…we can buy a lot of socks and duct tape to shut the glassy eyed gun nuts the fuck up.
Cary
July 26, 2012
Comment to What is reasonable gun control…
[Why are anti-gun people so violent?
Oh, yeah, now I remember.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Ban gummy bears!
Via email from antitango:
At Boomershoot we use Potassium Chlorate by the 200 pound drum. You can get it from the heads of matches or make it with bleach and electricity.
As you can tell from the video in larger quantities gummy bears could be dangerous. They could be used for everything from smoke bombs to incendiary devices.
Where is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gummy Bear Violence? They should be calling for the banning of gummy bears.
New shooter report
Today I took son James and daughter-in-law Kelsey shooting. This was the first time for Kelsey. James and I had told her it was an option for her if she was ever interested. But I never pushed her on it. To the best of my knowledge James has not either. A few weeks ago they informed me that Kelsey had decided she would like to learn to shoot because it would help her feel safer when James wasn’t home.
This was a really big deal for Kelsey. Her family is somewhat anti-gun. When she told them she was going to learn to shoot a gun they “sort of freaked out”.
This morning I went over to do the “classroom” portion of the lesson. I had done a tiny bit previously in the weeks previously when I would go over for dinner on Monday nights. I wanted to refresh those lessons and get her ready for actually pulling the trigger on a live round.
I reviewed the sight picture with her and immediately noticed that she was cross-eye dominate. She is right handed but her left eye is dominate. We reviewed her options and she tried various things with my plastic gun. She decided she probably would be shooting left handed.
I asked her if she remembered the three safety rules (I teach the NRA rules, not the Jeff Cooper’s). She hesitated just a bit but told me:
- Never point the the gun in an unsafe direction.
- Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
- Never load the gun until you are ready to use it.
Wow! That was interesting! She got the essence of the rules correct but she turned them all into negatives. The NRA rules are positive statements of what you should do. I explained that it was, to exaggerate the point some, like telling someone not to think of pink elephants. The actual NRA three gun safety rules are:
- ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
- ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
- ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
I showed her the proper grip and stance then went over the mantra “trigger prep, sight alignment, squeeze, follow through”. I had her use one of my plastic guns to practice going from a high ready position to a fire position simultaneous with using the mantra.
I told her that eventually she would be able to look at something close her eyes then point the gun at what she had just seen without needing the sights. Just like pointing at something with her finger.
It was at this point that she said, “I’m not sure I ever want to be able to do that.”
Huh?
She explained that when she held a gun in her hand she was very aware that she was holding “Life in her hands.” Interesting choice of words I thought but didn’t tell her that. Most people, in particular anti-gun people, would say, “Death in their hands.” She did not want to be so comfortable with a gun that she took it causally. She even expressed concern that she might become a sociopath. I tried to explain that wasn’t something that was going to happen at her age but she interrupted and said that she had been concerned that she might give birth to a sociopath since the age of 13 and no one had been able to dissuade of that in the intervening years and I wasn’t going to be able to talk her out of that concern in the next few minutes. I let that drop but asked, “What about using a gun to stop an attack against you?” She wasn’t sure, “It depends on what their situation was. What if they were just at a really bad point in their life?” “What about defending the life of your child?”, I asked and got a similar answer. The same for someone stomping on her puppy or cat.
Interesting.
I went on to the next lesson and showed her how to determine if a gun was unloaded–verify the source of ammunition has been removed and the chamber is empty.
I had her dry fire my STI. I repeatedly manually racked the slide and she “got” the reason for leaning into the shot and having the elbows slightly bent to absorb the recoil.
We went to the range and the public bay was crowed. Very crowded. The members bay was less crowded but we had to go through the public bay to get to the member’s bay. A shot went off as we entered the public bay and even with my best electronic muffs on Kelsey jumped and cowered. James and I hurried her into the members bay. But even there the shots from next door caused her to jump and nearly curl into a fetal position while still standing.
“It’s so loud!”, she said. After a brief consultation, James asked if I had any foam plugs she could use. I didn’t but the gun store was open and we left to get them.
She put them in and we returned. I can’t say that I could see it improved her demeanor any. And each shot made it worse. She was curled up, shaking, sweating, and crying. I told James that we should take her home. If she still wanted to learn we could go again sometime out in the woods with Ry and his suppressed .22. James started talking to Kelsey and I packing up our stuff. I shouldered my backpack and was ready to walk out but James said she still wanted to try it. I asked why. Kelsey said because she had said she would do it. “That doesn’t matter,” I told her. If you really want to do this we can do this another time when and where it’s much quieter. She insisted and I relented.
I had her dry fire the Ruger Mark II. She still jumped every time another gun went off some place. But the crying and shaking had stopped.
I put a single round in a magazine, racked the slide, and let her pick up the gun to shoot at the target about eight feet away. She brought the gun up and pointed it at the target. She hesitated and then quickly put the gun down. “I can’t do it!”, she said. “Okay, you don’t have to,” I told her. “You don’t have to do this. I don’t think you are ready and I think we should go home so we can talk about this.”
I started to pack up again. But she said, “How about I just hold the gun and you pull the trigger?” “I’m fine with that”, I said.
She picked up the gun and pointed it at the target. I repeated the mantra as I put my finger over hers in the trigger guard. I just barely touched her finger and was starting to say “squeeze” when the gun went off.
She put the gun down and started jumping up and down. “I did it!” she exclaimed. The guns booming on either side no longer mattered. From then on she didn’t stop smiling until we left the range except to pout when she had emptied a magazine. I started taking pictures and then a video:
I showed her where first shot ever hit. It was about 5:30, just inside the black.
She asked to do it again. I started to put in a half-full magazine. “Not that many. Just one. Maybe two,” she said.
I loaded the gun with two rounds.
Those went quickly and she asked for three rounds.
Then a full magazine.
And then another, and another, and another.
James shot for a while then Kelsey returned to the bench. I had her hold my partial brick of .22 ammo. She didn’t understand the joke but held it for me anyway:
I merely said the boxes had gotten a little bit wet, then dried, and were sticking together. I’ll have to explain it to her tomorrow when we go sailing.
She burned through magazine after magazine with fire blazing from the barrel. She emptied the magazines faster than I could reload.
She moved the target out to nearly 30 feet and could still keep them in the black at will. It was only when she pushed the speed that the rounds strayed a bit. But only one was outside the rings and all were on the paper:
When we brought the last target in she pointed to the big hole in the paper and with almost a growl said, “I killed it!”
Anti-gun for 25+ years then turned into a budding sociopath in just over an hour. Sarah Brady’s worst nightmare just came true. Damn! I’m good.
Whistling past the graveyard
I find what the anti-gun people and their media supporters doing very interesting. I’ve never seen this before.
The Brady Campaign is changing course and saying they are getting out of politics. They have created a new website, are downplaying their name and demanding “A NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON HOW WE CAN PREVENT GUN DEATHS AND INJURIES”.
The media is saying things like:
- Colorado massacre: Gun-control talk fizzles — and fast
- Why gun control isn’t a lost cause
- The silence on gun control
- The NRA’s Lock On The Gun Control Debate
Some hint that the NRA and gun freedom advocates have muzzled them and that gun owners and the NRA need to be silenced so that “sane people” can have a discussion. It’s as if the “room goes quiet” and most realize infringing upon the 1st Amendment is where even they draw the line.
What I think they are beginning to understand is that we are well beyond critical mass and they can no longer silence the message. There are millions and millions of us with guns, cameras, and computers and we know how to use them. There only a few thousand of them and they can’t take someone to an “anti-gun” range. We can. New shooters get first hand exposure to the facts and they don’t look back. I take new shooter after new shooter to the range and they all have smiles on their face (wait until you see the report from today! And I got a call this afternoon about another new shooter expressing interest).
My friends and I can make a video mocking the antics of the antigun people, post it on YouTube and it gets far, far more views than the videos of the professional anti-gun people.
Our message is out there. The main stream media is picking up on it:
The anti-gun people claim the facts support their side but if you read the comments, something not possible with the main stream media of 15 years ago when gun control was at it’s peak, the anti-gun position is ripped to shreds. People are realizing they have been lied to for years and they don’t like it.
Those who claim “gun control isn’t a lost cause” are just whistling past the grave yard.
Quote of the day—rbstern
People who raise the “civilian gunowners vs. U.S. military” forget that nearly everyone in the U.S. military has a hometown with family and friends. And many members of the military believe what they said when they took the oath: They are, first and foremost, bound to uphold the Constitution. Ask them to start dropping bombs in Salt Lake City or Paducah, and they’ll be seriously evaluating who is giving such an order and why it is being given. Except in the most egregious circumstances, many will either refuse, go AWOL, or worse for the government, actually point their weapons toward the political leadership giving the orders.
That would not be some unique history lesson. The dimensions of civil wars are rarely clear and unambiguous. That guy with a S&W .38 leading a popular revolt might actually have air support.
rbstern
July 27, 2012
Post to The “I need a personal arsenal to protect myself from the State” Argument
[A very good point backed up by many conversations I have had with active and veteran U.S. military personal.—Joe]
A 1st Amendment defense of gun rights
I recently had an art major friend of mine claim that a defendable definition of art was “anything not required for immediate survival”. This means that everything from the image of your stubble covered face in the mirror as you got up in the morning to the dirty socks you threw in the hamper that night and nearly everything you saw, did, smelled, touched, or heard in between qualifies as art.
I don’t have to squint very hard to see that definition being valid.
Our society currently has a very broad definition of 1st Amendment protection of art. This has extended to government grants for such controversial works of art as Piss Christ.
So why can’t a claim be made for First Amendment protection for 100 round drum magazines as works of art? It certain meets my primary definition of art which is, “Something aesthetically pleasing but without significant functionality.”
I wonder who
Without impassioned grassroots financing, the nation’s gun control organizations are struggling to stay afloat. Just a few months ago, the founder of one gun control advocacy group told me she’d run out of money and was expecting to shutter soon.
I wonder who that is. That would be a demise worth celebrating.
The thing is that organizations typically get quieter and quieter and just slowly fade away and no one really notices when they turn off the lights for the last time and disconnect the last telephone.
More ammunition production numbers
The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported.
Previously I had been inferring the total sales were in the 10-12 billion range.
Regardless, if, as many anti-gun people claim, guns are only good for killing there sure are a lot of defective guns and/or ammunition out there.
Common ground
Via Kevin.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
…
S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
…
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.
Molon Labe.
Random thought of the day
In response to Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic On Terrorism and Gun Violence, a 1,000-to-1 Spending Gap.
Terrorism isn’t a specific enumerated right to be protected. Gun ownership is. How much money is spent by the “Bureau of Religion and Speech” to license and regulate the practice of religion and book printing and distribution?
Those that want to “prevent gun violence” by restricting firearms shouldn’t have any problem with preventing violence done by religious extremist by restricting religious materials and activities.
Nor should they have a problem with preventing racial or gay bashing crimes by restricting the free association of people of different races and sexual orientation.
The infringement of everyone’s specific enumerated rights because some people abuse those rights is repugnant and cannot be tolerated. The abuser should be punished and those that exercise their rights responsibly must continue to be free to do so.
Quote of the day—Ross Douthat
Even most pro-gun control liberals don’t think of guns and gun ownership the way the abolitionists persuaded Americans to think of slavery — as an intrinsic evil that has no justification whatsoever. They just think that the benefits, comforts, and pleasures that law-abiding, safety-conscious gun owners derive from their Second Amendment freedoms are outweighed by the dangers posed by allowing the reckless and the careless to own and carry weapons. This is not a crazy view by any means. But liberals should recognize the limits of their logic the next time they pour themselves a drink.
Ross Douthat
July 26, 2012
On Gun Control and Prohibition
[The “pour themselves a drink” comment refers to the damage done by drunk drivers, alcoholism, spousal abuse, broken families, etc. and the lost cause of prohibition.
This is from the opinion page of the New York Times!
I don’t know about “most” but certainly a lot of anti-gun people do think of guns as intrinsically evil.
He also cites the long discredited study that guns are 43 times more likely… but for the NYT this was an awesome editorial.—Joe]
Micheal Savage Doubles Down
He’s so proud of his Brady Campaign talking points, he sent them out in a mass e-mail today;
‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer’
Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.”
In this issue: Michael Savage is in distinguished company. Last week, he was virtually alone in placing partial blame for the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre on Hollywood.
Now esteemed director Peter Bogdanovich has joined the chorus. With that, Savage renews his call for a moratorium on violent movies, as well as a ban on body armor and certain kinds of ammunition.
________________________________________
“After the slaughter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, I immediately blamed the actors, the directors and the violence in the movies,” Savage reminded listeners, adding:
Nobody paid attention to it, because I’m only Michael Savage.
I’m not a legendary movie director, like Peter Bogdanovich, who I see from this morning’s Drudge Report more or less agrees with me.
Charles Hurt of the Washington Times also mentioned the connection between movie violence and the real thing, so I put a link up to his article on my website.
His article is called “An Open Letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers.”
Maybe you already read it. Maybe you want to move on. But I don’t want to move on.
I’m going to say this again: Last Friday I said they should ban body armor for civilians, and they should ban drum magazines of ammunition.
Yet my point was missed by almost everybody in the media
I’m a gun owner. I was on the rifle team in high school.
I absolutely would defend the Second Amendment. But let me tell you something: There’s a huge difference between the right to bear arms and the right to carry around a weapon that could shoot a hundred bullets at police.
You don’t need body armor or drum magazines to hunt deer.
We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.
That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen, because we have a communist in the White House who’s capable of doing anything.
(Emphasis mine) This man clearly has what I’ve come to call the “Beltway Disease” or the “Republican Disease”. “We’ve lost and we’re going to lose more, so lets lose more in a way that’s a little bit more palatible by losing in a way of our choice. It would be wise, my friend.” Typical Republican– pretend to be on the side of liberty so you can woo us into submission. Michael; go bang your head against a wall. That, I would pay to see.
Oh, and; you do realize that city, county and state LEs are civillians, don’t you? Just checking, Michael, being as you tell us on a regular basis that you are ever so highly educated. Never mind that the CO shooter wasn’t wearing body armor, and that you’re asking us to be unprotected while the criminals could always get their armor, and their drum magazines, illegally under any “ban”.
Michael Savage Rages Against Drum Magazines
Talk show host Michael Savage went on a tirade today, using many of the left’s anti-gun talking points while calling for a ban on drum magazines. To paraphrase; “Do you need something like that to hunt rabbits? Enough is enough!” He used multiple hunting references, and said multiple times that he is a gun owner and a 2A “supporter” (more of the antis’ talking points). I didn’t hear any of the callers’ responses (because I work for a living and can’t be glued to a radio) but here is my own.
First, Michael, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. This “need” test of yours is so obviously foolish that I won’t glorify it with a response other than to say; anything you have that you don’t absolutely “need”– turn it all in, sucker, or quit using a stupid argument like the “need test”.
Why would I want a 75 or 100 round magazine? Deterrence, for one thing. Mob control for another. Are you familiar with the concept of suppressive fire? The assault rifle (full automatic) isn’t typically used in battle for mowing down hoards of enemy, charging up a hill at you. More often than not it is used for “suppressive fire”– pinning down opponents while you or your partners maneuver against them, or while others escape. A semi-auto (especially one with a large magazine) can be used effectively for suppressive fire. Remember the LA riots? Suppressive fire is a legitimate tactic even against a lone attacker.
Overall deterrence is an important factor in an armed society. That Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in over 500 years is some testament to that. The American founders spoke of the deterrent effect when they started that an armed population would hold any government in awe. “You’re never going to fight the government, and if you did, you’d lose” says Savage. Not the point, says I. Sure, you may lose, but when it is widely known that millions of Americans have the ability and the equipment to make any armed conflict a very costly one for the government, you have effective deterrence. That is an extremely important point.
And Michael, seriously, I know you are aware of the fact that prohibitions make things worse. When alcohol is prohibited, only outlaws will have alcohol, and things go all to hell– gangs get rich and powerful, corruption is rampant, and a general disrespect for the law is fostered. When drum magazines are outlawed, only outlaws will have drum magazines. That’s what you want? Really? I think you’ve been in San Fransicko for too long.
I don’t suppose you heard that the CO movie theater killer’s drum magazine jammed. Be sure to get a good one. The all-steel European 75 round AKM/RPK magazines with the ratcheting loading lever are very good. I think I’ll get another one, in your honor, Michael. We also use them in our high round count “torture testing” of our gun accessories, but as I indicated, I don’t need any reason to own them other than the fact that I damned well feel like it, Skippy.
Lastly; I’ve wondered for years whether the things you say on your show are from the heart, or if a lot of it just a shtick– playacting to what you think of as a dumb audience, for ratings. I still wonder.
Nothing says ‘please don’t rape me’ like hollow-points
An Idaho women used gun to prevented her own rape twice in the span of a few days:
Twin Falls police were called to the woman’s house shortly after midnight Thursday and again Saturday afternoon to reports that two different men had broken into the home.
The woman told police a man rang the doorbell early Friday, asked her name and then said: “I’m here for you,” before forcing his way into the house.
The woman said the man chased her through the house. She went into the bedroom to grab a 9 mm gun, but the man grabbed the weapon. The gun went off during the struggle. No one was injured, but she said the man fled.
The woman also fired a shot Saturday and held the uninjured man at gunpoint until police arrived, court records said.
According to one report:
The woman called police several times as her house was broken into.
The police can’t always protect you even if you do get a call through to them as you are being attacked.
Another report says the gun she used with the first guy was taken by the intruder:
Police say a shot was fired during the struggle, but it didn’t hit her or the intruder. The wife says the man then took the gun from her and fled the home.
It is good thing that she had a second gun and/or there wasn’t a waiting period to purchase a replacement.
Had she known the whole story a week earlier she might have prevented the attacks with a divorce lawyer:
An Idaho man is charged with soliciting men to rape his wife through a posting in the “casual encounters” section of Craigslist.
…
Prosecutors say that without his wife’s knowledge or consent, the man posted a classified ad posing as a woman who fantasized about being raped, and then exchanged emails with the men who responded to arrange the assaults.
But 20/20 foresight isn’t an option. Multiple jacketed hollow-points are.
Quote of the day—Z. Byron Wolf
The Brady Campaign, named after Ronald Reagan assistant James Brady, wants to reboot the national conversation and part of that, it seems, means taking its name off the masthead. The group will launch a new website later tonight called wearebettterthanthis.org (it’s not live yet) that will play down its sponsorship by the Brady campaign.
The idea, he said, is rescue the debate from the poles on either side of the gun control issue.
Z. Byron Wolf
July 23, 2012
In Wake of Colorado Massacre, Gun Control Supporters Seek Reboot
[Interesting…
- The Brady Campaign wants to “rescue the debate from the poles”. But aren’t they one of the “poles”?
- The domain appears to have been grabbed by someone in Switzerland before the Brady Campaign got it:
Domain ID:D166164496-LROR
Domain Name:WEAREBETTTERTHANTHIS.ORG
Created On:23-Jul-2012 21:49:15 UTC
Last Updated On:25-Jul-2012 09:46:52 UTC
Expiration Date:23-Jul-2013 21:49:15 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:1 & 1 Internet AG (R73-LROR)
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:ADDPERIOD
Registrant ID:SPAG-41356127
Registrant Name:Andre Schneider
Registrant Organization:DomCollect AG
Registrant Street1:Zeughausgasse 9a
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Zug
Registrant State/Province:ZG
Registrant Postal Code:6300
Registrant Country:CH
Registrant Phone:+49.22199555323
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+49.22199555310
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:info@domcollect.com
- The Handgun Control and Brady Campaign main websites link to what appears to be a webpage with the same concept:
But the target page is still on the Brady Campaign site. And all the webpage does is ask you to sign a petition that will be forwarded to President Obama and Governor Romney:
As an American who was shocked and horrified by the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I am committed to joining a meaningful conversation about how we can prevent the future loss of innocent life.
I appreciate the very appropriate expressions of sympathy for the victims from both of you. However, I think anyone seeking the highest office in our nation is responsible for doing more.
I am asking you to offer to the American people specific solutions that will prevent tragedies like this from continuing to happen in our nation — because, I firmly believe, we are:
[Image of people holding a sign saying “BETTER THAN THIS”.]
Compare the above to this from 1997 when they called themselves Handgun Control, Inc.:
Although 31 states have now denied their law enforcement officers discretion in the issuance of concealed weapon licenses, the gun lobby lost every attempt to further liberalize these systems last year.
Handgun Control, Inc. and their supporters were able to block shall issue in every state legislature that year.
Since then:
- HCI became The Brady Campaign to get more public acceptance.
- The Brady Campaign attempted to hide behind an ambiguous domain name to “take its name off the masthead” so it won’t be as obvious they are behind.
- They fail to obtain the domain name they wanted.
- They proceed anyway with the web page on their own domain.
- A Federal judge says a valid reason to carry a concealed handgun is (paraphrasing), “because f*k you”.
It should be very telling that we don’t see the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, or any other pro-gun owner rights organizations changing their names to get more support.
If this were a business they would sell out to one of their competitors for about a fourth their annual gross sales and close up shop. But I suppose that isn’t really an option in this case. The only thing of value the Brady Campaign has these days is a few names on a mailing list and I suspect a good percentage of those are NRA and Second Amendment Foundation members trying to keep a watch on the anti-gun people.
Update: The link to their web site had a typo in it (in my original source). The statement about the domain being owned by someone else is not true. Whois reports the correct one was registered by Domains By Proxy, LLC via Go Daddy.—Joe]
Quote of the day–jacksonsam2
Sorry u are full of Krap and to allow guns everywhere makes u a target in a good poker hand. U lose the element of surprise.
Make my day. Carry a gun and I will slap your face in disgrace.. Guns are unamerican and unpatriotict. The NRA wants to sell guns and ammo not for a revolution but for enjoyment and protection. Our law enforcement will shoot or arrest your ass. Who is to tell the difference from the good gun totters and the bad gun toyters . We want to protect a democracy not a republic or a neo nazi idealogy or anarchy . We whom are born in america and sreves the country under a commander in chief are truly americans.
jacksonsam2
Comment sent to www.GunLaws.com
Via email from Alan Korwin July 23, 2012.
[It’s nice to know the quality of the anti-gun people is being maintained at an appropriate level. I just wonder what drugs they are self-medicating with.—Joe]
Shoot me first uniforms
Paul Barrett at Business Week has weighed in on the Aurora theater shooting. I was pleased with what I didn’t see but expected. In the past and as recently as last Friday he as pushed for a 10 round maximum on magazine capacity. This is despite me showing him a video of me shooting 35 rounds in less that 16 seconds with 10 round magazines.
In his most recent editorial he suggests something else:
If you really want to stop mass shootings in public places, demand that owners of movie theaters, supermarkets, playgrounds, and you-name-the-venue hire armed security guards to keep watch for people dressed in body armor and carrying weapons. We know how to do this. We do it at airports. It’s not foolproof: Remember the would-be underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, stopped not by X-ray machines but by their own incompetence and alert fellow passengers? Still, rent-a-cops are a step toward greater security. Heck, every major professional sports venue checks fans for outside alcohol and weapons. Why couldn’t every movie theater?
If there had been a guard at every door of the multiplex in Aurora, the killer would not have been able to stroll out and back in through the emergency exit. This mass killing would not have taken place.
Barrett is a smart guy and acknowledges it’s not foolproof. Obviously the security guards are wearing “shoot me first uniforms”. There is a reason Air Marshals are always in plain clothes. But this obvious loophole in the idea is not the biggest problem. The problem is economics. Since Occupy Wall Street did their thing last fall with ground zero Seattle being across the street from where I work the sidewalks and lobbies of many of building have unarmed security guards. What does it cost for one security guard per year? I can’t imagine that after all the overhead it would be less that $50K/year. Add training and equipping guards and insurance for what probably would be higher risks would probably add another $5K per year.
Does anyone think every playground, market, and theater is going to be able to afford that?
But the suggestion is a step in the right direction. If people accept the concept it’s a smaller step to accept “volunteer” security guards wearing plain clothes. Signs stating “Concealed Carry Welcomed Here” and discounts for people open carrying might be a bigger deterrent than the unaffordable, easily defeated, uniformed security guards.
Let’s Roll!
Guest post from Rolf.
“Let’s Roll!”
Or
Re-defining the “no-win” situation and dealing with sociopaths intent on mass shootings and murder
The “Kobayashi Maru” scenario has become a famous “no-win” situation. It is presented as a situation where no matter what choice the person makes, lots of people die, and they “lose.” Facing a “no-win” isn’t anything a person ever wants to face, but seeming no-wins do happen, so, what DO you do? Lie down and die, already? That, to my mind, is never the right answer, so then… what IS? Is it possible to think like Kirk and change how things play out, so something like a win is possible in a seeming no-win situation?
The first thing to do is to re-evaluate how you define “win,” particularly in light of the perpetrators likely goals. If “all the bad guys get caught/killed, and no innocents get hurt” is impossible, then what is the best you can aim for? Maybe all that is possible is to make the final outcome suck less. Maybe it is laying the groundwork for a future win – after all, the battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks (with the 300 Spartans and another thousand or so Greeks dying to a man, and their king butchered), but it laid the foundation for major defeats of the Persians later. Maybe it is nothing more than reducing number of total casualties, even at the possible (or perhaps likely) loss of your own life. Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 93 stormed the cockpit after it had been taken by hijackers, knowing that they were already headed for near certain death after hearing of the WTC crashes – their actions likely reduced the total number of deaths by denying the hijackers on their flight the opportunity to crash into a crowded target. His last known words in the counter-attack were “Let’s Roll!”
Looking at many of the modern mass shootings, such as Columbine, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Aurora (Batman), Luby’s Cafeteria, Ft Hood, and more, there are some similarities that may help change how we think about responding to them:
- The shooter is not targeting just a particular person or two, they are simply looking for high drama, high-visibility notoriety and personal involvement in the body count
- There are a lot of people present and close together, most or all of whom are unarmed
- The target is chosen specifically because of the expectation of an unarmed crowd of easily intimidated and controlled victims
- They demonstrated by their actions (shooting) that they intend to keep killing until stopped
Essentially, anything that denies the attacker HIS goals should be considered a point on the defenders score-card. If he wants to see immobilizing terror, let him face the fury of righteous anger instead.
Obviously, if you are carrying a gun and you are close enough for it to be practical, drawing and returning fire at an appropriate time would be a great option, but what if the situation is more complicated? Most teachers are not allowed to carry guns on school grounds; in a crowded theater, cafeteria, office, or mall, there may be LOTS of moving no-shoots; and so-forth.
In a case where a nut wants a body-count and associated media attention, what might constitute a “win?” I’d say anything that meets one or more of the following (in no particular order):
- Reduces the body count, either or both injured or dead
- Stops him at the scene, preferably by his intended victims
- Prevents suicide by cop
- Causes him serious bodily harm or death
- It humiliates the sociopath shooter, making them an object of derision and contempt rather than fear, respect, or emulation
- Prevents him from leaving one shooting scene to go and start another
- Makes others who might contemplate such a action think it’s not worth it
- Denies them a media victory, such as a wild chase with news cameras following, a platform for spouting their agenda, or whatever
- Empowers rather than cows the surviving victims to harden them for future encounters
- Creates heroes out of some of the intended victims
I can only think of one course of action that would apply in most lone-gunman mass shooting cases: EVERYONE on the scene channel the inner Super Hero, Marine, mama grizzly, Todd Beamer, or whatever amps up their kill instincts to 11, and as a group do a mass “charge the ambush!” with the express intent of taking his screw-cap off, ripping off his arm and beating him to death with the bloody stump, or stopping him in any way possible. Grab, bite, hit, pull down his pants, pull his hat over his eyes, jam a finger in the action of his gun, blind him, throw things at him, shine a flashlight in his eyes, do anything and everything you can to slow him down, tie him up, foul his vision, screw up his aim, distract him, cause him pain or disability. Assume others are coming and doing the same. If just one person does this, sadly, it may just hasten their demise; but if even a handful do it, he’s done for, he can be dragged down and halted.
In a true worst case scenario, like the Beslan Siege (dozens of heavily armed religious fanatics not only willing but almost eager to die, with large quantities of explosives, suicide vests and fully automatic weapons) there are going to be a lot of bodies in any case. In a “nearly” worst case scene, such as the Aurora Batman shooting, where he was well-armed, in a crowded theater in the dark, wearing some body-armor, used gas/smoke bombs, and he started shooting during an action scene, the transition will be hard to recognize. But if everyone, once they recognized the threat for what it was, had yelled out, thrown cell phones, flashed lights at him (such as cell phone camera flash), and CHARGED, he could have been dragged down, and many innocents saved. It would have been ugly, but possibly over quickly; it is extremely unlikely that it would have been worse than the 70 killed or injured that occurred.
In a typical school “gunman seen, lock down!” scenario, normally they have all the teachers close and lock classroom doors, draw the blinds, turn off the lights, and hunker down and wait… but there is NO plan for what to do if the gunman actually comes in your door, beyond pray, comply, and hope you get shot last! The best course is to follow procedure as far as it is, but then make sure you surround the door a little ways back, with the teacher and biggest / strongest closest. Everyone picks up something they can throw – textbook, chair, can of soda, laptop, or whatever (my favorite is the big heavy iron three-hole punch). The “front row” around the door has chairs or desk handy. If the gunman comes in, then everyone throw what they have and CHARGE! The front row holds their desks/chairs in front ( or up high in front of their chests) and CHARGES, with intent to batter, beat, rip apart, and disassemble the gunman. This sort of training and mindset MUST start in the schools
What does this do?
- Deprives the gunman of his feelings of superiority (he was dragged down by his targets)
- Gives the victims a psych recovery tool (hey, I CAN overcome adversity!)
- Reduces body count by getting it over quickly
- Gives us heroes to help restore our faith in our fellow man
- Reduces media glorification and coverage
- Likely to instantly cause serious bodily harm to the gunman- an excellent flavor of justice
- Empowers the intended victims to realize THEY can do what they need to, they need not depend on state actors to take care of them.
It has been known at least since the early Greek phalanxes 2500 years ago that massed infantry charges can be very effective, especially when they outnumber their opponents. Even heavily armored mounted knights feared to enter into a mass of infantry standing their ground with simple weapons, because once they were dragged off their horses the mass of grasping hands and clubs would crush them. Many on the political right will see this as common sense; many on the left may find it abhorrent (even though THEY are always the ones talking about solidarity and collective action). While the average man-on-the-street is not to be confused with a hoplite of yesteryear, I believe that the average American IS capable of learning that sometimes individuals taking collective action for the common good really IS the best course.
When a psycho is looking for sheep to slaughter, intending to see terror in their eyes and ready compliance at gunpoint, hoping to have his twisted ego stroked by his control over them, let him instead see the blazing rage of righteous anger, and feel the pain of furious defense ripping at his flesh, and know the pain and fear he had hoped to inflict on others. Let his battered and beaten face be shown on the screen, swollen and without arrogance or contempt, because HE GOT BEATEN TO A BLOODY PLUP BY THE VERY PEOPLE HE DISPISED. That will knock his psyche down more than a crowd of cops taking them would, where he can brag about how tough he was to stop. Let the sociopaths have no more than a moment of victory, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, before suffering a crushing, absolute, and total defeat at the very hands of those they wronged. Deny them any hint of a win in the final score. The next psycho will decide it might be safer and less humiliating to choose another path.
Quote of the day—Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Is the reason conservatives are in love with guns they are a phallic symbol?
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
July 21, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
Quote of the day—Joe Waldron
It can happen anytime, anywhere. Even on an Army post like Fort Hood, or a police station, as happened in Washington D.C. back in the 90s.
Are YOU ready?
Armed?
Proficient?
Or is it your day to play sheep?
Joe Waldron
July 21, 2012
Email to the Yahoo WA-CCW list: Reporting and preparedness.
[I’m expecting a guest post for tomorrow that will amplify greatly on this theme.—Joe]