It was not very many years ago that the common refrain echoed by the media after any self defense shooting was that the police advise against “taking the law into your own hands” along with the obligatory “leave it to the professionals.” It’s hard to know how much of this reflected actual police attitudes, and how much was what the media wished to portray as police attitudes, but that was conventional wisdom. Over the last two decades, however, that stance has changed. Now, much more often, we hear comments like, “homeowners have a right to defend themselves”; “you will have to protect yourself and your family”; and “get training so that you can do the right thing” . . .
This article originally appeared at ammoland.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Ohio --(Ammoland.com)- There is an old saying that says, “There is no such thing as bringing too much ammo to a gunfight!” Those concerned with personal protection and concealed carry seem to have accepted this as fact. Yet, FBI statistics indicate that on average most violent encounters are over within a few seconds and that if gunfire is involved, only 2-3 shots are fired. If this is true, then why is there so much concern about ammunition capacity in firearms used for self-defense in the United States? Prior to the 1970’s . . .
I often hear good legal advice about armed, non-lethal responses when faced by a lethal threat to yourself or others. Some of these options include displaying your firearm prior to firing, or yelling “Stop or I will shoot!” or something similar prior to shooting. You could fire a warning shot or even a wounding shot rather than aiming center mass. I’ve read this advice in literature by quality instructors, and I’ve been in reputable classes, primarily aimed at civilians, that taught many of these tactics. When I think about those tactics, they seem like good, sound legal advice that may help keep you out of jail, and may even keep you from firing upon a threat that was perceived, but not real. But I reject those tactics . . .
“The robber entered the Kamakura restaurant [above] around 7:20 p.m. Tuesday, stepped to the cash register just inside the door, pulled what appeared to be a revolver from his waistband and demanded cash from the hostess,” chicagotribune.com reports. “‘He just stood there and started asking for money,’ said [ Chef Tetsuji] Miwa, who was only a few yards away from the 17-year-old hostess. ‘I saw her face. She was very scared . . .
Streamlight introduced the TLR-4™G at the 2014 SHOT Show. Like the prior TLR-4™ models, the new light and laser unit is designed for compact handguns. However, the TLR-4G features a green laser instead of the traditional red beam. I don’t consider myself to be an expert on weapon-mounted lights or lasers, so this review is intended to provide a layperson’s “consumer-level” perspective. Feel free to dispense knowledge in the comment section. Nonetheless, we all draw on our experiences, and so I will relay a true story that will bring home the point of why I believe flashlights are mandatory for home defense . . .
OneIfByLand writes: According to the Safeseeker website, having a baseball bat (with a built-in flashlight) is “A statistically safer alternative then having a loaded handgun in the home.” Safer for whom? A would-be rapist, possibly? (I guess loaded shotguns are okay.) The un-cited statistic claims “10,000 children are killed annually with an in-home hand gun.” The website doesn’t cite (for comparison) how many children are killed with bats or fists.
“The Lions of Allah who are all over the globe, some call them lone wolves, should know they are the West’s worst nightmare,” Al-Qaeda jefe Nasr bin Ali al-Ansi asserts in the terrorist group’s in-house magazine Inspire. “So do not belittle your operations. Do not undermine your Jihad.” Hang on. Do “lone wolf” terrorists suffer from low self-esteem? That sure sounds like a pep talk to me. On the flip side of that, let’s not let the antis belittle civilian armed self-defense. Question: are you ready to take on a terrorist, or terrorists? I’m not sure what that means, exactly. I reckon it involves vigilance in public places and awareness of your escape or counterattack options. And a gun. Yeah, at least one of them. Your take? [h/t PetitionForRedress]
“There was more violence at the home where a 14-year-old boy shot and killed a suspect intruder last week,” wsoctv.com reports. “Someone drove up to the home and fired [a shotgun] into the window Tuesday night . . . Homeowner George Wyant believes this shooting may have been in retaliation for the deadly shooting at his home that happened just over a week ago when . . .
“Between 200 and 300 protesters gathered at the scene after the shooting, and conflicts broke out between officers and protesters, (Police Chief Jon) Belmar said. Four people were arrested for assaulting officers, and at least one officer was injured when he tried to get away from some sort of firework device set off on the parking lot, Belmar said. Protesters also threw some bricks at officers, Belmar said. Police used pepper spray on the crowd but did not use any tear gas, the chief said.” No, wasn’t the Ferguson melee in August. This one happened right next door in Berkeley last night. The difference: the above surveillance video – though difficult to make out at first – clearly shows Antonio Martin (standing in front of the officer’s cruiser) point a gun at the cop . . .
Reader OneIfByLand writes:
Is the Pakistan school massacre a warning shot across our bow? There is simply no way we have enough police to protect all of our schools for any length of time. The only practical way is to allow citizens the ability to practice their natural, civil and Constitutional rights to protect themselves and our children from such heinous crimes against humanity. Sadly, what I fear we will do is more security theatre, a (temporary) show of force to make the people feel safe (as opposed to being safe) until the shock passes . . .
The following article originally appeared at defensetraining.com and is republished with the author’s permission.
By John S. Farnham
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our political opponents have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” That’s a quote from Joe Stalin, so eloquently articulating the “Youmaynot Philosophy.” Which rears its ugly head in Australia this time . . .
According to reuters.com, you’re looking at “an undercover police officer, who had been marching with anti-police demonstrators” who “aims his gun at protesters after some in the crowd attacked him and his partner in Oakland, California December 10, 2014.” That’s the caption to the photo and that’s all the information they provide on this incident. Which is ironic. Because this post is about guns, undercover cops and limited information . . .