and destroys it? Gregg Kielma Says Gregg Kielma, firearms Instructor, FFL Gunsmith and First Aid Fundamentals Instructor, "thank you, John, for your question, it highlights the reason why most gun owners protest red flag laws. It's because of people like you John, that believe that just owning a firearm is a crime. You are the one that cause legal firearms owner death of innocent people through lies and deceit. John, what do you think happens when the police come in the middle of the night with a no-knock warrant? The lies you told law enforcement concerning a legal firearm owner who use firearms for protection and their safety amounts to a crime. It sets the stage for armed confrontation and for what? A police officer or innocent homeowner dies because you don't like firearms and you're a liar? John, thank you for your question. This may help clarify why some people have concerns about red flag laws. John’ if you ever do such a thing you should go to jail for the rest of your life. No appeal, no questions—just time in a jail cell to reflect on your actions. Shame on you.
If you are carrying a concealed firearm and are approached by someone with a knife with the intention of robbing you, should you threaten them by saying you have the gun, or draw it first? Thoughts from Tom H. Says Kielma, you give the commands, stop, stop, The perp has one of two choices, retreat or continue to advance. Either way you're in a very difficult position. Use distance and time to your advantage. Always be situationally aware. T he perp already knows the risks and is committed. See Tom’s reasoning below. Your gun is ‘all or none’. Don’t threaten, don’t brandish, don’t mess around. Use it, or don’t. Once you decide that you need to shoot and commit to that course of action, you draw and fire. If he didn’t get the picture in the half second or so you afforded him, that’s unfortunate for the perp. He should have thought about that when he decided to try to rob you with a deadly weapon. If he’s within twenty-one feet, or just a little more than the length of a full-sized pickup truck, you are essentially out of time. If he gets any closer before you decide to draw and fire, he can charge you and slash or stab you with his blade before you’ll be able to draw, aim, and fire at him. You might have hit him as he’s closing in, however, he’ll still have the inertia to reach you if you can’t make space between you and him. You also don’t know what he has in mind unless he says things that clue you in. He may be wanting to rob you, but he also may just want to stab you to death for whatever twisted reason his broken brain can conjure up. There may be someone or something he absolutely despises, and for some reason, when he looked at you, his delusional mind registers that. If he attempts to attack you with a knife, you counter his attack with your gun to keep his knife away from you.
Common Myths and Misconceptions About Firearms and Ammo Gregg Kielma Firearms and ammunition tend to stir strong emotions and heated arguments. Some of that comes from genuine concerns, but just as much is fueled by myths that have been repeated so often they feel like fact. You'll hear them in news stories, political debates, gun shop chatter, and even around the dinner table1 claims about how guns work, how dangerous ammunition really is, and what different terms actually mean. If you want a real conversation about firearms, it helps to clear away the fog. Here's a closer look at some of the most persistent gun myths, with a dose of reality. Key Points • Inaccurate ideas about firearms from rumors, mass media, and political rhetoric can endanger people and distort policy debates. It's important to ground our perspectives in facts. Why These Myths Matter • Some of these misconceptions are harmless but others shape how people vote, legislate, and talk about safety. Believing that a suppressor makes a gun silent, for example, can lead to calls for bans based on an inaccurate picture of what they do. Thinking that ammo is dangerously unstable might cause unnecessary fear, while assuming a gun never needs cleaning could result in a dangerous malfunction. Reliable information enables safe gun maintenance, clarifies risks for non-owners, and ensures informed public discussion. For those wanting more gun regulations, understanding how they work can help focus political effort on things that really will help improve public safety, not just assuage public opinion. Myth 1: "Silencers" Make Guns Whisper-Quiet • In Hollywood, the hitman fires a pistol with a little metal tube on the end and all you hear is a soft pfft. The truth is far less sneaky. A suppressor often called a "silencer “doesn’t make a gunshot silent. It simply reduces the noise by about 20 to 35 decibels, which is enough to make shooting safer for hearing but nowhere near silent. A typical suppressed handgun is still as loud as a jackhammer. It won't go unnoticed, and hearing protection is still a must at the range. Suppressors are about reducing ear damage and improving shooter comfort, not about turning gunfire into a whisper. Myth 2: Ammunition "Goes Off" Easily • Some imagine that a box of cartridges is like a row of tiny grenades, ready to detonate if dropped or left in the sun. A bullet fires only when its primer is sharply struck, usually by a gun's firing pin. Dropping a round might dent the casing or damage the bullet, but it won't cause the kind of dramatic explosion you see in movies. Extreme heat can make ammo dangerous, and rounds tossed into a fire may pop. But without a gun barrel to contain and direct the energy, the bullet isn't going to rocket across the room like a miniature missile. Safe storage still matters, but the odds of "accidental" firing from normal handling are extremely low. Myth 3: Modern Civilian Guns Are "Machine Guns" • A common confusion exists between semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms. Civilian rifles that resemble military models are typically semi-automatic, firing one round per trigger pull. In contrast, fully automatic weapons—often called machine guns—fire continuously while the trigger is held and have been strictly regulated in the U.S. since 1934. Visual similarity does not mean identical function. Myth 4: Bigger Caliber Means Guaranteed "Stopping Power • Pop culture often portrays larger bullets as having greater effects, but while bigger calibers can generate more energy, shot placement is generally more important for stopping a threat. A small round placed accurately may be more effective than a larger one that does not hit vital areas. Medical studies indicate that there is no specific bullet size that ensures instant incapacitation, except for explosive devices such as grenades. Actual outcomes are influenced by factors like target movement, shooter accuracy, ammunition design, and chance. Myth 5: Ballistic "Fingerprints" Are Foolproof • Crime shows often portray forensic experts matching a recovered bullet to a specific gun with certainty. While it's true that rifling in a barrel leaves unique marks on bullets, these markings can change over time as the barrel wears. Poor-quality ammo, damaged bullets, or environmental factors can make identification harder. In the real world, ballistic matching can be a valuable investigative lead, but it's far from the flawless "fingerprint" you see on TV. Myth 6: You Don't Need to Clean Modern Guns • Some owners believe that advancements in modern manufacturing make gun cleaning less necessary. While many contemporary firearms are more corrosion-resistant than older models, regular maintenance remains important. Powder residue, dirt, and moisture can cause malfunctions, particularly with frequent use or improper storage. Cleaning and applying lubrication support reliable firearm function. For guns kept loaded for home defense, periodic inspection and maintenance—at least every few months, or sooner if fired—is recommended. Myth 7: "Smart Guns" Are Common and Reliable • Smart guns, designed to work only for authorized users via fingerprint or RFID technology, remain costly, slow, and prone to malfunction in real-world scenarios. Adoption by police, military, and civilians has been minimal. Colorado's Bio fire is among the first to offer a biometric gun with facial recognition. Myth 8: Gunshots Have Great Range and Accuracy • Many people believe firearms can easily hit distant targets, but actual effective range varies by firearm type, ammunition, and shooter skill. Most handguns are reliable up to 25–60 yards, while rifles require training and good equipment for consistent long-range accuracy—details often overlooked in movies. Myth 9: "Armor-Piercing" Ammo Is Everywhere • The term "armor-piercing" is often misused. Police body armor stops most handgun rounds, but some rifle cartridges can penetrate based on bullet type, velocity, and armor rating. True armor-piercing rounds are military-grade and illegal for civilians. Myth 10: Ammunition Expires Quickly • Ammunition has a shelf life of decades when stored in a cool, dry place away from temperature extremes. Many World War II surplus rounds still function reliably. However, any ammo showing signs of corrosion, swelling, or damage should be safely discarded. Myth 11: Explosions, Richochets, and More • Films often depict cars exploding when shot, bullets propelling individuals backward, and ricochets occurring on any metal surface. Gunfire rarely causes cars to explode, as gasoline must vaporize and mix with air at a specific concentration for an explosion to occur, and vehicles are constructed to reduce fuel explosion risks. Individuals struck by bullets typically fall in place or stumble rather than being forcefully moved. Ricochets are less frequent than commonly portrayed; their occurrence and behavior depend on the bullet type, the material's hardness, and the angle of impact.
