A few days ago Cathy Lanier, the police chief of Washington, D.C., admitted that the police would not arrive in time to save lives in the event of a “Paris-style terrorist attack.” She advised that the best way to save lives is to for the victims defend themselves. In response, a few news agencies asked D.C.’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, whether, in light of the top cop’s advice, she would be changing her stance on forbidding her residents to defend themselves with firearms. One might expect a thoughtful, rational response from an elected official asked for her take on her Chief’s advice. Instead, what Washingtonians got was a politician spouting the usual big city Democrat stance . . .
The question that arises every time there’s a terrorist attack or mass shooting is one of how to stop it from happening again or minimize the casualties. The common response from gun control activists and the media is always to ban guns and further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, relying purely on a emotional response and lacking any scientific evidence. One study out of Purdue University is seeking to put some actual science behind the question of whether concealed carry or any armed defense would reduce the impact of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris. Their results: yes, guns would save lives.
“If they mean to do harm to myself or my family, I’ll do anything I can to prevent them from doing it. If it means taking their life, fu(k ’em. They’ve chosen their path.” That’s the answer Josh, an Operation Enduring Freedom sniper, offers when asked when it’s OK to take a life outside the military. Lonnie, a Vietnam infantryman, however figures killing is never justified away from the battlefield. Those are just two of the takes on killing and its effects from people who know – veterans who’ve done it . . .
I’m not a firearms expert, nor do I play one on TV. But I love guns, I’ve got something of a rep these days and I love to help people who can benefit from my experience (such as it is). For example, I recently helped a Facebook commentator pick out a holster for his wife’s carry gun. Thinking about it later, it would have been a lot better if I’d been Facebooking directly with the wife. It’s like that fish story: give a woman a gun and she’ll have a tool for self-defense. Help her choose a gun and show her how to use it and . . .
“Your options are run, hide, or fight. 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 [via CBS’ 60 Minutes]
So, “Gene” sees a group of men attacking an older man in a supermarket parking lot in broad daylight. Gene draws down on them (click the image above to view the video). Problem: he doesn’t move and get behind cover as he does so. Relevance: not much, given the result, but worth noting. Problem: the assault turned out to be a domestic. Relevance: it’s worth noting that domestic disputes are a cop’s worst nightmare and so, yours. Point of information: As Gene stops the assault, he hears a shopper calling 911 saying “there’s a man with a gun!” Relevance: a lot! If a responding cop sees . . .
“Islam itself is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” – Hillary Clinton
“And so to the degree that anyone would equate the terrible actions that took place in Paris with the views of Islam, you know, those kind of stereotypes are counterproductive. They’re wrong.” – Barack Obama
“The attack began early on Friday when gunmen armed with automatic rifles yelling ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is great) stormed the hotel in a western district of the capital, home to diplomats and government ministries.” – ft.com
Marijuana is a terrific drug. It’s far better than alcohol and anything else ingested for “recreational” purposes. There’s no way it should be illegal. But it is. [Void where allowed by law.] So I don’t smoke it. For one thing, I value my gun rights far more than my right to put anything in my body I choose. If I got busted with dope, I’d lose both my livelihood and my ability to legally protect myself, my family and other innocent life. There’s another reason why gun owners should eschew whacky tobaccy, illustrated by the story below [via fox17online.com] . . .
The argument against “allowing” civilians to be armed against terrorists: they would be completely ineffective. Worse, they might shoot the wrong person. Or be shot by responding police. And there is a “danger” that “untrained” civilians would accidentally shoot someone in the normal course of carrying a firearm. The possibility that an armed civilian would shoot the wrong person or the cops would shoot an innocent armed civilian during an active shooter event is what it is. But the rest of the objections are just plain wrong. Fatal negligent discharges in public are as rare as hen’s teeth. As for the effectiveness of armed defense against terrorists, I’ll let TTAG commentator JR in NC explain . . .
“(St. Louis County) Police say three contractors for ADB Utility Co. were working on water lines … when an armed man approached two of the workers who were standing near a company truck.The robber took wallets from the two men at gunpoint before turning his attention to a third man nearby, police said. The robber told the third man to give him his belongings that were inside of a work truck, according to police.” The third utility worker gave him something but it wasn’t what he expected. Or wanted . . .
One of the most vexing questions facing a concealed carrier: when should I pull my gun? Too early and you’re looking at a brandishing charge. Too late and you’re dead. Same goes for firing your firearm – except the penalty for early withdrawal would be jail time. Generally speaking, you can threaten or use lethal force when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm. “Death” is death. “Grievous bodily harm” means serious injury; not a slap in the face. But what do the words “imminent” and “credible” mean? This you need to know . . .
In this video – as in all of these disarm videos – the bad guy holds the gun steady, well within the good guy’s reach. In this situation, even someone who hasn’t studied under Wing Chun Tai Chi JKD Master Wong has a pretty good chance of stopping the bad guy from shooting him – provided they apply the recommended speed, surprise and violence of action. A skilled, determined good guy might even be able to take away the bad guy’s gun and use it against him. Problem: unless the defender incapacitates his antagonist and/or high-tails it out of there (always a good strategy), the good guy will face a vicious counterattack. That said, the biggest problem anyone in this scenario faces is . . .