The Gun Blogs

Is my 'stuff' worth dying for?

Personally, I'd say 'No'. But that doesn't mean I won't shoot you if you try to take it.

You see, for you the value of my 'stuff' is low - just the few dollars you'll be able to pawn it for, or the cheap thrill you get from taking it.

But to me many of those items are precious beyond words, treasured mementos of people, places, and times. That cheap little thing you may take just to laugh at and destroy may be the one and only thing I have left from someone deeply beloved and long gone. That link is worth protecting.

And as to the rest of my 'stuff' you should keep in mind that those are pieces of my life that you're taking. I worked to get those things and no insurance company will ever be able to give me the portion of my life I expended to get something back.

All of that ignores the other, more practical reasons why you're risking your life stealing from me.

You see, I cannot know what your intentions are. You say (now) that you were only going to steal and would never hurt anyone. But you see the problem is that many other thieves are willing to harm my loved ones and I so I have to treat all thieves as dangerous.

Besides, no matter what you intend now, how can I be sure (sure enough to bet my life) that you won't change your mind when confronted?

All in all, the most reasonable thing for me when you try to rob me is to presume that if you're willing to steal you're willing to do additional harm as well and do what I can to protect myself and my loved ones.

Which means I will shoot you.

You don't want to get shot. I hear it's quite painful and, of course, there's a significant risk that you will die.

And I don't think anything I own is worth you risking your life to steal, so please don't put yourself in a position to be killed over something so trivial as my 'stuff'. Get a job and get your own.

Well, since Fred Thompson dropped out of the 2008 race it looks like we have to find an alternative.

I think Kevin, over at The Smallest Minority: has the right answer:

I've never liked metal detectors - well, except for the ones you use to look for lost items and buried treasure. It's the ones set up as barriers that I don't like.

I've been thinking about why I don't like them and realized that it's because they're Un-American.

The American Justice system was founded upon the then-radical principle of "innocent until proven guilty." It's arguable as to whether or not we're still operating on that principle, but in theory that's the basis.

But metal detectors are based on a presumption of guilt.

When I'm getting on an airplane, if you're assuming I'm a good person who is and will be innocent of wrongdoing then you won't really care what I have in my pockets. There are some things you'll want to warn me about using on a plane - for example the altitude tends to make butane lighters somewhat more... enthusiastic than they are at ground level which lead to more than a few signed nose hairs back in the day.

Now if you think I'm not a good person - someone who's likely to do something evil while on the plane then you definitely want to know what I have in my pockets so you can do your best to keep me from causing any problem.

So I'm not ranting against passenger screening - I think it's a good thing. But I am against the procedure they currently do. It's not 'passenger' screening, it's just a shakedown of the passerby. If they want it to work then they'll need to actually pay attention to the passengers rather than their pockets.

Similarly, when I go to a concert or sporting event I not only think they have a right to kick / keep out 'fans' who disrupt the event and/or pose a hazard to others, I wish they'd do a better job of it. But I need someone to please explain to me why you need to see my car keys in order to achieve this?

Wouldn't it make more sense to check on me rather than my possessions? If I'm the upright solid citizen I appear to be then a 1" blade on my fingernail clippers will not present a hazard and does not need to be confiscated.
If I'm a dastardly evil sod intent on creating mayhem you can be sure that there are many, many things that I can not only freely bring in past your metal detector but can also obtain inside that will let me wreak great havok. Weapons are only tools plus attitude. If you don't have the right attitude then you will never be armed no matter what you hold (but you can still be dangerous). If you've got the proper attitude then anything is a weapon waiting for you to use it.

Which is why metal detectors are useless. They won't stop someone intent on doing wrong. At most they'll (slightly) incovenience them. They may cause the malfactor to not use a gun, but they won't stop them from bringing in bottles of flammable liquid. If I really want to use a gun on the far side of your metal detector then I'll either slip myself and/or the gun past it or I'll just shoot your (usually unarmed) 'Security Guard'.

Metal dectectors can really only do one thing (other than annoy): enforce a climate of dependence and helplessness.

And in a country founded on the concept of Individual Liberty that's definitely Un-American.

Over in one of the forums I'm active in - MissouriCarry.com a member recently posted a very nice piece on "Things CCW Has Taught Me". With his permission I'm cross-posting it here to get it a wider audience.

Saiga308 is the author, I'm just the delivery guy. If you want to let him know what you think about this, click here to go to the thread over at MoCarry.

-----------------------

Things CCW Has Taught Me

After almost 3 years of continuous carry of a Glock 19 or 26 on my body except for sleeping (in a safe next to the bed), showering (in the shower on a nail), or at work, here are a few of my own random observations.

1) CCW is not just putting a gun on your hip….it is a lifestyle. A lifestyle that changes how you dress, and what you look for in your clothing. You plan your day out every morning when you put your clothes on. What are your activities that day? Where you are going to be, and what is the best method of concealment? Am I going to be at a friends house with small kids wanting to wrestle and play? Am I going somewhere that has “huggers”, or am I going to be going to a store only and then home.

2) People like to doubt the actions of anyone who is armed, whether it be police, or military, a CCW holder or Uncle John out in the back 40 with his deer rifle. There is a tendency to automatically question their actions if a firearm is involved. The pressure is always there to make sure that your actions each and every day are safe and legal.

3) As a CCW holder you are more aware of what is going on around you for the simple fact that someday your actions maybe questioned in a court of law, and since nobody wants to end up in that situation, awareness of your surroundings might give you a heads-up to avoid the problem all together.

4) The pistol is only one of the tools you carry everyday, the others include a cell phone, folding knife, mace, wallet and keys. Each items will have its own pocket that it stays in, whether in your coat or jeans or vest.

5) More important than what kind of holster you have or what brand of belt or smartcarry (as long as they are well made) is that you wear it the same way every time. If the first rule is to have your pistol, then the second rule should be that it’s in the same place on your body as it was the last time. When you need it is not the time to think , “Where did I put it today?”.

6) Gun Magazine writers are about as honest as a used car salesman.

7) .380, 9mm, .40 S&W, 45ACP, .45GAP, .357SIG, .357mag……They all hurt, and I don’t want to get hit by anyone of them, I am guessing that the Bad guys feel the same.

8) A good tactical pistol class (or two) are worth their weight in gold. Take good notes, because if it was done right you find yourself looking back at them again and again. There is so much info that you end up thinking about the class for months after.

9) I have ended up with a 3 holster system. An Avenger style OWB, a CTAC IWB (set up to place the handle at the exact same spot as the Avenger), and a Smartcarry for deep concealment. I use a G26 and G19 because the mags are interchangeable and my better half also carries a G26. That way what we carry can support each other. I carry a Double mag holder OWB always, and have a G17 and G19 mags loaded with the same ammo. So far I have never had any problems with this setup, I am by no means saying that it is perfect or better than anyone else’s, but so far this has worked fine for me.

10) This is the last thing that I have noticed, CCW Holders are for the most part educated, opinionated, fiercely loyal and independent at the same time. They are the type of folks that you want answering the door when its 11PM, and your car breaks down out in the boonies, and you walk to the nearest home for help. Because by their very nature, they will try to help, no strings attached (unless you have a Hilary 2008 sticker on your bumper!). The world needs more of them, and I am proud to count myself in their ranks.

An open letter to whoever is responsible for the 'No Guns' sign on this building.

1) Do you honestly think that someone law-abiding enough to obey your sign is likely to start shooting up the place?

2) Do you honestly think that someone who is going to start shooting is likely to obey your sign?

Question 2 shows why the sign is stupid. Question 1 shows why it's insulting.

These signs are actually worse than useless since there are criminals who look for the assurance of easy victims they provide.

I urge you to reconsider the decision to post this sign.

------------------------------------

Feel free to pass this along and make use of it. You can probably guess why I was 'inspired'

Lately I've been thinking about it and I've decided that the problem is that we need to get the F out of BATFE.

The problem (well, the main problem) with every gunnie's favorite alphabet agency is that one letter. A strict reading of the Second Amendment means that there can't legally be a Federal agency that licences, regulates, or in any other way 'infringes' on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

There doesn't seem to be any such prohibition over regulating Alcohol or Tobacco, however, unless you're going to try to get them through under "the pursuit of happiness." One problem with that is that the phrase is from the Declaration of Independence but hey, it's worth a try.

Explosives are a bit tricky. On the one hand, they're an essential component of 'arms' and can be considered arms in and of themselves. On the other hand, they are also in the realm of 'public nuisance' and general hazard. I'm sure that the many fine legal minds out there can figure out the proper dividing line on this subject.

I know that a lot of people are really wishing for the total abolition of BATFE but that's not likely to ever happen. Let's face it, there's little with a better chance at immortality than a Government agency. The best you can hope for is to redirect them into a more constructive (or at least less destructive) channel. You can get one agency to 'eat' another but in those cases the 'temporary' increase in size tends to outlive most of the observers. There are also long-standing rumours that no other agency will take the staff of BATFE.

So I don't think we're going to get rid of them, nor are they going to become the convenience store their name suggests. But we can at least dream of them becoming an agency that's at least in accord with most of the United States Constitution, if they'd only get the 'F' out.

Well, not really "disagreeable thoughts" so much as "thoughts on disagreeing". Originally this was going to be a couple of different screeds but since mine are somewhat shorter than Bill Whittle's I'm just combining them here.

In one of the forums I hang out in another member liked something I said well enough to use it as a signature. I did get happen to hit the phrasing the way I wanted on it, so I'll repeat it here:

"If you can't insult someone while still calling them Sir or Madam and while not using foul language then you need to work on your language skills."

If you want some good examples of what I mean you can either watch some Monty Python episodes or check out The LawDog Files - a blog by a very well-spoken (and often outspoken) Texas Law Enforcement Officer. There's not a thing he writes you couldn't safely read to a class of first graders but quite a lot that strips the hide off of the subject of his ire.

In real life I'm the same way I am online. Oh I cuss all right - I just do my best to reserve it for special occasions. Makes it have greater impact that way. If you have steak at least once a day then a nice juicy Porterhouse just isn't going to get your attention the way it would for, say, a soldier just back from six months stuck out in the middle of nowhere eating MREs.

I have been told by people who should know better that I'm a Gentleman. Most who know me (especially me ever-indulgent wife) would laugh out loud at that but I do try to stick with one old standard for Gentlemen: I try to never be unintentionally rude. As with cursing, it's a matter of not diluting the impact for when I mean it.

So now that I've prepped you with some hints on the best ways to argue and insult, here's the kicker:

I don't think you can change someone's mind by arguing with them.

Ok, you can change their opinion of you, but you know what I mean. If someone is in favor of the death penalty for anyone caught revealing the ending of popular new movie or book you're not going to convince them that they're wrong by arguing with them.

Now folks who haven't really formed their own opinion on a subject, them you can argue into accepting your stance (or annoy into taking the opposite view). But that's because they don't have an actual opinion on the subject. Sure, they may say they have an opinion, they might even think that they do but since they don't have any intellectual or emotional investment in it so it's more of an opinion of what their opinion would be if they had one.

Once someone has made up their mind then you can't change it, only they can. Your arguments can help them do it, but it's not going to happen in an instant. They're going to have to take some time and let your arguments sink in. They're going to have to check your facts, or at least work through the logic themselves. Evaluate all that new info you've given them. After all of that they may well come back and say "Now that I've had time to think about it..." Like the books say "Change must come from within."

In some cases they will never change their mind - they have just too much invested in their stance. Some of them will change their mind but will never admit that they have (possibly even to themselves in which case you have to ask if they really did change their mind). Sarah Brady, for example, may have gone from not really having an opinion on guns beyond the vague "they're bad" she'd been fed by the media to a sincere "they must all be destroyed" after her husband was shot to a (possibly grudging) "they're just tools that can be used for good or ill". But she will NEVER admit to such an attitude. Her entire life (not just her livelihood) is based on that "destroy them all" stance. And I'm not picking on Mrs. Brady in particular, nor am I saying she's a hypocrite, just pointing out that it's nearly impossible for her to ever change her public stance. I suspect that if someone carrying a legal concealed pistol somehow managed to stop the nuclear destruction of the free world by shooting the bad guy before he could press the button she might be able to give them a grudging thumbs up but only with strong caveats on how lucky he was that he didn't hit the button with his shot and kill us all.

So go ahead, get out there and make your case. Stand up for what you believe in, or just tweak the noses of those who need it. But realize that they're no more likely to change their position than you are to change yours. And do try to do it politely, even if they are a fetid pile of dingo droppings that wouldn't know what they were talking about even if the subject was the color of unidentifiable goo smeared across their pale and bloated carcass.

Afer all, you wouldn't want to be rude, now would you?

In my experience there are three basic types of 'antis' (anti-gun people).

Type 1 Antis are the most common. Their dislike of guns is based primarily on ignorance. Most of their information on guns has come to them from movies and television. They're reflexivley anti-gun, having never given the matter much thought.

Type 2 Antis are driven by emotion. Many of them have deep personal reasons for their stance, often involving the loss of a loved one.

Type 3 Antis are driven by idealogy. This is a subtle difference from the Type 2's but a crucial one. Type 3's know what the Second Amendment says, and what it means and that's why they hate it. They want to be the priviledged elite it guards against.

So, how should you deal with these three types?

Type 3 Antis should be met with scorn, ridicule, and mockery. Facts are poison to them and their position so use them liberally. Note that they'll often hide behind Type 2's.

Type 2 Antis are generally deserving of our sympathy and understanding. We may disagree with their stance but it's an honest one. Feel free to talk to them and explain that while you sympathize with their pain you do not agree with their stance.

The Type 1 Antis are where you want to spend your time. Most of these folks can be brought around to the 'Pro' side with a little work.

Engage them in friendly conversation. Add facts to a discussion but don't browbeat them. Most importantly, take them shooting!

Don't grab your biggest gun and get set to laugh, get the .22's out and schedule some time. Explain to them that it's going to be a two-step process: First you'll sit down somewhere comfortable and go over gun safety and how the guns work. The only ammo around will be there for them to look at and will be put away before the guns are handled. Once at the range be sure to test the gun before you have them try it. Start small and let them decide if they want to move up. The most important thing is to make sure they stay safe and have fun. Don't worry about changing their mind - let that happen by itself. After all, how many people don't have fun at the range?

Odds are good that you'll leave the range with someone who's at least on their way to our side of the debate. And if not, well, you did at least get some range time in.

Jeff over at Alphecca has started a new blog - http://www.singleguycook.com/

He'd posted a couple of 'dumb single guy' food questions and got so much response he's split it off into its own entity.

Swing on by if you have / need some help or advice in the kitchen.

And don't miss his gun related blog either - Alphecca

Just a random bit of musing to stir some discussion.

How many of you think we may, in fact, be approaching a 'vote or die' choice? Are we on the cusp of having enough voters on the 'right' so disgusted by the lack of action by the people currently in charge that they'll either vote 'against' or not vote at all in sufficient numbers to usher in a truly bad government?

And if we do get the government of Pelosi's dreams - the one that insists on "turn them all in Mr. & Mrs. America" will it lead to some nasy Unintended Consequences?

If the great thinning of the herd does come will we make it through yet again? Unlike the 1860's we've got a lot of folks ready, willing, and quite possibly able to join in with gleeful abandon and no great care as to aim.

Or am I just being paranoid? Do you think that no matter who wins the upcoming election they'll manage to retain at least a tiny bit of sanity - or fear, that works too - and avoid any attempts to try to slam through official recognition of their self-selected elite status?

These are the thoughts that swirl through my soul in the still parts of the night.

Then again, maybe I'd sleep better if the cat would snuggle into my armpit facing me.

This isn't quite gun related, but it's very closely related. Just another of my little rants inspired by random events that bug me. In this case, the current attempts to demonize knives (see The US Tool & Knife Assocation for more info on that)

It always happens when a pro-gun person debates an anti-gun person. Sooner or later the anti-gun person is apparently compelled to say "your guns won't protect you".

Generally this is in a context of a government confiscation, possibly during talk about licensing / registration, sometimes when discussing raids made with what appears to be excessive force. Sometimes it's as simple as answering a "Why do you need that?" with "For when they come to take it away."

Regardless, there's a common belief among the gunnies that their weapons could have to be used against elements of their own government and a corresponding belief among the antis that such a thought is ridiculous at best.

In many ways the antis are right - my home may be my castle but it's not the best of forts. Even if I'm forewarned and get everything laid out a team of 10 - 20 is going to beat me. Odds are they'll wind up a much smaller team, but they will 'win'.

But that's not really relevant.

If I'm taking on the government on my own it's not a revolution. It might be a lot of things, ranging all the way from 'lone nutjob' through 'crazed cult' to 'glorious martyr' but it's not a revolution.

If I'm part of a small group it's still not a revolution although it could work its way up to 'insurrection'.

It's only when there are a lot of people willing to take up arms against their government that it becomes a revolution.

And that's when my few weapons become significant. Can I stop a tank? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not with what I currently have. But I've got friends. Lots of friends. Some of whom have interesting toys. Mostly I have knowledge of lots of nasty tricks, some of which will stop a tank.

It's those friends that count the most though. As I said, it's not a revolution until a significant population is involved, and as long as that population is armed roughly the same as the average infantry soldier then we've got a (literally) fighting chance.

So I freely admit it: you're right when you tell me that my guns won't protect me from the government.

But you should be glad I have them because they will (and do) protect you.