A plea to those who want stricter gun-control

If you already support sensible gun laws, you might find some parts of this redundant. Apollogies. Enjoy the tasty links (see what Prof. Sowell has to say about gun control) and please help me spread the word.

Boyfriend emailed me this terrifying report. The bright side, and the reason why all you gunnies out there should hapilly read this story and pass it on, is that this is one of those rare articles about a gun owner who was able to successfully defend himself against TWO attackers, one of whom was armed. The media rarely reports these types of incidents without adding it’s own zesty, grotesque garnish to the pot.

Now that you’ve read this awesome report (and have finished checking your bank balance and marking “buy a(nother) house gun” nice and big on your calendar), let me show you the other part of boyfriend’s email:

That’s a map with the location of the incident and the location of boyfriend’s residence – 0.7 freakin’ miles apart! I felt the sudden urge to smoke a cigarette after viewing this email, but since I don’t smoke anymore, I had to tough it out. So, I am still waiting for the anxious nassea to subside so that I may eat my lunch.

As the gunnies know, this is why we need to teach our loved ones to shoot. I know this is one (and probably the current front-runner on the list) of the reasons why boyfriend carries, and why he adamatly made sure I would learn the art of shooting (sweetie, now’s the time to take that close-quarters retention and recovery class we’ve been talking about). But, as per the title, I’m not writing this post for the gunnies.

This is a post for the non-gunnies. This is to those who fall to the “tougher gun laws = good things” side of the trail. I beg you to take the time and read this post, click these links and consider at the very least supporting two pro-gun rationales that are very important for the safety and protection of innocent people: The Castle Doctrine and the repealing of restrictions on guns kept in the home which require “that firearms must be stored unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device.”

If you haven’t already read the AZstar report – the first link – do so before you read the rest of this most. Trust me.

Read it yet?

Ok, good.

Not all states support a strong Castle Doctrine. Had the defender in this case not responded to the threat – two men forcefully entering his home – with fast application of deadly force, he probably would have lost his life. The castle doctrine also protects defenders from the lifelong consequences of being sued for damages by the criminals who attempt to victimize them and allows them to recover the costly litigation fees from when this happens. Compromises to the Castle Doctrine help criminals and encourage crime by giving the message that the criminal has a right to victimize others at no risk to his person. If you feel that this is incongruous, well, that is pretty much the message you are giving if you do not support the Castle Doctrine. Fabulously described in laymans terms by Ms. Lucas, allowing criminals any sort of right to personal safety while they put yours and your loved one’s safety in peril is akin to saying “all citizens must provide (a criminal with) free and effortless entry into all of their property, including cars, houses, businesses, wallets, and so on.” It is akin to saying “locks on doors should be removed because a thief might bruise his foot while kicking the door in to your house, or might cut himself while smashing your car window”, and “women should not be allowed to wear purses slung across the chest because a mugger might sprain his wrist trying to pull it off. And it should become law that mugging victims must comply peacefully and allow a mugger to leave the scene at a walking pace, else he might fall down go boom while running away.”

(Rachel Lucas, everybody. ***applause***)

If you are not up-to-speed on this year’s developments regarding second ammendment rights, the overturning of DC’s hand gun ban was, in the oppinion of many, supposed to allow for the justifiable use of handguns in the home in the case of self/home defense. The District of Columbia appealed the Supreme Court’s decision, they lost the appeal, the handgun ban is being repealled, and hopefully the “safe” restrictions on gun storage will be fully lifted. There is a lot of outcry regarding the lifting of D.C.’s handgun ban because many people think that these restrictions will keep them safer. It is, however, deeply ironic that restrictions such as these are referred to as “safe” . Washington D.C. – which has the nations highest violent crime rate – has imposed some of the worst restrictions on gun owners. Although they seem innoccuous, laws like these would likely have cost the defender his life, in the case of the AZstar report, because he would not have been able to act quickly to stop the threat: two men, one of them armed, forcefully entering his home. Laws requiring the safe storage of guns in locked boxes, or disassembled, or unloaded, or with a trigger lock are appealing in the sense that they prevent accidental use of the gun i.e. by children. Even though this is an important concern, it ultimately puts everyone at risk. Every person I know who owns a gun AND has children has thoroughly educated them on the dangers of guns and how guns work i.e. “if you touch this, something will come out of this end that can kill you.” or “If you touch it and it goes off, you will have to go to jail.” If we can teach kids how not to run with scissors, knives, or play in the street, we can teach them to avoid the business end of a gun.

Many people who want tougher gun laws enacted are understandably scared of incidents like this one, and feel that tougher gun laws would help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. The problem, however, is two-fold in that criminals already have guns, and secondly, criminals don’t care about laws (that’s what makes them criminals). If you don’t like guns, you don’t have to own or use one. But if you feel safer “knowning” that there are tougher gun laws, I beg you to please consider why this feeling of safety is a farce. It might not seem so in the place where you live now, but that is probable for socio-economic reasons rather than gun-control reasons. The truth is there ARE bad guys, like the two victimizers in this article, and some of us live in areas where we are not as safe. It might make you feel better to call for stricter gun-control, but guns wont disappear off the streets instantly, and the concentration of bad guys in the world wont go away, and neither will violent crimes. Imagine if intruders you read about had knives instead of guns, or baseball bats. Us good guys will still be at risk of getting attacked like this, and by the seemingly harmless act of supporting restrictions on these two issues, you are dangling a huge, heaping pile of danger above our heads. If you would like to continue to support gun-control laws, do so, but for the sake of others who are not so lucky as to feel as safe from crime, please make sure you do not invoke “safe” storage laws or restrictions on the Castle doctrine.

Thank you for reading.

Required Readings:

(Sowell) Gun Control Myths

” ” Part 2

” ” Part 3

Zen and the Art of Shooting, part 6

My 13 hour CHL class

According to law, the Texas CHL class must meet for 10 hours of classroom time. Official start time for this past Saturday’s class was 8 am, and the class was held in Lockhart, so I was up at 5 a.m. and on the road, fueled up, Dunkies in hand by 7:00. Class let out 15 hours later,at 9:30 pm – 5 hours over time. We might’ve gotten out on time if the classroom hadn’t been such a boys club – more on that later. But since I’m sure you desperately want to know how it went overall, I’ll serve up the desert first, and the savory details after:

Shoothouse Barbie can concealed carry! I shot a 241 out of 250 (over 95%, passing is at least 70%) on the shoot test, which, considering that I was tired, starving, had the worst blood sugar deficiency headache, and the sun had completely set by the time it was my turn, is pretty darn good. I wonder how much more precise I would’ve been if the class wasn’t interrupted every time some jackass felt the need to wave his balls around; I might’ve been able to see my groupings.

Now for the savory details…

I took the class at Shaefer Academy, in Lockhart. Tom Shaefer was the instructor. I specifically chose this class because Tom is a retired APD Sargeant who has both courtroom experience and experience getting shot at. He has never been shot, though, nor has he ever had to shoot someone in the 30 years as an officer of the law.

I wore my Red Sox hat, jeans and a black crew cut tank top – I don’t have bountiful assets so there’s no gap to allow hot brass to fall down the front of my shirt. I had planned to wear the Blackhawk Rescue Repellar belt that Marc gave me, which is a good holter belt that is very wide and comfy, and also looks absolutely badass. I figured that I’d be able to hold my own in the class regardless, but the belt definately screams ‘don’t f*** with me’. Alas, in my 5 a.m. haze, I forgot to grab it.

I arrived bright and early at the academy, which is on Tom’s ranch. The first thing I saw was Tom and 2 guys, who I later found out were Marine Recruits, and about 3 farm dogs. I love farm dogs! They are the sweetest, happiest, and for the most part, calmest dogs you will ever find, because they get to run around outside all day. The dogs had been abandoned by their previous owners and simply wandered up and were taken in, and decided to stay. Coco and Noel were my favorites, they were just loving all over everyone.

The first thing that Tom asked me after introducing himself and asking my name was if I had brought some kind of support system with me.

“What, like a belt,” I asked, silently cursing my prior forgetfulness.
“I mean a husband or boyfriend with you.”
“No,” I said laughingly. Sometimes I forget that I’m in Texas. “My boyfriend got me into shooting. But he lives in Arizona, and I live by myself, hence one of the reasons I want my CHL.”

Tom then told me that there would be 2 other girls in the class, and I assured him that I could hold my own with the boys. Overall there were 16 of us, total.

We started off with paperwork and fingerprints. After the prints, we were instructed on how to wash the special ink off our fingers with the special print-ink soap. After I’d had my prints taken, I noticed that, perhaps coincidentally but certainly reeking of irony, the label on the soap bottle was in spanish.

Tom told us how much he hated the finger print part of the class, because the prints have to be precisely roled onto paper in such a way that all the lines are shown, though said it was much easier with us than back when he was working a cop, because CHL students tend not to spit and bite and kick you while you’re trying to get their prints.

“Sometimes,” he said, “it would take 20 minutes to get one print of a guy, and then the other five guys at the station would decide that one was enough and we’d get the rest later. And I’d say, ‘why the heck did you wait so long, then?’ And they’d say,’you know how boring it gets around here – that was our only entertainment!’”

Class was finally underway after that. Those who have a concealed carry permit already know the majority of what the class covers, but for those who don’t know, a significant portion of the class covers non-violent dispute resolution and conceptual exercise aimed to teach you that it is not always in your best interest to shoot someone, even when the use of lethal force is justified. A common misconception amongst gun-haters is that carrying a gun is about having a bigger penis than the other guy, that it is about using a firearm to take the law into your own hands, or play god, or to beat the other guy into submission. (And now I have put “penis” and “submission” in the same sentence. Can’t wait to see what kinds of google hits this turns up). This is not so. If you think that carrying a gun means it’s ok to waive it around or to pull it out anytime someone says or does something rude or distasteful, you should not carry a gun. The first thing covered is that you should carry a gun because you have the right not to made a victim, and to protect yourself from others who would victimize you and your loved ones (and in some cases, neighbors). So, when should you pull a gun? The answer, quite simply, is the same as it is in the essential rules of the range: only point a gun at something you intend to destroy.
The repurcussions for pulling a gun and not shooting are inumerable, and none of them good. For example, you catch someone in your house and you pull the gun on them but don’t shoot. Instead, you say ‘stop what you are doing and leave, and don’t come near me.’ What if the listen, what if they turn around and say ok. Now you have a gun pointed at them. You still have the right to shoot them if you choose, and you probably should. If you tell them to get out and they say no, shoot them, and do it quickly. The last thing you want to get into is a conversation. If they can get you talking, your reaction time is going to slow down by a quarter of a second, which is very significant in close quarters.

But what if they beg for sympathy? What if they say, “please don’t hurt me, I just need food for my kids.” This situation is commonly why many people object to legal use of firearms as lethal force in the home. ‘Oh it is such a trajedy, he didn’t want to hurt anyone, he wasn’t even armed’ Yes, it is a trajedy that some people end up getting shot and dying for such a stupid thing as unarmed burgulary. But, in my oppinion, and I’m sure others agree, it is a far bigger trajedy that some people think it is ok to victimize others. Even theft is victimization. Whether you agree that it is ok to shoot and kill someone for stealing from you in your home, you should recognize that this is not a concept that was born after the appearance of guns in society. The Torah, Bible, and Koran all say that it is ok to kill a thief in your home.

A crucial part of the defensive mindset taught in the CHL class was DO NOT EMPATHIZE WITH A VICTIMIZER. What if he really is robbing you because his kids are starving, or if he has no intention to harm you?

“Don’t care,” says Tom, because it still does not make it ok for him to victimize you.
“Not to mention, anyone who says they’re only looking for money to buy food is blatantly lying. There are soup kitchens and shelters, and these guys could get welfare from the government.”

Shit, they could probabably even get their own house from the government!

In your house, as opposed to when carrying concealed in public, a reasonable threat to your iminent safety is assumed, thus it is not necessary to prove that a threat existed and that you are in iminent danger, and, according to castle doctrine, you do not have to try to retreat from the threat.

Here’s where the asshats started chiming in…

“So, does that mean I can shoot a guy if I catch him climbing out of my window with my plasma screen TV?”

Idgit. Technically yes, was the answer, but that might not be something you want to do. Even if you have the right to shoot, and the guy is indeed a goblin, there are long lasting psychological consequences to killing another person. Not to mention, if he’s already half-way out your window with your TV, shooting him will probably be more costly in terms of legal fees than the cost of your TV, which insurance will probably cover. If it were me, I wouldn’t shoot him…unless he tried to come back inside.

The home is one case where there is a significant likelihood that you won’t be charged for shooting an intruder, but the situation is much different when it comes to concealed carry. If you shoot someone in public, even if you have the right to do so, you will be probably detained and charged. In all cases, if you are charged, you must appear before the grand jury and convince them of the following clauses:

1. A reasonable threat existed. A reasonable threat means something that causes a response of reasonable fear, which is claus 2. Distasteful and offensive language does not constitute a reasonable threat, so that guy who is being a douchbag and saying mean things about your mother? Can’t shoot him on that basis alone.

2. You must be reasonably afraid. Knives can be just as deadly as guns, even more so in some cases. But you can’t simply shoot someone because they are holding a knife. Threatening you with the knife, yes. Waving it around like a madmen, yes. Simply holding it in their hand, no. Even if you have reason to believe they are a son of a bitch and not a good person. If a reasonable and prudent person would not perceive a threat, then the grand jury will not agree that you had a reason to be fearful.

3. You must prove that you were in iminent danger. If someone is in an aggressive stance and is yelling and screaming and saying they’re going to do some nasty stuff to you, you have reason to be afraid. What you should not do immediately is pull your gun out and shoot them. You should prepare to do so, if you have to, but what you should really do is say something like, “please don’t do that,” or “leave me alone,” or “don’t come near me.” Those are examples of force. Then, if they procede to come at you, you are justified in shooting them, because they constitute iminent danger.

All in all, the class was ok. I wouldn’t recommend this specific class if you want a concise and organized dissemination of the material. I’ve heard that it is hard to meet the 10 hour minimum, that the instructors have to take breaks or slow down or else class ends too early. This was the opposite, and, although there were some good and funny anecdotes and wisecracks along with the out-of-the-way showboating of testosterone, it took 15 freaking hours! My back was killing me!

Some people just don’t know when to keep their mouths shut. I didn’t have to put anyone in their place until the shoot test. The sun had completely set by the time I shot, and it was quickly approaching dark from dusk. The 3 yd shots are a joke, and I wasn’t worried about them so much. I noticed that I shot a little high on the double-taps, but I was still in the kill zone and maximum point range (5 points). Since I was shooting 9mm and it was not easy to see where I was hitting at more than 3 yards, and because I was shooting consistantly, I decided not to adjust my aim, which would’ve been useless because there was no way I’d be able to tell if I overadjusted at 7 yds in the dark. And then…

“Just so you know, you’re hitting a little bit high,” says the guy behind me.

Holy inappropriate comments, batman!

Keeping my Sig pointed down range, I turned around and gave him my death glare and the hand.

“Yeah, I know. But he’s dead,” I said, nodding at my target.

I know I can come off as a little defensive of the range, but really, I just don’t like people talking to me when I’m shooting. And hel-lo, didn’t we spend a couple hours learning that it is a bad idea to talk while shooting? F*****! I was pissed about that. What makes me pissed still is that I felt bitchy for the response I gave because he was probably trying to be gentlemanly. Still, it was totally inappropriate for a CHL shoot test, and he should’ve known better. I told ya I can hold my own with the Texans

The last thing we did was get our pictures for the permit, and I had my final opportunity to mess with boys.

“What, no primping,” asked Tom, when I went up for my picture. I gave him a nasty mug for that one, then smiled my disney princess smile.

“Did you do modeling?”
“Actually, I have done some modeling.”
“You look like you have. Is that what you’re doing in Texas?”
“No, but it’s one reason why I’m in your CHL class.”

By the end of the day, the presense of shoothouse barbie had been made known, and not just because I had painted my nails a shade of pink that would’ve made Mattel cringe, or because I wore my bullet flower in my hair (which no one picked up on!)

My new toy!!!

Zen and the Art of Shooting, Part 4: Shoothouse Barbie gets another Sig

Yay shooty goodness! Today I welcomed the newest addition to my little family, the Sig Mosquito. At first, I scoffed at the idea of getting a .22 pistol, because it feels like shooting toy (yes, shame on me, I guess I like my big boom sticks). However, after a long absense from the range (4 months! Don’t know what got into me…oh, yeah, I was saving up to my Europe trip, and paying off my Europe trip, and bullets are expensive) and my consequential happy happy bang bang overly excited rebound in which I burned through about 200 rounds of 9mm in 1 hr, I decided it would really serve me better to 1) get more practice (I was anticipating the round at first and my groupings were hideous as far as how I normally shoot with my baby, though still good enough that the range officer asked me if I was a cop ) and 2) be able to afford 500 rounds for the price of 50 rounds. So I decided to get the closest thing to my Sig P239, which is the Sig Mosquito. Of course, I had to tell “sensei”, White Mike, because I knew he’d be happy to take a trip to The Gun Store. Yes, that is the name of the store: Gun Store, The.

(this morning, White Mike’s, having just gotten off the phone with The Gun Store)

White Mike: So, it sounds like they didn’t have what you’re looking for?

Me: Oh, no, they have a Mosquito, but it’s the more expensive one with the threaded barrel.

White Mike: How much more?

Me: ’bout 100 bones.

White Mike: If it were up to me, I’d pick the threaded barrel over the standard any day.

Me, showing my ignorance: Why would you need a threaded barrel on a .22?

White Mike: To put a silencer on it?

Me: Who uses a .22 with a silencer?

White Mike: SEALS.

Me (feeling sufficiently schooled): Oooooh. Man, I really didn’t want to spend an extra hundred bones today….

White Mike: When those 4 SEALS went into Pakistan and took down 4 men a piece, they probably used .22s with silencers because man are they quiet.

Me: (silently pondering)

White Mike: I alread know what your decision will be, I’m just letting YOU know! (Laughing)…I can hear it now (high pitched immitation voice) ‘I hate you, Mike Fisizery!’

Me: ….you can see the smoke coming out of me ears, can’t you?

White Mike: You know, if you go to the range with that gun, dem boys are gonna take one look at that threaded barrel and think, “I should NOT make her angry.”

Me: I hate you, Mike Fisizery!

Shooting tomorrow, pictures soon!

Economics for Gunnies

I may have mentioned that the best part of the Europe vacay was the french food. We didn’t do a whole lot of shopping, we didn’t have a lot of money to lavish either, so for the most part, we walked around, saw a lot of really old stuff, and we ate and drank and soaked up the cafe culture. Nonetheless, the end of the trip found us slightly in the red.

We tallied up the expenses and agreet to split the costs down the middle. As it turned out, the bf ended up owing me some green. He offered to cut me a check so that I could pay off my credit card ASAP.

Hmmmm….so the bf owes me some dough….. I sat there on the plane, next to the bf, thinking about this situation. Being both jewish and female, I must have been inclined to carefully consider how I could make the most of it.

hmmm…I want pretty things. He could buy me pretty things. Yes, that’s it!

“Hey, sweetie,” I said, “howsabout you pay me back in firearms?”

I’d rather have equity than dolars, especially if said equity can be taken to the range and shared with others for mutual enjoyment. I’m nice like that.

***update***

mama’s gettin’ a carbine!

Chalk it up to the “gunnie moon”

Borepatch got me thinking about self defense. And, honestly, somethimes I think theres a “gunnie moon” that gets us all on the same wavelength, because the bf and I were discussing the subject last night. Anyways, go read the post, and the original as well to refresh your memory. This brought to mind the Grand Rapids, MI  gas station incident earlier this year. It seems that for every shooter who acts in self-defense and is found by law to have acted justly, there are many, many more – family, friends, and even perfect strangers (go on, read the comments) – decrying “senseless acts of violence” and “(the victim) never woulda hurt a fly”.

It looked pretty clear from the video that the guy who got shot was poised to commit assault when he, uh, got shot. I’m glad that the law cleared the shooter and he was not charged, and I also do indeed think it’s a tragedy that someone had to die because of their actions. But the wagging of the big “guns are bad” fingers from the peanut gallery really sheds light on a bigger problem: so many people have a grossly deficient concept of responsibility.

This was the subject of last night’s conversation with the bf: responsibility. As Kim du Toit pointed out today, we are actually kinda winning the war for gun rights (I believe Mr. DuToit may have discussed the same gas station incident a while back, as well. or maybe not, but his site is full of win – check it out, if you are not yet familiar). But I don’t know how much difference it can make outside of those individuals who exercise the rights of self defense, because so much more of society appears to believe that it is the government’s job to protect and provide for them, and to keep them out of harm’s way. Our government’s really isn’t to provide welfare and foodstamps and personal home security – it’s to protect our rights, as a whole nation, and as individuals.

It’s pretty sad that we as a culture have sunk so low that we are victimizing ourselves in the eyes of others. The guy who got himself shot at that gas station looked at the guy he was keen on assaulting and it didn’t occur to him that this person might actually act in self-defense. If he had thought, ‘gee, maybe I shouldn’t attack this person; they could justifiably harm me in self-defense’ then he might have been deterred in acting the way he did. Why might such a thought fail to occur to the bastards who break and enter, or commit assaults? Perhaps one reason is the inescapably massive pedantic of the leftists that it’s the responsibility of some governing party to take care of us. If anyone needs another reason to own a gun, or a nice convincing statement for the person who doesn’t feel that they need such a weapon, here’s one of my favs: a large part of society believes either that people are not capabable of self-defense, or they believe that they shouldn’t have to take on such responsibilities. The image being presented is that most people are helpless, and regardless of what I belive, that image is what a criminal will see when he decides to assault me, or to break into my home. the only thing I can do about that is protect myself and not put myself in harms way whenever possible.

Speaking of harms way, I’m not thrilled to work in the middle of a gun-free (aka assault-friendly) campus. And the time has finally come for me to make like a baby and head out. The Hell Experiment part deux is finished, I’ve spent all day sloshing around gloved-hand deep in strong acid on a few hours of lousy sleep (I never met a 3am whopper that didn’t taste good, nor one that has ever led to happy peacefull zzz’s), and tomorrow, the final stage of my thesis research will be completed – at least I hope so.

Shoothouse Barbie meets the Glock 19

Zen and the art of shooting, part 2

Lissa, thought you’d enjoy this one

I love shooting this gun. I take some crap for the reason that the Glock is the trusty, reliable mini-van of semi-automatic 9mm pistols a.k.a. totally not a sexy sport car kind of pistol. But who doesn’t like a gun that shoots well? There was one thing in particular that I didn’t like about shooting that Glock: for some reason with this particular gun, I kept getting plunked in the forehead with hot brass. Every. Single. Round.

(Bang)
“Ow.”
(Bang)
“Ow.”
(Bang)
“Ow.”

White Mike (standing about 5 yards back from the firing line): What’s she sayin’?
Mark (laughing): The brass keeps hittin’ ‘er on the head!
White Mike: (high pitched girly laughter. and yes, he does laugh like a girl)
Me: Is he – are you laughing at me?
Mark: are you gonna stand there yappin’, or are you gonna shoot the damn thing!
White Mike: (more high pitched girly laughing)