Guns

Guns and church

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Arkansas’s House just passed a bill approving concealed carry in church.

I applaud this. Texas’ concealed carry laws originally prohibited carry in church but the law changed to allow it (unless, like any place they post a valid 30.06 sign). 

Like I said before, having such laws only stop the law-abiding good guys. The law-breaking bad guys don’t care. The wolves will roam where they please, especially to places where it’s easy to pick off the sheep. Laws don’t erect magical force-fields to keep out the bad guys. 

From the article:

Rep. Steven Breedlove, D-Greenwood, a minister at the Valley View Church of Christ, said allowing concealed handguns won’t stop someone from opening fire inside a church.

“Ronald Reagan was completely surrounded by armed guards and he was still shot,” Breedlove said. “And that is why we must put our faith in God and not put our faith in something else … Let us keep the sanctity of churches and put our faith in God and not in guns.”

No, it won’t stop someone bent on crazy. John Hinckley Jr. was crazy. A minister should know that bad things can happen to good people and we can’t stop it all. And although a subject of much debate, it seems rather a Christian thing to defend yourself and others.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So while allowing good people to possess useful tools wherever they man roam may not stop crazy, it can act as a deterrent and discourager, and at least give you a fighting chance. Yea, it even appears to be a moral obligation.

I agree. Do not put your faith in an inanimate object — a gun. But perhaps you can have faith that God might be guiding some to do His will, to be the sheepdogs helping The Shepherd guard his flock. Just ask Jeanna Assam.

 

Update: Robb chimes in with his take on the matter.

Capacity

/ hsoi / 10 Comments

Oh t3h interwebtubes are rife with endless debate about gun stuff, from your choice of gun sucks to your caliber sucks and every possible debate in between.

One thing tho I haven’t seen much debate on tho is capacity… well, at least within the gun-toting community. Across the lines there are those that believe a capacity of zero is ideal, or if they’re feeling generous might think 10 is the most one could ever need. I mean, what reason could you ever have to need to fire more than 10 rounds?

I give you one reason.

When you look at the reports of police under pressure in gunfights, what is their ratio of hits to misses? Depending on the amount of training the police force gets and then the particular force, I’ve seen numbers ranging from 25-33%. So think about that. These trained professionals, and only at most 1/3 of the shots fired actually find their mark. You have to realize in a gunfight tho, that’s probably fair. Training takes you so far, then you’ve got adrenaline rushing, you’re moving, the bad guy is moving, you’re not going to bat 1000 under those circumstances.

So now let’s look at you, average citizen. You may not have as much training or at least as much exposure and conditioning to such pressure-filled situations. So let’s put things on the lower end of the spectrum at 25% hit ratio. That means 1 out of every 4 bullets fired will hit its mark. Now we have to understand that handguns are woefully underpowered and it’s unlikely that only 1 bullet will stop the attacker. Let’s say you’ll need at least two (but there’s no guarantee how many you’ll need). So that means you’ll need to fire at least 8 bullets. If you’re arbitrarily limited to 10 rounds, well… you might be ok.

Now note that few attackers act alone. Sure maybe you might only confront one person, but there’s usually a lookout or backup hiding off in the shadows. So now you’ve got 2 guys to deal with… that’d be what? at least 16 bullets needed?

And you can see where this math can go.

Now I admit, I’m just playing with numbers. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. You never know what you’re going to need or what you may be up against. Sure .45 ACP is a great round, but a lot of 1911-style handguns can only carry 8 of them, but a XD-45 can carry 14. Or you could get a XD(m) in 9mm and carry 20 rounds. .45 ACP sucks just as much as 9mm sucks just as much as .40 S&W sucks just as much as most any handgun round sucks. So, all sucking being equal, I like that 9mm allows increased capacity.

Wolves tend to travel in packs. How does it help the sheep if the sheepdogs can’t have all their teeth?

Gun Rights Week @ JMU

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Just read about Gun Rights Week at James Madison University.

I attended JMU for my undergrad. If it’s anything now like it was back then this probably won’t go over well with the general student populace. But that’s to be expected with a bunch of 18-21 year olds at a liberal arts college in the United States, likely on their own for the first time in their lives, experiencing freedom (i.e. no mom & dad looming over them) like never before. Given how I thought at the time, if this had happened when I was there I too probably would have wondered what the point was and thought concealed carry on a college campus was more dangerous and inviting bloodshed in the classroom if there was a minor disagreements over how to interpret some poem in English class, shootouts on The Quad over hackey sacks, or poor food choices in D-Hall.

But as I’ve documented here, I’ve since changed. I’ve improved my education on and understanding of the matter. And the stark reality is creating “gun free zones” in reality creates a “victim-full zones”. Virginia Tech is just a short drive from JMU. If creating a “gun free zone”, like a school or university, also erected a magical force-field that kept the bad guys and the crazies out and allowed a blissful sheep-like existence within, I’d be all for it. But alas, such things don’t exist, and the wolves roam without regard for artificial boundaries. All “gun free zones” do is keep out the sheepdogs, and the sheep keep grazing on The Quad.

Ignorance is only bliss until your rose-colored glasses are violently shattered (VaTech, various other school-based shooting tragedies). There’s movement within Texas for this year’s state legislative session to improve things in this very manner, and I support those efforts and will do what I can to help them succeed. I’m all for removing barriers that abridge sheepdogs.

Self-Defense Acronyms

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Hecate ponders about betting your life. She makes many valid points about self-defense and personal responsibility, the biggest of which is that self-defense is your own responsibility.

Like anything we must learn, ways and tricks to help us learn and retain the information is useful. One learning technique is using acronyms. Hecate’s article points out a couple and I wanted to add a couple more.

Continue reading →

Preach on Uncle Ted

/ hsoi

Uncle Ted on why gun sales are up.

FTFA:

Our founding fathers supported an individual’s right to own guns. Unlike Obama and Holder, those vanguards of freedom understood that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not be achieved without being able to protect yourself and your loved ones from human scum who would deny you your fundamental God-given rights.

What our new president and his attorney general obviously want is control. Studying other gun-grabbing regimes of the past, they know the first thing that needs to be done to turn us from citizens to subjects is to disarm us. 

Legislative Alert from TSRA

/ hsoi

I received an alert from TSRA last night and was going to write this up myself, but JR over at A Keyboard and a .45 beat me to it. 

I’m happy that Senator Jeff Wentworth is my State Senator. 🙂

Extra ammo carrier for a Mossberg 500 Bantam?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

TacStar makes these great SideSaddle® mounts. I have a 6-shot model on my Mossberg 500 12 gauge.

However, I also have a Mossberg 500 Bantam (model 54210). This is the “youth model” 500, and is in 20 gauge. While TacStar makes a model that holds 20 gauge, they don’t have a model that will work with the Bantam (I asked them). The issue is when the Mossberg’s foreend is pulled back, it overlaps the receiver and thus right where the SideSaddle would go.

My question to readers is: can you suggest a solution to this problem? Ideally I’d like to have a “drop in product”, but I can do a little home-brewed stuff if needed. I’ve tried Googling but there’s too much chaff to sift through and so far I’ve not come up with any definitive solutions.

A few things I don’t want:

  • No bandoliers. This shotgun will/can not have a sling.
  • No buttstock sleeves. It’s what I’m currently using but isn’t ideal if you have to switch shooting positions (e.g. shooting right-handed then switching to left-handed).

Please leave suggestions in the comments. Thank you.

Just Give Them What They Want

/ hsoi

I was reading an article at the Austin Gun Rights Examiner about how concealed carry saved lives again. Some may jump to say the individual was a law enforcement official. While true, that person was not on duty, had no legal or professional obligation to carry or do what they did. For all intents and purposes, it was just another Joe Citizen that opted to live the life of a sheepdog and protect the sheep from the wolves.

But what moved me about the article was this:

At a 2006 National Violent Crime Summit, attended by police chiefs and mayors from around the U.S., the Cincinnati, Ohio police chief stated: “There’s almost a different code on the street, that it’s not a robbery unless you shoot somebody.” This is due, in part, to the fact that “robbers, especially juveniles, are more likely than ever to shoot victims, even when they do not resist” and that young gangsters shoot people to gain “respect.”

Indeed, a sad commentary on society. But what’s even more sad is the advice given on how to deal with this behavior. Hecate apparently lives in Omaha and has a justifiably flabbergasted reaction to the advice. So, go ask the wolves how they like their sheep to behave. Then we should wonder why the sheep keep getting picked off and the wolves grow numerous and fat?

*sigh*

 

Update: Xavier tells a story of an old friend.

Just one child

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I love my children. I’ve apparently been blessed with a talent for teaching, especially with children. I take my work with children very seriously, especially when it comes to protecting them: both my direct protection of them when they are within my care, and teaching them how to care for themselves.

A common line of reasoning you hear these days is “if it saves/helps/protects/aids/etc. just one child, then it’s worth it.”  No, I’m sorry but that’s not a sound line of reasoning. Is abridging the rights of millions of people the right thing to do if it might save just one child? So injure millions to save one? I’m not saying it’s welcome to injure the one, but life isn’t perfect and without pain, and I just don’t believe it’s right to save one and injure millions… the math doesn’t add up for me.

The past few days the gun blogging community has been talking about this particular blogger and their interactions with her. Here’s one of her posts, and as an example of gun blogger responses, I give you SayUncle’s response to her particular posting.

I agree with Catherine. That is a horrible story, and it breaks my heart that an innocent 2 year old child was killed through negligence. And what’s worse, it appears the negligence is on the part of the parents. I agree those parents should be held accountable for their actions.

What I don’t agree with is Catherine’s final statement:

I could show hundreds of statistics on why tough gun control laws should be strictly enforced, but the best argument is that one child’s death is too many.

(And I gotta agree with SayUncle, show those statistics, and be sure to answer Just One Question while you’re at it). The thing is, there are already laws on the books about this (e.g. Texas Penal Code §46.13). But how is enforcement going to prevent such things? The law is now only going to apply after the fact. This isn’t to say the law shouldn’t be enforced, but passing more laws won’t stop more death. What will stop more death? Call for increased responsibility. Call for education. Accept no less.

Take a look at the NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe program. This is a fantastic program that teaches children if they come across a firearm to:

  1. Stop
  2. Don’t touch
  3. Leave the area
  4. Tell an adult

Drill that mantra into your children. Even if you detest guns above all things, don’t leave your child ignorant; they may encounter a gun at some point in their life – give them at least the minimal knowledge necessary to keep them alive. If you wish to go above that, teach them the basic rules of gun handling safety (source: Jeff Cooper, Commentaries, Vol. 11 No. 4, 2003):

  1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1).
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60% of inadvertent discharges.
  4. Identify your target and what’s behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified.

This doesn’t mean you have to teach your child how to handle a firearm, but safety rules are always good things to teach (e.g. walk on the left side of the road, facing traffic; keep your fingers curved back when slicing vegetables). And teaching respect for the power of a gun is worthwhile — they are tools, not toys. We agree that education is so important, we teach our children the dangers of strangers, drugs, alcohol, sex, but for some reason our society accepts ignorance about guns. How does that keep our children safe?

But on the same token, we have to accept that the world isn’t a perfect place. We have to accept there are and always will be people that are going to do stupid and irresponsible things, or just make mistakes (and I believe each and every one of us is guilty of this in our past and will be again in the future… such is being a human; if you’re perfect, please drop me a line!). But we don’t have to be complacent with this either. Instead of abridging people, why not teach them? educate them? lift them up?

 

Updated: For those that like statistics, here are some.