US guns and the Drug Wars in Mexico

I know, I said I wouldn't get political in this blog. And I am not taking sides on the Mexican Drug Wars (if I did, it would obviously not be on the cartels side). But the thing I would like to talk about is the way many people are using some skewed statistics from this horrible situation to push gun control. This is another case of something that sounds like it may be common sense, until you realize you aren't getting the whole story.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another gun control fanatic, much like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. He has put together a group called Mayors against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Well, I like the sound of the name, but what it really means is that they want to make all guns illegal for civilians. Not so good.

MAIG created an Issue Brief for Congress, which is available here. In it, MAIG talks about recovered guns that are submitted to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) for tracing. Since BATFE requires Federal Firearms License holders to maintain records, they are able to track down weapons that have been sold in the US. Their document contends:

"Since 2006, 90% of the Mexican crime guns submitted for tracing originated from gun dealers in the United States.

New trace data provided by ATF to Mayors Against Illegal Guns show that from 2006 to 2009, nearly 19,000 traced crime guns were originally sold in the U.S. and recovered and traced to Mexican crimes. The raw number of these guns increased from 1,200 guns in 2006 to 5,194 guns in 2009, and the 2009 total is expected to increase as Mexico continues to submit recently recovered crime guns for tracing.

Three out of four crime guns recovered in Mexican crimes and submitted for tracing were originally sold in a Southwest border state. In 2009, 40.0% of the Mexican crime guns that were traced to the U.S. were originally sold in Texas, 36.1% were originally sold in other Southwest border states (Arizona, New Mexico, California), and 23.9% were originally sold in non-border states."

Sounds pretty damning, right? Common sense, right? Well, look again at the wording. Notice the constant use of the phrase "submitted to tracing". The Mexican government seizes a large number of weapons each year, and if they think it may have originated in the US they will make a trace request. But, according to a Government Accounting Office Report to Congress, they admit that of the 30,000 weapons seized in 2008 alone, only 7,200 (24%) of these were submitted to BATFE for tracing. So, the 90% of submitted guns really is 21.6% of all the guns recovered.

Let's talk about what the tracing means. Federal Firearms License holders are required to maintain records for any new or used weapons they sell or transfer. So, getting a hit on the trace means only that at some point the weapon was sold or transferred in the US. It does not mean that the LAST time it was sold was in the US. The record that is the hit on the trace may be many years old, and there is no telling how many private owners had possession of the weapon during the intermediate time. The weapon may have been stolen during that time, or somehow otherwise illegally obtained. It may have been sold or transferred to someone out of the country, who knows.

So, basically what the data shows is that 21.6% of the weapons seized in Mexico at one time or another passed through one of the largest gun producing and importing countries in the world, and were legally sold or transferred while here.The 90% number simply means that of the weapons the Mexican government thinks may have passed through the US actually did. Big surprise there.

Now, more silly supposed common sense. Statistics show that of all the weapons traced, 95% were tracked back to a gun dealer or pawn shop. Does that make you stop and wonder? Well, hardly surprising because THESE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THESE TRACE RECORDS!!!! They are saying 95% of the records were held by the only people required to keep records. Of course, that is obvious. But the high percentage number fools people in to thinking it is significant.

The final piece of the puzzle involves the last little bit of common sense. With 30,000 guns seized in 1 year (no information on how many weapons there are, seized or not), I doubt drug cartels are stopping by gun shows, private owners, gun shops and pawn brokers to buy 1 gun at a time. No one is knowingly selling guns to drug cartels here. Someone is buying these weapons, consolidating them and sending them south of the border illegally. Anyone buying a weapon for anything other than their own personal use is breaking a huge number of federal laws, even if it is some guy buying a pistol for his wife. Of the 7,200 guns submitted for tracing, 6,480 had US trace records. So, potentially 6,480 times in this one year alone the federally mandated Brady checks did not catch someone who should have either not purchased a weapon, or were conducting a shell transaction. If the checks were made, the gun dealer was doing his job. It was the federal government who fell down on theirs, and now want to blame someone else for their ineptness.

Truth is, way too many people are being killed in these stupid skirmishes. Way too many innocent civilians are losing their lives because the Mexican government can't keep its house in order. Even if you totally remove the guns that came from the US, the drug cartels would still have huge arsenals to draw from. So blaming the human devastation that takes place along the Mexican-US border on the guns is ludicrous. Let's blame it on the drug cartel leaders, who have ZERO respect for human life. And on the cartel foot soldier, who is willing to kill, main, torture and rape to make a buck. And finally on the Mexican (and to a lesser extent US) government for allowing such an evil group to gain so much power that they are now uncontrollable.

One last thought. Since 2006, over 23,000 people have been killed on these drug wars. Of that number, only 8-10% have been police, military, security or public officers. So over 20,000 innocent civilians have been unable to protect themselves from these murderous fiends. Maybe, instead of worrying about how many guns are in cartel hands we should think about arming the people who live in these areas. Just like common criminals, these murderous thugs may just think twice about opening fire in a crowded market place if they knew that almost every single person there had a weapon to defend themselves with. During World War II, it wasn't the French and American army that caused so much havoc for the Germans. It was the armed civilian resistance fighters who fought back, knowing that they were at least partially responsible for securing their own safety. This unconventional warfare had many times the disruptive power of a military attack. Or the tremendous disadvantage our own military saw in areas where you can't tell combatants for civilians, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia or Viet Nam. Maybe we should be paying more attention to arming the defenceless and then see how things progress.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't really out to get you....

OK, I really don't consider myself paranoid. I don't spend my days wearing tin foil hats, watching for the black helicopters and complaining about the liberal elite/biased media/military-industrial complex. I would say I live in level White and Yellow on the Cooper Color Code. For those of you who may not be familiar with this, Lt Col Jeff Cooper wrote a seminal work called Principles of Personal Defense where he adapted the Marine Corps readiness color codes.

The color code has nothing to do with tactical situations, or even with alertness. It actually dealt with a persons state of mind, pertaining to everything around them. Think of it this way; it isn't determined by the actual amount of danger that you feel, but by your mental state in terms of noticing and dealing with any dangers that might come up. It has as much to do with being a pedestrian on the street or walking up stairs as it does preparation for an attack. You don't "set" yourself in one of these conditions. You just always "are" in one of them, and you determine how you move between them. By default, if you are not in one of the elevated conditions, you are in Condition White and a potential  "victim" of whatever occurs around you. . Everyone should pay attention to this, not just armed citizens.

Cooper's color code looks like this;

• White - Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is plain dumb luck, or the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. If you are confronted by something nasty or a car suddenly swerves on to the sidewalk, your reaction will probably be "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."
• Yellow - Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to protect myself." You are simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that you are prepared to take care of yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that "I may have to REACT today." You don't have to be armed in this state, but if you are armed you should be in Condition Yellow. You should always be in Yellow whenever you are in unfamiliar surroundings or among people you don't know. You can remain in Yellow for long periods, as long as you are able to "Watch your six." (In aviation 12 o'clock refers to the direction in front of the aircraft's nose. Six o'clock is the blind spot behind the pilot.) In Yellow, you are "taking in" surrounding information in a relaxed but alert manner, like a continuous 360 degree radar sweep. As Cooper put it, "I might have to shoot."
• Orange - Specific alert. Something is not quite right and has gotten your attention. Your radar has picked up a specific alert. You shift your primary focus to determine if there is a threat (but you do not drop your six). Your mindset shifts to "I may have to shoot HIM today," focusing on the specific target which has caused the escalation in alert status. In Condition Orange, you set a mental trigger: "If that goblin does 'x', I will need to stop him." Your pistol usually remains holstered in this state. Staying in Orange can be a bit of a mental strain, but you can stay in it for as long as you need to. If the threat proves to be nothing, you shift back to Condition Yellow.
• Red - Condition Red is fight. Your mental trigger (established back in Condition Orange) has been tripped. If "X" happens I will shoot that person.

Many people (including myself) think there is a 5th level, Condition Black. Where Red says "if x happens, I will shoot", Black says "now x has happened, and I am squeezing the trigger".

Condition Orange is really fairly stressful. You have identified a specific thing that concerns you, so your level of attention starts to narrow and focus on the potential threat. You can't stay in this state for long, because you are so focused and intent. Condition Yellow allows you to remain in it for much longer periods of time, but everyone slides in to Condition White. Inadvertently when you are in public and talking on your cell phone, or reading a book. But intentionally when you are in your own home without a specific threat of danger.

So, is spending most of your day out in public in Condition Yellow being paranoid? I say no, it is being quite rational. It simply means that you have chosen to take responsibility for your own safety, regardless of where you are and whether you are armed or not. Condition Yellow is every time you stop at a crosswalk and wait for the signal to change instead of blindly walking out in traffic and hoping you don't get run over. It is every time you hold on to the handrail on the stairs in case you slip rather than throwing yourself headlong and out of control down the steps. And it is every time you thinks "hey, those three guys just suddenly walked out of that store and are right behind me". You aren't wishing for anything bad to happen, or even exactly expecting anything bad to happen. But you are aware that something might, and you chose to maximize your chances of remaining safe.



Because I refuse to allow my health, happiness or life to be dependant on dumb luck, or somebody else's good will.

Defenseless

Image by Oleg Volk

What would you do?

I just heard a really interesting story. A man was on his way home after spending the day at a public gathering. He had his young daughter with him, and was driving through a fairly average part of town. He came to a red light, stopped just behind a cab. After the appropriate period of time, the light changed. The cab didn't move. A short wait, a short beep on the horn, and still nothing.

The man pulled out, going around the cab that was still stopped. As they were passing the side of the cab, the cab driver started waving his hands trying to get the driver to stop. After a very, very brief hesitation, the man continued his drive home.

A short distance down the road, his daughter asked him, "Daddy, why didn't you stop?" The man explained to his daughter that, although things looked ok at the time he had no idea of what would happen if he did stop. After all, with his daughter in the car, his most important task was to make sure she was safe, and he wasn't willing to take a chance. If things had looked like there was a real problem, he would use his cell to call the appropriate people to help.

I know this story sounds harsh and very unfeeling. In a civilized society, people are supposed to help each other. There was no obvious problem, so why not at least stop and see what was happening. It would have taken just a second, what could go wrong?

Well, lots. First, this man had a young charge that he was responsible for, and this limited his ability to take chances. Who did he owe more consideration of, his daughter or this stranger? Had he been alone, he may have at least slowed down, rolled down the window and asked what the problem was. But he couldn't in this case.

While things appeared safe, there are many scenarios that could have taken place. Maybe the cabbie was having simple mechanical problems, and then the man could have called a tow truck. Maybe the cabbie was a little disturbed, and just wanted to yell and rant at someone. But, just maybe, the cabbie had this planned along with an accomplice hading in the bushes. When the innocent driver stops, the accomplice sneaks up up behind car while the cabbie distracts him. Maybe a gun pops in through the window, and the man gets car-jacked. Or the accomplice gets jumpy, and pulls the trigger by mistake. Or, just maybe, the cabbie and his accomplice have already decided they wouldn't leave a witness behind and will just  pull the wallet out of a lifeless body.

Processing information is the key, and understand the consequences of decisions.  If the driver had stopped and something went wrong, there would have been potentially bad consequences. But, had the man stopped with his daughter in the car and something went wrong, it could have been infinitely worse. If the man alone gets injured, he would have been upset. Had he been killed, his family and friends would have morned him. But if his daughter was hurt in a situation that he could have easily avoided, the man would have been devastated. Had she been killed, and he survived, the grief and guilt would have been unimaginable. He would have lived the rest of his days knowing that HE was the one who made the bad choice that cost her life.

Decisions are a cost/benefit analysis. You look at what will happen if you do something, and what will happen if you don't. But you also have to take a look at the likelihood of success or failure, as well as the consequences of those.

Take Russian Roulette. Take a 6 shot revolver and put 1 bullet in it. Spin the cylinder, put the muzzle to your head without looking and pull the trigger. Statistics tell us that you have 84.4% chance of surviving, which most gamblers will tell you is pretty darn good. But it is the COST of that bad outcome that totally out-weights the good odds that keeps you from doing it.

I leave you with one more thought on the cost of making a poor decision, based on the cost of a bad outcome. The odds of being killed by lightening are 2,232,000 to 1, which are really in your favor for living a long life.

BUT it really, really sucks to be the 1   ...........

Could anti-gunners really be right?

I have been listening to some pro-Second Amendment podcasts lately, and typically enjoy a majority of the content. There is always a lot of good commentary on gun rights, weapons, concealed carry and the proper use of all this. But, I have been really getting aggravated by the attitudes of many of the podcasters. This attitude is really just a reflection of the close-minded public who are often their listeners. No, not everyone who listens to these podcasts is a neanderthal, mouth-breathing idiot. But they are not always the intelligent, open-minded thinkers they should be. And the simple fact of the matter is both sides of the gun debate are just as guilty.

No matter the topic, there will always be at least 2 viewpoints. The basis of an meaningful conversation is the intelligent exchange of ideas. There is very little doubt that neither side is even remotely interested in changing their minds, but logical discourse can sometimes cause someone to see something a little differently than they previously had. It is unlikely that there is going to a be a complete reversal in anyone's stance, but their ideas may be changed forever, no matter how slightly.

The enemy of intelligent conversation is contempt. Too often people will stop listening to their opponenet and just feel contempt. Contempt is defined as:

"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn."

The problem with contempt is that you no longer just disagree with a person's ideas, but you begin to really despise the person. Instead of defending your viewpoint, you now attack their character. It has stopped being intelligent discourse, and has now become ridicule and stubbornness.

Do not for 1 second get me wrong; I think that 99% of what anti-gun or anti-carry people use in their arguments is wrong. Either misinterpreted, or outright incorrect. Sometimes even knowingly misrepresented, to support an incorrect assumption or stance. But just because these individuals have what I believe to be wrong information does not make them any less human than you or me.

In today's society, it is very easy to get in to an "us versus them" mentality. White vs black vs brown. Christian vs Muslim. Democrat vs Republican. Taste great vs less filling. Whatever. But the thing that makes this country so great is that you can live, worship, vote or just feel any way you like. But sometimes the "patriots" who so loudly proclaim their worship for the Second Amendment forget about the First Amendment. Eveyoen is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don't agree feel free to question them on it. But don't just say "you're an asshole" and walk away.

If there is any one thing to blame for the general decline in public behavior, I think it is a lack of respect for others. We have become cut off from the general population around us, and spend our time huddled with like-minded individuals and beating our fists on our chests about how right we are and how wrong the other guy is. In today's 24 hour news cycle, where information is bombarding us from all sides so quickly we barely have time to process it, we have lost the ability to think. Why actually form an opinion of our own when we can take one from someones 15 second sound bite? Why spend the time discussing important issues with others who may have differing points of view, when we can just listen some more to Anderson Cooper, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck or even Jay Leno?

Big shock here, so you better sit down...... Everyone who disagrees with you is not a demon bent on nefarious corruption of your soul. They are poeple just like you and me, who happen to have been exposed to different things and have formed different opinions. There are no doubt people who will lie, cheat and make up facts to push their own gun control agenda (and we all know gun control isn't about guns, its about control). But there are also armed militia running around in paramilitary garb, bent on violent revolution and trying to overthrow the government. These are the 1 or 2% extreme examples, and most of the rest of us fall somewhere in between. Talk to each other civilly, exchange ideas rationally and treat each other with common courtesy, just like your mother taught you when you were a child.

The biggest mistake I think people make is to listen to nothing but sources that they agree with. If you already feel a certain way on a topic, how much more are you going to learn from similar viewpoints? Want to learn something for real; try listening to someone you has a different take on things. Yeah, maybe they are wrong. Yeah, maybe they will never agree with you and tell you how right you are. But they will point out potential flaws in your big picture, and allow you to reinforce your opinion or refine it based on new information.

Why go through all this trouble? Why leave yourself open to new (and potentially troubling) insights on things that matter to you, when you already have the whole thing figured out? Our side is right, and theirs is wrong. Well, the simple truth is neither exactly right or wrong, and hopefully both sides have some information that can be brought to the party. Nothing is ever black or white, or absolutely static in nature. No one is completely right, or completely wrong. Circumstances change, situations change. think for yourself, understand both sides of a topic and choose your own viewpoint. THAT is going to be much closer to the truth than either one of the polarizing extreme viewpoints.

And after all, isn't the TRUTH what we are after?

The myths of Gun Control - Part 1

I have been seeing a lot of ideas that seem to have taken on a life of their own regarding benefits associated with gun control. While at first blush they seem to make sense, if you dive a little deeper you quickly see that they really don't hold water.

I heard that recently Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (who inherited his job when Rod Blagojevick was impeached) has been trying to get a referendum question on the ballot for this November that reads:

"Shall the Governor and the members of the Illinois General Assembly enact legislation to ban the sale of semi-automatic and assault weapons that are used by criminals to threaten the lives of law enforcement and the people of Illinois?”

First off, a couple things about the actual wording. It must have been crafted by one of those polling organizations to be something insidious that seems innocuous. And notice how it lumps together a simple semi-automatic weapon and an assault weapon.

I doubt anyone wants criminals to have weapons that kill law enforcement or anyone else. But this question is about banning the sale to everyone, not just criminals. Well, I'm sure almost everyone. I bet Gov. Quinn's State Police protection details will still have them. And Mayor Daly's Chicago Police protection detail. And any other politicion or influential person who can get pretty much whatever they want anyway.

So, basically it is just the ordinary citizen of Illinois that will not be able to have these. And of course the criminals. After all, we don't want these criminals to walk in to their local gun store and purchase these. Oh wait, I forgot. Since over 65% of felony arrests are repeat offenders, most of them are already prohibited from owning a weapon of any kind any way. By Illinois law, and federal law.

So since criminals can't actually buy their weapons retail, we will have to try to get the gang bangers who are selling guns out of their trunks on the street corner to abide by this new referendum. Thank goodness that THIS law will finally get these illegal gun sellers to pay attention, rather than the myriad of state and federal laws already on the books that they are currently ignoring.

We all know that laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. By definition, the criminal element DOES NOT pay attention to laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. So the ultimate purpose of a law like this, should it take effect, would be to deny the law abiding citizen the most commonly used firearm for self-defense purposes. Of yeah, how about a huge number of weapons that are used for hunting, target shooting and other recreation. All those would not be for sale in Illinois any more.

We don't need another horribly restrictive law on the books that will do no real good in combating crime. We need to enforce the ones we have. In fact, imagine what would happen if we actually identified the responsible citizens amongst us, investigated their background to make certain they didn't have any hidden criminal background, and actually gave them a license to own a weapon to protect themselves and others around them. Imagine a criminal not actually knowing for sure if the person they were about to victimize had a firearms or not. I bet they would quickly become much more selective in their choice of targets. Wouldn't that be nice?

Hey, wait a second, We already do that. It is called concealed carry permits, and 48 states in the country already allow this to one degree or another. And every time a state passed a law and entered in to the group, it saw a decrease in the incidence of violent crime. EVERY TIME. Even though there were predictions of blood running in the streets, which never happened. NEVER. Maybe it wasn't the guns, maybe it is just some type of coincidence. Maybe something else caused the decrease in crime, but a decrease occurred none the less.

Fortunately, this wrong-headed question will not be on the ballot this time. The petitioner needed 83,000 signatures of Cook County residents, and they fell well below that number. But they tried to proceed anyway, asking to move forward with the petition anyway. Fortunately, the Cook County Electoral Board listened to arguments against this petition, and rejected the petition on August 20th.

When you carry concealed, people look at you differently

I have recently been reminded that, while most people are pro-gun or at least ambivalent, very few people are totally comfortable knowing the people around them have a weapon. It was someone how is pretty close to me, who has been making comments that I would have never expected. I really am not sure where this attitude comes from.

I think many people have a hard time believing that the people around them are as responsible and intelligent as they themselves are. My theory is it comes down to the old saying; people are smart but a person is not.

What does that mean. Well, basically the study of group psychology can allow us to very accurately predict what a group of people may do in certain circumstances. A group of people is much more controllable, because the majority of people thinking one way will tend to cancel out the actions of the few that think otherwise. Notice I didn't say the majority would do the right thing, they just will do what most of them think is right. Sometimes this is a very big difference.

On the other hand, a person is very uncontrollable. How a single person reacts in any situation is governed by how they process that information, which comes through the filter of their experience. What might cause concern in a group could cause panic in a person. What causes a stiffening of the resolve in a group could cause a violent backlash in a person.

I think it is this basic concept that scares people when they find out someone near them has a weapon. Suddenly, you have to be concerned about all the things that have happened in that persons life up to this point, in the context of how that will affect how they react in any given situation. And that is an uncomfortable position.

Think about this: when those of you who are shooters go to the range, how do you feel about the people or person in the lane next to you? Do you trust them to be safe, or do you keep your eye on them to make sure they don't do something to endanger you? It might be a stranger, or your best friend, but I generally become quite aware of what they are doing and how they are handling that remote control death dealing device called a handgun.

I think anyone is uncomfortable allowing other people to make life and death decisions for them, and that is basically what happens when someone carries a weapon. No doubt, this power of life or death will only come up in very grave circumstances, but it is always somewhere in the back of your mind. If there wasn't some possibility of needing it, no matter how remote, why would anyone carry a handgun? Even if you are not paranoid, just knowing a handgun is in the possession of someone around you means your life depends on their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you should not carry your weapon because of this. Once you make the decision to carry, this is just one of the many things you will have to deal with. But it is just human nature for people to look at you differently when they know you are packing.

Personally, that is why I think it is called concealed carry. Concealed means concealed, and no one should know you have it. Don't show it off, brag about it, let it "accidentally" flash or print. Honestly, if you are the kind of person who needs to show off that they have a gun, then you probably aren't the kind of person who should have one. And that includes feeling the uncontrollable desire to wear your "Glocks rock" t-shirt, or your camo "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" ball cap when you are going about your daily errands. Save that stuff for the range or your next IDPA meet.

People will only treat you differently if they know you are carrying, so don't let them know. Just be the average guy next door that people smile at, or give the head nod to. The kind of person they shake hands with when they meet them, or make polite conversation with while waiting in line. The only person who knows you have your weapon on should be you, and everyone will be fine. Because, to steal a thought from Clint Smith "carrying a handgun is comforting to you, but probably not to the people around you".

Teaching children about guns

It was not that long ago that rifles and handguns were fairly common items in the average household. Unless you lived in a major city, you probably grew up hunting, or knew someone who did. Even before the 4 Rules were codified by Col Cooper, children were taught to never point a gun at anyone, and how to be safe around firearms. It is only in the relatively recent past that guns have been demonized and taken on this evil persona.

So the secret is not to hide your head in the sand, tell your children that guns are bad and leave it at that. Natural curiosity will get the better of them, and even if there are no firearms in their own home it is entirely possible they will find one in their friends home, or on the street. The smarter thing to do is educate children on guns. Take the mystery and mystique out of them by making them items they have regular controlled contact with. Teach them how to determine if a gun is loaded, how to safely unload it or make it safe, and how to communicate to an adult if they ever come in to contact with one.

How you raise your children is a very personal decision. How you teach them to be safe is something no one else gets to decide. I would never, ever expose other family's children to weapons in my home. But I would be very happy indeed if I knew that, should something truly unforgivable happen and a child were to come in contact with a loaded weapon, that he or she would know how to handle the situation.

One of the more popular plans for teaching your children is, as soon as they are old enough to be safe, to give them regular supervised access. If you carry a weapon, let the younger ones look at it while you make it safe for the night. Carefully unload it, check it, check it again, and then check one more time for that sneaky cartridge that shouldn't be in there. Then, very clearly explain to them that you will let them touch it any time that they want to, as long as they ask your permission and follow your explicit directions while they do it. Once that is clear and they agree, let them hold it. Make sure they follow all of the 4 Rules (you do know the 4 Rules, right?), by setting a good example for them while you are handing it to them. When they have had a short time to touch the weapon, have them safely hand it back to you and then once more go through the routine of checking, checking, checking while they watch again. Put the weapon away in a properly secured location, and then go about the rest of your evening.

It is very important that you keep to your word on this, if this is the path you choose. When they come to you and ask if they can hold the pistol, you must actually let them do it as soon as you possibly can safely. You want to make this as much of a non-event as you possibly can. If the child knows they can handle it pretty much any time they want to while you are around, they will be less likely to want to sneak around behind your back to play with it.

That is not the end, however. In addition to this, you need to teach them a couple other things. There are 4 things you need to get in to their little heads, and you do this by repeating it and having them recite it to you. Those things are:

1. Never, ever touch a firearm when there is no adult present, regardless of what anyone else around them is doing
2. If you do see a weapon, leave it alone and remove yourself from the vicinity as quickly as possible. (Tell them not to run away if there are other children present, because kids have a nasty habit of pointing weapons at moving objects and using them for targets)
3. If another child around them wants to touch the weapon, they should say that it is not a toy, and that they should not be playing with it. Then leave the area.
4. Find an adult as soon as possible, and tell them about the weapon so they can make it safe

Ok, now you hopefully have you children thinking about being safe around weapons. As they get a little older, let them help you clean your weapons from time to time. This serves 2 purposes; one, it gets them comfortable safely handling them, and two, it gets you out of having to clean them all the time. At least for a little while when you first start, I guarantee you that you will rarely have to actually touch the cleaning gear yourself if you do this.

As they get older still, you can start teaching them simple gun manipulations. How to remove a magazine from a semi-auto pistol, how to open the cylinder and eject the cartridges on a revolver, how to open the bolt on a rifle and empty the chamber. They will need a certain amount of upper body and arm strength before this can happen, but start as soon as they are mature enough to handle it.

Finally, as soon as you feel they are mature enough, teach them to shoot safely. By making it something that is supervised but fun, you are making them safer. Single shots to begin, large reactive targets at short distances that they can't miss, all these things start them along the path of safe gun handling. There is no more exciting time in a child's world than when they get to participate in "adult" activities for the first time. By starting them when they are young in safe gun handling practices, and slowly growing those skills as they mature, you can help ensure that a new generation safely joins the ranks of shooters and gun owners .

The only part of a violent encounter YOU get to choose

Image by Oleg Volk

Something meaningful came to me from the Brady Campaign

I think it is safe to say that, in life, few things are black and white. No on, or no thing, is totally good or totally bad. This was brought home to me today when I read an entry in the Brady Campaign blog. Now, I obviously have very different feelings about guns and gun control than this group. In fact, I can't think of any group that I am more at odds with. But, just to prove that there are no absolutes, something they said really hit home.

Of course, I did not take the same meaning from the situation as the Brady group. But none the less, it made me think.

The message is in relation to a Ventura County Star (CA) article about a 9 year old boy who had been accidentally shot in the face while he and his step-brother were playing with a loaded gun he found in his home. Fortunately, his injuries were not life threatening and he is expected to make a full recovery. But it is indicative of an issue that must be addressed.

Of course the Brady Campaign takes this as a call to keep all guns out of the hands of the average citizen. An editorial in this same paper 2 days after the incident says:

 Although he may not realize it yet, a 9-year-old Camarillo boy is extremely lucky to be alive today after being shot in the face with a .45-caliber pistol.

According to police, the young boy was playing "cops and robbers" with his 13-year-old stepbrother at home Wednesday morning when the accident occurred. The bullet from the semiautomatic pistol entered the boy's cheek and passed through the back of his jaw, causing what doctors called soft tissue damage.

Here's where the luck comes in. Camarillo Police Sgt. Craig Adford told Star reporter Adam Foxman, "It could have been a really bad day today if it (the bullet's path) had been an inch different." In fact, the boy had recovered enough to be released the very next day from Los Robles Hospital & Medical Center, where he had been rushed after the shooting.

Now that's lucky.

Police are looking into whether the gun was secured and how the 13-year-old got his hands on it. Under the law, a loaded firearm in the home must be secured in a locked container, disabled with a locking device, or otherwise reasonably secured.

What happened in this Camarillo home will certainly serve as a warning and a lesson that this family and the two boys will never forget. It is also one that other parents, guardians and children would do well to note.

The latest U.S. data available show 3,184 children and teens were killed by gunfire in 2006. Of those shootings,154 were determined to be accidents, says the Children's Defense Fund. A study last year found that more than 1.7 million children in the U.S. live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns. (ed: not sure how they know this, as no one would admit to the serious felony if they did such a thing)

In the eyes of most children, guns are seen as toys. They don't realize how dangerous a handgun or rifle can be. If there is a gun in the home, children should be taught that firearms are not toys, that there is a big difference between real guns and those seen in TV and video-game shootings.

Another recent study revealed these sobering facts: In homes where a gun was present, 39 percent of youngsters knew where it was stored, and another 22 percent said they had handled it despite an adult warning to stay away.

Clearly, the decision to keep a handgun or a rifle in the home is not one that should be taken lightly. It's one that demands adults be extra vigilant in making sure children can't get their hands on these weapons.

Unlike the Brady Campaign, the editors apparently feel as though there is no problem with having guns in the home. They state that children need to be taught that firearms are not toys. I have to say that I agree 100% with them on this.

Children should never be put in this position to begin with. It is our jobs, as adults and as gun owners, to safely store all weapons away from the 3 C's (children, criminals and the clueless). If you can not manage this, you just plain should not own dangerous weapons.

But, on the off chance that other people are not as diligent as you, please teach your children as soon as they can think rationally that guns are very dangerous, that they should never be handled without an adult present, and that nothing bad will happen to them if they tell an adult if they do find one. When they get older ( and only you can decide when, based on each individual child's maturity) you can teach them how to check a weapon, how to safely unload it or to safely secure it until an adult can make it safe.

You can't make children not be curious about guns by scaring them, by ignoring them or by wishing things were different. Somehow we usually manage to teach kids not to run across a busy street without them getting run over. Or that the oven is hot without subjecting them to first degree burns. You have to teach them, explain to them, answer their questions and curb their curiosity. It is our jobs as adults and parents to properly gun proof our children.

Everyone is safer if you carry a gun

Image by Oleg Volk

When NOT to use your weapon

{I am not a lawyer, you are responsible you understanding all the rules, regulations and laws that apply to you}

You need to think about all this BEFORE you decide to carry a weapon. You are not John Law, or Rambo, or the Punisher. You do not have the right to inflict punishment on anyone, no matter what the circumstances. You are only entitled to protect your life, and the lives of the innocent people around you, if there is a grave, immediate and unavoidable threat. If you do anything wrong, you are going to go to jail for a long time.

Like do what wrong? Well, not be able to prove that the person you shot was capable of immediate use of deadly force that you were unable to protect yourself in any other way that responding with deadly force.

• Did you think he had a gun and it looked like he might be getting ready to reach for it before you drew your weapon?
• Did he threaten you with a knife from 10 feet away?
• Did you know who this person was, they had threatened you in the past and you were afraid he might hurt you?
• Had this person just finished shooting a clerk while robbing a liquor store, and was running away from you on his way to his getaway car?
• Was this person outside your home when you arrived, with your 65" flat screen TV and your wife's jewelry box in his hands?
• Is this the guy who had beaten you so badly about 6 months ago that you still ache when you walk after spending 4 weeks in the hospital? Did you see him on the street, confronted him and shoot him during the ensuing altercation?
• Were you walking down the street when you came upon a law enforcement officer wounded during a gun fire exchange? While you are there, an obvious gang banger runs past, the officer yells "Stop Him!!" and you shoot as he runs down the alley.

Guess what? All these "justifiable" circumstances ARE NOT, and you will go to jail in just about any state in the country. Now I am not a lawyer, so you will need to completely understand the rules of the jurisdiction you are in. Not in the place where you live, or the state you have your concealed permit from. In the actual city, county, state that this takes place in.

To be justified in using deadly force, you must be as pure as the driven snow. You can not just be in fear, you must be in so much fear that you are certain that if you do not act you or some innocent person will perish or be permanently and significantly disabled.  It doesn't matter what happened 2 months ago, a week ago, an hour ago or 10 seconds ago. If you are not IMMEDIATELY in grave danger, you are not justified. The person could be Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer and Adolf Hitler all rolled in to one, but if he is not a direct and immediate threat to you at that moment there is no justification for shooting.

As civilians carrying a concealed gun, we are held to a different standard. We aren't put in situations like law enforcement where we can assume the worst and get away with it. You have to be so sure you had no other choice that you are prepared for actually being hurt in the process (I'm not saying you have to always wait for them to make the first move, but that may be the only way to be sure). Don't be that guy who proudly proclaims "I'll shoot first, and worry about straightening it out later". Or the guy who brashly says "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Its not a game, or something to take a chance on. You are not going to be the guy whose situation becomes a case study every lawyer will study in school Look at it this way; if you make the wrong choice here, even a little bit, someone else will probably deciding exactly where you will eat, sleep, walk, talk and cry for a long time. That place will be prison, and I don't have to have been there to know you won't like it.

Practice with your weapon, so you know you can use it accurately and safely if the time comes. And prepare mentally, for the tremendous stress that occurs in deadly force encounters. But you also have to rehearse in your mind what the very limited circumstances are where you can use this force. There are no take-backs, no do-overs. You can't put the bullet back in the gun, or the life back in the mistaken victim. This is forever we are talking here. Treat it like the deadly serious situation it is.

And if you can't do that, LEAVE THE DAMN GUN AT HOME!!!! You are going to hurt some innocent person, get thrown in prison and make every single one of us that do take it seriously look even more like the gun toting vigilantes the public already thinks we are.

Practice makes perfect

Image by Oleg Volk

The Bible and self defense

OK, another interesting thing has come up. In my never ending surfing of the web, I came across a discussion of how one can interpret the Bible on the topic of self defense. To start, I consider myself spiritual but not exactly religious. I come from a christian background, and have at times called myself a Catholic and a Lutheran. I do not believe the Bible is the direct word of God, but that it was given to us by men with inspiration from God. So, please do not harangue me with any pro- or anti- Christian diatribes.

It is easy to fall upon the old standby every violent person uses "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:24-25) But take a look at the entire paragraph, and it becomes less applicable to self defense:

(22)“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25)

So in fact this refers to punishment, not self defense.

Much clearer to me is this:

"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked. (proverbs 25:26).

This is a collection of the wisdom of Solomon, and the phrase stands alone and intact, with no extraneous meaning or context.

Or

 "(3)Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. (4) Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” "(5) They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken." (Psalm 82:3-5)

And a final idea on training and self defense:

"(1) Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; (2) he is my steadfast love and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer,  my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me." (Psalm 144:1-2)

All this suggest to me that God expects us to use force in the defense or righteousness. There are many, many instances of God condemning man for acts caused by anger, cruelty, malice or greed. These all have no place in righteous self defense. But since we are made in God's image, we are mandated to care for those bodies and protect them:

(19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, (20) for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

 
But it isn't all gung-ho for battle. Being Christians, our goal is to lead our life in a Christ-like way. Violence is always the last resort, reserved for only the most dire and grave circumstances. Rather, your guiding idea through life as an armed civilian should be forgiveness:

(27) “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (28) bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (29) To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. (30) Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. (31) And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.


(32) “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. (33) And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. (34) And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. (35) But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (36) Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

(37) “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; (38) give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” (Luke 6:27-38)

So, there in lies my recent musings about the christian ideals of self defense. I don't feel as though any one section gives me the right to do harm or violence. Nor does it say that I can never use strength or force to protect myself or those around me. What it does do, taken as a whole, is tell me that God expects me to use the good judgement He gave me, to understand and forgive those who are not my firends, but to also protect the corporial body and enlghtened spirit He gave me from harm if needed.

I can't ask for any more than that.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Image by Oleg Volk

What happens if you use your weapon

Lately I have been thinking even more about what it means to carry concealed. I guess that is what bloggging does for you, it makes you think. One of the areas that I have become aware of is the amount of violence portrayed on TV and in movies. I really think that this has desensitized a lot of the population in to a casual attitude towards violence in general, and gun violence specifically. Let's just look at the unrealistic portrayal of civilian shooting compared to what to really expect.

On TV, it is pretty clear cut exactly who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy. Second, many times the hero manages to get his weapon out and shoot accurately a single shot that incapacitates the bad guy. And often, the hero managed to get this done while the bad guy already had is weapon in hand and aimed. Plus the bad guy missed at least 1 shot. The bad guy drops dead immediately, even on a shot to the center mass area. The police arrive, throw a blanket over the shoulders of the good guy, tell him "it's over now, go home".

Now, the reality. Of course, I have never been through this personally, but here is what all the experts warn us will happen. A person approaches you for purposes unknown, making you feel uncomfortable. You challenge him, but he won't back off. He reaches towards his belt or pocket, although no weapon is obvious. Is he going for a weapon, or a piece of paper with some directions on them he wants to ask you about? Do you wait to draw until you actually see a weapon, meaning you will definitely not get the first shot off? Or do you draw, leaving yourself open to a "man with a gun" call and a charge of brandishment?

Things progress to the point where you feel as though your life is in immediate and unavoidable jeopardy, so you use your weapon. Of course your hands aer shaking so hard you can barely get control of your gun as you present it, and more than likely you will fire multiple shots with less than 50% of them actually hitting your target. The first good shot hits in the upper shoulder area, which barely even makes the bad guy flinch because he is so hopped up on adrenaline and other substances. Your second good shot is a gut shot, so he does crumple but is still pretty much fully functional. With any luck, your third shot will hit him center mass, and cause enough shock to make him stop his attack. You quickly check around, and are lucky because he was alone and there are no accomplices flanking you and doing to you what you just did to him.

You quickly retire to cover, and phone 911. And you better be the first one to call them, because if a scared accomplice of the man you just shot doesn't engage you and contacts them first, you just became the bad guy. You check yourself for injuries, but you were lucky. Now you have the unpleasant task of looking around to see exactly where all those rounds that didn't hit you or the bad guy actually went. Is the older lady who was behind the bad guy all right? The kid across the street? The man who was standing behind you?

Now you hear police sirens drawing near. You don't still have your gun in your hand, do you? But if you put it away, are you absolutely certain that there is no one else meaning to do you harm? Better decide quick. When the police arrive, expect to be challenged, where you are forcefully told by several officers to do different things at the same time. You finally get a command you can comply with, where you end up face down on the ground with a 200 lbs police officer kneeling on your back while he roughly handcuffs you. They stick you in the back of a not too clean cruiser while they attempt to figure out what happened. You can expect to be there for some time, after which you will no doubt be taken to the station for processing. All the while, they are asking you in a very impolite manner what the hell happened. You didn't make a statement yet, did you? Because if you did, I can assure you it will end up on the record and bite you in the ass eventually. But if you keep quiet, they will see you as being uncooperative and the treatment gets rougher. At this point, seeing your lawyer is still hours away.

After hours and hours of this treatment, your lawyer finally gets you loose so you can start to process the life changing experience you just went through. You get to run the gauntlet of media waiting outside for you, asking you why you murdered that poor misguided person. You get home, and your family is obviously worried about you, but you know in their minds they are very afraid of you and the monster you have now become because you killed another human being. Friends suddenly dry up, not wanting to associate with someone like you any more. Your co-workers will also treat you different, that is if you still have a job because of all the time you will need off to plan and execute a successful defense.

Oh yeah, you do know that you will be paying for all that expensive legal defense, even if you ultimately did nothing wrong? Plan on the equivalent of a 4 year college education at a good school for one of your children. So which one doesn't get to go to college now? Months and years may go by, during which you are an accused murderer, even if you aren't technically in jail. If you are lucky, you will go to trial and endure a truly traumatic rehashing of your entire life before ultimately being found guilty of murder, but with a successful plea of self defense. I say you are lucky, because our legal system is not in the  business of declaring innocence. You may never actually go to trial, which is good on the sense that you don't have to go through that, but bad in the sense that everyone will always have a doubt as to your innocence. Either way, your life is forever changed. With luck, and a lot of caring and therapy, your family will stay with you and you can start to rebuild your life.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating leaving your weapon at home and becoming a victim. If you did not have your weapon, you are possibly permanently disabled or dead. Your loved ones are left to grieve and fend for themselves. The bad guy wins, and gets to continue taking what he wants by force from anyone he likes. So, as bad as the whole thing is, it is the least of all evils. But make no mistake, no matter what happens it will be evil.

I know TV is TV and not reality, but this is a case of life NOT imitating art.

How the media likes to portray self-defense shootings

I have been looking at a bunch of self defense stories on the various media sites, and am amazed at how easily they can sway the facts to meet their needs. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; even if you don't subscribe to the "media is anti-gun" conspiracy theorists, you have to admit they are going to do whatever it takes to get readers/viewers. A juicy murder tale is much more interesting than some boring self defence incident.

For instance, notice how often any media uses the term "alleged".  As long as someone has said something along that line, they can attach that prefix to just about any crime and not be slandering someone. Tension is what attracts attention, so "alleged murderer", "alleged shooter", "alleged killer" all make a better story than "victim". But just because someone is "alleged" to have done something, it doesn't mean they did it. And you never hear anyone coming back around and apologizing for the mis-placed moniker.

When some type of violent encounter takes place, it is normal for the police to take all involved parties in to custody until they sort out what happened. It isn't like on TV, were the officers pat the person on the back and thank them for taking another "scumbag" off the streets. No, every person has a right to their life, and any time someone takes a life it needs to be carefully investigated. Only then can the surviving parties return home and try to pick up their broken lives.

Another thing they do is act as if someone being charged with manslaughter or murder is a monster. First of all, if you purposefully cause the death of another person, even if your intention was not to kill them, you are indeed guilty of manslaughter. No ifs or buts. However, if you took this action to protect yourself or someone around you, then self-defense is what they call an "affirmative defense" against manslaughter charges. What happens is the defendant admits certain facts of the cases, but contends mitigating factors made the use of force or deadly force required to protect themselves. So, while it is admitted that a death took place, the defendant was justified in using deadly force and therefore avoids punishment.

That brings up the topic of arraignments, The media is very fond of shouting that a person is being charged with an offense after a grand jury arraignment, as if this was some sort of trial. Let's look at what happens, and how things work. An arraignment is a place where a prosecuting attorney takes all the information he has about a case to a group of citizens, and asks them to decide if there is enough evidence to bring charges. Notice there is no talk yet about the defense, or defendant. That's because they aren't involved. Of course, someone who may be charged with a crime can appear before the grand jury, but they must do so against a hostile prosecutor without the benefit of a lawyer of his own. That's right, they CAN'T bring a lawyer in because it is not really a trial. So, charges out of an arraignment simply mean that the prosecutor did a good job of presenting his facts when there was no one in the room to refute them.

All these things can be used to make any story sound more sensational than it really is. Now, I am not saying that every person who cries "self defense" is innocent as the day they were born. Nearly anyone involved in a shooting either says it wasn't them, or they did it in self defense. But let's please remember how our system of law works, and exactly what is happening at each step of the way. While the media likes to build up a story against someone at each step of the process, the person is not guilty of whatever they are accused of until the jury of his peers say so.

I just want to be clear about what I expect.....

Image by Oleg Volk

Interesting facts about gun control

I know statistics can be mangled to support just about any viewpoint, but here are a few things I discovered that I thought were significant:



• Three out of four violent crimes committed in the U.S. do not involve firearms. Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by 70-75 million, and the nation's murder rate has decreased 43%. (BATFE and FBI)

• When the Brady Act became law, 18 states and Washington, D.C.-which accounted for 63% of all violent crimes, including 58% of murders in the U.S.-were automatically exempt because they already had similar laws. (Glad it became a national law, since it worked so well in those states already....)

• The average American child watches 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television before completing sixth grade. (American Psychological Association) (How about TV control instead of gun control)

• Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual. Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981 ) (Upheld many times since them)

• Before Congress and President Clinton approved the Brady bill in 1993, laws delaying handgun purchases were known to have no effect on crime. During 1992, the most recent year of data available when the Brady bill was passed, California, the state with the most restrictive waiting period law (15 days on all firearm sales, retail and private) had total violent crime and murder rates 58% and 44% higher, respectively, than the rates for the rest of the country. (FBI)

• In 2007 (the last year for which records are released), there were 61,260 felony convictions in the state of Texas. Concealed Handgun License holders represented 0.2612% of these convictions. The total number includes everything from capital murder to burglary to child endangerment. In fact, for "unlawful possession of a weapon by a license holder", which by definition should only apply to CHL holders, they still only represent 66% of the convictions (Texas Dept of Public Safety)

• The rate of defensive gun use is six times that of criminal gun use. (Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005))

• In a recent MSNBC poll that asked "How safe do you feel knowing there are people around legally carrying concealed guns?", over 84% responded Very Safe (see poll here)

• 94.4% of gun murders are gang related (Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007)

• Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers (Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006)

• 94% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes (17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, National Association of Chiefs of Police, 2005)

• 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of violent crime (ibid)

• In 2008, there were about 255 million highway vehicles in the US (Bureau of Transportation Statistics), and there were 37,261 fatalities (National Highway Safety Administration), or 1 death per 6800 vehicles. There were 258 million guns in the US (2008, National Academy of Sciences), and in 2007 there were 31,224 deaths from all firearms causes (CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control), or 1 per 8200 guns. That's about 20% less.

• Results of a March 2010 Rasmussen Reports telephone poll:

o 69% of Americans say city governments do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns

o 70% of all adults believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun

o Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans now say someone in their household owns a gun

• In an August 2009 a Zogby poll asked "Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?" An overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) support concealed-carry laws, while only 11 percent oppose them. A majority of Independent voters (86 percent), Democrats (80 percent), young voters age 18-29 (83 percent), Hispanic voters (80 percent), and those who voted for President Obama (80 percent) support the right to carry a firearm.



Take from this what you may. I believe that it shows that it is a very vocal minority of people who are desperately attempting to disarm the average American citizen, for whatever personal agenda they may have, against the wishes of the majority.

Workplace violence

Image by Oleg Volk

International end run for gun control

I really did not want to get political in this blog, wanting to make it a discussion of what it means to carry a weapon in public. But there are some issues that I think have a huge impact on this right, and the UN plans for gun control are ranked right up there.




First, a little background. The entire Programme of Action deals with much more than small arms. Its stated purpose is to control the illegal flow of weapons to people and countries that have proven themselves to be a danger. This is a worthwhile and noble effort, and I agree with it in principle. Guns indeed do kill people, and that is never a good thing. My complaint is with the methods they are choosing to do this, which pretty much trample on what has recently been recently confirmed by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right.



The biggest complaints are generally around the measures they suggest for tracing of weapons. So, here in yet another list are my thoughts on the matter:

• Tracing a gun cannot prevent a crime in the individual sense. It is only after a crime has occurred that the authorities can use this information to find out where the gun came from. So it will have no impact on the amount of street crime
• One place that it will be helpful is the identification of large sources of illegal weapons, such as governments giving weapons to insurgents or terrorists. But there is little that can be done to stop this, even if we knew who was doing it
• In the US, manufacturers are currently required to stamp each and every weapon they build with a serial number, their name, their location, the caliber and other information. This has been going on for quite some time, so how exactly will adding additional stamped information to weapons help things, except by increasing the cost of these weapons to make it economically difficult to own them
• Micro-stamping is a ridiculous idea. For those that don't know what it is, a manufacturer would be required to put some mechanism in place to mark each and every round of ammunition fired by a weapon with a unique identifying mark. Besides being unbelievably expensive to implement and maintain records for, it has been shown that no method of micro-stamping is strong enough to stand more than a small number of firings before the marks are illegible (always less than 100, but most are less than 10 firings). So all you need to do is take you handgun (whose price went way up, see above) and shoot a couple boxes of ammo at the range to make your weapon untraceable by micro-stamping. Again, all it does is make it much more expensive to build weapons, making them much more expensive to buy. So soon the only ones who can buy them are politicians, celebrities and governments.
• The plan as it is expected to pass in 2012 or 2014 will include drastic restrictions on private sales. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start.
• First, guns are not illegal so why would there be restrictions on selling and purchasing. You can buy and sell as many cars as you like, and they cause every bit as much death and devastation as guns. You don't even have to register them unless you are going to use them on a public roadway, so you could have an unlimited number sitting on your property unregistered and there is nothing that is illegal about that.
• Second, by restricting private sales it becomes easier to maintain records of who owns what. I am not enamored of the idea that there exists a list of weapons that I own sitting in some far off government office. Regardless of how vehemently the gun control side says these lists are not for confiscations, there is always the chance that some government group or individual could ever-step their bounds and do something on their own. Look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina, where legally owned weapons were confiscated simply because the government thought it might be a good idea. So all these people are now helpless to defend themselves against criminals and looters. There are several states that have similar laws on their books.
• The idea that restricting private sales of weapons would somehow decrease the ability of criminals to purchase them is absurd. Most of these criminals are already felons, so they are not legally able to have them already. So obviously they are not really concerned about the law they may be breaking. Criminals don't buy guns from gun shows or other private gun owners; they buy them from other criminals who have probably stolen them in the first place.
• I have said previously that I support the idea of having some control on who may have guns in public places, and that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the public safety by making sure permit holders are properly registered and tested. However, I am 100% against the idea that there should be requirements on registering guns. If I can legal own a weapon, I should be legally allowed to own any approved weapons without restriction.
• There has never been a case where registration of weapons has not lead to restriction of weapons
• There has never been a case where restriction of weapons caused a decrease in violent crime. See Canada, England, Scotland, most eastern European counties and just about any place in the world that a populace has been disarmed, making them a sitting duck for any group of people who do own weapons, legal or not.

The current administration supports the UN treaty, because they have been unable to successfully pass gun control legislation in this country. So, rather than abide by the will of the people (as expressed in their constant rejection of these laws), they are going to sign the US up to be a major member of an ill-conceived UN proposal that has no real teeth anyway. Oh, and by the way, who do you think is going to be on the hook to pay for all the corrupt bureaucracy and bloated tools to support these initiatives? Since Russia, China and most of the Middle Eastern countries abstained from the vote, I doubt they are going to be too quick to pick up the tab.

So, please express your displeasure with your Senators. The only possible good thing is that, even if our diplomats get us involved in this, it will require a 2/3 vote of the Senate to approve it. So lets make sure that doesn't happen. And then let's try enforcing the laws we already have to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys, and in the hands of good guys.

The right tool for every job

Image by Oleg Volk

The most important safety on a weapon is.....

Manufacturers are constantly adding mechanical devices to make certain that weapons are as safe as possible. Unless there is a significant mechanical failure somewhere, it is nearly impossible for modern guns to go "bang" unless someone purposefully pulled the trigger. I for one am comfortable with saying there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge". Either it was mechanical failure, or a "negligent discharge".



So, with all the safeties available currently, which is the most important? The thumb safety, which blocks the trigger from moving? A 1911 style grip safety, which blocks hammer movement unless something is actively squeezing the grips? Firing pin blocks, disconnectors or one of the myriad other mechanisms? Well, no. None of these are the most important safety. In fact, it is one single safety that every gun ever made, regardless of who made it or when, has.



The safety is that gray squishy thing between your ears. If you engage your brain every time you pick up a gun, the other safeties are just there in case of accident. Keep your mind right, always be aware you are handling something that can serious impact or end the life of anyone around you, and everything will be all right.



Let's talk about the 4 rules. These rules weren't really invented by anyone, as they have always been true. But they were first put into the format we know them now by LtCol Jeff Cooper. Cooper was a USMC combat officer, and founded the American Pistol Institute in 1976. Between then and his peaceful death in 2006, he made some indelible contributions to the gun world. First, he was responsible for several innovative gun designs. But the three things that most impact every modern gun user are the Modern Technique (a pragmatic method of using weapons that emphasizes combat skills), the Cooper Color Code (a 4 color scheme representing a persons mindset and awareness), and the 4 Rules.



I'm not going to really elaborate on any f them, because this topic is covered in EVERY GOOD weapons class.



Rule 1: All Guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are



Rule 2: Never let the muzzle cover (point at) anything you are not immediately willing to destroy. If anyone ever says, "don't worry, it's not loaded" refer them to Rule 1.



Rule 3: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target and you have made the decision to shoot. This is the most important rule, as violating it causes about 70% of the negligent discharges



Rule 4: Identify your target, and know what is around and behind it. Never, ever, ever shoot at something you have not 100% identified.



Know them, learn them, live them. Print them out, make several copies and put one in every location where you have a weapon. Look at it every time you pick up that weapon. I see one of my copies probably 20 or 30 times a day, and I read them every time. You can not possibly pay too much attention to this, or repeat it too many times. Adhering to these simple 4 Rules, and engaging that big safety in your head every time to pick up a weapon, will make your life and everyone else's around you much safer.

Waiting for help

Image by Oleg Volk

How to keep my guns away from "the 3 C's"

One of the biggest responsibilities of being a weapon owner, regardless of whether you concealed carry or not, is maintaining control of your weapons. I don't remember where I heard it, but someone described the 3 C's - Children, Criminals and the Clueless. The first two are obvious, but what exactly are the Clueless?




I think of them as anyone who is not competent to handle firearms. Perhaps they are not properly trained to maintain safe control, or perhaps they are not mature enough to be trusted not to hurt themselves or someone else. But here is what I think - the Clueless includes just about everyone but me. It is my responsibility to make sure that my weapons are always secure, either on my person, under my direct control or safely secured.



Why bring this up? Well, lately my collection has been growing to the point where it is getting difficult to maintain control. I have a couple small pistol safes, which is where I keep my handguns. But I have a couple long guns now, and they won't fit. I have resorted to making them un-fireable (if that is a word). Each has at least 1 vital part missing, securely locked away, without which they can not operate. But that is not a good permanent solution.



So, a couple decisions to make. How will I lock away everything? Do I get a gun cabinet, or a real gun safe? A gun cabinet is a heavy duty metal storage cabinet, with either a combination lock, electric lock or security key. And it isn't just 1 small tab of metal holding the door closed when it is locked; typically it is 2 to 4 tabs. A gun safe is as it sounds, a very heavy (often over 500 lbs) steel vault with heavy locking bars holding the door against prying attempts. I am leaning towards the cabinet for several reasons-

• It is about 1/3 to 1/4 the price

• It is something I can manage to get in to the house without a small army

• Once it is bolted to the wall or floor, it won't be going anywhere soon

• I am securing a utilitarian group of weapons, not a highly valuable antique collection

• Living out of town and away from my closest neighbors, if I am not home any thief will have an almost unlimited amount of time to attack whatever I put in, which means the added security of a safe is probably not holding up for long either.

But I don't intend to just trust what is basically a heavy duty locker to hold weapons. I plan on securing it in as obscure a location as I possibly can think of, which gives the additional security of stealth. Again, a burglar will no doubt find it if I am not here to stop them, but it will certainly work to keep any kids, un-authorized adults and petty criminals from having immediate access to them.



So, I guess I better pull the trigger on this. I had been thinking of going with more of a hidden storage solution, which relies even more on being out of sight than really secure. I looked in to all kinds of locks, and researched how to make secret storage spaces in walls and behind bookcases and such. But let's face it, that all takes time and money which I may never be able to afford. So, going with the simple commercial solution seems to be the way to go, at least for now.



Who knows, maybe in a couple years I can get one of those really expensive, elaborate safes like from Fort Knox or something. But since one of those costs about a mortgage payment and car payment combined, it will probably be a while.

One in the hand beats two at home.......

Image by Oleg Volk

Is it a gun, or a weapon?

I was listening to an old podcast today in the car, and the presenter went on a bit of a rant about the way some gun folks don’t like to say “weapon”. Their point is that a gun is a tool, and what makes a tool a weapon is the way it is used. A gun can also be used for recreation or sport, in which case they are not being used as weapons. So by calling it a “weapon”, you are almost demonizing the object.

Here is my take on the topic. A baseball bat is meant to be used to play our national pastime, but it can be used as a weapon if needed. So can a golf club, a tennis racket or a crochet mallet. A pen is meant to write on paper, but it can be a weapon if it is forcefully plunged in to your eye. So, in essence the “weapon” part of these items is a second, un-intended purpose.

A gun is different. Yeah, it can be used for hunting, or target shooting, or any number of other recreational purchases. But there is zero doubt that the reason a gun was first built was as a weapon. The first hand cannons, which were simple tubes closed at one end, into which black powder and rocks were dropped prior to setting it of with a flame, were intended to harm your enemies. Long rifles and shotguns are descended from these. Handguns are an evolution of this, intended to be more portable and readily accessible. But still, meant to harm your enemies. So in this case, a gun’s intended purpose is as a weapon, and it has been used for the secondary purposes of recreation. Some might even argue that those secondary purposes of hunting and target shooting are really just rehearsing for warfare.

So, is that gun sitting on my hip just a gun, or is it a weapon? Well, I am not carrying it around because I expect to be walking down the street and a target competition breaks out. I am carrying it because it IS a weapon, a big bad one at that. If I did not think that I may need it to protect myself or my loved ones, I would not be carrying it at all.

Let’s extend the argument a little. Some gun haters may question why I feel the need to carry something that is so deadly. Why not just carry mace, or a taser, or a knife? Well, here we go:

• Mace is not a proven man-stopper. First, it has to hit the target in the eyes to be effective, and even then it only works because the offender can’t see you any more. Second, it takes time to work. Depending on the strength and ingredients, it could be several seconds. Third, even if you catch the offender in the eyes, if you are within grabbing distance he doesn’t need to see you to inflict damage. And finally, and many of you may not know this, but there is a percentage of people in the world who pepper spray has NO effect on. Not even a sniffle. And the number is usually placed somewhere between 5 and 15% of the population.
• Tasers are only good for disrupting the immediate actions of the target. Civilian versions shock for short periods of time, with periods in between where the offender can still hurt you. Plus, in order for the taser to have any effect there must be 2 points of electrical contact, a fair distance apart and involving the major muscles of the torso. Whether it is the darts, or the electrodes on the device itself, if one side does not make good contact there is no shock. And if the electrodes are close to each other, say in the shoulder area, the subject only feels like they have a cramp.
• Knives are close distance weapons. Since I am unlikely to carry a knife much more than 6 inches in length (illegal in many areas anyway), that means I must be within arms reach plus 6 inches to use it. Forget the circus knife thrower act, unless your parents were carnies or you participate in wilderness reenactment where knife and axe throwing are regularly practiced. If my attacker is within arms reach distance, that means he can also reach me.

So, my chosen weapon is a gun. No one is immune to a projectile fired at 1000 fps or faster. And if you are hit by that projectile, you will feel more than a cramp. And I can stand off at a safe distance while providing that projectile.

I will clue you in on something. If I am ever attacked and need to defend myself or my family from deadly peril, I intend to cheat. I will do whatever it takes to stop that attack. I know that I did not start the encounter; I did not chose that someone was going to possibly not go home this day. The best gun fight is the one you never get in to, so I will get myself and my charges to safety if I can. But if I can not safely do that, I will stop the attack. It is the attacker’s choice if they want to turn and run, or to just surrender. But if those thing do not happen, I will settle the issue. I don’t care if they slink away after a near miss, limp away to the hospital from a gunshot wound, or lay on the ground were they fell until law enforcement can come clean up the mess. Because I guarantee you, if I ever have to pull out my weapon it is because I am positive it is the only way I can protect myself from deadly harm.

So, yeah it’s a weapon. If it wasn’t a weapon, I wouldn’t be carrying it. By not calling it a weapon, you trivialize the potential impact of this very, very dangerous tool. It is capable of hurting or killing someone, either accidentally through my negligence or on purpose to protect myself. It will never be a good luck charm, or a lucky talisman to keep away bad things. By knowing that it is ALWAYS a weapon, I maintain the proper mindset to safely carry it so that it will be ready if it ever needs to fulfill its purpose, God forbid that ever should happen.