Guns

You’re on your own, and always have been

/ hsoi

Whenever I talk about the fallacy of “gun free zones” being equated with “safe”, I point out where shootings do and do not tend to occur. Where do they tend to happen? Places where the law-abiding citizen cannot protect themselves, like schools or places that like to post “no guns” or “weapons prohibited” signs (e.g. Westroads Mall in Omaha). I then point out that shootings tend to not happen at places where you know everyone is armed, like NRA meetings, gun shops, and police stations.

Well, I guess I need to revise my statement. John Farnham tells of a Detroit police station that got shot up.

In the case of the Detroit Precinct Station, all legitimate residents were carrying guns, so the armed invader enjoyed only an abbreviated tenure before he was shot to death by officers who courageously and unhesitatingly responded in kind, but with more skill and precision. Had they all be unarmed, as would be the case with denizens of most schools and churches, the criminal’s deadly spree would have gone on and on!

The fact that those DPD Officers were routinely armed and ready, even in the “office,” saved many innocent lives.

You can’t stop crazy — and going into a police station to shoot the place up is a definition of crazy (he wanted “death by cop” for certain). But consider what happened. It was cut short only because of the ability to swiftly respond. Imagine if swift reaction wasn’t able to happen, how much more havoc could have ensued. Look at the big mass murders say at Virginia Tech or Westroads or other such places… lots of people died because no one was able to swiftly respond.

You’re on your own, and always have been. For the clueless and unprepared, it is only luck that has protected them thus far.

So close, yet so far.

/ hsoi

I’m filling out form CHL-90, necessary for the renewal of my Texas CHL Instructor certification.

The form asks for my driver license ID number, and then says I need to provide a color photocopy of the driver license.

Why?

This is Texas Department of Public Safety. You’d think they had access to this information.

Yes yes OK, someone from out of state makes it necessary. But why should a Texas resident with a Texas drivers license getting a Texas CHL Instructor certification renewal, all being matters handled by the same department…. why is this necessary?

Plus with the rest of the renewal process is all electronic forms. So, why can’t form CHL-90 also be electronic? Sure, if we have to submit copies of things (e.g. NRA/TCLEOSE certifications) couldn’t we then mail them in, or better, scan them and upload JPEG’s or PDF’s of those documents?

*sigh*

It’s an improvement in the process for sure, but there’s still room to improve.

National Reciprocity Bill – mixed emotions

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Here’s one I have mixed emotions on: H.R. 822: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Basically, national reciprocity.

On the gut level, I like it. Means I could carry in California. The wording strives to honor the state’s laws and intentions. That’s all good.

But yet, this bothers me because it isn’t honoring a state’s intentions. California wants to consider most US Citizens as untrustworthy (they’d rather let everyone smoke pot than background-checked citizens carry guns… yeah, which is more dangerous, but I digress): they are may-issue to their own residents, and they won’t honor licenses from any other state. If California wants to behave that way, why shouldn’t we let them? This federal bill steps over state’s rights.

Now, here’s your NRA presser about it. And yes, that’s all right and good. But the analogy they make is using drivers licenses:

It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As far as I knew, recognizing drivers’ licenses was also a state thing, just so happens all 50 states (and the various territories) recognize the drivers licenses from all 50 states. At least, that’s the impression I’m under. Consider Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part 1 Chapter 15 Subchapter E Rule §15.92

The Department grants like reciprocity for driver licensing to residents of other states.

(1) Nonresident recognition in Texas of licenses held by persons from other states, territories of the United States, provinces of Canada, and the United States military service is based upon Texas Transportation Code, §521.029, and administrative policies. Thus:

(A) residents of other states, including the District of Columbia but excluding United States territories and the provinces of Canada, who are at least 16 years of age may drive in Texas on a valid license from their home state, as a Class C or Class M driver only.

Looks like the state is granting it, not the Fed. However, is there something codified in Federal law that forces all states to honor each other’s drivers licenses? Or perhaps if not formal law, incentive (e.g. all states have the drinking age at 21, but that’s merely uniform not Federal law… but it was Federally coerced because .gov said if you want to keep getting federal road funding you’ll up your age thus every state did). I honestly don’t know and my Google-Fu is weak this morning. If you know and can reference the section of Federal law that grants this, that would be appreciated.

And even if you look at Section 2 “Findings” in H.R. 822’s text, it does provide justification as to why the Fed can do this. But yet, it’s hard to say. There are ways to justify it, there are ways to not justify it (because there are legit places for the Fed to override the State, and places where they overstep). Hrm. I’ll just say I’m unwilling to gain a win for my side, no matter how much it benefits me, if it’s not the right way to get the win. I want a clean win. Would this be a clean win?

Can we simplify “The Rules”?

/ hsoi

Karl Rehn blogs about “The Rules” of safe gunhandling.

When most people recite “the rules”, they tend to gravitate towards Col. Coopers 4 rules. The NRA has their own version of the rules that uses only 3 statements. Karl argues that really all we have and need are 2 rules. Might sound controversial, but read what Karl has to say because he has sound reasoning to back it up. As a good engineer we should strive to make something as simple as possible, but no simpler. Karl is working to simplify.

It’s laudable because when people only have to remember a few basic things, we tend to handle it better. Imagine if we had to remember 10 rules, or 20 rules. Could you manage that? The modern movement in martial arts is to simplify and break things down to build upon natural responses and give you a few techniques that work for a wide range, instead of learning thousands of esoteric movements. Imagine if the IRS code was the size of a pamphlet instead of the monstrosity it is. Simplification is good, no matter how you slice it.

Karl touches upon one reason the NRA version is superior: it tells you what you should do. I’d like to briefly elaborate on that topic. I see it all the time. A kid is running through a place he shouldn’t be running. Some adult yells “DON’T RUN!”, so the kid starts to jog or do something else, which gets the adult upset because the child “isn’t listening”. No, the kid did what you said and stopped running. The trouble is, what is the kid supposed to do? By saying “don’t run” the adult eliminated 1 of a million possible things to do, so the kid picked something else out of that pool, but it wasn’t the one the adult wanted. If instead the adult told the child what to do, “WALK!”, then everything would have turned out peachy. I see this when teaching classes. A student is yanking the trigger. We’ll point it out to them, then the student starts to say in their head “Don’t yank the trigger, don’t yank the trigger….” and what do they do? Yank the trigger. If instead they tell themselves what to do, “slow smooth press”, chances are high they will do what they should do and achieve higher success.

Another point Karl touches upon is NRA rule 3: ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. Karl wonders if that rule is necessary. I say it is, if you define what “ready to use” means. A gun being used for self-protection is of no use if it’s unloaded; so when it’s in the holster on your hip, it is ready to use. I think this is one of those rules that’s good to have because you never know what someone’s level of education or ability to grok the concept is. And that doesn’t mean people are stupid. Rather, look at kids. You aren’t born knowing how to safely handle a gun, so we much teach everyone everything. While I grant Karl’s stance, I think promoting this rule to kids (or adults) is good towards helping them develop proper safety habits and mindset. Imagine if it wasn’t in the ruleset, we might not discuss it at all or at least might not give it the emphasis it needs.

The NRA’s rules are simpler in their phrasing. They are direct. They tell you what to do, and don’t put any unnecessary conditions in place (e.g. “sights are on target”; read Karl’s reasoning there).  They are absolute, and you can’t be absolute if you’re unnecessarily complex. I mean, look at all the controversy around “all guns are always loaded”, and would that deny us the ability to dry fire? NRA’s rules should be followed even with dry fire and do not have any confusion if you can practice dry fire or not.

We can’t discount Col. Cooper’s contributions to the gun world: so much of what we have today wouldn’t be possible if not for him. But he was just a man, not a god. Not everything he did was infallible and perfect. If there’s something better, we should be willing to consider and adopt it. The good Colonel helped the gun world evolve, and we shouldn’t be afraid to continue evolving if it means improvement.

What Brandon Moore can teach us

/ hsoi

Brandon Moore, a sheriff’s detective in Morrow County Ohio, was involved in a shootout with a marijuana grower.

Here’s raw footage of an interview with Detective Moore. He discusses what he went through and covers many bases. Insightful.

A few things I took home from his experience:

  • Carry a reload
  • When you plan and visualize, visualize yourself as calm, cool, collected. Seems it paid off for Detective Moore.
  • The fight isn’t over until it’s over. Keep fighting, don’t let panic overtake you. Keep fighting.
  • He emptied his gun. He said the last shot ended the fight.

The last point hits home. I’m not sure what his duty gun was, but these days it’s likely something that holds more than 10 rounds.

Who needs a gun that can hold more than 10 rounds?

Detective Moore, for one. Good thing he had more than 10 rounds, else today his wife would be a widow and his children would be fatherless.

Thanx, now go away

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Y’all remember Jeanne Assam? She’s the woman that, back in December 2007, stopped a mass murderer at her church, New Life Church.

Now Jeanne comes out of the closet. She’s gay.

She now claims that New Life Church no longer welcomes her. Story here, and here.

Looks like there’s a bunch of “he said, she said” going on here. Not sure what the real truth is, but hopefully it will come out.

You’d think he could do some research…

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa is worried that the proposed legislation to allow concealed carry on campus could make schools unsafe.

Hrm. What is Mr. Cigarroa basing this upon? Facts? Data? Supporting evidence?

No.

Chicken Little.

Cigarroa says parents, faculty and campus law enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the law could lead to an increase in campus violence.

Geez. You’d think being the head of a University that he might have access to scholarly research and data, history, and might even know something about basing decisions on facts.

KICK HIM IN THE NUTS!!

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

People think kicking someone in the nuts is the be-all-end-all solution to fighting or ending an attack (e.g. you’ll hear this countless times in “women’s self-defense” classes).

Well, watch this:

All the controversy about “Combat Ki” aside (if you don’t know and are curious, click here), it sure seems that the guy is taking one hell of a nut shot and barely flinching.

Granted, most people will get hit in the nuts and drop to the ground in a fetal position. But the takeaway here is you can’t necessarily expect a nut shot to have a 100% success rate.

But for all the “Combat Ki” in the world…. I doubt they’re able to condition themselves to withstand a good dose of lead…. Sometimes there are better self-defense tools out there.

That aside, I love watching the video. I love the use of “blue balls” (har har) and the little up and down animations. The constant over and over and over and over and over replays of the nut shot, full speed, slow motion, different angles. Amusing.

Killed by coyotes? What can we learn.

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I was flipping through TV channels and came across a show on the National Geographic Channel called “Killed by Coyotes?”

 

A talented young folk singer, Taylor Mitchell, is killed by coyotes as she hikes alone in a Canadian national park. It’s the first fatal coyote attack on an adult human ever recorded, and it shocks not only the surrounding community but coyote experts as well. Highly intelligent and generally timid around people, coyotes have traditionally not been considered a threat to human communities. But are they becoming more habituated to us and are they losing their fear of us? In the wake of the attack, scientists, police and park rangers try to develop a clear picture of what happened – and why. And with coyote numbers increasing throughout North America, we explore how humans and coyotes co-exist.

 

 

I remember when this story hit the news. I only caught the last half of the show, but it was interesting. They came to the conclusion that Taylor was killed as a result of a predatory act, that is, they were hunting her… not defense, not a rabid animal acting out of character, but she was hunted. They said these yotes were “Eastern Coyotes”, a hybrid of coyote and wolves; consequently, they have a different behavior, one that’s not afraid of larger quarry. Furthermore they asserted that in a protected forest, there’s no fear of predatation by humans, and in fact there is likely chances for “friendly” interaction with humans thus critters become less afraid of humans. Consequently, any attempts to “scare them off” just wouldn’t work because they have no fear of humans; that you are bigger means nothing.

We’ll never know the truth of what happened to Taylor Mitchell, but it does go to show that the world can be a dangerous place. We are so insulated, so isolated from the reality of the world… most people don’t want to acknowledge or are ignorant of how the world really is (including human predators that surround us on a daily basis). And yes it’s true that Taylor’s case is a first in recorded history. But you know… it’s little comfort to know you’re a statistical anomaly while in the midst of being attacked.

I did take a few things from this.

First, they hypothesized based upon their findings that Taylor detected she was being followed and started to run, throwing her keys, her camera, all in an attempt to flee. It’s very natural to choose one reaction: fight or flight. They hypothesized that Taylor chose flight, and that triggered a stronger predatory response in the coyotes. What if she had chosen to fight? Granted the results may have been the same, but you can’t help but wonder if standing your ground and fighting could have yielded a better result. I also consider that one’s response to such a situation may be biological, but one thing we humans have is an ability to overcome our biological programming. If instead you train and condition yourself to fight, if your first reaction might be “OH SHIT!” but then your second reaction is “YOU’RE GOING DOWN!!”, what sort of difference could that make? There’s often discussion of the wussification of America, how we’re teaching kids to go fetal instead of fight… how could things be different if we raised fighters, not flighters?

Second… I can’t help but think about all those people who freak out over the whole “concealed carry in national parks” issue. For me, it’s not about wild animals, but still about predators. It’s quite common for drug manufacturers to grow marijuana on public lands in national parks. Of course, they don’t want to be found, so if you stumble upon them, it’s unlikely the rest of your day will go well. But I think back to a camping trip with my family at a Texas State Park. We’re just walking down the road in the park and suddenly a coyote runs across the road in the middle of the day. Odd behavior, but it happened. Thankfully nothing came of it, but what if the yote thought otherwise? Do you have a plan to deal with that situation? Do you have a means to handle it?

.44 Magnum does a good job of addressing the situation. Imagine of Taylor was armed. Imagine if she had such an equalizer. Might she be alive today?