PROTIP: Don’t listen to self-defense advice from Mark Glaze

For those of you who don’t know, Mark Glaze is a spokesperson for Mike Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (which is now called Everytown USA), whose goal is to forbid gun ownership from everybody except politicians, celebrities,  the wealthy, the politically connected, and those who work for them.

He apparently thinks of himself as some sort of self-defense expert due to his ability to poorly paraphrase Gavin Debecker (borrow his book in a library or buy it used) and the fact that his daddy once owned a gun shop.

Here is the idiocy in question.

Blunt weapons are still….<DRUMROLL>…weapons!

Blunt trauma to the head can easily kill a person or leave them in a permanent vegetative state

Needless to say, don’t take self-defense advice from someone who works for a gun control organization.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mindset, PROTIP
21 comments on “PROTIP: Don’t listen to self-defense advice from Mark Glaze
  1. Basharr says:

    By all means follow this guys advice if your goal is to end up dead or badly wounded. You hit it on the head, never take self defense advice from somebody advocating for the destruction of the second amendment.


  2. Carol Lincoln says:

    I’m sorry I feel if you want to own a gun then by all means do. My problem is with conceal carry that is being allowed in a number of States, not to mention ‘Stand your Ground’. My personal experience was frightening. I was in a family restaurant and a young women took her boyfriends jacket, and swung it over a chair, causing the gun to fall to the floor and discharge. Thank God, no one was hurt, but I shudder to think what might have happened. I know we have responsible gun owners, but I’m sorry, Most people have no business carrying a gun in public. Please don’t bring up Aurora or SandyHook, because people with more guns would have made the situation ending in more deaths. Look at the guy inTexas on an Army base and he still killed without anyone being able to stop him. That is why assault weapons need to go, only Military should have these weapons. For all you 2nd Amendment folks, please when the Founders wrote that they were carrying muskets for GOD sake!


    • That diner incident you mentioned is straight up negligence.

      You never carry a semi-auto or a cocked revolver in a jacket pocket as a matter of routine.

      Fort Hood actually was a “gun free zone” in the sense that only authorized military police were allowed to carry guns.

      Among the many laws Major Hassan broke during the course of his terrorist attack, base regulations were one of them.

      The Aurora and Sandy Hook locations were chosen exactly because they were “gun free zones” where the assailants knew that nobody would be able to fight back against them.

      At their core, spree killers are cowards. They often either kill themselves or surrender on the first sign of armed resistance arriving.

      The VT murderer shot himself as soon as the police broke down the door.

      The Aurora killer surrendered as soon as the police arrived.


    • gunsafetypro says:

      Ft. Hood was another gun free zone. At Sandy Hook, nobody got there in time with a gun to stop the killer.


    • While I don’t doubt the validity of your incident (as apologize for it as a responsible gun owner) you do realize that legally owned firearms are used roughly 2 million times per year to stop a crime, right? In addition, they are handled thousand of time each day, with the vast majority being in a safe fashion.

      A better argument for negligent use resulting in death or injury could be made against cars, extension cords and swimming pools.

      As for the “musket” argument, may I assume then that you’d have no problem with the government restricting modern newspapers? After all, presses in the 1700’s averaged 5 sheets per minute, and the presses used today can churn out several million pages in the same time frame. That surely places them into the “assault” category.

      Oh, then there’s telephones (both wired and cellular), radio and television, and of course the very medium you’re using to complain about technological relevance – the internet.

      Your using the internet to claim the Constitution only applies to muskets (yet somehow should be free from Government intervention) is as ridiculous as Al Quaeda planning their return to the glory of the 6th century on their smartphones.


    • JFC17 says:

      Few things wrong with this scenario.
      1. No one who has a brain in their head carries a gun loosely in a jacket. No one.
      2. Virtually every modern firearm (Circa 1900) can survive very severe drop testing without discharging. Guns don’t just “go off” in the event of sudden impact or droppage.

      “Most people” who carry concealed fire hundreds of more rounds per year than the average police officer who qualifies with his/her weapon once or twice a year. In addition to being more practiced and current they often times seek out additional instruction to increase their proficiency. Leaving out that most Anti’s are completely ignorant to the mechanical function of firearms, by their own definition, most police officers “have no business” carrying weapons.

      The last thing I will address is the musket fallacy. At the time the Founders penned the Bill of Rights the intent was for those of military age (males; 15-50) to be able to field the most effective defense in a moments notice from their door step. For reference, please consult Federalist 18 as authored by Publius…Otherwise known as the dude in snappy shoes who wrote the Bill of Rights. The muskets fielded by the Minute Men were the M4’s of their day.

      Mr. Jefferson, being a scientist and a scholar, was well aware that technology would advance and threats to democracy and liberty would be ever present. If it’s not reasonable to assume he intended the 2nd Amendment to withstand the test of time then we must also conclude that freedom of speech only applies to the town crier and freedom of the press is only extended to those who put ink to parchment using a Gutenberg press.


      • Oakenheart says:

        “Virtually every modern firearm (Circa 1900) can survive very severe drop testing without discharging. Guns don’t just “go off” in the event of sudden impact or droppage.”

        Absolutely true, making me believe that Carol Lincoln is full of it.


      • Bobo says:

        The point Carol made about the Musket is true, that is what the founders had, however so did the military of the time, and if the military of the time had been issued auto/semi-auto rifles, the founders would have had them as well, and the 2nd Amendment would still have been written the way it was.


    • David Bruton says:

      Carol, either you are a prevaricator on an Obamaesque scale or you and your boyfriend(provided you have one) are complete and willing morons.


    • Bryan says:

      So what you have a problem with is negligent discharges.

      Good news! They’re illegal! Someone that doesn’t carry properly and has one can be charged, and lose their rights via due process, constitutionally.

      I won’t bring up Aurora or Sandy Hook. But you already did, so I guess there’s no harm in responding, eh? There’s been multiple incidents since then where people stopped mass shootings before they went very far at all. In fact…didn’t they call people with guns to come save them when it started? Not to mention, BOTH of them were zones where concealed carriers could not carry. So how exactly they help your point is beyond me.

      Also, you know muskets were much more prone to accidental discharge then modern weapons…right? Also, they had cannons and artillery that could kill dozens of people in a single shot privately owned. There were privately owned ships with armaments enough to take on and lay siege to entire cities. Your musket thing is hardly a valid argument.


    • Mike says:

      Leave it to a woman to react emotionally rather than rationally…. there was no twitter or Facebook back then either, they communicated by messenger. Should your first amendment right be disallowed because the technology wasn’t available then? Or do you just pick and choose which rights you want to support based on how YOU feel about it? Utter insanity that your vote counts the same as mine. No wonder we are circling down the drain. Complete clown shoes….


    • AZFreedonRider says:

      As far as Sandy Hook and Aurora, you suggest the body count would have been higher if concealed carriers had been present is pure speculation on your part.

      What about the teen in Colorado, who in December 2013 killed one student and then killed himself when an armed resource officer confronted him, even though he still a lot of ammunition?

      There was also a mall shooting in Washington or Oregon where a gunman killed two or three people and when confronted by a concealed carrier, retreated to a stairwell and shot himself. The concealed carrier did not fire a shot due to other people in the background. The shooter saw the concealed carrier and thus ended his reign of terror at his own hand.

      How about the right to peaceable assembly be limited to those who arrive on foot or horse drawn conveyances? No way could the founding fathers have foreseen mass transit and airports.


    • ScottM says:

      The reason no one was able to stop him is that all the soldiers were banned from carrying.


  3. Curt says:

    And we should not forget the # 1 Kill Weapon, according to the FBI ststistucs, is the Louisville Slugger!
    Getting Drunk Drivers and Thieves should be of more concern than Disarming America. Unless of Course you are planning on creating a Dictatorship.
    Something the Writers of the Constitution were wll aware would be a problem with an Unarmend Citiznery. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Ever wonder why it was addressed second? Think probably because it was seen as a real probability.


  4. Lew says:

    Bloomberg and his other useless dribble of goo(Kelly) have left their Posts of Power, yet they have both requested(demanded) their security details. Bloombergs’ detail to be paid by Tax Payers. Why don’t they employ Glaze’s technique(s) and talk, disengage, run away from any and all confrontations? Guns are bad in the hands of everyone unless they are being used to protect THEIR worthless, goat smelling keisters.


  5. asdfasd says:

    Carol Lincoln, you are mentally retarded. Please do not have kids. You yourself, was unfortunately born when the condom broke.


  6. S Smiddy says:

    I wonder, really, if anti’s ever really consider the fact that if the 2nd A is abolished, there is then no way to ensure the keeping of rest of the Amendments, or the Constitution period?
    I mean, I’m sorry this lady got scared by someone who was irresponsibly carrying a firearm, but would it not be stereotyping gun owners to wanna ban all guns for such a thing? And if so, can we then ban Carol’s right to free speech to gripe about guns to start with, cuz she griped about OUR rights? Seems logical to me. She doesn’t own a gun, so she can’t stop anyone from treading on her right to free speech, now can she?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: