Things Are Different In Texas...

Jacqueline in Texas sends in a sign from a local hardware store:

That, right there, is how its done, folks. In amongst all the 30.06 signs that forbid the carrying of arms, here's a store that tells customers, right up front, that they are welcome if they are carrying a firearm. This sign, mind you, is a thousand times more effective than a "no guns" sign. Think about it. A "no guns" sign tells a potential bad guy that he will be the only person in that store with a firearm.

That sign tells the same potential bad guy that he's playing Texas Roulette if he whips out a heater in that hardware store...

That is all.

Surprise!

A whole bunch of people sent me this story. It's a cautionary tale on many, many levels...

'Point 'em out, knock 'em out': Brutal game ends when assault victim fires his concealed handgun

The game was called "point 'em out, knock 'em out," and it was as random as it was brutal.

The object: Target an innocent victim for no other reason than they are there, then sucker punch him or her.

But on this day in Lansing, there would be no punch. The teen-age attacker had a stun gun. He did not know his would-be victim was carrying a legally concealed pistol.

So, let me get this straight. There's a "game" where teenagers pick people out at random and beat them unconscious. They often do this with the tacit or overt approval and assistance of their peers. The victims are chosen at random and have not done anything to provoke this; they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, this poor dude is waiting at his daughter's bus stop. He's 28; I'm guessing his daughter isn't a middle schooler - probably kindergarten/first grade or thereabouts. This happened in late May, towards the end of the school year. There's probably a million things going through this poor guy's head, when out of nowhere this punk shows up, walks past, then doubles back and jams something in the guy's side.

What's he supposed to think?

Now, stop for a second. Stop right there. What would have happened if the stun gun had worked as intended? The victim would most likely have been incapacitated - dropped to the ground incapable of movement. Depending on the type of stun gun, he could have been incapacitated for as long as the stun gun was fired or until it ran out of power. While he was laying on the ground, incapable of movement, he could easily have been beaten to death like the WWII veteran in Washington.

The point is, at the moment that stun gun jammed into the victim's side, he had absolutely no way of knowing or telling whether this was some dumb kid trying to play tough, a robbery attempt, or a gang initiation that required him to die. I don't blame him one bit for drawing and firing - why on earth would he give the kid a second chance to incapacitate him?

And the best they can get the kid for is possession of a stun gun. Allegedly they're not pressing assault charges because the victim wasn't injured. So, presumably, if you walked up to someone, stuck a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, as long as the chamber is empty you're only guilty of misdemeanor assault. Does anyone buy this for a second? Is it any wonder that crime is rampant when something like this does not result in a serious punishment ONLY because of an equipment malfunction?

There is a surprise in this story. The teenager - shot in the buttocks - apologized to his victim. Not only that, the victim called 911, explained what had happened, and remained with the teenager until EMS arrived, trying to keep him calm. That's class right there. With any kind of luck this young man will realize how close he came to dying on that day, and straighten himself out. It's not too late, and the fact that he sent his victim a letter of apology bodes well.

Now, go back to the moment the teen jammed the stun gun in his victim's side. What if it had gone off as expected? Maybe he would have just knocked the guy down and ran off to join his friends, laughing at the poor SOB he just knocked out. Maybe he would have hit the guy a few times. Maybe the next time he'd knock someone down and start kicking. It sure doesn't look like the DA is interested in prosecuting - so, most likely, he could continue right up until the point that he beat a 99 year old woman to death in the middle of a robbery.

Hopefully getting shot in the ass changes his outlook and puts him on the right path...

That is all.

Just Give Them What They Want...

What happens when what they want is no witnesses?

DA says victims complied with demands during robbery but were shot anyway

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Prosecutors say a Tennessee pharmacy owner killed during a robbery had handed over several bottles of oxycodone before he was shot to death.

Grainger County District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn made the comments Friday, one day after the owner of Down Home Pharmacy in Bean Station, a town in East Tennessee, was killed during the robbery. Police say a customer was also killed and two people were wounded.

So, the pharmacist complied, did exactly as the robber demanded, and got shot dead anyways. Seems he would have been a lot better served reaching under the counter for a .38 Special. As it was, a customer died and two more were wounded as the criminal tried to leave no witnesses. This being TN, though, I'm a little surprised that no one else in the store was armed - although it is easy to armchair quarterback when no one's pointing a gun at me...

This is the fallacy of the "Just give them what they want" argument, folks. You. Never. Know. Sure, the guy sticking a gun in your face may be a father, out of work for a year with no money, struggling to feed his family, hating himself for having to do this and meaning you no harm. Or he could be a junkie looking for a fix whose drug-addled brain thinks it's better to execute everyone in the room rather than get caught for armed robbery. You. Never. Know. Telling people to comply with the robber's demands rather than fight back assumes that the robber is in control of their mental faculties and acting rationally.

That's an assumption I am not willing to make.

If someone threatens your life, you had damn well take them at face value. You absolutely NEED to act as though they have every single intention of following through on that threat - because they just might. I don't necessarily mean start shooting - if the opportunity presents itself, "running like a scared jackrabbit" is a perfectly viable defense strategy. If you're a halfway decent runner they're not about to chase you, and moving targets are hard to hit. But if you can't run away, whether from age, infirmity, or familial obligations, then you need to have a plan to deal with someone making threats against your life.

I prefer using the best tools possible, whether they be from Gaston Glock, Mssrs. Smith & Wesson, or otherwise...

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

What Would You Do?

So, you're out and about, and you see a man and a woman struggling in the street. They appear to be fighting over a gold chain, with a back-and-forth struggle. Do you intervene? On whose behalf? Mopar sends in this story where it's not what you think...

Plainfield Thief Escapes When Good Samaritans Stop Wrong Person

PLAINFIELD — Police say a thief got away after two good Samaritans grabbed the wrong person on a Union County street.

The Samaritans were driving down West Front Street in Plainfield when they saw what appeared to be a man assaulting a woman early Monday.

This is the counter to a good chunk of those "what would you do" arguments. This is why my CCW is for my protection and not the protection of others, because you never know:

But it turns out the man was walking down the street when he said the woman robbed him of about $400 in cash and a gold chain.

See? The "good Samaritans" intervened, apparently on behalf of the woman - who proceeded to get away. So in their zeal to help - which is admirable - they jumped to conclusions and let the real goblin get away. It's a good thing that neither was carrying (we'll pretend that this happened somewhere other than NJ, where a legal concealed carry permit holder is about as rare as Santa Claus). Imagine if they had held the man at gunpoint? Imagine if they had handed the chain over to the woman, thinking they were giving her back her property? They might have found themselves charged with armed robbery...

I know, this is the exception rather than the rule - but it does happen. We are not cops. It is not our duty to intervene in disputes - and we are 100% liable if we make the wrong decision. I don't know if the motorists will face any charges - but an overzealous DA could certainly cost them a good chunk of money defending themselves. If the man that they grabbed decided to press charges, they could be in a world of hurt. It could have been even worse if they had intervened while armed.

Just more food for thought for those of us that take responsibility for our own security...

That is all.

I Still Don't Get It...

Got my hardcopy of this month's Guns & Ammo magazine while I was away on vacation last week. On the cover is the Heizer Double Tap:

(picture taken at the NRA convention in April)

Pretty small, right? What's not to like about a pocket gun that's barely bigger than a smart phone? Sure, it's not a primary arm, but it's not intended as such - it's a last-ditch, better-than-a-rock option for when you need that last little bit, right?

Except, let's get realistic. This isn't going to be a backup gun. It's going to wind up as a summer primary. Small, light guns are meant for pocket carry, and pocket carry just happens in the summer. When it's 90ºF outside, and all you're wearing is a pair of shorts and a tank top, who wants to go outside with a cover garment that just screams "concealed firearm", right?

So it winds up being the only gun you carry when it's hot - and that's not what it's made for. Two shots of any caliber - even G-d's Own Pistol caliber - aren't enough to bet your life on, especially not with vestigial sights and a light weight that's going to take that full power round and try to jump out of your hands. It's going to be uncomfortable to shoot, so it's unlikely to see much practice.

And while I'm loathe to argue for a smaller caliber, there's something to be said for 6+1 rounds of .380 ACP that can double as a summer carry gun:

Small pocket 380s have over three times the ammunition capacity inside the firearm, with a significantly faster reload. The Bodyguard shown weighs the same as the lighter DoubleTap, and the LCP is even lighter. With size difference between the pocket 380 and the DoubleTap negligible, and weight the same, it makes the "full power ammo" argument pretty much moot.

Certainly, small, light guns like the DoubleTap have their place. It's a supremely concealable firearm that's as reliable as a revolver (especially carried in a pocket) with full-sized power. As a last-ditch backup, especially if carried in the same caliber as the primary, it makes a lot of sense - if you carry a micro 1911 or Glock 26, having a DoubleTap in 45/9mm in a back pocket or in an ankle holster makes sense.

But as a primary, it's just not enough gun - and the danger of something this small and light is that it's going to become a primary gun...

That is all.

But Trayvon Was Unarmed...

Joseph in IL sent me this story. I've been alternating between enraged and sick to my stomach.

Prosecutors: Teens In Fatal Attack Were Playing “Knock ‘Em Out” Game

CHICAGO (CBS) – Three teens accused of attacking a man in a West Rogers Park alley and posting video of the fatal beating online were allegedly playing a game called “pick ‘em out and knock ‘em out.”

As WBBM Newsradio’s Steve Miller reports, at a bond hearing for two of the suspects, Cook County prosecutors said the youngest of the trio – 16-year-old Malik Jones – was the instigator of the attack. Jones allegedly turned on his cell phone’s video camera before handing it to 17-year-old Nicholas Ayala and 18-year-old Anthony Malcolm while he attacked a man who was searching for scrap metal.

16 years old. He struck a 62 year old man hard enough to knock him to the ground, where he hit his head. He died of those wounds the next day. Remember that the next time some bleeding heart bleats that George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager. For no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a 62 year old man was beaten to death by some punk bastard.

Thanks, Illinois, for making your streets perfectly safe for this kind of vermin. Because there are no provisions for concealed carry in the state of Illinois, these scumbags knew that they stood a very good chance of their prey being unarmed. Three young bucks in the prime of their lives chose a disabled man more than three times their age to beat up for kicks, recording the encounter and posting it on Facebook.

Honestly, the Sicilian in me wants to see these three animals staked out in the town square and left to die of exposure. Deal with savages savagely, speak to them in the only language they understand, of superior force and pain, and the lesson will be learned. Obviously we can't follow through, but we can certainly make sure that they never again see the light of day.

Right up until they're released on parole, with time off for good behavior after 10 or so years.

The nanny staters and gun grabbers would have you believe that it is the availability of guns that causes crime. Remove the guns, they claim, and we'll live in a crime-free paradise. Despite being proven wrong time after time, they keep insisting that one more law would have stopped [insert shocking crime committed with firearm]. If only we banned a certain type of firearm, or limited the number of rounds a magazine can carry, or limit purchases to one a month; the laws of human nature would cease to exist and we'd all have a group hug.

And then something like this happens; a crime so brutal, so primitive, so shockingly and banally evil that it has got to make some people think. A group of bored teenagers, with no respect for the law nor their fellow man, decided that it would be a good idea to beat a man down. For no reason other than a "game" that they thought would be fun - especially if they shared it on the internet - a man is dead; a father will never come home, a wife will never again get to talk to her partner.

Tell me what laws could stop this.

There are laws against assault. There are laws against murder. Laws as old as Man himself forbid the wanton taking of life, the theft of goods, the brutality shown towards a perfect stranger. When these laws are broken - although in this case it's more that they were simply ignored - we really are reduced to nothing more than survival of the fittest. If we are becoming a society that depends on some nebulous decree from the lawmakers to save us from these animals, then we are doomed indeed. I hope the Mayans are right.

Bookmark this story. Remember it the next time you're tempted to leave the house without your firearm. Remember the last few moments of Delfino Mora, assaulted and left to die for kicks. For no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, he was beaten and subsequently died. Our foes would have us all at the mercy of those like the animals that did this. Personally, I see it this way:

(picture courtesy of RangerUp)

I just want to close with a quote from Jeff Cooper:

I would like very much to ensure... that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

 That is all.

SNAFU, Defined...

A sad dispatch from the BLNN today:

Killed Federal Agent Was Getting Dad's Cancer Meds

NEW YORK – An off-duty federal law enforcement agent who died while confronting a pharmacy robber was picking up his elderly father's cancer medication, a New York congressman said Sunday.

Veteran agent John Capano had chased down the suspect inside the store and was trying to subdue him on the ground when he died, said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. The robber, who was also shot to death, was identified Sunday by police as 43-year-old James McGoey of Hampton Bays.

Reading through other accounts of the incident, it appears that Capano just happened to walk into the pharmacy as the robber was leaving. At the same time, two off-duty cops in the deli next door had been alerted to the robbery and rushed to the pharmacy. It's not clear whether Capano was shot by the robber or one of the off-duty police officers (none of the articles I read were able to state definitively; the only certain thing is that a stupid robbery over prescription drugs cost two people their lives.

Capano was either shot by the robber or by one of the two off-duty cops responding to the incident. The "best" possible outcome is that McGoey shot Capano and Capano was able to mortally wound McGoey before he died, and the two off-duty cops came upon the scene as it unfolded. The next best scenario would be that Capano was shot by McGoey, and one of the two off-duty cops fatally wounded McGoey. The least appealing option, obviously, would be that Capano was shot by one of the two responding off-duty officers, either in a "heat of battle" mistake or a case of mistaken identity - they hear of a robbery in progress, see a man with a gun, and fire.

It's this last possibility that frightens me. There is always the possibility for someone with a CCW permit to find themselves in a similar situation - there are plenty of stories in the DGC of someone in a restaurant or convenience store stepping in to end a robbery. You'd think that there would be time to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys - but it doesn't always play out that way. This isn't a 1950s western, where the good guy wears a white hat and the bad guy wears a black hat and a bandana - we can't always be sure the police will know we're the good guys...

In any case, RIP Agent Capano.

That is all.

Q. "Why Do You Carry a Gun?"

A. Because evil still walks the streets.

Suspect Sought For Attempted Abduction At Macy’s In Downtown Crossing

BOSTON (CBS) – Boston police are seeking public’s help in finding a suspect wanted for an attempted abduction of three teenage boys.

The abduction attempt happened Saturday afternoon at the Macy’s at Downtown Crossing. Boston Police spokesman James Kineally said the teenagers, who are from Quincy, said a man approached them inside the store, telling them he was a police officer, and offering them a ride.

Nice. There's two good parts to this story: First and foremost, the boys did exactly the right thing - they asked to see his ID, and, when he failed to produce ID, they ran. The second part is that he's setting himself up for impersonating a police officer, which can be added to the attempted abduction charges.

What's scary is that this happened in a "good" area; the Downtown Crossing area is adjacent to Boston Common and the financial district - all snark about bankers aside, it's about as "safe" an area as you'll find in a large urban city. There are lots of shops both large and small, and plenty of real police officers walking around to make sure that the flow of commerce continues unabated.

And yet someone tried to kidnap a group of young boys here.

"Safe" places simply do not exist. They never have. In fact, a pretty good argument could be made that you're at more risk in a "safe" place than in a supposedly dangerous place, because in the "safe" place you might be tempted to let your guard down. Like, say, a "gun-free zone", where only the law-abiding folks are disarmed of the best tools for defense - predators, goblins, and thugs aren't going to care that they're breaking the law about not having a gun in place [X] if they're mugging/abducting/killing you.

There's a reason we on the pro-freedom side derisively call "gun free zones" by their true name: Criminal Empowerment Zones. In the absence of credible, real deterrence in the form of folks what might shoot back, the strongarm thug - or the thug not stopped by pieces of paper - rules the roost should he so choose. Goblins don't care about breaking one more law - but they sure love it when we herd ourselves into a place that disarms us for them.

Know your surroundings. Watch your kids. Carry your guns.

That is all.

Is It Worth It?

PDB posted an interesting primer on NC's convoluted carry laws with the upcoming NRA convention in mind. In a nutshell, basically any place that you'd want to carry is off-limits, and with NC's "binding signage", all an establishment has to do to prevent lawful CCW is to put up a "No Guns Allowed" sign. The convention center itself specifically prohibits CCW inside, to the point of having metal detectors at the doors. CCW is prohibited in establishments that serve alcohol as well.

Well hell, that's 98% of the trip right there...

Seriously, though, I expect to arrive at the convention as it opens on Friday morning; spend the bulk of the day in convention-related activities and such, then check into my hotel Friday afternoon/early evening and then head out to some bar-type establishment for some libations with other gunbloggers. At literally no point in the day save the time spent in my hotel room would I be allowed to CCW - I'm going from one CCW-proscribed venue to another. I can't carry at the convention - I will be specifically screened to prevent this, in fact - nor at any of the festivities after hours. There's no shooting events planned, and if there were there would be scant time to attend one anyways.

I'm just not seeing much of a reason to bring something with me. I am simply not enthusiastic about running the NY/NY gauntlet so that my sidearm can sit in a safe in my room. My carry piece locked up five miles away in my hotel does me just as much good as locked up 900 miles away back home - none. Leaving it home, however, means I don't have to sweat stopping at a rest area in NJ to gas up and getting stopped and searched and winding up like John Torraco or Gregg Revell. I also don't have to worry about the firearm getting stolen out of my room or out of my car and having to report said theft to the BATFE (I'm a C&R holder) and my Chief of Police declaring me unsuitable. Not terribly likely, I know, but possible.

I'm not convinced that having a firearm in my hotel room is worth the risk of transporting it to the hotel - convince me otherwise...

That is all.

Helpful Gunnie Hints...

Friend, fellow blogmeet attendee, and SigSauer enthusiast Lissa e-mailed me the following story which I'd like to use as a cautionary tale:

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

This is, believe it or not, the best part of the story. It all goes downhill from here.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

Got that? Schubert was licensed to carry in MA, and yet still gets a dressing down from Officer Respect Mah Authoritay/Only One. Schubert has jumped through all of the legal hoops one need jump through to obtain a permit in MA (which he will almost certainly lose as a result of this), and yet the ill-informed police officer treated him like a common criminal. At least, I'd like to think that the officer was simply uninformed - the alternative is that the officer made a conscious decision to harass a law-abiding gun owner.

There are several lessons one can take from this story:

1. As I've mentioned before, "concealed means concealed" is never more topical than when carrying in gun-unfriendly areas. If they can't see your sidearm, they can't get all butt-hurt and ZOMG ONLY COPS SHOULD HAVE TEH EBIL GUNZZZZ! on you. In many places -TX included - it's actually against the law for your concealed weapon to be visible. This can be cause for revocation of your permit and/or criminal charges. Invest the money in a good concealed carry holster - this is not an area to save a few bucks.

2. Have the name and number of a good attorney with experience in firearms litigation in your wallet and on your cell phone. This comes in handy if, G-d forbid, you are ever involved in a righteous shooting and also in cases like the above. You want competent legal representation when you defend yourself in court as well as if/when you decide to go after the powers-that-be in civil court.

3. Just as important as #2, know the gun laws of your state and/or local municipality. If you live in an state with binding signage, know what is and isn't a valid display of a sign. Decide whether to frequent such businesses or not. Know the places and conditions under which you cannot carry (i.e. bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, places of worship, etc.). This is 1,000 times more important if you're carrying out of state.

4. The side of the road is not the time to argue the finer points of the Second Amendment with the arresting officer. You're just some jamoke with a pistol to the officer - don't forget that cops probably see hundreds of people carrying firearms, and in their world 99.9999% of guns and folks carrying them are doing so illegally and for illegal purposes. Getting into a pissing contest with a cop on the scene because "It's my right and it's protected under the Constitution" is going to go pear shaped most rikki-tik, and YOU WILL LOSE. The deck is stacked against you in a big way.

5. And in conjunction with #4, remember that Officer Friendly is not your friend. While there are many cops who respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment, there are easily as many (if not an order of magnitude more) who think that they are the "Only One"s who should be carrying firearms. As long as there are "Respect Mah Authoritay" types out there like the gung-ho good little fascist in the story above, your best bet when dealing with the police is to make it so you don't have to deal with the police. Make sure your sidearm is invisible. Resist the urge to flip off the jackass tailgating you. Don't let the prying fat cow critiquing your parenting style get under your skin. Be cool.

6. Officers like the jack-booted thug in the story above need to be called out, fired from their jobs, and forcibly prevented from holding any position of authority above that of pest control. If you get all hot-and-bothered by a law-abiding citizen LEGALLY carrying a firearm, to the point of illegally detaining him, you need to reconsider your line of work. I sincerely hope that Attorney Schubert rakes whatever PD hired Stern over the coals on this one, and I also hope that whichever locality issued Attorney Schubert his permit doesn't declare him "unsuitable" after this incident.

7. Lastly, if there's any way to avoid living, working, or traveling in a gun-unfriendly hellhole like the Volksrepublik of MA, do it.

Carrying a firearm shouldn't have to be a legal minefield, but in places like MA/CA/NY/etc. it should be expected...

That is all.

Yet Another Reason...

...why a gun is better than 911:

Because it's a helluva lot better for the 911 operator to hear "I've just shot the man who abducted me" rather than "I'm sorry. I just want to see my family. ... I just want to see my family again. Please. ... Oh please, I just want to see my family again. Let me go."

Alternately, because given the choice between a Motorola and a Glock, I'll take the one that dispenses 230 grain justice over the one that plays "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" when it gets an incoming call every time.

That is all.

Are You Carrying?

If I’m outside of the house (and not at work), then the answer to the titular question is most likely yes. A wise person once opined “Carry your gun. It’s a lighter burden than regret”, and this sage advice reverberates in my skull when I think “hey, it’s just the grocery store, I really don’t need to carry, do I?” That 8/12/24 ounces of plastic/rubber and metal doesn’t seem like such a heavy weight when placed next to the need for self-defense. With a little preparation, it’s virtually undetectable (by those who would react negatively, of course), and the knowledge that I have the best tools with which to defend myself and my family is worth the effort.

How can you tell I’m carrying? Perhaps I’m giving away “trade secrets” here, but here’s a good clue that I’m carrying a concealed firearm:

A. I’m wearing one of the following items of clothing:

• Untucked polo shirt.

• Hawaiian shirt

• Mexican wedding shirt

• Cargo shorts

• Fleece vest

B. Watch my body language. Generally, I’ll be doing one or more of the following:

• Avoid reaching over my head

• Bend to pick something up using an exaggerated “golf bend”

• Bend my knees rather than my back to get down near the ground to pick something up

• Compulsively tug at my shirt or vest

• Keep my hands in my pockets more than usual

And, lastly, C. Locational cues:

• I‘m with my kids.

• I’m going to the bank/gas station/Home Depot/WallyWorld.

• Out for a ride on the Harley.

• Not at a school, post office, or place of employment.

• I’m outside of my house.

Any of the above - especially C - means there’s a better-than-average chance that I’m [legally] carrying a concealed firearm.

That is all.

Why I Carry, Part n...

A call to recollect, act for justice

Thirty-seven red, blue, and green balloons sailed across a clear sky above Beacon Hill yesterday afternoon, 10 of them representing the years that Melissa Gosule would have and should have lived.

The 27-year-old teacher from Jamaica Plain was raped and fatally stabbed in July 1999 by Michael P. Gentile, a man who had offered her a ride home when her car broke down on Cape Cod and who had been convicted of at least 20 previous violent crimes.

(emphasis mine)

Got that? 20 violent crime CONVICTIONS and this monster was still out on the street. He was free to terrorize - and kill - more victims thanks to our revolving door justice system. At the time of the murder, Gentile was 31 years old - meaning that he'd had those 20 convictions for violent crimes in just 13 short years.

Please, for the love of all that's good and holy, please tell me how any gun control measure is going to stop such a monster when we steadfastly refuse to punish them.

This inhuman piece of shit should have received 5 rounds of .38 Special through his sternum that night, rather than a school teacher losing her life. That's what should happen in a truly enlightened society. Instead, our "justice" system failed us twice - first, for not keeping this violent savage off the street, and second, for placing high hurdles on owning and carrying the best means of protection.

As long as the MA "justice" system continues their "catch-and-release" program for violent offenders, I'll have 5 X 158 grains of .357 Magnum deterrence on my person, thank you very much...

That is all.

Taking a Stand.

I sense a theme. The inimitable LawDog cautions us to practice and carry as the most important part of one's decision to go armed; and the world's most dangerous librarian recounts a recent situation where someone got inside her comfort zone. These two individual posts were crying out to be put together. Now, I'm just a chimp banging away at an old IBM selectric typewriter compared to Breda and LawDog, but I'll give it a shot.

Both posts bring up incredibly important aspects of self-defense. They both point out the importance of having the proper mindset, which Breda demonstrates aptly in her tale of the boor of the bar. She maintains an excellent balance between overt aggression and meek submission, using body language only to send the unmistakeable message that messing with her would be to the other person's detriment. LawDog reminds us that all the hardware in the world is meaningless if the software can't execute the program; that you can have the most uber tacticool blastomatic in the world's most deadly caliber, but if it's sitting in the safe at home when the goblins find you, or if you've only put one magazine through it in the 10 years you've owned it, you're in a big hole long before the ball drops.

Putting these two stories together helps better define the concept of self-defense, especially when it entails a firearm. Breda points out that the human animal is the best defense against predators - that having the proper mindset (i.e. non-prey) is just as important as whether one is armed with a firearm or not. LawDog warns us to be prepared for when the smelly stuff hits the fan, that the greatest tactical advantage one can have is to be armed with a firearm with which one is proficient.

I'll expand on Breda's post a little here. I've had a certain amount of experience with the type of blowhard she encountered through the years. For a long time, I was the "biggest guy in the room" - six feet tall, 220-250 pounds, large build, muscular. While my size meant that I was less attractive to goblins, it also meant that in social situations (such as at the local sports bar) I was a target for a drunk with an axe to grind or a point to prove. I honestly can't count the number of times I was approached by some loudmouth trying to goad me into a fight.

I can, however, count the number of fights I was actually in: zero.

I have nothing to prove. I'm not the toughest guy out there, but I can generally hold my own; I'm not about to roll the dice with my freedom because some jackass wants to show his friends he can take out "the big guy". I basically had two levels of dealing with these imbeciles: the first level was being self-effacing and conciliatory, basically sending the message that I was not the least bit interested in playing the game, nor was I going to be goaded into a fight. Should the person move beyond that level, it went to stage two - draw myself up to my full height, puff out my chest, flex the muscles a bit, and give "the stare" - as I mentioned in comments to Breda's post, "the stare" was meant to convey one of two messages:

"Keep this shit up and I'll be hosing your DNA out of a woodchipper tomorrow"

or

"Keep yapping. I'm just trying to decide which part of you I'm gonna eat first"

Basically, it's the look that says "you have pushed me right to my limit. If you continue to push, you are about to find out the horrors that I am capable of unleashing". 99 times out of 100, this look is sufficient to settle any argument - the blowhards don't actually want to get into a fight; they merely want to project power in a sitaution where they really don't have it. Breda's response to the jerk in the bar was absolutely perfect and appropriate; while she didn't threaten him or even cuss him out, she let him know in no uncertain terms that his continued existence on this planet was due only to her good graces.

LawDog's exhortations come for that 1 time out of 100 when "the stare" is not enough. It could be a psychopath. It could be a goblin intent to do you harm. Thing is, it doesn't matter - you run into that person who will not back down nor be cowed by projection of force alone. And when that happens, you need to be trained to handle the situation and have the tools needed to get the job done. On last week's Gun Nuts, LawDog called in and gave some excellent pointers about knowing one's limits - basically, knowing at what point you're willing to employ deadly force BEFORE you need to... Even in that 1/100 situation, there may - or may not - come a point at which you will need to make the decision to employ force of some sort.

Making that decision ahead of time is the key, as is knowing how to deal with the aftermath.

Avoiding that decision is always the best way; that means being hyper-vigilant of one's surroundings and avoiding bad situations; it means dealing with blowhards in such a manner as to avoid having to use force; and it means being prepared, mentally and physically, to deal with that rare situation where force need be applied. I'm firmly in the "avoid" camp - I'll stay away from sketchy areas; I don't have any illusions of being a "tough guy" with "something to prove"; I'd much rather walk - or run - away from a confrontation than have to get into it.

But if someone's going to do harm to me or mine, I'm damn well ready to introduce a whole new level of suck into their (short) life... I've got my triggers, the points at which I go from mild-mannered dad to the Punisher; I will do everything in my power and then some to avoid that trigger. But once it's on, it's on. I've got the tools, I can use them effectively, and I have no qualms about doing what needs to be done when the shit hits the fan.

As do Breda and the 'Dog...

That is all.

UPDATE: Shorter Tam:

The most important word in "gunfight" is not "gun", it's "fight".

Heh.

Some Things to Think About...

I took yesterday off to get some much-needed Xmas shopping done (don't tell The Boy and BabyGirl G, but they are, in fact, getting a Wii for Xmas. What can I say? I'm a softie...). While out and about, I made a few observations about shopping while carrying.

• I need to practice drawing in winter garb - two cover garments plus a long winter coat make accessing my carry piece significantly more difficult than in warmer weather.

• I wonder how many people would equate "carrying every single bag in one hand even though it's approximately 750 pounds" with "carrying a concealed firearm and keeping his dominant hand free"?

• In conjunction with the previous point, is it that obvious when I've got one gloved hand and one non-gloved hand? Am I the only person to think about these things?

• A double-stack .45 ACP magazine leaves little room for car keys. Plan accordingly. Don't wind up putting said magazine on the counter of Missy's Hallmark unless you want some really interesting looks.

• I really, really, really need to get off my lazy ass and order up a decent holster for the G30. Carrying around that brick all day is difficult enough; doing it in a cheapo $20 nylon holster is even worse. Ditto the need for a better belt...

---

That is all.

WANT!!!

Latest G&A came in the mail today. On the cover is the new Kahr P380:

One word: WANT!

Wow. Kahr reliability and accuracy in a P3AT-sized (and weighted) package. What's not to love?

Sadly, although there are some firearms from Kahr on the MA Approved Firearms Roster {spit}, none are available for sale in the Volksrepublik. It is highly doubtful that the P380 will fare any better; meaning that the only way to get ahold of one as a MA captive resident will be to pay an exhorbitant price for one brought in by someone moving into state.

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate this state?

That is all.