RKBA

facepalm

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

In remarks at the Denver Police Academy in Denver, Colo., [President Barack Obama] said that, after campaigning in rural Iowa, Michelle Obama told him, “You know, if I was living out on a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too. When somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home, you don’t know who these people are, you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond, I can see what you’d want some guns for protection.”

Source (h/t Unc)

I don’t get it.

Are the Obama’s being well… not racist but classist? stereotyping “Iowa Rednecks” or Iowa as a scary place to live? elitist attitude? or is this simple ignorance? Are they saying guns are fine in rural areas, but not in cities? for rednecks but not cityfolk? or… what?  I’m not sure what to make of the implications of their comments. But let’s just set that side and look at the plain words.

When someone drives up to your home…

You don’t know who these people are…

You don’t know how long it’s going to take for someone else to come and save you (because apparently your safety is someone else’s responsibility)…

well, in that case, they can see why people might want guns.

OK.

Well… all the people around you right now. Maybe not those immediately around you there at home or even the office (but perhaps even at the office, because I’m sure you don’t know everyone in your company or your building), but look at all those around you in the greater area. Heck, next time you go out to lunch or dinner, next time you’re out shopping, next time you’re at the gas station… do you know all those people? Do you know who they are?

Was there ever a time when some strange person drove into your driveway? Or came and knocked on your door?

Do you know how long it takes for your local law enforcement to arrive? You probably don’t. I’m not sure where this guy got his stats from, but you can see the average for these large cities runs about 10 minutes. That’s about par with my experience in Austin. Even if you don’t know the precise time, consider simple realities of time and space. There isn’t a cop standing right next to you right now, so that means if you want one, one has to travel to you. First, you have to have a way to communicate that you need one: so you or someone needs to dial 911, wait on hold, talk to an operator, explain what you need, they patch things through, depending how your 911 center is organized they might dispatch from there or the operator might have to relay your information to a dispatcher who then can send out the police… how many minutes did all this take before a cop was even starting to travel your way? Now they have to fight through traffic to get to you. Yeah sure they can turn on their lights, but I’m sure you’ve seen it — police car, fire truck, ambulance… lights and siren flashing, and it still takes them a while to get through an intersection because cars can’t or won’t get out of the way. All the while… the clock is ticking…. and your attacker continues their attack.

So… Mr. & Mrs. Obama….

What makes it about Iowa that can have guns (in your mind), but someone living in not-Iowa couldn’t? Don’t these things happen in The Big City too? Aren’t there strange people, willing to commit horrible acts, in cities too? Aren’t police in cities subject to the same rules of time and space and that it takes time to respond? I mean, not all of us are surrounded by Secret Service agents.

So please, explain to me the thinking behind your statement.

Acevedo supports CHL?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Texas CHL process is what responsible gun ownership is about. Proud of our process & the overall excellence of our CHL holders.

@ArtAcevedo

Really? Color me a little surprised.

Well, now Austin’s police chief is on record, and I do thank him for his words. But, it seems contrary to prior words.

He apparently doesn’t think college students are responsible enough.

“When you start talking about 21 year-olds and college students, responsibility is the last thing on their minds,” Acevedo said. “With a lot of pressure and high campus suicide rates, the last thing we want to include in that environment, like a bar, is guns.”

(full story)

So let me get this straight. A 21-year-old Texas resident gets a Texas CHL. To have that CHL apparently demonstrates the person is a responsible gun owner — a person of excellence, according to Chief Acevedo.

But if that 21-year-old is a college student, if they cross over into the magical fairyland bubble of the college campus… suddenly somehow responsibility degrades to becoming the last thing on their mind.

Apparently I’m failing to understand Mr. Acevedo’s logic.

 

Same end, different means

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

…we can do better than this. We can do better to make sure that fewer parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence.

– President Barack Obama

full transcript

I agree.

I don’t agree with the reasoning that disarming the citizenry is the way to achieve said safety.

And yes folks, that’s ultimately what he (and his ilk) are after. They tried to slice off a huge chunk, but since that won’t succeed instead they will slowly chip away at the stone. If you start to let the chips fall, eventually there won’t be a rock left and you’ll wonder what happened.

We teach and strongly advocate for things like women’s self-defense clinics where we teach women to fight back against rapists. Rape is an atrocious act of violence. I don’t care who you are or what you think, but the Truth is the vast majority of women can be overpowered by any man — even a teenage male. Are you advocating for my daughter to be a victim? It was not her choice to be weaker, to be smaller, and thus potential prey. If she is at a disadvantage through no fault and choice of her own, what do you suggest she do to overcome potential disparity? What can you honestly suggest she do that could prevent a 250# 25-year old male from raping, beating, and leaving her for dead? Yell “NO!”, blow a whistle, and palm-strike him to the nose? or as some legislators recently suggested, she just pee/poop her pants or tell the attacker she has a disease? I tell you what… come try that on me and see how far you get (pure training environment, just to demonstrate the reality of how much that technique fails).

Like all tools, we use tools to overcome disparity. Most of us aren’t strong enough to pound a nail or turn a screw without a tool. And a gun? That’s something that enables the weak to overcome the disparity against a strong attack. Palm strike or pepper spray or taser? Think about how close you have to be to the attacker to make those things work — too close. A gun? it’s designed to overcome distance. It’s designed to overcome disparity.

I don’t want to lose my children to an act of violence. I don’t want you to lose your children to an act of violence. I used to believe that there was never a reason to hit, that violence was never the answer. I’m glad I overcame those notions, because I left my bubble and learned that yes sometimes there are reasons to hit, and yes sometimes violence is the (only) answer. The idealist in me wishes it wasn’t so, but the realist in me knows it to be true and has finally accepted it. I don’t know anyone that would sit idly by while their children were beaten, raped, kidnapped, etc.. What would they do? They would fight. They would be willing to sacrifice their own lives for the life of their child. If you’re going to fight, if you’re going to be fighting for the life of you and your child, don’t you want ever advantage possible that would enable you to prevail?

We all want the same thing, but we vastly disagree with the road to achieve it.

So it’s dead…. but not gone

/ hsoi

Looks like Feinstein’s pet legislation is dead.

They know it’s polarizing, they know it won’t get through, so the “bigwigs” are basically nixing it.

So folks… please stop hoarding ammo. Those of us that actually want, need, and use ammo would like to get some. Classes are hard to teach without it. 🙂

But this isn’t the end of the road.

First, we don’t know what Reid will actually try to present on the floor. But he believes they will be proposals that will gain more support. So I guess the question remains: who is still willing to sell us out? None of these proposals will make any difference towards achieving their stated ends.

One proposal that keeps coming up that they think could gain traction is a ban or restriction on “high-capacity magazine clips” (quote from the above article… *sigh*.

“Families in Newtown and across the country deserve a robust debate on efforts to reduce gun violence,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a statement. “While the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 is an incredibly important part of this debate, I continue to believe that a more targeted ban on high capacity magazines is an equally effective way to reduce casualties in episodes of mass violence. I believe we need to have a separate floor vote on a high capacity magazine restriction, and I look forward to working with other senators in the coming weeks to develop a reasonable restriction on large volume magazines that can gain bipartisan support.”

Newtown… “won’t someone think of the children, because we’ll make you look like a heartless beast that wants children to be slaughtered if you oppose us”.

But the reality is, it won’t affect casualties. So many of the mass shootings have been slow and methodical. They will casually reload, and keep shooting. If they won’t reload, then they’ll just have more guns and reload by picking up another gun. And if not another gun, there’s far many more ways to inflict mass death and damage that doesn’t involve guns at all. So tell me, apart from making you feel good because you’ve “done something”, what are you actually doing towards solving root problems and not just taking a lozenge for the symptoms?

Here’s some irony out of the article.

“Our nation’s law enforcement officials know better than anyone what it takes to protect our communities from gun violence, and they know that background checks help save lives,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in a statement. “They have dedicated their lives to protecting the public, and as Congress debates our nation’s gun laws, their voices deserve to be heard.”

Yes, the LEO’s know. And that’s part of why LEO’s want “high-capacity magazine clips”. It’s part of why LEO’s are constantly exempted from these sorts of bans and restrictions. If putting 10-round or 7-round limits on gun capacity directly correlates to a reduction in gun violence, then it should apply to LEO’s as well. Else, what’s your real motivation behind such a ban and restriction?

Background checks save lives. Maybe, maybe not. I think to some extent the system has worked, because I’ve spoken with a lot of guys behind the counter and heard some crazy stories about people who have tried to buy, filled out the 4473, got called in for a background check, and then had such a rap sheet that they dispatched police to come pick the guy up at the counter. So yeah, it can work.

But do you really think that background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of people bent on death and destruction?

I mean, consider Sudafed. Look at what Grandma has to do to get medicine for her cold. But exactly how much meth production has been stopped by this “background check”? So do you think Joe Gangbanger selling a stolen gun out of the trunk of his car is going to do an NICS check? Tell me how this will do anything useful.

And folks… one thing to remember about a lot of Police Chief’s. They are politicians. They are many times the puppet of the city council and mayor. They aren’t elected, so they tend to serve who put them there. This is why you often find the Sheriff more favorable, since they were elected by the people. It’s been quite interesting to watch the past some months and see how police chief’s come out in favor of bans and restrictions, and sheriffs are not and in fact many have flat out stated they will defy orders to do things like confiscation.

So folks….

It’s the same old story. And it won’t go away any time soon.

It’s evident things are fading, and that’s good because it shows what people really want in this world: real solutions to our problems, not political agendas.

But it’s not gone. It’s not done. There’s still stuff on the Federal level, and there are still states trampling on freedoms with their emotional appeals and knee-jerk reactions. So, we cannot let up. We must still fight the fight.

But please, stop hoarding. 🙂  That way we can hold more classes, and bring more people into the fold. Teach them right, teach them well, teach them safely, and allow them to go to the range to practice. This is the sort of advocacy that will benefit us most in the long run. As Jim Scoutten says, “Shoot often, shoot safely, and share your sport!”

 

 

Should ignorant people be allowed to make laws and policy?

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

I have a serious question.

Should ignorant people be allowed to make laws and policy?

I’m sure to some it seems like a stupid question to ask. But I have to ask it, because I see so many people permitting the ignorant to make laws and policy, and I don’t understand why.

Noted firearms specialist and personal-safety expert “Shotgun Joe” Biden continues to dole out firearms and personal safety advice:

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

Full story (h/t TexasCHL). Emphasis added.

There’s more to the transcript, but I want to focus on the last part of Mr. Biden’s statement.

I’d like to hope one doesn’t need to understand the fundamental rules of firearm safety to understand how dangerous, reckless, careless, and potentially tragic Mr. Biden’s suggestion could be. If you have no idea what’s on the other side of that door, you have no business shooting through it.

Right now we have a terrible shooting story in the news, of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius being accused of killing his girlfriend. Apparently he shot through a closed door without knowing who was behind it.

*sigh*

There’s tons of other things wrong with Mr. Biden’s comments, both the current ones and ones he’s made in the recent past. I’m at a point where I just don’t know if Biden is that ignorant of firearms and personal safety, or if he’s that smart and is trolling.

Either way, is this a person that should be in charge of making policy? That should be in charge of writing laws? Even if he is that smart and is trolling, is that how a politician should behave?

There are those who claim men cannot speak about abortion because, as men, they cannot understand women’s health issues. There are those who would find it ludicrous for climate-change deniers to set our environmental policy. Or that fundamentalist Christians should have any say over public school science curriculum. If such demonstrable and obvious ignorance on a topic is so unacceptable, why is it acceptable here?

If we seek true experts, people truly knowledgable in the field, when it comes to solving problems… why aren’t we doing that here? I don’t think Mr. Obama nor Mr. Biden has called Massad Ayoob or Tom Givens. Why would that be? Why wouldn’t actual public safety experts be consulted here?

Just because the end may wind up meeting your agenda, I cannot see how you can condone the means for getting there. For if you set the precedent that it’s OK for the ignorant to mandate policy when the policy serves you, just remember… karma’s a bitch.

Leveling the playing field

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

Now, 15 years later, virtually all law enforcement agencies and officers are either issued AR-15 style rifles, or have them accessible. But, that is the police. In the context of self defense, why do armed citizens need AR-15 style weapons? Because, the armed citizen faces the VERY SAME criminals that police face. The only difference is that police, because they are more often called TO the incident, face these criminals more regularly. Understand, though, criminals do not prey on police, but instead, they victimize the public.

If the armed citizen wants to have a fighting chance against criminals who are armed with high capacity rifles and pistols, they also need effective weaponry. Just like the police did back in the 1990s and today.

Marty Hayes, President of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, responds to “why anyone would need one of those”.

In reading Marty’s response, it made one thing clear: it’s about “leveling the playing field”.

I’ve often said that a firearm is a force equalizer. A petite woman vs. a 300# beast of a man? Force disparity. Old man vs. young thug? Force disparity? Fit able-bodied person vs. small gang? Force disparity. So much of self-defense is about overcoming that disparity. I mean, when some martial art talks about how it’s techniques allow that weak tiny woman to overcome and cripple a 300# man, the underlying message is that martial art allows you to overcome force disparity, and thus it’s a good thing. Rape prevention techniques talk about using tasers, pepper spray, walking in groups – all means of overcoming force disparity. It’s all about reducing the disparity, or better, becoming the one with the force advantage so perhaps no one will mess with you in the first place. However, the reality is while these measures are all useful and do overcome force disparity, a firearm is a better tool for overcoming force disparity. It’s like any technological advancement; it’s why we blog and tweet and email, and why the US Postal Service is shriveling up.

We seem to put great stock in “leveling the playing field”. Why do we drug test in sports? Because we don’t want someone to gain “unfair advantage”. Why is there large political movement to change this country’s legal and economic structure? To stop few people from gaining unfair advantage and control over the rest of us. We want the field level, or whether people want to admit it or not, if the field is going to be tilted they want it tilted in their favor. So why should self-defense be any different? Why should we put ourselves at a disadvantage or force others to be at a disadvantage? That’s akin to telling the petite woman to not fight back against her rapist. To use force of law to deny her effective tools? That’s akin to tying her hands behind her back. Doesn’t it sound stupid to suggest “Hey ladies, the most effective way to keep from being raped is to lie there and take it! Just give him what he wants!”? So why do you suggest solutions that effectively create this situation?

There are numerous reasons why someone would “need one of those”, be it an AR-15, a modern semi-automatic firearm (rifle or pistol or shotgun), a firearm that could hold more bullets than you deem to be “necessary”. Fundamentally it comes down to overcoming force disparity and ensuring that “level playing field”. It’s about allowing the weak to stand strong. And yes, YOU are weak. There is always someone stronger than you: physically, mentally, economically, politically. And if not today, tomorrow you may be weaker (if nothing else, someday you will be old and frail). Are you willing to resign yourself and your fellow man to being crushed? Or would you prefer to stand strong?

First LaRue, now Olympic

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

First LaRue Tactical says what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now Olympic Arms follows suit, and does one better.

And they’re pretty much right:

This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.

And I agree with their final statement:

Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.

So come on industry people. You got the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show cancelled . Imagine if no firearms company wanted to do business with the State of New York (or California, given bills currently in their legislature… or Colorado, just ask Magpul). What would it be like? The police would be without firearms, without ammunition, without duty gear, without anything. Should they reap what they sow?

Question for those who support banning guns

/ hsoi

I need some enlightenment. Friends, please help me for I do not understand.

I’m reading through Sen. Feinstein’s bill.

By name she explicitly bans the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle. Later in the text, she exempts the Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock) and the Ruger Mini-30.

Could you please explain to me the logic behind this? Truly, I am curious. I’d like to know how this qualifies as a “good law” founded in reason, facts, and logic. Is it not reasonable to expect our laws to be based upon such things? Is it unreasonable to want to know what those reasons, facts, and logic are? What Feinstein proposes here defies all logic and reason — towards the supposed goals of “stopping the mass murder of innocent children” — but if you know how such wording and logic achieves the goal, I would love to know.

And if you don’t understand what the problem is with the wording of her ban and exemptions, then I’d suggest taking an honest step back and admitting you don’t understand, that you are, well, ignorant about the topic. It’s not a bad thing to admit ignorance — but it is bad to willfully remain as such.

2A in 2013 – the Federal legal structure

/ hsoi

David B. Kopel, of the CATO Institute, takes a look at the Second Amendment in the scope of today’s political and legal environment.

While some will dismiss this out of hand because it’s Kopel and CATO, it presents a great deal of factual information about the federal legal structure that we presently operate within. It looks at the National Firearms Act of 1934. It looks at Executive Orders. It looks at magazine capacity restrictions. It talks about recent SCOTUS decisions. Given our current legal environment, what can be done? what can’t be done? What stands up to Constitutional scrutiny? This is a fair discussion, and I’m sure some of the things Kopel says will make pro-gun people cringe as much as other things he says will make anti-gun people cringe.

Kopel also makes a sound point about solutions that work now, that have immediate impact. Sure, maybe we can have greater solutions that may bring about greater change in time, but a solution that fixes things 5 years, 2 years, 2 months from now… is that too much time to let pass? too large a window of opportunity for the next madman spree? You may not agree with Kopel, but if you know anything about dealing with active shooter situations and how law-enforcement has changed their own procedures for dealing with active shooter situations then well… it’s tough to refute the present law enforcement tactics and the reasoning behind them. Thus, if you wish to offer up other solutions, that’s fine. If your solution is successful, how long will it take before it is? What do we do between now and then? Can you offer a solution that brings about immediate results, especially given the context law enforcement works within and why? It’s a fair point to consider when discussing solutions to this problem – the timeframe in which a solution will have the positive, desired impact.

Facepalm – Vice President Joe Biden

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

Vice President Joe Biden explains what one should do for self-defense: get a shotgun.

Biden, doing a Google+ “hangout” to promote President Barack Obama’s proposals for battling gun violence, had been asked whether a new assault weapons ban might infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who want one “as a last line of defense” to fend off looters after “some terrible natural disaster.”

“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

This is one of those things that is so stunningly misinformed and full of terrible advice that you just don’t know how to respond. I’ll try tho.

First, credentials.

I am an NRA Certified Instructor (Home Safety, Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home). I am an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer. I am certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Concealed Handgun License Instructor. I have been an assistant Instructor with KR Training for four years. I’ve received hundreds of hours of instruction in firearms and self-defense, with a large stack of certifications. There’s more, but this is enough to make my point. And no, I’m not as awesome as Tom Givens or my mentor, Karl Rehn, but I’ve learned a thing or two.

Joe Biden’s credentials: owns a shotgun.

Maybe Mr. Biden has more credentials that would permit him to speak as an authority on this topic. I haven’t seen them, and even if he showed me a list, after hearing the above I couldn’t believe him.

Let’s see here…

First I will agree that a shotgun is a formidable weapon. It can do devastating things. I do keep shotguns as part of my personal defense plan. I find them to be a solid small armament. They can be the right tool for the job.

I’m curious how Mr. Biden’s statement holds up.

A double-barreled shotgun. So that’s 2 rounds. What if you miss? What if there’s a need to fire more than 2 shots? If the statistical average of a gunfight is “3 shots, within 3 yards, within 3 seconds” then 2 rounds leaves you below-average and behind the curve. Is it legally and morally sound to put good people at a disadvantage from bad people?

A shotgun is harder to hit something with than a shotgun? Um… I’m not sure about that. Well, perhaps. The point of a shotgun is to hit small flying objects, like birds (ducks, doves, pheasants, etc.) or clay discs (skeet, trap). It does this by using lots of little tiny pellets and has them spread out in a cloud. And yes, compared to trying to hit a small flying thing with a single bullet (rifle, pistol) well sure, a shotgun will improve your chances of success.

But we’re not talking about hitting small flying objects. We’re talking about personal defense — even Mr. Biden is speaking in the context of personal defense. In such a case, not only is the target much bigger and moves much more slowly, it needs a far different payload. It’s one thing to take down a 2 pound bird, it’s another to take down a 200# violent criminal actor. You still have to aim. A shotgun is not some “cloud of death”. The spread is not as vast as you think. In fact, you actually do NOT want your pellets to spread out because 1. less pellets on target means less ability to stop the attack, 2. less pellets on target means more pellets where you didn’t intend them to go, which could be bad.

I’ve written at length about rifle vs. shotgun, so just go read.

Let’s continue with Mr. Biden’s statements:

 “This town listens when people rise up and speak,” Biden said

I’m not sure what town he’s talking about. Lots of people are speaking in other ways, and then it’s not like y’all listen when it comes to other topics. It really sounds like you’re pushing a personal agenda.

Biden noted that “it’s not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people, it’s about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. There should be rational limits.”

Then I guess it’s just “collateral damage” that this also will keep the guns out of the hands of good people?

Or are we considered bad people too?

Mr. Biden, I am not sure upon what credentials you speak, but your words don’t make much sense.

I’ll just say this. If a double-barreled shotgun is all someone needs, then start by equipping your Secret Service detail with nothing but double-barreled shotguns. Your actions will speak far louder than your words.