Did you know that arms sales are the UK’s number one export? Without its military industrial complex footing the Bill, The Land of Hope and Glory’s socialist economy would collapse. No wonder the left-leaning political press (e.g., the guardian.co.uk) aren’t exactly up-in-arms about arms sales to repressive regimes. “How can Britain, one of the world’s leading arms exporters, honour its stated commitment to promote human rights throughout the world?” the lede leads. “With difficulty,” it pronounces. What follows is the journalistic equivalent of a mild rebuke. Kinda like torture via fifty lashes with a wet noodle. To wit:

Vince Cable, the business secretary, has admitted as much. “We do trade with governments that are not democratic and have bad human rights records”, he told a crossparty group of senior MPs. “We do business with repressive governments and there’s no denying that”.

Cable’s refreshing admission of what we all know anyway did not satisfy members of the Commons committee on arms export controls on Tuesday night, not least the chairman, the former Conservative defence minister, Sir John Stanley. He accused the government of adopting a “rosy tinted” and “over optimistic” view of “authoritarian regimes”.

The MPs were questioning Cable and William Hague, the foreign secretary, about Whitehall’s approval of exports, including crowd control ammunition, guns and ammunition to Libya, Bahrain, and Egypt, in the period leading up to the Arab Spring last year. The MPs also raised questions about reports that Saudi Arabia sent troops in British trucks to Bahrain during the protests in the Gulf state last year.

Hey, who knew? Maybe . . . lots of people. Back in April of last year, the right-leaning Daily Mail reported that UK approved £2.3bn in arms exports over 21 months. What’s more:

Military export licenses to Libya alone since the start of 2009 totalled £61.3million, according to Department for Business figures.

The UK also awarded Bahrain £6million of licences covering submachine guns, sniper rifles, CS hand grenades, smoke canisters, stun grenades and riot control agents. At least 26 citizens have been killed and 1,000 injured as the Gulf state cracked down on freedom campaigners.

Britain also approved arms licenses totalling £1.7billion to Saudi Arabia, £20.4million to Egypt, £276.9million to Algeria and £52.8million to the United Arab Emirates.

Body armour and night vision goggles have been approved for Yemen, small arms ammunition for Syria, and sniper rifles, aircraft components and armoured personnel carriers for Saudi Arabia.

According to aljazeera.com, the U.S. racked-up $1.1b worth of arms sales to five slightly dodgy Middle Eastern countries in the same time period. I guess you never really know about these Arab Spring fling things. Back to today’s Guardian:

Under official UK guidelines, no arms exports would be allowed that would exacerbate regional conflict or be used for internal oppression. “We don’t have perfect foresight”, Cable told the MPs.

Hague went further. “In the case of Libya no one predicted what was going to happen”, he said as though Gaddafi had only turned into a dictator last year after Libyans in Benghazi began to rise up.

As far as Saudi Arabia was concerned, he said the government had raised concerns about its treatment of women and foreign workers. But 99 percent of Britain’s exports to the Kingdom consisted of Typhoon jets. “They are not relevant to our concerns about these rights”, said Hague.

And Saudi forces were sent into Bahrain last year “to guard installations but not to take part in dealing with unrest in Bahrain so they did not fall foul [of the export guidelines]“.

So what did we learn today? Money walks and bullshit talks. No surprise there. Now, can we talk about how official United States arms sales to the Mexican government and police have armed narco-terrorists? No. Good day then.

Above: Federal Bulk (left) and Wolf Military (right) 9mm, 115 gr. FMJ. Make the jump for the primers’ eye view. Now how much would you pay? [h/t to JeffD]

[h/t to David Brown for the link]

An email from a TTAG reader who experienced a DGU at a Windy City train station has generated a lot of traffic and discussion. Here’s a comment from a Chi-town cop:

“I’m glad that you were not harmed during your encounter on that “L” platform. Yes, CTA does have some very, very good video surveillance on their platforms, buses. Sad part is that if those 3 mutts had called the Police, we would have to check it (and you if still on the scene ) out. Don’t believe the BS that having a firearm in a fanny pack is having it in a container (such as in a vehicle). Also if there are any rounds in that gun, magazine, chambered or any combo of both, that gun is loaded. Being a 26 yr. Chicago Police Officer, currently a Detective, I’ve investigated, responded to more homicides, shootings, robberies than I could ever count. Although I am sympathetic to you (and other law abiding citizens) as to carrying concealed, I would have no option not to arrest . . .

First off instead of just thinking “concealed” think “covertly concealed.” The gun may be really hard to get at, but it may keep you out of jail for that one time someone spots it on you. Another thing, if you have to pull that gun, keep it at your side , barrel pointed down, until the last instant that you may have to shoot. If you did this in your encounter, this would lend credence to your version .vs their version that “he pointed that gun at me.”

As far as being arrested with a gun. You do have the right to remain silent, but remember that only leaves me with one version of what went on. Your version will come out during your felony trial. Once arrested, I would interview all parties involved, then contact the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Felony Review Unit. They will ultimately make the decision of to charge you criminally with a felony (having only one side of a story presented, they will).

Next roll of the dice is what judge you will get at a bond hearing (you will sit in Cook Co. Jail until then). He may give you a $5000 or $500,000 bond, which you will have to come up with 10% cash to get out of County, or sit until your trial, which can be over a year down the road. If convicted, even though you may only get probation, you are now a felon. The FF job is gone. Believe me if I responded to your incident , and found out you were a FF on his way to work, I would do everything in my power (which I will not get into on a public blog) to keep you from an arrest.

But realize that some of these options may jeopardize my and my partner’s jobs. If you keep in your head that the ONLY time that gun comes out is when you HAVE to shoot, you may be fine. Not pulling it when you are apprehensive or scared. Again, your freedom and job will depend on #1 who the Police are that show up on the scene #2 Detectives investigating your incident #3 which Cook Co Asst. State’s Attny answers the phone #4 what judge is sitting on the bench the day of your bond hearing #5 what judge and / or jury is in that courtroom for your trial.

The gun laws are what they are in this State and I don’t see them being voluntarily changed anytime soon. Just be smart, only do what you have to to defend yourself, and don’t do something “to prove a point.” Believe me, myself and many other coppers are on your side, but can only do what the law allows us to.”

You might wonder what the above confrontation has to do with you. The obvious lesson: if someone draws a gun on you, it’s best to run, comply, de-escalate and/or attack. If you’re going to charge a guy with a gun, don’t wait for an engraved invitation. Here’s something else to keep in mind: if it’s the other way around, if you’re aiming a gun at someone in self-defense, do not expect compliance. If someone is f’ed-up enough to want to threaten you or your loved ones with death or grievous bodily harm they are more than likely ready, willing and able to take swift and immediate violent action against your lethal threat. Can of worms opening time . . .

For this reason, some armed self-defenders are dead set against brandishing. “If my gun’s coming out, I’m shooting.” The logic is simple enough. They’re not going to unholster their gun unless they’re in life-threatening danger AND imminence is imminent. In other words, the gun’s out because bad shit’s going down. If BS is going down the bad guy’s going down. Period.

I used to ascribe to this GOS (Gun Out Shoot) philosophy. Like many armed citizens, I was afraid I’d be paralyzed by fear in a self-defense situation. I wouldn’t shoot. Or shoot fast enough. The GOS is binary; it removes the pressure to process information in a crisis. So I adopted the GOS philosophy and ignored the mentally muddling middle ground.

Not to go all S.E. Hinton, that was then, this is now. I now understand that a defensive gun use (DGU) is a messy business: a volatile, inherently chaotic situation where I must try to combine training (a.k.a., muscle memory) with strategic thinking.

Not only can the threat change dramatically between unholstering and aiming, but my perception of what’s going on may also alter. Ask a lawyer: shooting when you shouldn’t shoot is just as big a danger as not shooting when you should.

Committing to GOS locks the concealed carry defender into a course of action which may get his or her ass killed. If nothing else, it could distract the good guy from thinking about his or her prime directive (leave). A decision is only as good as the information upon which it is based; an armed citizen in the middle of a self-defense shit-storm needs to keep ye olde OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) spinning.

And that means a well-trained concealed carrier has to live with—and prepare for—uncertainty. Who knows what’s going to happen in a DGU? Not you. Which is why I bring my gun out of the holster with my finger off the trigger. Ready to fire. Ready not to fire.

Bottom line: when you brandish a gun, you’re asking a question: will my attacker (or attackers) stop threatening me? If they cease and desist, legally, morally, strategically and financially, you should hang fire. If they keep coming, chocks away. But you won’t know which way it’s going to go until you draw your firearm. And maybe not even then.

No matter what happens or doesn’t happen, unholstering your gun and expecting (i.e. waiting for) some sort of compliance is a terrible idea. Brandishing is the beginning of a DGU. Not the end. Even when it is.

TTAG’s team is preparing to head to the National Rifle Association’s OFWG hoe-down in St. Louis. Once again, it’s NRA convention time. We’ll be blogging the beJesus out of the world’s largest gathering of gun-loving Old Fat White Guys. Ahead of that blessed event, let’s focus on the big O. Just after the NRA confab, Force Science Analyst Colonel Robert A “Bob” Lindsey [above] will be in Wheeling, IL presenting “Always the Warrior at Every Age.” Well he would say that, wouldn’t he, being 68-years-old and all. Anyway, Bob raises some interesting points in his pre-conference questionnaire. The basic one is this: are you dealing with the fact that getting older makes you a less capable armed self-defender? Well that’s my take. Make the jump for the full interrogation . . .

What do you do on a regular, consistent basis to keep your professional edge as you go through the aging process? How do you stay fit–or make adjustments–to be ready physically for foot pursuits, gunfights, hand-to-hand encounters, etc.? How do you stay sharp mentally to make sound decisions in crisis situations and avoid routine, mundane thinking? How are you accommodating the emotional changes that come with growing older? What role does your spiritual life play in your job, your family and friends, and to yourself? What obstacles do you encounter? What adjustments do you find necessary/useful? What do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of your approach? In all candor, do you think you’re winning the battle?

Sorry, Bob, that’s one battle we all lose, eventually. And a very good morning to our readers too!

I appreciate Emily’s Miller’s determination to secure a legal firearm in post-Heller decision Washington, D.C. If anyone should be thrilled about Ms. Miller’s ballistic blogging at washingtontimes.com it should be us. But reading Emily’s saga has been about as exciting as watching dry paint dry some more. Alternatively, you could say it’s been as dull as the bureaucracy that Ms. Miller surmounted to finally pick-up her pistol. Not to mention the self-congratulatory bits . . .

“When I first started the “Emily Gets Her Gun” series, I thought  I would be waiting in long lines and filling out lots of paperwork. I never could have imagined that the D.C. gun laws made it so unearthly difficult to get a legal handgun. However, I also never could have believed that this newspaper series would encourage change in Washington’s gun laws.”

Yes, well, Emily may have shamed the bureaucracy into become marginally more efficient, but the number of hoops, the prohibitive expense and the mind-numbing monotony of the District’s legal firearms acquisition process remains the same. Just like Chicago, D.C. has created a de facto ban on the exercise of a Constitutional right.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Emily may have her gun, but the people who really need one don’t have theirs. Nothing much has changed when a college-educated white middle-class inside-the-Beltway journo can get a gun—and an African American mother trying to raise her kids next to crack house has about as much chance of obtaining a legal firearm in the District of Columbia as Huey Newton. Who is dead, by the way.

I know that every American has the same right to keep and bear arms. But this “all about me” newspaper series defends rather than extends that right. It is what it is, but I’m wistful about what it could have been.

Now can we have a series about buying an illegal gun in the nation’s capital? What’s that like?

Kids shooting themselves with marshmallow cannons firing squishy projectiles at 15 FPS? Not only can you expect the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to include marshmallow suicides in their gun violence stats, but it’s only a matter of time before the Schmoozemeister-in-Chief issues an Executive Order to the ATF to add marshmallow cannons to the list of NFA guns requiring a federal stamp. After that, a ban is inevitable. Which means nerdy eighth graders will have to go back to messing around with deadly potatoe cannons [sic] and .50-caliber rifles. Except in California, of course.

“Sen. Charlie Huggins, a Wasilla Republican who last year proposed making the pre-1964 Winchester Model 70 .30-06 caliber rifle the official state firearm, has withdrawn the legislation,” thenewstribune.com reports. The Alaskan pol was trying to duplicate the state gun hoopla generated by Utah (Browning M1911) and Arizona (Colt Peacemaker) back in the Spring of ’11. Huggins is bummed, the trend is dead and the trib is left explaining the ill-fated firearms choice. “In sponsoring the bill, Huggins said the rifle was used by hunters, trappers, Alaska Natives and pioneers during Alaska’s formative years. He also said the Model 70 is well-built and reliable and carries enough ‘stopping power’ to be useful in a crisis situation.” To paraphrase the Obama administration’s mantra, you should never waste ammo during a good crisis.

I just got off the blower with Gary Veitenheimer, co-owner of RayCo Armory. I asked him about the article at philly.com targeting the Merchantville, New Jersey death merchant (JK). Gazza says it’s been a ballistic business bonanza. “The phone’s been ringing off the hook,” the shopkeep reports. “Our email blew up. People who’ve never heard of us are checking us out.” I asked Veitenheimer which firearms he was selling as a result of the unintentional endorsement. Self-defense handguns? The query was met with a derisive snort, followed by a heavy sigh. “This is New Jersey. About 70 percent of our business is LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) and 30 percent are hunters and competition shooters . . . I can only hope that New Jersey recognizes our Second Amendment rights someday.” With friends like anti-gun store crusader/zombie DyAnn DiSalvo, maybe . . .