Tag: Self Defense

A Case for Resisting Your Assailant

Those of us advocating armed citizenry hear a common argument for those advocating a disarmed citizenry, if you just give the criminal what they want they won’t harm you. It’s an ignorant belief though because that’s not always the case. Take for example this incident:

Police say the two Iowa store clerks — one a mother of 11 — did exactly what Michael Richard Swanson demanded, his shotgun pointed at their faces.

But the 17-year-old St. Louis Park boy allegedly shot them anyway, plunging two north-central Iowa towns into shock and grief. It was unclear why Swanson, who has a history of assault and theft, would drive south and in the span of an hour allegedly become a cold-blooded killer.

About 9:05 p.m., Swanson put on a mask and entered the Crossroads convenience store in Algona, demanding cash and cigarettes. Clerk Vicky Bowman-Hall, 47, did what he said, but he shot her. The mother of 11 died at the Algona hospital.

Police say that about 10 p.m., Swanson entered the Kum and Go station in Humboldt, robbed it and shot Sheila Myers, 61. Myers was dead at the scene.

Even though the two clerks submitted to their attacker and gave into his demands he killed them. The idea of simply giving a criminal what they want and they’ll go away ignores the fact that crazy people are crazy. When you’re facing an armed attacker the situation is already volatile. You know one thing about your attacker, they’ve threatened your life.

In my book the second somebody threatens my life I no longer trust anything they say. Why should I believe somebody stating they are willing to kill me won’t do so if I simply give into their demands? What guarantee do I have that they’ll stick to their word? None.

Being armed gives you an option, a means of defending yourself. Obviously a gun isn’t a magical talisman that will ensure you walk away alive but it gives you far better chances than being completely helpless.

A Case for Carry in National Parks

OK this title is misleading. I really should have titled it a case of why you should use our new law to carry a firearm in national parks. A man hiking in Olympic National Park was killed by a mountain goat recently:

Mr Boardman tried to shoo the animal away but it instead attacked him. After goring the hiker the goat stood over him, and had to be pelted with rocks by a ranger before finally moving away.

We have to remember humans are frail being compare to most wild animals; in a fair fight we rarely win. When hiking in the mountains, trudging through the jungle, or walking through the woods we are at the mercy of the animals who live there. As a race our dominating feature has never been our brute strength but our ability to construct and utilize tools. Although anti-gunners will try to convince you otherwise, a gun is a tool and it would have been the best object to have in this situation.

If you are able to legally carry a gun while out and about you should. Even in a nice neighborhood where you are 100% there is never ever crime (we in the gun community call this ignorance) a gun will give you means to protect yourself against four legged predators as much as two legged ones. You never know when a violence dog will make it’s way into your fine gated community.

And for those critics who claim there is absolutely no reason to carry a gun in national parks I urge you to read this linked article and tell me that after.

Smith and Wesson Body Guard 380

One thing I love about gun shows is the vast number of different firearms on display. While strolling around the recent show at the State Fair Education Building I came across a Smith and Wesson Body Guard 380. The Body Guard 380 is Smith and Wesson’s answer to small pocket pistols such as the Ruger LCP. Being I find the LCP very convenient at times I’m always looking at other pocket pistols to compare against it. Although I don’t have trigger time behind the Body Guard 380 I did notice one fatal flaw in my opinion. The manual safety is not easy to disengage.

I can’t imagine being able to draw the gun and disengage the tiny little safety under stress. I think the problem lurks in the combination of facts that the safety is kind of stiff and very small. It doesn’t stick out much from the gun meaning you don’t have a whole lot of area to work with when trying to flip it.

Herp Derp

Seriously whenever I hear somebody go on an anti-gun rant anymore all I really hear coming out of their mouths is, “Herp, derp, duuuhhhrrrr, I… like… turtles.”

A college student tries to make an argument against campus carry and ends up sounding a little… special:

The students and faculty on any campus should strictly focus on academic pursuits. Security teams hired by the college should likewise focus on the constant protection of those students and faculty. We all have a role in the big picture.

Yes students and faculty should strictly focus on academic pursuits and not even venture into developing a social life, exercising, working a job to pay rent, etc. The remark about the security team is where I felt this student went a little retarded. By that very logic nobody would need to carry a gun because the police will protect you! Of course the police can’t be everywhere and neither can a campus security team which is why the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” was coined. In a situation involving a crazy asshole shooting up a campus you don’t have time to wait for a security team if the crazy asshole happens to be in the same classroom as you.

It isn’t logical to deploy a security force on a college campus whose mission is to provide a safe environment only to minimize their ability by disarming them.

Who in the fuck said anything about disarming the security teams on campus? Allowing concealed carry on campus means students and faculty can carry firearms, it doesn’t require the on campus security teams be disarmed in the process.

There are college campuses of various sizes all across the country that have professionally-trained and properly armed officers on their security teams.

And there are campus in the country that allow students and faculty to carry their firearms on the premises. How many school shootings have you heard of occurring in Utah?

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a grass-roots organization that supports concealed carry. Their website lists a number of “common arguments” for allowing licensed adults to carry on campus. They attempt to answer each argument with a very rational explanation. It really is just rationalization. That’s what I mean when I say there are two sides to the issue.

Ah yes the argument of an anti-gunners, “The other side is just trying to rationalize their side of the argument by using stupid facts and logic and other stuff that hurts my brain. I, being anti-gun of course, don’t rationalize my beliefs and just tell you you’re wrong if you disagree with me because seeing guns makes me lose control of my bowels.” Let’s look up rationalize in the dictionary:

  • apologize: defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; “rationalize the child’s seemingly crazy behavior”; “he rationalized his lack of success”
  • cut: weed out unwanted or unnecessary things; “We had to lose weight, so we cut the sugar from our diet”
  • structure and run according to rational or scientific principles in order to achieve desired results; “We rationalized the factory’s production and raised profits”
  • think rationally; employ logic or reason; “When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize”</li
  • remove irrational quantities from; “This function can be rationalized”

Looking at the various definitions it seems rationalization is what you want to do. At least I prefer to remove irrational quantities and think rationally by employing logic and reason.

Regardless of any rationalization by the SCCC, allowing more guns on campus will logically result in a higher probability that a gun will be used against the campus population.

Utah… look it up. After you do tell me how many mass shootings have occurred on their campuses since they enacted their law allowing students and faculty to carry firearms on campus.

According to SCCC data, about 10 percent of adults are licensed and carry concealed guns nationwide. If I knew one out of every 10 people on campus was packing heat, I would be distracted—period.

That’s your problem—period. If you’re distracted by the thought of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms you should be distracted by the potential people currently carrying guns on campus illegally.

It’s one thing for someone to take the state’s course to become licensed. It is something else entirely to predict how a student with four hours of safety training will react under fire.

They’ll react a damned side better than a student under fire without any means of self-defense that’s for sure (and by that I mean they’ll have a chance at staying alive).

Students and faculty carrying concealed guns would be no less vulnerable to the crazy, armed madman who comes on campus bent on destruction than they are now. There would just be more guns involved, more bullets flying and a greater probability that someone is unintentionally injured or killed.

Actually they are less vulnerable because they have the means of stopping the crazy, armed madman. Having a concealed weapon doesn’t mean you are impervious to bullets, it means you have a chance to fight and win. That tipping of the scales further into your favor does make you less vulnerable.

Honestly, no one would expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando and make all the right decisions in a “kill or be killed” situation that could easily be over in less than a minute.

No one does expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando. You don’t need to be an elite commando to put two rounds into another man’s chest. I also love his optimism that the campus security teams will be able to end the situation easily in under a minute. Are they always geared up and do they have teleportation devices on their persons?

I can’t buy the concept that someone with no experience of defending himself against violent crime can suddenly protect himself and others, just because he is the one with the concealed gun.

Strangely enough many people with concealed carry permits also take additional training in self-defense. Even if they don’t having a firearm at least evens the odds of survival which is the whole fucking point.

I don’t want that pressure on me, and I don’t want to put it on my friends and professors.

Maybe you should stop to consider the fact that your friends and faculty may want that “pressure” (pressure to have a means of fighting back that is). If you don’t want that pressure that’s fine, nobody is making you carry a firearm. It’s not called mandatory carry, it’s a choice you can make and those who advocate for campus carry simply want that choice.

I am a big fan of the U.S. Constitution.

You can’t go on an anti-gun tear and then say you’re a fan of the United States Constitution. That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one.

There is not a more civilized place to be than on a college campus. That said—I like to think we have a better chance of remaining civilized and safe, if we don’t get used to the “wild west” approach to campus security.

Yeah, because we know gun-free zones have never been locations of shootings… oh wait.

SAD Pistol

I have a friend who is into single-action revolvers in a big way. He’s gone so far as to say when he gets a carry permit he wants to carry around a Ruger single-action revolver. Personally I’ve always through of the idea as idiotic retarded [I have to piss of those r-word people periodically]. Double-action revolvers and semi-auto pistols both have advantages and disadvantages to one another. Single-action revolvers have some of the advantages of their double-action kids but with severe drawbacks added into the mix. I always through of using a single-action revolver for a carry gun as self-retardation in a self-defense situation.

Well it seems Gunsite has launched a Single-Action Defensive Pistol class to their roster. I will fully admit that a single-action revolver will work in most self-defense situations so long as you can draw, cock the hammer, and fire fast enough. The problem is if you get into one of those corner case situations where a reload is necessary. In these cases pistols shine as they are very quick to reload and each magazine holds more ammunition on average than a revolver. Double-action revolvers is very practical with the use of speed loaders, speed strips, or moon clips. Then you have the single-action revolvers which are impossible to load quickly simply by the fact they’re designed to extract one case at a time and load one round at a time.

Still I can’t really see why this class exists. Are there enough people out there who actually carry a single-action revolver? If there are why do it? Seriously it just seems like you’re purposely handicapping yourself unnecessarily.

Why the 9mm is Inadequate

How’s that for an inflammatory post title? Sorry to disappoint but the title has nothing to do with the post, I’m just an ass.

The Firearms Blog linked to a story which involved a man who was shot 21 times and survived:

More than 50 bullets were fired, almost all of them by the police. At least 21 of those bullets pierced Alvarez’s body.

Luckily for Alvarez — whose criminal record includes at least eight prior arrests — none of the bullets hit his brain, heart or major arteries.

This story really brings up why emphasis needs to be placed on shot placement. Yes the human body can survive 21 gunshot wounds depending on where those shots hit. It doesn’t matter what caliber you’re using if you don’t hit something critical you’re not going to stop the threat in a timely fashion and you’ll be putting your life in prolonged danger. Aim the gun and practice shooting center of mass.

Violence by Proxy

So the basis for this post is a story in the Sun. For those of you who are unaware the Sun is kind of the UK’s version of the National Inquirer. The story itself is so loaded and one sided that it opens with this:

PRETTY teenage sisters have turned themselves into angels of death – shooting dead DOZENS of wild animals then smiling for sick photos with the bodies.

Hey at least they aren’t trying to hide behind being “balanced.” I have no problem with bias so long as you don’t try to hide it. But I’m sure you’ve already seen this story and honestly this post isn’t about this story. This post is about violence through proxy.

There are a lot of people who are anti-hunting. They protest the fact that people take firearms into the woods and shoot wild animals. Most of these people claim such acts are barbaric and outside of civilized life. Of course at the lunch you can find these same people eating a burger or ham sandwich (if you’re a vegan or vegetarian you’re exempt from my calling of hypocrisy). Whenever I’m around one of these people I make sure I point such hypocrisy out. Usually they go on a rant about how animals raised on farms are killed in human ways without any sickening blood lust hunters have. Truth be told I’ve seen factory farm conditions which is where most meat used in restaurants originates from and I can tell you hunters are orders of magnitude far more humane than those large farms (you want animals raised on a farm and slaughtered humanely check out your local farmers, they’ll not only have better meat but for cheaper than the grocery store).

In reality these people just don’t like the idea of violence… when done in a personal manner. These are the same people they say you should just give a mugger what they want or flee from your domicile when an invader breaks in. In both cases they state you should call the police and let them deal with the problem. But what does calling the police amount to? Well ultimately you’re asking a large organization to send a nameless person to do violence on your behalf. If there is an invader in your home and you call the police there is a likely chance of a violent encounter occurring when the police arrive if the thug hasn’t already fled.

Buying your meat is the same thing. You are asking somebody else to kill and slaughter an animal for you so you can avoid getting your hands dirty. Hunters on the other hand are willing to take responsibility for their own meal gathering and person the necessary violence themselves. Honestly I believe they creates far more respect for the animals being consumed because a hunter knows the difficulties involved in a hunt.

The bottom line is these type of people are usually ones who proclaim themselves to be pacifists. Of course pacifists can only exist so long as there are other people available to use violence on their behalf. Police officers and military personnel are generally the people who fill such roles. Police and military personnel don’t carry guns because it’s a deterrent to crime, they carry them because they may need to use violence to defend their lives. Even in the UK police usually have some form of weapon be it a baton, Tazer, or pepper spray.

The main point here is simple, if you are anti-hunting but eat mean you’re a hypocrite. If you are anti-self-defense but call the police upon a thug entering your home you’re a hypocrite. Violence is violence regardless of who is doing it. By using violence by proxy you are showing an unwillingness to take responsibility for your own well being and a willingness to put other peoples’ lives in harms way to defend your own. I’d go so far to say you’re selfish and a total bastard by proclaiming your life is worth more than another’s since you are willing to throw them into harms way.

Violence exists, it can’t be avoided. You either are willing to realize that fact and live with it or unwilling to realize that fact and pretend it’s not true.

Abandon Earth

Stephen Hawking is known around the world as being a pretty smart man. Due to his intelligence when he speaks people actually listen (whether or not they process what he says is a different matter). Well Mr. Hawking made another statement saying humanity needs to leave Earth or face extinction.

This is the reason I’m such a strong supporter of advancing space exploration. The bottom line is we need to get off this rock as soon as possible. Furthermore we need to find a means of expanding beyond this solar system as well but right now the immediate goal should be to make another planet habitable. Any number of things could cause the destruction of this planet including a sizable chunk of space rock, nuclear war, and of course a pair of wolves swallowing the sun and moon.

Either way the priority of our race has been survival but few seem to understand that continued survival requires we take some of our eggs from this basket and move them to another basket.

EDIT 2010-08-09 12:49: Hawking and Hawkings are slightly (completely) different. Edits made to reflect this slight oversight. Also I can’t type. Thanks for pointing it out Jeff.

But I Thought if You Cooperated with a Criminal You’d be Safe

Remember the anti-gunner rhetoric that you’re safer cooperating with a criminal, giving them what they want, and not resisting them? Those of us in the pro-self-defense community bring up the fact that cooperating with a person who has already openly stated they are willing to harm you is a bad idea because you have no guarantee that the criminal will tell the truth.

Here is a story about a man who cooperated with a mugger and it cost him his life:

Dropped off at Penn Station after a weekend trip to New York to visit his sister, 23-year-old Stephen Pitcairn was talking to his mother on his iPhone at about 11 p.m. and walking north in the 2600 block of St. Paul St. when a man and woman demanded money.

Police say he turned over his wallet, then took a knife to the chest.

A resident was in his home ironing when he saw three people who appeared to be fighting, then heard a scream. He ran outside, saw Pitcairn lying on his stomach in the gutter and called 911.

Sadly the knife wound proved to be fatal for Pitcairn. This should show that criminals are not always going to just take what they want and leave. If you’re ever in a self-defense situation you need to have a plan to fight back. That’s why those of us who carry guns, well, carry guns. It’s our plan to fight back and save the lives our our loved ones and our selves. Whether it be pepper spray, a gun, a collapsible baton, or a Tazer, you should have some means of fighting back should a criminal decide to threaten your well-being.

Ireland Wising Up

It appears Ireland is wising up:

THE new home defence bill has shifted the balance of rights back to the house owner “where it should always have been”, say gardaí.

The Association of Garda Sergeants (AGSI) and Inspectors also said it was ridiculous to suggest the bill provided a “have-a-go charter” to homeowners and said the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was “intolerable”.

Assuming a criminal’s life is worth less than the rightful owner of a home? That’s just crazy! Now people are going to shoot their friends when they come over! It’ll be blood in the streets! Death will be everywhere! Dogs and cats will be sleeping together! At least that’s what the anti-gunners are going to say about this.

It’s nice to see Ireland is looking at making criminals a lower form of life than law-abiding citizens. If only Britain would figured that out.