Billionares and Guns...Money Talks
Gregory Kielma • August 6, 2024
Billionaires Laura and John Arnold – through Arnold Ventures, a Houston-based for-profit corporation are Anti Gun and funding Flawed Research
Laura and John Arnold
Billionaire Backing Biased Anti-Gun Research
“In this world, you get what you pay for,” said Kurt Vonnegut in Cat’s Cradle, his fourth novel. And when billionaire philanthropists are involved, Mr. Vonnegut is more than right. Nowadays, billionaires get exactly what they pay for.
An investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project reveals how a former Enron trader and his wife are quietly paying millions of dollars every year to colleges, universities, think tanks and other groups for biased anti-gun research, which is then cited as gospel by the corporate media and used as propaganda by anyone who wants to infringe upon law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Billionaires Laura and John Arnold – through Arnold Ventures, a Houston-based for-profit corporation the couple founded to “proactively achieve social change” and their nonprofit, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation – are quietly bankrolling research that promotes and supports their radical anti-gun views. Their Foundation has more than $3.5 billion in assets.
Despite their predilection to work in secret, the couple’s actions have not gone unnoticed.
“Arnold Ventures is the gun control backer most Americans have never heard of. They quietly work behind the scenes, unlike Michael Bloomberg. However, their influence on trying to shape gun control policy rivals that of the biggest backers of antigun efforts. They regularly donate money to think tanks and academia to propel biased research into the policy arena. Arnold Venture’s philanthropic outreach sounds well-intentioned, but they’re serving up snake oil when they peddle firearms as a disease,” Mark Oliva, public affairs director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said last week.
The Arnolds’ massive financial clout creates an unholy alliance between grantor and grantee. Their paid researchers publish findings that support the couple’s views, or they risk the cash spigot being turned off and the loss of millions of dollars to their organization.
When it comes to their donations, it is clear who determines where the money goes.
“Laura and John established the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in 2010. They believe philanthropy should be transformational and should seek through innovation to solve persistent problems in society. As co-founders, Laura and John actively engage in the organization’s overall direction and daily execution,” the group’s website states.
John Arnold started as a trader for Enron, according to Influence Watch. He quit before the company imploded and was never accused of wrongdoing. In addition to gun control, the couple supports health care reform, criminal justice reform, prison reform and several nonprofit media groups.
The RAND Corporation is a major recipient of the Arnolds’ funding. RAND now maintains a gun-policy page. Much of their research is sponsored by the Arnolds.
According to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s 2022 IRS form 990, the couple paid RAND at total of $2.8 million, of which $1.7 million was for anti-gun research, including:
• $1,261,269 “to conduct research on how to reduce gun violence.”
• $99,000 “to support the first national conference on gun violence prevention research.”
• $89,000 “to support a convening relating to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Bruen case.”
• $283,546 “to provide objective information about firearm violence and how state laws reduce or exacerbate this violence.”
That same year, the couple paid more than $1.8 million for anti-gun research from other groups, including:
• $28,040 to the National Opinion Research Center “to support the NORC expert panel on reducing gun violence and improving data infrastructure.”
• $219,122 to the University of California at Berkeley “to evaluate the advance peace gun violence reduction program.”
• $1,065,933 to Princeton University “to develop a research infrastructure that helps cities better understand and respond to waves of gun violence.”
• $475,093 to the University of Maryland “to support the center for study and practice of violence reduction.”
In total, the Foundation donated more than $185 million, according to their 2022 IRS Form 990.
Arnold Ventures public relations director, Angela Landers, declined to be interviewed for this story, arrange an interview with the Arnolds or discuss the gun-control research they funded. Instead, Landers chose to send a written statement, which is unedited and reprinted in its entirety:
“Philanthropy can play a unique role in supporting research regarding the impact of many public policies, including those related to gun violence. In this instance, Arnold Ventures partnered with RAND Corp., a nonpartisan and widely respected research institution, to conduct scientific research that offers the public and policymakers a factual basis for developing fair and effective gun policies in the interest of public safety. Sound research is an important part of building evidence-based solutions,” Landers said in her statement.
RAND’s Response
While there were infrequent gun-related projects over the years, the RAND Corporation as a whole did not research “gun violence” until 2016, when there was a mass-shooting near their California office, according to Andrew R. Morral, PhD, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND and the Greenwald Family Chair in Gun Policy.
“A lot of our staff were rattled by it, as were RAND trustees and friends of RAND,” Morral told the Second Amendment Foundation last week. “They contacted our president and asked what we were going to do about it.”
RAND set aside some internal funds because the work was not yet sponsored and investigated, Morral explained. In 2018, they released their first tranche of research.
“Arnold Ventures picked it up and has funded us since then,” he said.
Today, Arnold Ventures is RAND’s largest sponsor of gun-control research. Together with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the two groups pay RAND more than $1.5 million annually, Morral said. Federal grants from the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Justice provide additional “gun-violence” research funding.
None of RAND’s estimated 1,900 employees are researching gun-control full time, Morral said. Although he estimated between six to eight staffers are studying gun-control topics “as part of their research portfolios.”
Morral denied that Arnold Ventures or any other donor interfered with their research.
“We are very careful to not allow that to happen,” he said. “We haven’t experienced any pressure and we have not been asked to share our findings with Arnold Ventures or any other sponsor. We aren’t held accountable for producing results in a certain direction. Our donors, generally, are interested in us being neutral and objective, which is part of the reason they came to RAND.”
Still, Morral acknowledged that their sponsors can use their research however they see fit.
“We realize it’s used for advocacy, of course. We’re producing scientific results. We can’t control how they’re used. People will use that in a variety of ways. Our results are used by both advocates for more restrictive gun laws as well as advocates for less restrictive gun laws.”
Morral said RAND takes no position on the right to keep and bear arms. “We don’t have policy positions on that or on gun laws or anything else,” he said. “We don’t advocate. We don’t do any advocacy.”
However, it is RAND’s opinion and Morral’s that “gun-violence” constitutes a public health crisis.
“I certainly think there’s a crisis in terms of the number of people dying and being injured each year,” he said. “The numbers are high enough to call that a crisis.”
RAND, Morral said, stands by the validity of their gun-violence research, “subject to the limitations reported in our reports. All research has limitations, and we try to be upfront about that,” he said.
RAND’s position on two frequent gun-control targets is clear, concise and published on its website.
• Concealed-carry laws increase homicides rates: “Evidence shows that concealed carry laws – when states implement more permissive concealed carry laws, there’s a small increase in homicide rates. Our own research has found evidence of that – some suggestive evidence,” Morral said.
• Stand-your-ground laws increase homicide rates: “The current evidence is that when states implement stand-your-ground laws, firearm homicide rates increase,” he said.
RAND researchers published a report last Wednesday, which was funded by Arnold Ventures and a National Institute of Health grant, titled “State Policies Regulating Firearms and Changes in Firearm Mortality.”
Morral was one of the scientists involved in the project.
The objective was to estimate the effects state firearm policies have on gun-related deaths. The researchers examined six policies: “background checks, minimum age, waiting periods, child access, concealed carry, and stand-your-ground laws.”
The findings were mixed. Child-access prevention laws can reduce gun deaths by 6%, and stand-your-ground laws can increase firearm deaths by 6%, the authors claimed.
“Our finding that most of these individual state-level firearm policies have relatively modest and uncertain effect sizes reflects that each firearm policy is a small component of a complex system shaping firearm violence. However, we found that combinations of the studied policies were reliably associated with substantial shifts in firearm mortality,” the authors noted.
All of the authors – Terry L. Schell, PhD; Rosanna Smart, PhD; Matthew Cefalu, PhD; Beth Ann Griffin, PhD and Morral – work for RAND at either its Santa Monica, California, or Arlington, Virginia, offices.
All of the authors except Morral disclosed conflicts of interest: “Dr Schell reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism during the conduct of the study. Dr Smart reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Cefalu reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Dr Griffin reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.”
The authors claimed that neither Arnold Ventures not the NIH exercised any control of their work.
“The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication,” the report states.
RAND’s NIH Grant of $790,100 was awarded Sept. 25, 2020, and is ongoing.
“Don’t Get Mad About Guns …”
Three months ago, the Trace – the propaganda arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire – announced they were creating a Gun Violence Data Hub, which would “help journalists access data on one of America’s most critical – and opaque – public health crises.”
“The Data Hub is a multiyear project to increase the accessibility and use of accurate data on gun violence in journalism. Its team of editors, reporters and researchers will proactively collect and clean datasets for public distribution, write and share tip sheets, and serve as a resource desk to other newsrooms, assisting journalists in their pursuit of data-informed reporting,” the Trace reported.
Arnold Ventures was one of the Data Hub’s top sponsors.
To be clear, Arnold Ventures has radical anti-gun views. The group believes “firearm violence” constitutes a public health crisis. “Gun violence,” it claims, has become the leading cause of death of “young people,” not children, the group states on its website. By referring to young people rather than children, they can include 18- to 20-year-olds in their data set to make the numbers work.
Arnold Ventures wants to bridge the gap in anti-gun research, which they say was created by the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from conducting anti-gun research.
Don’t Get Mad About Guns — Get Funding for Research, the group offers on its website.
“It isn’t enough to get mad about gun violence,” Asheley Van Ness, Arnold Ventures former director of criminal justice, wrote in The Houston Chronicle.“Change starts with adequate funding for research, or else policymakers may end up spending time and money on programs that simply don’t work.”
In 2018, to streamline its funding efforts, Arnold Ventures launched the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research (NCGVR). Its mission is to “fund and disseminate nonpartisan, scientific research that offers the public and policymakers a factual basis for developing fair and effective gun policies.”
“At Arnold Ventures, we use our resources to confront some of the most pressing problems facing our nation,” Arnold Ventures President and CEO Kelli Rhee stated on the group’s website. “Five years ago, we, like many others, recognized that our understanding of gun violence was suffering from a severe lack of investment in research, and we joined together with our partners to try and fill some of the gap. While more investment from both public and private entities is undoubtedly needed, the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research has made significant progress in building the gun policy evidence base.”
Since 2022, the NCGVR has issued more than 50 grants, including “13 dissertation research projects and seven post-doctoral research fellowships, as well as awards for large new studies on domestic gun violence, officer-involved shootings, harms to firearm owners associated with gun laws, gun suicides, gun policy analysis and urban gun violence.”
Arnold Ventures chose RAND to administer the NCGVR, and RAND put Morral in charge. Today, Morral co-leads the NCGVR, which he says brings RAND “a couple hundred-thousand dollars per year.”
“It was an opportunity to improve research in the field,” Morral told the Second Amendment Foundation. “It was something that seemed like an interesting project to work to elevate. There wasn’t much research going on, and it was an area we were trying to make some headway in with our own funding. We recognized there was a gap in knowledge about gun policy that wasn’t being studied.”
Takeaways
There is certainly nothing unlawful about a well-heeled couple sponsoring gun-control research or research of any kind. The Arnolds are free to spend their millions as they see fit. However, since their largesse can negatively impact the civil rights of millions of law-abiding Americans, the Arnolds should be prepared to answer for their philanthropy.
The couple has created a pipeline of sorts, cash goes in one end and anti-gun propaganda comes out the other.
The risks they’ve created are dire.
“When a cable TV news actor cites some farcical statistic about guns or gun owners, it’s important to understand how that number made it onto the teleprompter,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It starts with donor dollars sent to researchers at left-leaning colleges, universities or other groups, who publish reports that mirror their donors’ views, which are then regurgitated by the corporate media. It’s a factory-like process. We don’t have anything like that. We don’t need it. We simply rely upon the truth.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Why the Glock 19X still outclasses its clones Gregg Kielma You hear a lot of noise these days about clones “doing the same thing for less.” But once you’ve carried a Glock 19X for a while, you learn quick that the folks saying that usually haven’t run one hard. The 19X didn’t build its reputation online. It earned it through field time, rough weather, and thousands of rounds without throwing fits. That matters more than any spec sheet ever will. And if you’ve ever put a cheaper copy next to it on the bench, you already know the truth—similar isn’t the same. Not when your life hangs on whether the gun cycles when your hands are cold and the ammo isn’t perfect. It actually survived the military trials The 19X is the civilian version of Glock’s MHS submission, and that history isn’t marketing fluff. It went through brutal temperature swings, mud immersion, drop tests, and endurance cycles meant to break lesser designs. It didn’t take home the contract, but it didn’t fail the test either—it held its own in a field of serious competitors. You’re buying that same DNA today. A lot of clones copy the silhouette, but none of them went through Army-level abuse before hitting the shelves. There’s something to be said for a pistol proven under conditions where excuses don’t matter. The mixed-length setup actually works There’s no magic number when it comes to how many rounds you should carry. Some folks feel good with six. Others won’t leave the house with less than fifteen. It’s easy to get caught up in numbers, but it really depends on your comfort level, your risk tolerance, and how you’re carrying. Here are ten things to think about before settling on your own answer.© Provided by: The Avid Outdoorsman Glock didn’t invent the long-grip/short-slide configuration, but they nailed the execution. The 19-length slide stays quick out of the holster and tucks under clothing easier. The 17-length grip gives you full control, even if you’ve got paws that swallow most compacts. Clones try to replicate this combo all the time, but most of them get the balance wrong. You end up with sluggish cycling, awkward grip angles, or a frame that doesn’t settle right during recoil. The 19X feels natural from the first draw because the proportions weren’t guessed—they were tested. The trigger is boring in all the right ways Nobody writes poetry about Glock triggers, but you know exactly what you’re getting. On the 19X, that translates into a clean break, a predictable wall, and a short reset you can ride all day without thinking about it. It’s not trying to be flashy. It’s trying to be consistent. Clones often bolt on flat-faced triggers or lightweight connectors to seem “upgraded.” What you really get is inconsistency—different pulls as the parts wear, sloppy resets, or gritty travel that shows up once you hit higher round counts. The 19X gives you something you can trust under stress. The reliability isn’t theoretical It’s easy to get carried away with add-ons, especially when there are shelves full of gear promising to improve your shooting. The truth is, some accessories actually make things worse. They can mess with your grip, add too much weight, or just make your firearm harder to run. Sometimes simple really is better. Before you load up your gun with extra gadgets, it’s worth knowing which upgrades are more trouble than they’re worth. Here are eight accessories that can actually hurt your performance.© ARTFULLY PHOTOGRAPHER / Shutterstock.com Glock’s parts ecosystem is huge for a reason. Extractors, springs, trigger bars—everything is standardized, field-tested, and readily available. If something wears out, you can replace it in minutes, not weeks. And if the pistol ever needs real work, Glock’s support actually knows the platform inside and out. The mags run cleaner and smoother The 19X takes Glock 17 magazines, 19 magazines, the 24 rounders, and even the goofy 33 round sticks if you want to dump ammo for fun. They all fit, they all feed, and they all drop free. The aftermarket selection is massive, and most of it works. With clones, even small deviations in magwell dimensions cause feeding issues. Some mags hang up. Some don’t drop. Some only work half the time. That might be fine at the bench, but it’s a different story when you’re carrying the gun daily. The nPVD finish survives real carry abuse Some guns look great on paper—tons of power, long sight radius, big capacity—but once you try to carry them, it’s a whole different story. If it feels like strapping a brick to your hip or stuffing a lunchbox in your waistband, it’s probably too big. There’s a fine line between power and practicality, especially when you plan to carry a gun every single day. Whether you’re new to concealed carry or just figuring out why your current setup feels off, here are the things that can make a firearm more of a burden than a backup.© Provided by: The Avid Outdoorsman Safariland The slide coating on the 19X isn’t there to look pretty. Glock’s nPVD finish shrugs off sweat, humidity, and the constant rub of kydex. If you carry appendix or live somewhere humid, coatings matter more than folks realize. Clones usually come with cheaper cerakote or black oxide that looks good until the first summer. After a few weeks of holster time, the edges polish bare. After a season, the slide looks older than it should. The 19X holds up better—period. The lack of a front rail keeps the gun fast A lot of people gripe about the 19X not having a front rail for a weapon light. But if you’ve trained with lights enough, you know they change balance, slow down the draw, and complicate concealment. The 19X stays light and maneuverable, which matters when speed is the priority. If you want a duty light, go get a Glock 17 or 45. The 19X is built for a different lane—quick, clean carry without extra bulk. Once you run it that way, you understand why the rail didn’t matter. It eats cheap ammo without complaint Because it runs on a G17 frame, the 19X takes standard 17-round magazines, which are cheap, common, and easy to find. It also works with 19-round extended mags that come with it, plus any G34 or G17 mags you already have on hand. That flexibility makes it a smart choice if you’re already in the Glock ecosystem. It also helps if you’re training a lot. Being able to run the same mags across different guns means less to carry, less to label, and more time actually shooting. If you’re running a red dot or working on reload drills, those extended mags also give you a little extra surface to slap on, which helps when your fingers are cold or gloved. For folks who train regularly, that kind of compatibility goes a long way.© Dmitri T/Shutterstock.com The 19X is famously tolerant of low-grade range ammo. Steel, aluminum, 115 grain bargain boxes—it keeps cycling. Training gets expensive fast, and a gun that doesn’t choke on budget ammo saves you money and frustration. Plenty of clones tighten their chambers or use recoil assemblies that can’t keep up with underpowered rounds. They shoot great with premium ammo but fall apart when you feed them what most people actually train with. The 19X runs whatever you throw at it. The factory sights make sense for carry Unlike many Glocks, the 19X ships with real metal night sights. They’re durable, bright enough to matter, and easy to pick up at speed. No goofy fiber rods to break and no cheap plastic to drift loose after a few dozen draws. Clones love to advertise “premium sights,” but most of them are soft steel knock-offs or low end fiber optics that wash out in poor lighting. The 19X gives you sights you can hit with right out of the box. It isn’t trying to be trendy The Glock 19X looks cool in coyote tan, but let’s be honest—it’s kind of a weird fit for most people. The full-size grip with a shorter slide makes it harder to conceal than a G19 and more awkward than a G17. It’s great for open carry or duty use, but it’s often hyped as the “best of both worlds” when that’s not really the case for most folks. A lot of people buy the 19X expecting perfection, but end up wishing they had something either more compact or full-sized. It’s not a bad gun, but it gets more praise than it probably deserves. A lot of new pistols try to win you over with cuts, serrations, or optics plates. The 19X doesn’t bother. It sticks to what works—a reliable frame, a balanced slide, and internals that don’t give up when conditions get ugly. That’s why folks who shoot a lot keep coming back to it. It’s not exciting on the surface, but it’s dependable underneath. And in a world full of flashy knockoffs, that kind of steady performance stands out.
Do stolen firearms ever get returned to the owner? A thought from an avid reader of the blog, Ron W. I had 3 handguns stolen 28 years ago. I had all serial numbers recorded so I provided them in the police report. Roughly 15 years later, I received a letter asking if the 3 guns were still missing. I signed and returned the letter. Over the next 5 years I received the same letter every year, which I signed and returned. Shortly after I signed the last one, I received another letter to come pick up my property. Woohoo! I really loved one of those guns (S&W 686). So, I make an appointment to pick up my property. I arrive, check in, and provide them the letter and proof of who I am. A few minutes later I am handed a small box and told I cannot open it in the building. I head out to the pickup. The tag on the box shows they found the gun around 6 months after it was stolen. I open the box and there is one of the guns, completely disassembled and missing the hammer. It was disassembled carefully as there is no scratches in the bluing, and the screws are undamaged. I tried to go back in and ask if this is normal, but it is a locked facility. So yes, sooner or much later, you will get it back. If it is usable or complete, in the State of Washington, your guess is as good as mine.
How do you defend against a gun to the face and not ARMED? From David S an avid reader of this blog: In October 2016, I did it with humor. I was walking home one evening and felt something against the back of my neck. Thinking it was one of my friends giving me a hard time, I turned around to see who it was. The next thing I knew, this punk kid, had a gun of my face. I looked at him and said, “you’ve got to be kidding.” He was a bit taken aback by that comment. Then he said, “Give me your wallet.” So, I took my wallet out of my pocket and opened it up to show that it was empty. He took it anyway and booked off down the street. When he was about half a block away, I called the police, but he was already around the corner and out of sight, probably already home, in the little time it took the police to get there. Over the course of the next two days someone found some papers on someone else’s lawn and contacted me. Then the next day, someone said he found my wallet, including ID, when he was cleaning out his rain gutter. He turned it into the police, and they called me to tell me that it was at the station and then I could come in to get it at any time. At the end of the day, I didn’t lose anything, got my ID updated, and got my bank debit card replaced. They never caught the punk, but the hold up in that part of town was an anomaly. No one at the police department could remember the last time anything sinister happened in that part of town. After the incident, I walked along that block hundreds of times over the next two years without incident before I moved out of state.
Why do gun supporters and supporters believe they can protect themselves better than the police can?
Why do gun supporters believe they can protect themselves better than the police can? Shouldn't they leave protection from attackers and intruders to the professionals? Gregg Kielma Absolutely not, and here's why: My Thoughts, LET'S TAKE A LOOK 1: Police response time is 15 minutes on average. If you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, and you think you can convince the threat to wait 15 minutes, you go right ahead. 15 minutes is enough time to kill an entire family, take anything of value and be long gone before police arrive. I am not betting on my life, my wife, friends and general public lives on that wait time. 2: Law enforcement is not required to protect civilians (DeShaney V. Winnebago, Town of Castle Rock V. Gonzales) The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that law enforcement has no duty to protect you. They are there to enforce laws, meaning they are only required to respond to crimes that have already been committed. So, say you manage to convince the threat to wait 15 minutes and you have a chat over a beer with him in your front yard while you wait. The cops show up. He then proceeds to pick his weapon back up and kill you. Right up until the crime was committed, the police had absolutely no duty to do anything about it. 3: Police response to active threats can be more dangerous than the threat. Those red lines are lines of fire from law enforcement as a response to a hostage situation involving a UPS driver and his two kidnappers. It's amazing that only one person other than the kidnappers and the hostage were hurt, because many innocent bystanders and their vehicles were directly in every line of fire, some even being used as cover by the responding officers. This is unacceptable of anybody who handles a firearm recreationally, much less an entire squad of people who are supposed to be, and expected to be, more responsible than some random civilian. Unfortunately, in most circumstances, adding more people to a dangerous situation only makes it more dangerous for more people. I'll protect myself and my own family and answer questions later. I trust me to respond quickly and justifiably, reliably.
Gaston Glock: Engineer/Owner of Glock... God's Speed Sir Choosing Your Glock: Performance, Size, and Use Explained Gregg Kielma FFL, Firearms Instructor and Gunsmith: for the record, Glock is KING in my world. The best engineered, most reliable, firearm I’ve ever owned. German engineering at its finest. My current carry firearms for the past 35 years is my Glock19 Gen3. 40K rounds run through this firearm and never a jam, ever. The best weapon I’ve ever owned. Nothing better than a Glock, period. Let’s Take a LOOK Glock pistols have been a staple among firearms enthusiasts since their release in the early 1980s. At first, they were greeted with suspicion owing to their polymer construction, but they soon established themselves as reliable, long-lasting, and minimalist handguns. Now with a variety of models and calibers to choose from, Glock has established itself as the leader in the handgun industry, serving everything from law enforcement and military units to civilian shooters. Understanding the various Glock models and their specific uses can be challenging, given the company’s expansive lineup. This article delves into the Glock universe, providing a comprehensive guide to selecting the ideal Glock pistol for various needs, including concealed carry, home defense, professional duty, and competition shooting. Firstly, Glock’s numerical model series is strictly sequential and has nothing to do with the caliber of the gun or its purpose. It merely indicates the order that the models were released into the marketplace. For instance, the Glock 47 (G47) is merely the 47th model produced. When it comes to calibers, Glock has a selection appropriate for many uses, from the common 9mm employed by NATO forces and the U.S. military to the heavy-hitting 10mm Auto, which is best for hunting and repelling big predators. The most common caliber is still the 9mm, owing to its dependability, lower cost, and extensive availability of ammunition. Glock’s 9mm family consists of full-size G17 and G47, compact G19, subcompact G26, and the single-stack G43 and G43X, optimized for various carry and operation needs. Significantly, the Glock 19 has long been a concealed carry favorite, striking a balance of size, capacity, and shoot ability. That said, the new Glock 47 MOS, with its modular design, has presented itself as a full-size model that is capable of utilizing a myriad of slide configurations, including the Glock 19’s. For those who want optics-ready models, the G45 MOS is a “crossover” pistol with a compact slide and full-size frame that works well in self-defense where a reflex sight might give a tactical advantage. For .45 ACP users, the Glock 30 SF offers a short frame with a lot of power. In the subcompact category, the G43X presents an ideal combination of concealment and capacity, suitable for every day carry. For competitive shooting, the extended-barreled G34 MOS presents a longer sight radius and adjustable compatibility for red dot sights, allowing for accuracy and quicker target acquisition. The Glock family also serves those who like to train or plink with rimfires using the G44, a .22LR that replicates the size of the G19 but with less recoil and cheaper ammunition.
Killer of 17 A Minor: Just a Young Punk Killer in Disguise What specific compromises do gun owners believe would be fair when it comes to regulating AR-15s? Good question. Gregg Kielma a FFL, Firearms Instructor, ERT Captain, Gunsmith, nothing can supersede the Second Amendment. However, regarding minors. Let’s Take a Look. Minors need to be stopped. Prosecute minors and minor infractions, even those taking place during the school day, to create a paper trail. The young man being detained by police above had just massacred 17 people in a school shooting with an AR-15 , which he purchased legally. He was able to purchase this rifle because, despite years disruption, vandalism, assault and cruelty to animals, he had a clean criminal record. Long before he committed the massacre that would take 17 lives, the individual above was destroying property. Sometimes it was school property. Other times it was property belonging to classmates and teachers. He engaged in almost daily disruption of school activity. He bullied other students. By “bully” I don’t mean he said mean things. He stalked an ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend and assaulted an African-American schoolmate in an unprovoked attack. He showed people videos of himself torturing animals. He sold weapons (knives) on campus. Because the school superintendent and local sheriff were advocates of “restorative justice” authorities bent over backwards to keep him out of the so-called “school to prison pipeline”. Had he been prosecuted for assault, his criminal record would have prevented him from legally buying any firearm, including an AR-15. There is a simple solution to protect the innocent while also protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. Prosecute the following as juvenile misdemeanors. • Vandalism • Assault • Drug possession • Being under the influence • Disruption of school • Defiance of lawful directions by educational staff Prosecute all of these as misdemeanors, generating a paper trail that indicates that someone may not be safe to sell a firearm to. I’m not saying throw all these kids in jail. But if someone is caught tagging their school, put them in front of a judge, and have the judge sentence them to community service. The important thing is to generate an official criminal record that would keep them from purchasing a firearm. Allow that record to follow them into adulthood. If they reach 25 without serious issue, seal the record and restore full 2nd Amendment rights.
How does firearms defense work when you are walking down the street and someone passes you to your side and suddenly pulls out a knife and tries to stab you? How quickly must you reach for your gun before the knife penetrates a vital organ? Gregg Kielma, as an Instructor and ERT says, I teach this all the time. If you’re under a knife attack while walking you’ve forgot situation awareness. Always remember situational awareness. Stay in condition yellow when in public and armed. Move your head around, say aware, watch the environment, avoid putting yourself in a poor situation. Remember to avoid, escape or defend. Keep your distance, because distance buys us time. I, we, you, always want distance and time on our side. Let’s look at the Lt Truller drill. Let’s Take A LOOK Tactical K Training and Firearms Most people misunderstand the drill to mean “a knife beats a gun at close range.” Really, what it means is “a prepared attacker beats an unprepared defender.” It also shows that just having a gun isn’t enough to defend yourself. If someone is already in the process of stabbing you, you will not draw and fire your gun in time to stop them. Your first line of defense is not your weapon, it’s situational awareness. You need to watch your environment. You need to be aware of someone’s body language indicating that they are about to do something violent. When an attack comes, you need to be mobile. In the Tueller Drill, most people stand in place and focus on how quickly they can draw their gun. What you need to do during an attack is not be a static target. Start moving. Create some space between you and the assailant so that you can defend yourself. Plus, knives are not very efficient weapons. If you are moving and defending yourself, it’s harder to get you in an immediately fatal location like the heart. You probably won’t escape a scenario like that unwounded, but you can escape alive.
.22- Penny- .223 for Comparison Question Mr. Kielma: What is a bigger caliber, a .22lr or a .223? Aren't they the same diameter? I was told they dropped the 3 off of 223 because 22 sounds cooler. Is this wrong? Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms I occasionally get asked this question. This is my thoughts says Instructor, FFL and Gunsmith Gregg Kielma. LET”S TAKE A LOOK. Gregg what caliber is larger? A .22lr or a .223? Aren't they the same diameter? I was told they dropped the 3 off of 223 because 22 sounds cooler. Is this wrong? Gregg Kielma explains, caliber is simply a measurement of the diameter of a bullet in inches, but has nothing to do with the cartridge, bullet weight, bullet style, the load, muzzle velocity or muzzle energy. All of these are the way one assesses any cartridge/load/bullet combination. Of all of these, the bullets diameter is probably the least important. .22 Long Rifle (.22LR), is the most popular rimfire cartridge, today, and is best suited to target shooting or small game hunting. The actual bullet diameter is .223 to .224 depending on the manufacturer and intended use. .223 Reminton, as well as 5.56 NATO (5.56x45) use an actual bullet diameter of .224 inch and are both popular civilian, and military cartridges. They are very similar but not the same. 5.56x45 NATO is designed for higher chamber pressures than .223 Remington. Both are popular varmint hunting cartridges and are also suitable for whitetail deer sized targets. Historically, the nominal bullet caliber (diameter) is the bore diameter of the intended rifle barrel, prior to cutting the rifling. So yes, a .223 Remington and .22 Long Rifle are generally the same caliber but that is where the comparison ends! The myth uncovered. As for dropping off the 3 on the .223, I don’t believe this will ever happen. Any thoughts friends? Gregg Kielma
Glock Confirms V Series, Discontinues Gen 4 & Gen 5 Pistols Austrian gun company Glock revealed company plans to discontinue a large portion of its pistols starting in November. Glock issued a statement on October 21, 2025, regarding the leak of the company’s plans. “Yesterday, a retailer NOT affiliated with GLOCK Inc. made premature statements concerning the availability of certain GLOCK pistols. The individuals making these representations are not authorized to speak for GLOCK. As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings. Our dedication continues to be with maintaining the highest level of quality, reliability, and accessibility that you expect from GLOCK. The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our processes.” According to the company, V models will be available December 2025 and will include the following models: • G17 V • G19 V • G19X V • G45 V • G26 V • G20 V MOS • G23 V • G23 V MOS • G21 V MOS • G44 V Glock also said that distributor exclusive models will be available, including: • G19C V • G45C V • G17C V • G19X V MOS TB Glock Store posted about Glock’s plans on social media, saying they’d received word that all Glocks will soon be discontinued except for the Glock 43, 43X, and 48X. Glock G19 According to Glock Store, the discontinued models will be usurped by all new Glock models known as “V Models.” The newer pistols will not come in MOS formats upon launch but will include features that prevent Glock pistols from being used along with switch conversion kits that make them full auto. Glock 17 converted to full-auto Tactical K Training and Firearms reached out to Glock for comment but received no word by the time of publishing. We confirmed with multiple sources close to the company, though, that they too have been informed that starting November 30, 2025, Glock will stop shipping the discontinued models. That said, Glock’s own webpage lists popular models like the Glock 17, Glock 17 MOS, Glock 19 Gen 4, and more as discontinued. According to the page, the decision to cut models out of the lineup was a strategic one. “In order to focus on the products that will drive future innovation and growth, we are making a strategic decision to reduce our current commercial portfolio,” the company said. “This streamlined approach allows us to concentrate on continuing to deliver the highest-quality and most relevant solutions for the market.” Though Glock says the move is to provide a more focused lineup for consumers, California just announced last week that it was banning the sale of pistols that could be converted to “machineguns” — effectively putting an end to sales on most Glock pistols and Glock clones in the state. Though Glock appears to be discontinuing some pistols, it does say support will remain for owners of discontinued models.
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter St. Paul Mayor, Councilors Considering Ban On Many Common Semi-Auto Firearms Mark Chesnut - St. Paul’s Proposed Assault Weapon Ban Draws Fire Over State Law Violation The decision by St. Paul, Minnesota, city councilors to push forward with a plan to ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines is drawing fire from a state gun owners’ group. At their October 22 meeting, councilors introduced a proposal that would ban many common semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds within the city limits. “We have to do something,” said St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, who is backing the proposal. “What we’re saying isn’t that you can’t make, sell, or own an assault rifle. What we’re saying is don’t carry it down Grand Avenue.” Mayor Carter did not elaborate on whether carrying an “assault weapon” down Grand Avenue was currently a big problem in the city. The main downfall of the proposal, which is likely to pass given the council’s support, is that it violates the state’s firearms preemption law, which was enacted for just such a purpose. That law states: “The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city, including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that: (a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and (b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law. Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.” That’s just one of the sticking points with the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MGOC), which trashed the proposal in a recent action alert.
