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.

Thank God for the people in blue

Image by Oleg Volks

Help businesses help themselves

In Texas, a business can request that even licensed carry permit holders not bring weapons on to their premises by posting what is called a "30.06 sign". It has some very specific language, spelled out in the statute with exact wording, font size and color requirements. Technically, any deviation from what is in the law makes the sign meaningless, but I think the owners are making their intentions very clear. As I said before, I have no intention of becoming an example and martyr, which would leave my loved ones without my protection. So I will choose to not patronize that establishment.

There will no doubt always be people who are just anti-gun, and they will never change their minds. But I think there are a percentage of businesses that are just unsure of the exact facts of the situation, or have done it as a knee jerk reaction so as not to alienate customers.
What we, as responsible armed citizens, need to do is try to help these owners understand the real story. After that, they are adults and can choose to do whatever they want. And we can choose to spend our money were we like as well.

On one of my first days carrying a weapon, I came upon a business that had their 30.06 sign hung right out by the front door. I was sort of caught, but once I had a chance I wrote a letter to the business explaining what I thought was a mistake they were making. Here is the text of that letter:

I had a business lunch today at your Austin location just off I35. While the meal was good, I am sorry to say that I will not be returning to your restaurant. On my way in to the facility I saw your posted sign, what we call in Texas a "30-06" sign, prohibiting me from legally carrying my handgun in your establishment.

While you are certainly within your rights to post this sign, as I am within my rights to use the permit that the State of Texas has seen fit to issue me, I feel that you have possibly made an error in judgment by doing so. I certainly can not change your mind if you are dead set against this, but that being said, I would respectfully request you consider the following facts;


• The only people who will obey this policy are law abiding citizens such as myself. A person meaning to do you or your customers harm will ignore it, and will be comforted by knowing for sure that no person inside is armed. Knowing this in advance makes the criminal very happy. Criminals are typically not willing to attack a victim that they are not positive they can defeat, and will avoid places where resistance may be strong.


• Everyone who has a legal Texas Concealed Carry Permit has been through a state-mandated training of about 8-10 hours length. Only a very small part of this training has anything to do with using a firearm. It is in fact a discussion of the responsibilities one takes on by carrying, multiple methods of de-escalating a situation rather than use armed force, and the very steep penalties we open our selves up for if we do in fact have to protect someone's life. All these things are in the very strict curriculum that every licensed instructor must adhere to. Most of the 47 states that have some type of concealed carry permit have similar standards.


• There are nearly 403,000 carry permit holders in the state of Texas alone. These people are law-abiding, average citizens. The actual incidence of a civilian CCW holder making a “mistake” with their handgun is about 1%; sworn police officers have an incidence of over 7%. So, civilian CCW holders are actually less dangerous than police officers in terms of safety. But yet you would never think to deny a police officer the right to carry his weapon. (It should be pointed out that sworn officers use their weapons in very different circumstances than armed civilians, so I am not making a negative statement about law enforcement)


• Some individuals will try to point out that a large number of concealed weapon permit holders are arrested, but the actual incidence of violent crime convictions shows a very different picture. Arrests can include anything from traffic violations to capital murder. In 2007, the latest year for which records are available, there were 61,260 violent crime convictions in Texas. In a total population of about 24 million, that is 1 per 390 people. Convictions for violent crimes by concealed weapon permit holder, as recorded by the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, was 160. With a total 2007 population of about 289,000 permit holders, that is 1 per 1800. Concealed weapon permit holders are over 10 times less likely to commit violent crimes.


• Public sentiment is changing towards concealed carry. In an ongoing MSNBC poll titled “How safe do you feel knowing there are people around legally carrying concealed guns?”, as of today 82.2% say it makes them feel “very safe”, and only 14.8% say it makes them feel “in danger”.






Case law has been established that, when a company or organization removes the means for a person to protect themselves, they have taken on an obligation to provide that security themselves. By disarming your customers who may legally bring firearms in to your business if not for your policy, if something happens where these people could have protected themselves you may be held responsible

I welcome any comments or discussion that might arise from this message.


Best Regards,

I think this is the type of message each person who believes in their right to protect themselves and their loved ones needs to have ready. I never did get any reply back from this business, and since I have not been back by the restaurant I imagine there has been no change. But if each of us does this when we come across a business that denies access to armed civilians, perhaps they would begin to see the economic impact of their decisions.

Not a Super-hero

Image by Oleg Volk

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours........

It really doesn't matter what the topic is, I guess. Any time guys get together there has to be some showing off. Be it cars, motorcycles, stereos, big screen TV, whatever, there is always some show and tell. Or at least tell.

So, what kind of gear have I acquired in my short concealed carry life so far? Well, I'll start by saying that the first weapon I actually bought when we moved to Texas was a shotgun. And no, it isn't a "concealed carry" shotgun. Just your run of the mill home defense shotty. Because there will be more than just me potentially using this, I got something simple and manageable. A Remington 870 Youth Express 20 gauge. Let me break it down step by step.

• Remington 870 because it is one of the most popular and reliable pump shotguns made.
• Pump, because there are fewer things to go wrong than an auto-loader. Plus, I have to agree that the sound of a shell being jacked in to the chamber has got to be one of the most intimidating sounds in the world.
• Express because it is the lightweight plastic stock. No worry about that ever cracking, warping, having the finish flake off or anything else.
• Youth, because it has a shorter length of pull (the distance from where the stock meets your shoulder to the area that your trigger hand holds). Easier to mount to the shoulder, shorter to move about the house if needed, useable by the smaller folks in the family if needed.
• 20 gauge because I really don't need a 12 gauge. I know, somehow it is slightly less manly. But it has less recoil, is easier to handle the muzzle flip to get back on target for follow-up shots, and still manages to send 20 # 3 buckshot (each about .24 in diameter) at 1100 fps. I know a lot of people say a 25 caliber handgun is too small to do any good, but imagine being smacked with 20 of them at the same time, all penetrating to a depth of maybe 9-12 inches. Talk about a bad day.
• Without the plug, I can get 4 shells plus 1 in the chamber. The plan is to have a shell with #8 shot in it, followed up by the #3 buck loads. The idea is that the first shot will do some real damage if it needs to be taken at close range, but won't over-penetrate if some of the pattern doesn't hit the target. Then the #3 buck will seal the deal if there still is a reason to shoot again.

Ok, now on to the handguns. Like most people now, I don't have a huge amount of cash to start off. So I definitely went to the bargain end of the scale. But I think I got some fairly decent weapons for the money.

• Smith and Wesson Sigma 40VE. This is the gun that got S&W sued by Glock, because it got a little too close. Like the Glock, it as a safe action weapon, meaning it is double action, striker fired with no safety and a very heavy pull. You have to really, really want to squeeze the trigger to get this one to go off. At 40 caliber, with 14 and 15 shot magazines plus 1 in the chamber, if I can't settle a dispute I definitely didn't practice enough. Nice home defense gun, but a bit big to carry all the time.
• Next came a Taurus 709 Slim, in all blue. 9mm, about 1" thick at the widest point, slide mounted safety plus all the other usual safety devices, adjustable rear sights, second strike capable and just a little bigger than the Kel-tec and Kahr guns everyone likes so much. This is my usual carry gun, and it sits really nice just behind my right hip or in a pocket. Even though it is pretty small and I don't get my strong hand pinky finger all the way on the grip, it still feels really nice in my hand and I can shoot it really well. Since I carry it, this is the one I practice with the most.
• I wanted to try a revolver, but knew I probably wouldn't be carrying it. I just like pistols much better (for those that don't know, a "pistol" is technically an auto loading handgun, as opposed to a revolver). So, I decided I wanted to have some fun with a .357 magnum wheelgun. I bought the absolute cheapest thing I could find, a Rossi Model 971 with a 4 inch barrel. I have subsequently realized why you don't buy cheap guns; this one will occasionally not get a good hit on the primer of some cheap loads. But then again, the nice thing about a revolver is that if the gun doesn't go bang you just pull the trigger again. Boy, does it like to go bang really loud.....
• My last addition is probably my favorite. Having spent some time in the Marine Corp, I have fond memories of the old 1911 auto. John Browning definitely got it right when he designed this gun. Now, as mentioned before I am not made of money, and the cash tree refuses to grow in the soil around my house. So I couldn't afford a real Colt, or any of the fancy Kimber, Ed Brown, low drag kind of weapons. But I am absolutely convinced that "it is smarter to be lucky, than it is lucky to be smart". I happened to be in my local Bass Pro Shop. I went in looking to see if they had any of the then-new Ruger LCP pistols in stock. I figured I could use another small pistol so share the load with my 709. Well, they didn't have them in stock yet. So I wandered down to look longingly at the modern 1911's, all shiny in their own little area of the counter. Well, I saw a particularly pretty all stainless Para Ordinance Model 745, and it said it was on sale. I asked the counter guy, and he said that this was the last one in the entire Bass Pro inventory, and corporate told them to move out all the items that didn't have good stock levels. It was the display model, so it had a few light scratches on the slide. I knew those would come out with a little elbow grease, since I have spent my share of time polishing metal. It ends up I got it for about 60% of the normal retail price. Real government size, 5" match barrel, beavertail grip safety, skeletonized trigger and hammer, and a sweet set of dovetail sights. So now I have a real beauty to take out and play with from time to time. I have to admit, it feels the best in my hand, and I take it out every couple days to make sure it stays nicely lubricated just so I can fondle it a little.

So, that's the collection to this point. I have a few more things in mind, but need to arrange the finances first. We just had to buy a new car, and I'm still reeling from the down-payment. But, there is a gun show in town this weekend, and I'm planning on taking my father-in-law just to get him out of the house for a while. So, maybe there will be something new to talk about.

There are probably those of you who don't understand why you would possibly need more than 1 gun. Well, guns to me and my type are like shoes or jewelry to some women. You just can't have enough, and besides they get lonely all by themselves when they are locked up.

Then of course there is all the ancillary gear; spare magazines, cleaning gear, storage, tactical knives and the like. I have the beginnings of a pretty impressive holster drawer as well. When I first got started, I decided to try to knock the rust off my leatherworking skills and make some holsters too. I have probably purchased 8 to 12 holsters, and really rarely use any of them. The ones I find are most comfortable are the ones I made. They are EXTREMELY homely, but since it is called "concealed carry" no one will ever know. So I have a couple black inside-the-waistband, and one pocket holster that I have on almost every day.

Maybe someday I'll get ambitious and take some pictures. For now, you'll just have to use your imagination.

Image by Oleg Volks

Pro-Second Amendment, or Gun Nut? You decide

First off, let me admit something. I am a new member of the NRA. That will most likely bring out 2 fairly severe reactions. The first, from the gun haters and on-the-fence folks, will say “Why would you support a bunch of crazy gun nuts, who want to put more guns on the streets and cause more violence and bloodshed?” The second from the gun nuts, saying, “Well, it’s about time hippie. You should have been helping us win the war against those gun haters, who want to make all of us totally defenseless so the government can create another communist enclave.” (Well, not that most gun nuts would use the word enclave, or even know what it means…..)


I’ll explain myself. First, I do support the Second Amendment. Just as I know that the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God, I do believe that it is everyone’s fundamental right to have the means to protect themselves. And I know that the NRA is the 800 lbs gorilla on capital hill, throwing their 4 million members’ weight around to secure these rights. I do not agree with everything the NRA espouses, but then again I call myself a Lutheran and don’t agree with everything they say either. But I would rather have someone, or some organization, trying to support the things I believe in where it can really make a difference.

So let’s get down to brass tacks. As the title suggests, I believe that there is a wide range of people who fall within the boundaries of being pro-Second Amendment, and being a gun nut. I probably fall more towards the lower end of the scale, and I’ll tell you what I believe that makes me say that. But believe me, there are very few real “gun nuts”, where the emphasis is on the nuts part. Most gun owners fall somewhere in the middle, and I wish we could all just get along.

So, here is my list of how I feel in a number of different areas:

• The right to own arms, particularly firearms. Solid PRO on this one. Aside from all the twaddle about hunting, and sport shooting, I just plain believe that firearms are the best tool for self defense. That alone gets my support. If someone is coming to do me or my loved ones harm, I intend to make darn sure that this does not come to pass. If I can dissuade them with a show of force, great. But I am prepared to do what it takes to stop any attack. A firearm is the best tool for that.

• The right to carry weapons in public. Once again, I would have to say solidly PRO, with a few reservations. First, while being able to protect yourself with a weapon is not a right that is given or taken away by law, what tools you may use to do that should have some controls on it. I can’t use dynamite or nerve gas, because that is indiscriminant and could easily harm innocent people. I can’t carry around a jar of acid to throw on my attacker, because that is just cruel and weird. While the First Amendment says I can write a story about fire, I can not shout “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater. So the concept of there being some limits and restriction on how a decent society deals with the concept of rights, and what constitutes an acceptable use of a weapon is completely logical.

• The use of deadly weapons. This one is a bit more complicated. As pointed out in both my concealed carry classes, a weapon is a tool. It is some physical thing which you use to protect yourself. What constitutes a weapon is the use of that tool. A stick laying in your yard is a stick, if you pick it up and swing it at someone it is a weapon. A book is just a book, unless you bash someone over the head with it. The next step in the continuum is a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is any weapon that is used in such a manner as it can cause death or long term severe injury to the recipient of its use. So, a gun is pretty much always considered a deadly weapon. A knife can be, but not always depending on who is using it, for what and in what manner. A stick can be, as can a book, a pen, your bare hands or even your forehead (if you were to bash that in to the bridge of someone’s nose, that would probably cause death or severe injury). I firmly believe that it is all together acceptable for a reasonable society to place reasonable restrictions on who may or may not carry a weapon in public that is pretty much always considered a deadly weapon.

• Concealed carry. Obviously, since I spent the time, effort and money to get 2 concealed carry permits, I agree with this. I think it is all together reasonable that, after a fair review of a person’s character and history as well as training and testing, a legal qualified citizen should be able to carry a weapon concealed. And by this I mean anywhere. I don’t think a lawfully licensed person should have to leave their weapon at home if they go to a school or government building. Bad things happen there just as much as any where else. I feel a lawfully licensed person should be able to carry their weapon on a plane. If you can prove to security at the airport that you are licensed, you should be able to pass through. Anyone with a weapon who is not legally licensed should be arrested and thrown in a bottomless pit. Lest you think I am stupid, I think that there should be some restrictions on how you comport yourself while carrying. Alcohol and guns DO NOT MIX. I agree with the zero alcohol tolerance in Texas, so if you want to imbibe leave the roscoe at home. Concealed weapon permit holders are, and should be, held to a higher standard of behavior, because of the tremendous power they hold by having a deadly weapon. If you screw up, you lose your permit, do not stop at go, do not collect $200. There is no room for error, no second chances, and no do-overs if you make the wrong choice. I agree with Robert Heinlein ( and all those that quote him on this), “An armed society is a polite society”. If you can’t handle the pressure, you should be carrying a gun.

• Open carry. This is where I think I start to separate myself from the more extreme members of the gun owning public. While I think open carry should be legal, and all citizens should be comfortable around other citizens with guns, I think open carry has many drawbacks. First, not everyone is comfortable around guns, and flashing them in public can cause people to panic. That doesn’t do anyone any good. Second, I think open carry removes one of the few advantages a concealed carry permit holder has over the “Bad Guy” (BG). The BG gets to pick the time, the place and most of the other circumstances of any encounter. Hopefully you are paying attention and don’t get backed in to that situation, but if you do the only thing on your side is the surprise when you draw your weapon. Given that there are so many ways to conceal your weapon, it is unlikely that the BG will just be able to guess where that gun came from. If you open carry, you are pretty much broadcasting to the entire world “here it is, keep an eye on this and don’t let me get to it if I need it.” It is a severe tactical disadvantage. Oh, and by the way, even though I think I should be able to open carry if I want to, I will never be one of those people who parades around flaunting the law, just so I can prove how unconstitutional it is. I will happily support the fight to maintain our rights, but I will not be thrown in jail and leave my loved ones defenseless in order to make a point.

Well, there you go. The beginnings of my manifesto on gun topics. There are obviously many more issues to talk about, and I intend to try to get to some of them. But this should at least help people understand where I am coming from as I make my journey through life, with a gun on my hip.

Using the same tools

Image by Oleg Volks

IMPORTANT: Make your willl known to your Senators NOW

It isn’t too late yet (as of Wednesday, Aug 4th) to let your Senators know how you feel on this. Please see my reasons for suggesting why Elena Kagan would be a VERY BAD CHOICE for Supreme Court Justice.




First, it is well known that Ms. Kagan is a legal activist, trying to rewrite case law and interpret previous rulings to drive her own personal agenda. She has publicly said that her interpretation of the Constitution may change from year to year. I find this very disturbing. I feel that the intent of the Constitution is very clear on all fronts, and it is only the people who try to figure out a way to get around what is obviously right and just by finding loopholes that cause any issue. The First Amendment has not changed in the 200+ years since it was written, only the media to which it applies.



Aside from a general feeling that Ms Kagan has willfully mislead or outright lied to the Senate on multiple topics, the one that impacts most on this blog is gun rights. While Kagan does not have a record of judicial opinions, her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery. Some things that have come to light since her nomination include:

• While serving in the Clinton administration, Kagan drafted an executive order to ban certain semi-automatic firearms;
• As a law clerk, she advised against the Supreme Court considering Sandidge v. United States in a case that questioned the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, writing that she was "not sympathetic" to the gun owner's Second Amendment claims; and
• Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the President pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

During her hearings, Kagan ducked and dodged questions about the Second Amendment, and she refused to declare whether she believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right.



Kagan insisted that the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are precedent and "settled law," but this in no way precludes her from ruling that almost any gun law -- including gun owner registration, purchasing limits, waiting periods, private sale background checks, and more -- are consistent with the Constitution.



Recall the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, the newest Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor assured the Senate, and the American people, that she accepted the Court's ruling in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.



Yet, in the McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the dissent in writing that "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."



Now Kagan has made the same promises to the Senate, but the available evidence portrays her as a forceful advocate of restrictive gun laws and driven by political considerations rather than the rule of law.

Protect the family

Image by Oleg Volks

I feel the need to educate myself

One thing I have noticed since I made the decision to carry a weapon concealed was an overwhelming urge to know what I was getting in to. I guess this is a good thing. Having such a tool with you all the time, one which literally can make a human beings life stop, requires a lot of soul searching. I just want to be able to make the right decisions, both in how to use that weapon but more importantly when to use it or not use it.

I think I was really just lucky that the very first book I read on the subject was Massad Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme: the Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection. For those that have never read it, it is a real beginner's manual on the realities and psychology of using a weapon for defense. It doesn't tell you how to hold your pistol, how to shoot, how to "run" the weapon. What it does tell you is the responsibilities you take on, the consequences of your choices, and the likely after-math of ever having to actually use it.

Of course I have read a couple books on weapon skills, and tactics for protecting yourself. But I keep coming back to In the Gravest Extreme. I have actually read it 3 times already, and expect to read it again many more times. When my budget allows for actually taking classes, I really hope to be able to do one of the MAG series offered by the Massad Ayoob Group. These are 20, 40 or 80 hour classes taught all over the country. The 20 hour course is just the classroom piece, going over all the rules and reasons to use or not use your weapon. The 40 and 80 hour classes include range time, where the teaching team will help you become more proficient with your weapon so you are not a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

I guess that is another piece of the same puzzle. I try to educate my brain, so that I can make the right decisions. But I also go to the range, to gain some of the skill I need to be able to quickly, safely and decisively stop an attack on myself or my loved ones.

IMPORTANT POINT HERE - I carry a gun to do exactly that; to stop an attack on myself or my loved ones. I do not carry it to kill someone, to dispense justice, to punish the wicked, to protect my property or belongings or any of those other things. I only want to stop a deadly attack, with the least amount of force required and the least amount of suffering inflicted on any anyone. If something were to ever happen where I needed to use lethal force, I know I will be devastated. But if it ever comes down to this type of confrontation, I will not hesitate. I will be comforted by the knowledge that I did not make the decision someone would be getting hurt or killed today. The bad guy did that when he chose to attack. I just changed who it was that would be getting hurt. If I am really lucky, everything will resolve itself without harm or bloodshed. I will attempt to withdraw from the fight ,I will shoot as straight and true as I possibly can, I will continue to shoot until the threat is stopped, I will summon the proper authorities as soon as it is safe to shift my attention and I will render aid to anyone hurt in the battle (including the person who attacked me as long as it is safe to do so).

So, this is why I feel the need to educate myself. I am not training to be a soldier, a policeman or anything other than a concerned citizen who wants to protect the people that are important to me. If I wanted to be one of those other things, there are certainly plenty of skills and tactics classes to be had. As people in the gun microcosm say, the "fast, low drag" stuff. What I want to do is be just skillful enough to serve the purpose without endangering anyone other than my intended target, and to prepare my mind for the incomprehensible ordeal that will take place after I use my weapon.

One of the points I find most interesting in this type of learning is that any use of deadly force is not like you see on TV or in the movies. It doesn't start when you remove your weapon from your holster, and end when the cops pat you on the back and send you home afterwards. It begins the minute you make the decision to carry a weapon, and there really is no end. Hopefully you never have to use your weapon, but having it changes your life forever. And if you ever do need to use it, you can expect weeks, months or even years of legal problems, a lot of expense, and the idea that your life has changed again very significantly. Your loved ones will see you differently, your neighbors and co-workers will talk about you, people that don't even know you will judge you and probably hate you. Even if you are proven justified and blameless, you will continue to suffer. And heaven forbid if you did not do everything exactly right so that it can be judged justifiable. Because then you will be ripped away from your life and loved ones, sent to prison for probably a long time, and if you are lucky and young enough you will have to try to rebuild everything about your life when you get out.

So, it seems incredible that anyone decides to put so much at risk. Wouldn't it be much easier to remain a sheep, and count on someone else to protect you and your loved ones? Yeah, it would be easier. But it also would be shirking your responsibility to the ones you love. And all the risk that I take on by accepting this challenge is not nearly as heavy as the regret and remorse I would feel if something were to ever happen to my family.