Guns

OK then…

/ hsoi

“If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.”

Washington D.C. Police Chief, Cathy Lanier

Full story. Additional story.

This is a huge WTF because Chief Lanier has worked tirelessly to disarm and hold helpless the citizens of Washington D.C.. It’s not like she’s helpful in getting licenses approved…

Fact is, what she says is correct. It’s an admission of reality that many choose to still ignore: that police cannot be there, that police cannot immediately respond. It takes time for them to learn about an event, respond, travel to the location. In a good city, you’re lucky to get 5-7 minute response times – that’s a GOOD response time, so you have to realize many times responses will be longer.

How much damage can happen in that time?

And who can do anything about it?

Let’s not even think of massive terrorist-style attacks. Let’s consider more “mundane” events like robbery, mugging, assault, rape. When a violent crime is occurring, who is there in the immediate area? For certain, the attacker and the victim. Of those, who do you think could do something about the safety of the victim?

I’m not saying we all need to cowboy up and all citizens be police, because that’s not how our current system of laws work, nor how our society is structured.

But what our laws and society do allow is for citizens to be pro-active in their own safety. To have directly on-hand the tools that could be utilized to save their own lives. And the simple fact we see more and more professional law enforcement speaking up and confessing reality… that’s what we call “a clue”.

Now if Chief Lanier will just enable the citizens of D.C. to do what she suggests.

Magpul STR vs CTR

/ hsoi

Here’s what a little training and education does to you: it fixes what’s broken.

My hunting rifle is an AR-patterned rifle: a Wilson Combat 6.8 upper on a Rock River Arms lower with their two-stage match trigger, and some other accessories.

I forget what I originally had as a stock, but probably some sort of “factory whatever” 6-position stock. Hated it. Put on a Magpul STR. Why? I felt that the added width would be good for my cheek weld. And generally it was, given what I knew at the time.

Well, at the CSAT Rifle class last month, there was some side talk with Paul Howe about stocks, and he mentioned he couldn’t use such stocks because they rolled his head over. It just didn’t fit him and his body (YMMV).

It seems that’s my case too.

When I pulled the hunting rifle out a couple weeks ago to prep for deer (rifle) season, of course I was putting my CSAT training to use. And lo, things felt off. I couldn’t get that consistent head and eye position, that natural point of aim. I noticed that yeah, my head was rolling to the side. I also noticed I wasn’t getting naturally behind the scope to see through it properly. Hrm.

I took off the STR and just used the raw buffer tube to experiment. Sure enough, everything felt better.

So I ordered a Magpul CTR. It just came in. Put it on, and lo, everything is better. Consistent head and eye position. Natural point of aim. And the scope falls properly where it should (eye relief). What a difference, eh?

Why didn’t I get something like the UBR or PRS? 1. Cost. 2. I’m not convinced I need it, not at least on this rifle.

Anyways, that’s what a little learning will do for you. 😉

UT Profs: please come out of your ivory tower once in a while

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

So I read this about a rally held a couple of days ago at the University of Texas (right here in Austin):

“America has all-along been about the sheer display of white male power with guns over Indians, over slaves, over females, over Mexicans, over Asians, over African Americans, and over Arabs, now,” said [history professor Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra]. “Classroom carry is aggressive intrusion of the vigilante rights of the largely white minority into our living rooms, our offices, our dorms, my classroom.

Full story (h/t David Hoobler)

Now, as an Asian, I’m not really sure what he’s getting at. But I live here in Austin.

And you know, right here in Austin – you know, the little blue-dot in this red state – I see all sorts of things.

For example, there’s the A Girl and a Gun club and the Austin Sure Shots, which are women’s groups. Right here. In Austin.

There’s Michael Cargill – a gay black man, who is also the owner of Central Texas Gun Works. Right here. In Austin.

A number of years ago as I was leaving Red’s Indoor Range (a gun range, right here, in Austin), this is what I see parked in the parking lot.

I’ve been an instructor at KR Training for about 7 years. I’ve seen thousands of people come through the doors of one of the oldest and most respected self-defense schools in Central Texas – and the primary residence of the students? Austin. And the students are male, female, black, white, yellow, brown, rich, poor, highly educated, barely educated, young, old, you name it. If anything, “white male power” is quite the minority.

And vigilante? Do you really think anyone that has to go through as much red tape, as much background checking, fingerprinting, and legal hassle as to get a concealed carry license is a vigilante? If you don’t know what it takes, click through to read the lengthy legal and regulatory process that’s involved.

So I’m not really sure where Mr. Cañizares-Esguerra is getting his information.

But perhaps if he stepped outside of his ivory tower – and just looked around, right here in Austin – he might see that the only person throwing around ignorant stereotypes is himself.

Updated thoughts on a home defense tool

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

Some years ago I wrote down my thoughts on home defense tools.

My thoughts have progressed over the years.

The other day I read this article: Long guns for home defense – not such a hot idea. My initial reaction was to groan, because there actually is a place for them, but my groan was purely on the article title. So I went and read the article, and I actually agree completely with the author.

(Aside: This is why it’s good to actually READ the article, not just the headline. I loved NPR’s troll/experiment on this very thing.)

But since I know from looking at my own site statistics that people rarely click-through to read the referenced article, here’s the “tl;dr” summary:

  • Handguns are generally better for home-defense because they are compact and one-handed
    • Have you tried quickly navigating your house with a long-gun?
    • How about contending with opening doors, using flashlights, finagling children, etc.?
  • Long-guns are useful when you stay-put.

Now is this the be-all-end-all? Of course not. There are a great many factors to consider. For example, I know a couple (and just the 2 of them; no kids to worry about) that lives in a rural area. They are far back from the road so there’s longer distances to cover. As well, a more common issue for them is to contend with 4-legged predators around their livestock. Considering the totality of their circumstances, a rifle actually works out well for them.

In my house, a handgun is generally more useful, because people, because tight and twisty hallways, and most of all? Because it’s the tool with which I am most proficient.

And I’m sure YOUR situation is different.

Consider the totality of your circumstance and pick the right tool for the job. I know Internet mantra is “long guns for defending the home-front”, but remember what’s right for someone else behind their keyboard may not be appropriate for you, your family, and your home.

Signs, signs, everywhere there’s (ineffective) signs

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Austin police are looking for a man who robbed a South Austin jewelry store on Thursday afternoon. Police say the suspect came into Jared’s Jewelry store, located at 4301 W. William Cannon Dr., with a gun, and demanded property from the employees. The suspect was able to get away with an undisclosed amount of property.

Full story (emphasis added)

Jared’s Jewelry is well-established as being anti-gun. Here in Texas, every Jared’s store posts “30.06 signs” outside their entrances. People post “30.06” and other “no-guns” signs expecting those signs will keep guns (and crime/violence) out of their facility. The point of a “30.06 sign” is to prohibit lawful concealed carry inside the store; and that it does. The law-abiding citizens of Texas that are background-checked, fingerprinted, have passed other stringent tests and requirements, and been vetted by both the Texas and Federal government as demonstrably law-abiding, obey that sign.

You know who doesn’t obey that sign?

That guy that just robbed the Jared’s Jewelry store.

How often do you inspect your equipment?

/ hsoi

The title says it all:

How often do you inspect your equipment?

It doesn’t matter the context. If you have equipment you rely upon, it should get some sort of periodic inspection.

When was the last time you checked the air pressure in the tires of your car? Or the oil? Or the washer fluid? How about if all of the exterior lights (turn signals, brakes, backup lights, etc.) work?

How about the fire extinguisher in your kitchen? The smoke detectors in the house?

The backup system for your computer (e.g. Mac OS X’s Time Machine). When was the last backup run? Is everything in order?

The list can go on.

I’m far from perfect in this. I’m like you: busy, with a lot of things on my plate and in my head. I can’t remember everything, and things do slip through the cracks. For example, I wear a kydex pouch on my belt to carry my flashlight and a spare magazine. A few weeks ago I realized that one of the belt clips had started to crack. I’m glad I caught it because it wasn’t too long before it fully broke. I was able to get a replacement ordered in time.

Funny thing tho? The replacement wasn’t properly made so I had to send it back (they did correct things; a topic for another time). Thus I was without the pouch for a little while. I used my rotary tool to cut off the broken parts and whittled it down to just a flashlight pouch. But what to do about carrying a spare magazine? While I do have other mag pouches, it would have made EDC cumbersome. So, a DeSantis Mag-Packer to the rescue. It was good to have some sort of equipment redundancy.

Friend of mine had a similar issue with the flashlight in his car’s glove compartment. The bulb fried somehow, and SureFire is going to take care of it. But better that he found out now instead of when he was stranded roadside at night needing to change his tire.

Any equipment and things you rely upon, inspect them. Fix them. Replace them. Do whatever is needed, so when you have to call on your equipment, it’ll be there.

Yes, you ARE being detained – Follow-up

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Yesterday’s article, “Yes you ARE being detained” stirred up more controversy than I expected. My goal was to inform you – the potential open carrier – about how the new Texas “open carry” laws are being interpreted by the police, district attorneys, and lawyers. Yet, there were some who disagreed with what I wrote (on my blog, in Facebook comments, and emails).

What I wrote was not my random opinion.

What I wrote was an explanation of the realities and facts of how the current open carry laws are presently being interpreted and thus WILL be enforced. 

This was written for YOUR benefit, so when a peace officer approaches you while you are openly carrying your handgun, you can have an informed, knowledgable, and good interaction. Because if you decide to get your “rights” up in a bunch, that the first words out of your mouth are “AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!” while you fire up your phone’s video recorder so you can give the officer a roadside civics lesson, you need to understand that the encounter is NOT going to end in a manner that you care for – AND YOU WILL LOSE because of your ignorance and/or arrogance. Not only will you lose, but you’re going to make the rest of us lose as well.

Here’s a video from a November 4, 2015 meeting held by Houston Police Chief Charles A. McClelland, Jr., Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson, and Houston City Attorney Donna Edmundson specifically to address questions regarding the new Open Carry laws:

You don’t need to watch the whole thing. Just watch and listen to the first 2 questions, starting about 6 minutes into the video. They specifically address these issues, and they said the same thing I said.

If you want to blow that off as “Houston”, then take a read of the Nov/Dec 2015 issue of TSRA Sportsman, the magazine of the Texas State Rifle Association. Edin Walker, independent attorney for Texas Law Shield, wrote an article and said the exact same thing. TSRA is about as pro-gun rights as you can get, and they are saying the same thing.

You are welcome to disagree all you want, but the facts are what they are.

When this law goes into effect January 1, 2016, if a police officer sees a person carrying a handgun in plain view, they can stop and detain you until they can determine if you satisfy the “unless” clause (produce your ID and LTC). If you fail to do so, you will be in violation of the law and consequences for disobeying the law will ensue.

If you disagree with all of this, then it’s simple – don’t open carry.

Furthermore, you don’t need to give me or the peace officer a civics lesson. Instead, you need to contact your state legislators and discuss improvements to the law for the 2017 legislative session.

As well, I would recommend joining the TSRA and sending Alice Tripp some money so she can continue to lobby for you.

Either way, you need to think about the big picture.

Come January 1, 2016, every anti-gun-rights group AND media outlet is waiting. They are waiting – salivating – eager for that first open-carry fuck-up. They will parade it around, turn it into national news, they will twist it to serve their agenda, and they will use it as ammunition to further restrict our rights and abilities.

Do you want to be that poster-child?

Yes, you ARE being detained

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

Updated 2015-11-05: posted a follow-up.

For those of you wishing to open carry a handgun in Texas come January 1, 2016, it’s critical you understand the law.

One issue that came up during the debates during the 2015 Texas Legislative session 84(R) on the open carry bill (HB 910) was issues of “stop and identify”, if a police officer could stop you to determine if you had a carry license or not. The drama of the debate no longer matters: what matters now is what the law currently says.

What does the law say? The law is silent on the matter.

That said, the bottom line is that yes, if a police officer sees you openly carrying a handgun, they can certainly stop and detain you for the purposes of determining if you are properly licensed.

How is this possible?

Prior to 84(R) HB 910, Texas Penal Code §46.02 Unlawful Carrying Weapons said:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Under existing (pre-January 1, 2016) law, a police officer has the authority to stop someone they see openly carrying a handgun. Why? Because according to the above law, it’s against the law to do so. Simple enough.

With 84(R) HB 910, §46.02 changes:

(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is
licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt
holster; or

So what it means is this:

If a police officer sees someone openly carrying a handgun, the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed – namely, the possession of a handgun in plain view, in violation of Penal Code §46.02. Note the language in HB 910 adds to §46.02 the phrase “unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster”.

So yes, you can be stopped. Yes you can be detained. Yes the police officer can and will work to determine if you are able to legally carry (do you satisfy the “unless” clause). Yes, you might be disarmed by the officer.

And yes, per GC §411.205, if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license. That doesn’t change with 84(R) HB 910.

So before you get your “rights” all up in a bunch, realize that this is how the law is.

And in speaking with lawyer and LEO friends of mine, there are many other legal cans of worms that are being opened due to the general notion of open carry AND specifically due to the way the current law is phrased. The more I hear and think about these things, the less I feel like open carrying and becoming the precedent-setter. A lot is going to have to be sorted out by the legislators and the courts in the coming years.

If you don’t want to be stopped, if you don’t want to get stuck in the legal mud, then don’t open carry. It’s simple. If you don’t like that this is how things are, then work with your legislators (and probably the TSRA) to get things improved.

If you do chose to carry, if you do get stopped, then realize it will be your opportunity to set the pace and tone for not just yourself, but every other gun owner. As I said before: be polite, be professional. In terms of your own interaction, you’re going to get further by being professional, polite, understanding, sympathetic, and polite (yes, polite said now three times for emphasis) – even if the cop is being a power-tripping asshole, that doesn’t mean you have to be. Be nice. Demonstrate good manners (say “please” and “thank you”, “sir” or “ma’am” doesn’t hurt either). If you’re nice, your interaction should go smoothly – if it doesn’t, then you being nice gives you the upper hand and will just magnify the other’s less than exemplary behavior. We’re all going to be scrutinized here, so live up to some high(er) standards. And hopefully if all early-day interactions go smooth and well, hopefully that will mean less interactions for us all as time goes on.

It’s your choice – you can be an asshole, or you can be an ambassador. Don’t ruin it for the rest of us. Don’t ruin it for yourself. Some people want to open carry to show off their gun. Well, remember that it’s not just your gun that’s openly carried, but also how you carry yourself that’s open for display to the whole world. Make us and make yourself proud.

At close range? You need different options

/ hsoi

Creating distance between you and an attacker is generally a good and desirable thing. Trouble is, creating it in an effective manner – and knowing WHEN to create it.

Leslie Buck of Tactical Arts Academy participated in a study with Texas State Troopers. Leslie played the bad guy, and the Trooper knew Leslie was going to draw on him. They performed this experiment repeatedly at different distances between the participants.

I pulled my training gun on the troopers nearly 200 times and every single time, they died. Why? They knew it was coming, but they clearly lost over and over again. The problem was that they were trying to out-draw me. Though I would love to say it was because of my awesome draw stroke, it was simply because action is faster than reaction. I start first, and they were trying to catch up.

Emphasis added.

Yes, our monkey brain tells us to “get away” or to bash head with rock (these days, that translates to draw our own gun and shoot). However, that’s obviously not the effective strategy. What is?

Lt. Ballarta suggested they consider trying to grab or trap the hands of the bad guy before trying to draw their own gun. The difference was huge. At close range, the majority of participants were able to stop or redirect my draw and get their own gun out to get shots on me.

The results of the study clearly indicated that when already close, coming even closer was safer.

But again, we’ve got “monkey brain” to overcome, and that requires training and practice. And this sort of skill comes from scenario training and “force-on-force” (you don’t get this sort of thing on the square range, flinging lead at cardboard targets).

There’s a lot more to it, and I suggest you give Leslie’s full article a read.

Useful stuff there.

I have an earnest question

/ hsoi / 15 Comments

CINCINNATI — A Colerain Township man is accused of ambushing a woman outside of her home, slashing her with a knife and threatening to set her on fire.

[…]

According to court records, Ingram waited outside the woman’s Mount Auburn home Thursday. Once she came out, Ingram grabbed her, cut her face, cheek and chest, choked her, and said he’d pour gasoline on her and set her ablaze, court records state.

[…]

The woman had a temporary protection order against Ingram, according to court records.

Full story (h/t TDI)

My earnest question.

What could have been done to keep this woman safe?

I’m not trying to fish for or lead towards the answer of “guns!”. Honestly, while the article is very short on details, it appears the woman was ambushed and simply “having a gun” may not have been sufficient.

So I’m earnestly curious.

She had a restraining order. That didn’t keep her safe; in fact, I’d say it was pretty useless.

That restraining order effectively created a portable “gun/weapon/criminal/killer free zone” around her. Obviously ineffective.

I’m not sure “teaching men not to knife, choke, and burn women” would have been all that effective at keeping her safe. I mean, you’re taught not to exceed the speed limit while driving, yet you do it. “Teaching” isn’t sufficient to keep people from doing (or to get people to do) things; so it certainly isn’t sufficient to keep you safe from other people. That also puts your well-being in the hands of other people, and if a barista can’t get your Starbucks order correct, if that jackass texting while driving runs you off the road, what makes you think some sicko is going to give a damn about your life and dignity?

Good luck trying to pee or vomit on someone while under such an attack.

While I have my thoughts on what could have been done (and please don’t assume you know what I’m thinking; but if you can read minds, I’d like to talk with you about taking a trip to Las Vegas), I’m earnestly asking:

What could have been done to keep this woman safe?

Corollary question: if these other, oft-suggested solutions, are ineffective, why do they continue to be pushed as viable solutions?