There are several tails attached to this beast, and I'm seeing that they're being addressed in clever ways these days. When it comes to this topic, I have several questions. How do you introduce firearm safety to young children? My meaning here is not only one of having children shoot so they know how to control it, but also one of avoidance for the younger children. How do you provide access to older kids so that they can become part of home defense? Can you safely provide access to an older kid, but also keep younger kids away from them?
Some of my kids are still too young to even sit down with them and give them an Eddie Eagle talk, but two of my kids are old enough for instruction, but are not really ready for live fire. In my day, my father and/or some of his trusted friends would give me firearm safety instruction, followed up with some .22 rimfire shooting. That was safe and effective, but the airsoft and pellet gun sounds like it's overall the best way to get kids trained on firearm safety. Some gun bloggers you may have heard about did just that, and provided an environment with many children at one time learning gun safety and how to shoot. Perfect! I missed out on the opportunity, but I plan on having my kids involved for the next one.
On the other end of the spectrum, having a well thought out plan for your older kids to defend themselves or the house while you're away is priceless. Here's a great example of a well executed plan that fortunately didn't include gunfire. Having a codeword that is only used during a no-B.S. moment of danger is good policy, and having your children disciplined enough to be trusted alone with access to firearms is what you want the end result to be. I have a long way to go before that happens in my house, but I pay close attention to those with older kids and how they do things.
Ultimately, you have to have some sort of plan. It's reckless and irresponsible to have firearms in the home and not tell your children about them. Most of the friends that I have grew up with guns in their house, and none of them had any accidents or injuries, and none of the guns were hidden. I can guarantee that you can't hide a gun from a kid for long. Education is the only way to fly, you just have to start.
Showing posts with label Common Frickin' Sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Frickin' Sense. Show all posts
Monday, June 4, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Myth busted
I've often heard that big ol' honkin sedans from the 50s through the 70s are far safer than the plastic fantastic cars of today because the oldies have so much metal in them and will withstand a collision much better. My gut feeling from seeing piles of multi-car accidents in this day and age where everybody comes out unscathed tends to disagree with that statement, and without even looking I find some evidence to support my gut: lots of slow motion footage of a 59 Bel Air hitting a 09 Malibu head on.
One of those crash test dummies took a direct hit to the dome-piece by the steering column which would surely have been fatal to a flesh-and-blood driver, and the other dummy looks like he would have made it out okay had he been real. I'll stick with modern safety standards, thank you very much!
One of those crash test dummies took a direct hit to the dome-piece by the steering column which would surely have been fatal to a flesh-and-blood driver, and the other dummy looks like he would have made it out okay had he been real. I'll stick with modern safety standards, thank you very much!
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Appendix Carry Illustrated
AIWB threads pop up in forums here and there and it's unfortunate that internet cowboys with no knowledge or experience feel the need to throw in their two cents, muddying the water. To counter this I decided to make some simple, yet creepy, illustrations to show my dear readers the mechanics of how this form of carry is supposed to work.
Before we get into the pictures, the first thing to clear up is: Why? What does appendix carry (AIWB) have to offer that other modes of carry do not? The main answer is concealability. If you haven't noticed, there's an arms race amongst the firearm manufacturers to make the smallest and lightest blaster chambered in the largest caliber they can reasonable cram into it. The reason to go small is so you can conceal it, and thus not draw the ire and shame of your fellow Wal-Mart shoppers while browsing hemorrhoid cream. The only problem with that is that smaller guns are hard to shoot, are chambered in sub-calibers, hold limited ammunition, generate tons of muzzle flash, blast, and recoil, and with their small grips and frames can be more difficult to draw. A solution is to carry a larger gun, but they're harder to conceal. This is where AIWB comes in; I'm of average height, weight, and frame, and I can carry and conceal a Glock 17 -- a service sized pistol -- with absolute comfort all day long. Dropping down to Glock 19 or HK P30 size is no sweat, and now you have a gun that is reasonable in size, carries a standard payload of ammunition, has a full sized grip, and with its reasonable sight radius allows one to actually aim it instead of merely pointing. Second to that is draw speed approaching that of a USPSA Grand Master (a little bit of embellishment there, but lots of speed, none the less).
The main thing that the morons on gun forums chant is their squeamishness at pointing a holstered handgun at their twigs and berries, or femoral artery. First off, unless you're carrying a J-frame or short slide auto way off your centerline, you're not going to be aiming at your femoral artery, as I'm going to demonstrate. Second, get over the gun being pointed at your crotch; if it's in a serviceable holster, then the trigger is covered and there's nothing to be concerned about. If you have concerns that your gun will spontaneously discharge in your holster then carrying a firearm in any fashion is not for you. Have you ever tried pocket carry? Carried in a shoulder holster? If you have then your loaded albeit holstered handgun has been pointed at everyone: kids, grandma, the guy at register behind you at the liquor store; that's why you don't buy shitty holsters, so that when you snap your gun into that sucker it becomes just another inert object that you carry around with you.
Now that that's out of the way, here's some pics:
This is me with a Glock 17 carried appendix style:
The gun is close to my centerline, but not actually on it. I'd say it was at my 1 o'clock. This is what the gun looks like in relationship to my femoral artery:
Not pointing at it, huh? Amazing. Well now the next thing people whine about is how uncomfortable it "must" be when sitting. I say "must" because these folks have never tried to AIWB, or at the very best they pulled some canted IWB holster out of a box and gave it a try for ten minutes before passing judgment, and just assume that it's uncomfortable. I'm here to tell you that if you have a holster that lends itself to AIWB carry, it's as comfortable or more so than carrying on your hip. Here's why:
Yes, that's a creepy mannequin picture; get over it. Try googling "sitting mannequins" to get a sense at how disturbed this world really is, and then get back to me.
Anyhow, take notice of the crease of the hip meets the leg, and how the holster or muzzle avoids jamming into the thigh area. It really shouldn't touch it at all. Also notice that the gun and holster are sitting upright, so the back of the slide is not pushing into the abdomen. This picture depicts the gun at 12 o'clock, right on the centerline. If you want to move the gun further from the centerline and more towards your pocket, you need to either raise your pants or shorten the slide:
Some people still prefer to carry smaller guns like a J-frame revolver, and if you do then you can probably carry it directly over the leg, as the barrel is short enough to allow it. Doing that does make the gun point at the femoral artery, but if you have a serviceable holster then this is moot. The closer to your centerline the gun is, the longer slide/barrel length you can get away with. Go back to the first mannequin picture and see how much room you have for the muzzle. This is how people get away with carrying a full sized 1911. The only danger here is that with a long slide, you have to sit down on hard surfaces carfully, or you could smash a nut under the muzzle of the gun. So be smooth. Also, a gun with a longer slide/barrel will help to keep the grip tucked towards your body; where your body pushes out against the muzzle makes the gun see-saw against the belt, torquing the top of the gun in.
The other thing you can do is reverse-cant the holster:
This works fine as long as there's enough room to get your fingers wrapped around the grip; you don't want the grip to be sitting right on your belt unless you don't care if your draw speed is slowed down.
From what I gather, the belief about the gun being uncomfortable while sitting stems from the idea that the back of the slide, where the hammer is, will jam into your guts. If it is jamming into your guts then you have the wrong holster. . . period. It shouldn't happen. If you're sitting with a straight back, the gun should be straight up and down too. If you're reclined, the gun should be parallel with your spine. When you sit up, the gun should slide over your abdomen and rest vertical; wearing an undershirt helps this because it keeps the gun from grabbing at your skin and belly hairs. If you're going to experience discomfort, it's going to either be under your belt where it rides over the holster, or it's going to be in the crease of your crotch where the muzzle is. Concerning the former, loosening your belt a notch will usually fix the discomfort; and I highly recommend pants that have elastic sewn into the waist which will allow some "give" for when you get back into the car after eating two triple pounders with cheese. Regarding the latter, that's caused by your oversized guts pushing out on the back of the slide, using the belt as a fulcrum to tilt the muzzle into your body. A daily regime of exercise to lose your gut is one remedy, or you can go up one waist size for your pants. If you have a large gut, moving the gun away from your centerline will get it out of the way.
Hopefully this helps stiffle the yayhoos who don't know what they're talking about. I learn well from pictures, and showing the mechanics of what's involved can be helpful.
Before we get into the pictures, the first thing to clear up is: Why? What does appendix carry (AIWB) have to offer that other modes of carry do not? The main answer is concealability. If you haven't noticed, there's an arms race amongst the firearm manufacturers to make the smallest and lightest blaster chambered in the largest caliber they can reasonable cram into it. The reason to go small is so you can conceal it, and thus not draw the ire and shame of your fellow Wal-Mart shoppers while browsing hemorrhoid cream. The only problem with that is that smaller guns are hard to shoot, are chambered in sub-calibers, hold limited ammunition, generate tons of muzzle flash, blast, and recoil, and with their small grips and frames can be more difficult to draw. A solution is to carry a larger gun, but they're harder to conceal. This is where AIWB comes in; I'm of average height, weight, and frame, and I can carry and conceal a Glock 17 -- a service sized pistol -- with absolute comfort all day long. Dropping down to Glock 19 or HK P30 size is no sweat, and now you have a gun that is reasonable in size, carries a standard payload of ammunition, has a full sized grip, and with its reasonable sight radius allows one to actually aim it instead of merely pointing. Second to that is draw speed approaching that of a USPSA Grand Master (a little bit of embellishment there, but lots of speed, none the less).
The main thing that the morons on gun forums chant is their squeamishness at pointing a holstered handgun at their twigs and berries, or femoral artery. First off, unless you're carrying a J-frame or short slide auto way off your centerline, you're not going to be aiming at your femoral artery, as I'm going to demonstrate. Second, get over the gun being pointed at your crotch; if it's in a serviceable holster, then the trigger is covered and there's nothing to be concerned about. If you have concerns that your gun will spontaneously discharge in your holster then carrying a firearm in any fashion is not for you. Have you ever tried pocket carry? Carried in a shoulder holster? If you have then your loaded albeit holstered handgun has been pointed at everyone: kids, grandma, the guy at register behind you at the liquor store; that's why you don't buy shitty holsters, so that when you snap your gun into that sucker it becomes just another inert object that you carry around with you.
Now that that's out of the way, here's some pics:
This is me with a Glock 17 carried appendix style:
The gun is close to my centerline, but not actually on it. I'd say it was at my 1 o'clock. This is what the gun looks like in relationship to my femoral artery:
Not pointing at it, huh? Amazing. Well now the next thing people whine about is how uncomfortable it "must" be when sitting. I say "must" because these folks have never tried to AIWB, or at the very best they pulled some canted IWB holster out of a box and gave it a try for ten minutes before passing judgment, and just assume that it's uncomfortable. I'm here to tell you that if you have a holster that lends itself to AIWB carry, it's as comfortable or more so than carrying on your hip. Here's why:
Yes, that's a creepy mannequin picture; get over it. Try googling "sitting mannequins" to get a sense at how disturbed this world really is, and then get back to me.
Anyhow, take notice of the crease of the hip meets the leg, and how the holster or muzzle avoids jamming into the thigh area. It really shouldn't touch it at all. Also notice that the gun and holster are sitting upright, so the back of the slide is not pushing into the abdomen. This picture depicts the gun at 12 o'clock, right on the centerline. If you want to move the gun further from the centerline and more towards your pocket, you need to either raise your pants or shorten the slide:
Some people still prefer to carry smaller guns like a J-frame revolver, and if you do then you can probably carry it directly over the leg, as the barrel is short enough to allow it. Doing that does make the gun point at the femoral artery, but if you have a serviceable holster then this is moot. The closer to your centerline the gun is, the longer slide/barrel length you can get away with. Go back to the first mannequin picture and see how much room you have for the muzzle. This is how people get away with carrying a full sized 1911. The only danger here is that with a long slide, you have to sit down on hard surfaces carfully, or you could smash a nut under the muzzle of the gun. So be smooth. Also, a gun with a longer slide/barrel will help to keep the grip tucked towards your body; where your body pushes out against the muzzle makes the gun see-saw against the belt, torquing the top of the gun in.
The other thing you can do is reverse-cant the holster:
This works fine as long as there's enough room to get your fingers wrapped around the grip; you don't want the grip to be sitting right on your belt unless you don't care if your draw speed is slowed down.
From what I gather, the belief about the gun being uncomfortable while sitting stems from the idea that the back of the slide, where the hammer is, will jam into your guts. If it is jamming into your guts then you have the wrong holster. . . period. It shouldn't happen. If you're sitting with a straight back, the gun should be straight up and down too. If you're reclined, the gun should be parallel with your spine. When you sit up, the gun should slide over your abdomen and rest vertical; wearing an undershirt helps this because it keeps the gun from grabbing at your skin and belly hairs. If you're going to experience discomfort, it's going to either be under your belt where it rides over the holster, or it's going to be in the crease of your crotch where the muzzle is. Concerning the former, loosening your belt a notch will usually fix the discomfort; and I highly recommend pants that have elastic sewn into the waist which will allow some "give" for when you get back into the car after eating two triple pounders with cheese. Regarding the latter, that's caused by your oversized guts pushing out on the back of the slide, using the belt as a fulcrum to tilt the muzzle into your body. A daily regime of exercise to lose your gut is one remedy, or you can go up one waist size for your pants. If you have a large gut, moving the gun away from your centerline will get it out of the way.
Hopefully this helps stiffle the yayhoos who don't know what they're talking about. I learn well from pictures, and showing the mechanics of what's involved can be helpful.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Carrying with kids
This video is the first I've ever seen on the subject of carrying a firearm while out and about with kids, which is something I deal with almost every day. I'm not about to make a video, but I'll take a minute or two to pour out my thoughts.
When most folks consider being armed in public and mentally rehearse how they would act if a squad of jihadi-joes in full shemagh attacked the Piggly Wiggly they're shopping in, they no doubt think their reaction is going to be all VTAC and highspeed. That's all fine and great, and practicing the tactical reload stuff with that drop leg rig while maintaining cover and full magazine retention is awesome, but the reality is that a great deal of folks are not in the realm of any of that. I'm a full on walking arsenal when I go out for the day with my family, and train fairly often, and I can say with absolute certainty that I have zero use for the Jack Bauer stuff. But I live in a different world.
First thing to point out about being out with kids, especially little children or toddlers, is that your sidearm may not (probably won't be) accessible at all times. You can have the finest and fastest kydex that money can buy concealed with an awesome Arc'teryx jacket, and you won't be able to get to it when the arm you typically draw with is holding a 20 lb bag of drool. You can carry your kid on the opposite hip from your weapon, but sooner or later you're going to switch arms for some reason, probably when you're fishing for your keys three steps from your car (when you're potentially the most vulnerable to predatory scumbags), and there you are basically unarmed. Practicing drawing with your support hand is good to go, and I would encourage learning to do that, but having a separate small auto or revolver available for your support hand would be even better. It's almost as if J-frames and Kel-Tecs were designed to ride comfortably in a pocket for this specific reason; I don't know and I can't say for sure.
To complicate things: you're holding your kid with your support arm so that your shooting arm is free to access your heater in case the Hostiles decide to make your day, but didn't you walk into that store to buy something? Which hand were you planning on carrying that case of Keystone Light in? Where are your car keys? Are you alone, or do you have a spouse or family member with you? Do you only have one kid?
That last point is crucial for folks like me; I have three toddlers and a baby, and when I'm alone with them it can be really tough. When I go to the store, I have one shopping cart completely dedicated to kid transport, and I still have one on the ground holding my hand. If I need to pick up lots of stuff, I'll have two carts. Two or three kids is basically just as hard because you have to look after them first and foremost. And to further muddy the water, all that "grabbing cover" and "limiting your exposure" that you learned about during that weekend gunfighting academy -- are you really going to break from your stroller to find cover, leaving your heathen spawn crying in the middle of the parking lot or medicine aisle? Oh yeah, we can't do that, huh? Now think about this hard: if you are unfortunate enough to end up in a gunfight with some banger while you're near your kids, are you going to cover them with your body or move away to try and draw fire away from them (assuming that in the moment you have mental ability to calculate the choice)? I've thought about it, and in the end I find the answer to be in what bodyguards do in a protective detail. They put their body in between who they're protecting and whatever the biggest threat is. I was watching a show on the Secret Service on NatGeo or something the other day, and one agent explained how they were trained to "get big" when taking fire in order to catch more incoming rounds with their body; and sure enough, while showing the video playback from when Hinkley tried to shoot Reagan, one agent did just that at the first crack of the assassin's gun, making himself a larger target. Amazing. That agent absorbed a round that could very well have ended Reagan's life. I note too that "getting big" is the opposite of military and other doctrine on surviving a gunfight, which teaches you to "get small." So there's that to think about.
Next up to talk about is awareness. This is even more important when you have distractions, like the screaming thing in the stroller you're pushing. I always always always have a plan when I leave a store, and the car keys are already out and in my hand before crossing the parking lot or wherever. Standing there in the dark next to your car is not the time to be fumbling with anything, so be ready before you walk out. The kids are the very first priority; get them in the car first, and then load your stuff. If there's some sort of danger, you can drive off without your stuff. It's just stuff and can be replaced. Pay attention to your surroundings. One good thing about having kids is that no yayhoos approach me anymore to ask for smokes or money; I guess they assume I have none because I just spent all mine on the visible boxes of diapers.
When I go out with the kids without my wife to say a mall or large store, I park right next to a shopping cart return with at least one cart, and I typically park way out in the middle of the parking lot where there's no other cars around. Scumbags use cover and concealment, and I'd rather see them coming from far off. Being next to a cart return means I don't have to wander away from the car to return it when I'm done. If I'm carrying a kid in one arm and stuff in the other, the kid goes on the support arm side because I'll drop whatever is in my strong side hand if I need to. When getting gas, or at any time when the kids are in the vehicle and I'm not, all the doors are unlocked, that way I can get in from any part of the vehicle if I need to. I will not get into an argument or pissing match with anyone when out with my family (or by myself; it's good policy). I don't need to prove that I'm a man, so I'm not going to risk getting into a fistfight where I can potentially be knocked out, allowing the dude who hit me to ride off in my car with my kids. This is doubly true if you have a kid in one of the slings the lady in the linked video has. I know there are some who have their heart set on knife fighting their way through the Tangos because they ran their FDE pistol dry stacking bodies, but try that with your son in an ERGO and you'll be sorry. The fist fight scenario is a heavy argument to throw at naysayers who tell you you don't need a gun because a real man only needs his hands. A real man would see clearly that fighting while holding a child is a no-go. On top of that, I know highly trained, physically fit, bona fide badass and very large men that have been maimed by one lucky punch that got through and connected, and that ain't gonna be me.
Violent flash mobs: I haven't heard about any of these in awhile, but they present a challenge if you have kids. With one kid, you can probably pick them up and run off -- hopefully. If you're alone with two or more kids, that's not going to be an option, so I'm of the opinion that my kids are going to get stuffed in a closet or car or off the beaten path somewhere while I try to fend off any savages. If it comes down to it, I hope one shot would be all it takes to disperse the crowd, but I think being prepared for the worst is important. That definitely wouldn't be the time I'd want to be standing there with a J-frame and five extra rounds on a stripper clip. A good fighting auto is a must, with at least one spare reload; two if I'm going out for the day and I have adequate time to prepare.
Lastly, unless I'm in the store, you won't finding me dickering around with my cellphone. I'm paying attention to everything, and I don't tarry in parking lots to browse facebook on my phone or call my mom about the burn on my finger. I can do that at home. I think when my kids are a little older, we'll discuss how to work as a team when out and about, with a "code word" or other indicator that there's danger or to leave the area. By then at least some of my kids will be a bit more useful. Right now, my oldest is the only one who can get the seatbelt clicked on her own, while everyone else needs help for everything.
(H/T The Firearm Blog)
When most folks consider being armed in public and mentally rehearse how they would act if a squad of jihadi-joes in full shemagh attacked the Piggly Wiggly they're shopping in, they no doubt think their reaction is going to be all VTAC and highspeed. That's all fine and great, and practicing the tactical reload stuff with that drop leg rig while maintaining cover and full magazine retention is awesome, but the reality is that a great deal of folks are not in the realm of any of that. I'm a full on walking arsenal when I go out for the day with my family, and train fairly often, and I can say with absolute certainty that I have zero use for the Jack Bauer stuff. But I live in a different world.
First thing to point out about being out with kids, especially little children or toddlers, is that your sidearm may not (probably won't be) accessible at all times. You can have the finest and fastest kydex that money can buy concealed with an awesome Arc'teryx jacket, and you won't be able to get to it when the arm you typically draw with is holding a 20 lb bag of drool. You can carry your kid on the opposite hip from your weapon, but sooner or later you're going to switch arms for some reason, probably when you're fishing for your keys three steps from your car (when you're potentially the most vulnerable to predatory scumbags), and there you are basically unarmed. Practicing drawing with your support hand is good to go, and I would encourage learning to do that, but having a separate small auto or revolver available for your support hand would be even better. It's almost as if J-frames and Kel-Tecs were designed to ride comfortably in a pocket for this specific reason; I don't know and I can't say for sure.
To complicate things: you're holding your kid with your support arm so that your shooting arm is free to access your heater in case the Hostiles decide to make your day, but didn't you walk into that store to buy something? Which hand were you planning on carrying that case of Keystone Light in? Where are your car keys? Are you alone, or do you have a spouse or family member with you? Do you only have one kid?
That last point is crucial for folks like me; I have three toddlers and a baby, and when I'm alone with them it can be really tough. When I go to the store, I have one shopping cart completely dedicated to kid transport, and I still have one on the ground holding my hand. If I need to pick up lots of stuff, I'll have two carts. Two or three kids is basically just as hard because you have to look after them first and foremost. And to further muddy the water, all that "grabbing cover" and "limiting your exposure" that you learned about during that weekend gunfighting academy -- are you really going to break from your stroller to find cover, leaving your heathen spawn crying in the middle of the parking lot or medicine aisle? Oh yeah, we can't do that, huh? Now think about this hard: if you are unfortunate enough to end up in a gunfight with some banger while you're near your kids, are you going to cover them with your body or move away to try and draw fire away from them (assuming that in the moment you have mental ability to calculate the choice)? I've thought about it, and in the end I find the answer to be in what bodyguards do in a protective detail. They put their body in between who they're protecting and whatever the biggest threat is. I was watching a show on the Secret Service on NatGeo or something the other day, and one agent explained how they were trained to "get big" when taking fire in order to catch more incoming rounds with their body; and sure enough, while showing the video playback from when Hinkley tried to shoot Reagan, one agent did just that at the first crack of the assassin's gun, making himself a larger target. Amazing. That agent absorbed a round that could very well have ended Reagan's life. I note too that "getting big" is the opposite of military and other doctrine on surviving a gunfight, which teaches you to "get small." So there's that to think about.
Next up to talk about is awareness. This is even more important when you have distractions, like the screaming thing in the stroller you're pushing. I always always always have a plan when I leave a store, and the car keys are already out and in my hand before crossing the parking lot or wherever. Standing there in the dark next to your car is not the time to be fumbling with anything, so be ready before you walk out. The kids are the very first priority; get them in the car first, and then load your stuff. If there's some sort of danger, you can drive off without your stuff. It's just stuff and can be replaced. Pay attention to your surroundings. One good thing about having kids is that no yayhoos approach me anymore to ask for smokes or money; I guess they assume I have none because I just spent all mine on the visible boxes of diapers.
When I go out with the kids without my wife to say a mall or large store, I park right next to a shopping cart return with at least one cart, and I typically park way out in the middle of the parking lot where there's no other cars around. Scumbags use cover and concealment, and I'd rather see them coming from far off. Being next to a cart return means I don't have to wander away from the car to return it when I'm done. If I'm carrying a kid in one arm and stuff in the other, the kid goes on the support arm side because I'll drop whatever is in my strong side hand if I need to. When getting gas, or at any time when the kids are in the vehicle and I'm not, all the doors are unlocked, that way I can get in from any part of the vehicle if I need to. I will not get into an argument or pissing match with anyone when out with my family (or by myself; it's good policy). I don't need to prove that I'm a man, so I'm not going to risk getting into a fistfight where I can potentially be knocked out, allowing the dude who hit me to ride off in my car with my kids. This is doubly true if you have a kid in one of the slings the lady in the linked video has. I know there are some who have their heart set on knife fighting their way through the Tangos because they ran their FDE pistol dry stacking bodies, but try that with your son in an ERGO and you'll be sorry. The fist fight scenario is a heavy argument to throw at naysayers who tell you you don't need a gun because a real man only needs his hands. A real man would see clearly that fighting while holding a child is a no-go. On top of that, I know highly trained, physically fit, bona fide badass and very large men that have been maimed by one lucky punch that got through and connected, and that ain't gonna be me.
Violent flash mobs: I haven't heard about any of these in awhile, but they present a challenge if you have kids. With one kid, you can probably pick them up and run off -- hopefully. If you're alone with two or more kids, that's not going to be an option, so I'm of the opinion that my kids are going to get stuffed in a closet or car or off the beaten path somewhere while I try to fend off any savages. If it comes down to it, I hope one shot would be all it takes to disperse the crowd, but I think being prepared for the worst is important. That definitely wouldn't be the time I'd want to be standing there with a J-frame and five extra rounds on a stripper clip. A good fighting auto is a must, with at least one spare reload; two if I'm going out for the day and I have adequate time to prepare.
Lastly, unless I'm in the store, you won't finding me dickering around with my cellphone. I'm paying attention to everything, and I don't tarry in parking lots to browse facebook on my phone or call my mom about the burn on my finger. I can do that at home. I think when my kids are a little older, we'll discuss how to work as a team when out and about, with a "code word" or other indicator that there's danger or to leave the area. By then at least some of my kids will be a bit more useful. Right now, my oldest is the only one who can get the seatbelt clicked on her own, while everyone else needs help for everything.
(H/T The Firearm Blog)
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Don't let your children become a meal
***ETA: The dad used a Spyderco Cali. Pics of the bloody knife at the link.
A six year old boy was physically pulled out of his mothers arms by a mountain lion at a National Park. The boy's dad attacked the cat - who had his son's face in its mouth - with his pocket knife and drove the animal off. The kid is fine.
When outdoors, you're still at the mercy of mother nature, so act like there's a good reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. What puts us at the top are handy things called tools: knives are tools, and are great to have around because of their utility, and because they can be used as weapons in rare occasions like when some starving beast grabs your kid by the face. I'm going to put this out there: having a knife on you does not mean you're a sociopath waiting for the chance to massacre a tanning salon full of meek people. Neither does carrying a firearm. In fact, I'd say that carrying a gun further removes us from our alleged neanderthal roots. What did they carry to protect their gift of life? A stone club and a rape whistle made of bone?
People go out into the world entirely unprepared to deal with problems that have existed since this world was created. Right outside my door are woods chock full of hungry critters, and it's not a good idea to go there without the means to keep them at bay. Fortunately, the dad that saved the day had a simple knife on him, but in many parts of this world even a knife is unlawful to carry. I hope people wake up and realize that it's not the tool, but the man, that has the capacity to be evil, and evil people are way more rare than good people. It is a dishonor to bar people from carrying the tools that will prevent them or their family from being eaten by savage creatures.
A six year old boy was physically pulled out of his mothers arms by a mountain lion at a National Park. The boy's dad attacked the cat - who had his son's face in its mouth - with his pocket knife and drove the animal off. The kid is fine.
When outdoors, you're still at the mercy of mother nature, so act like there's a good reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. What puts us at the top are handy things called tools: knives are tools, and are great to have around because of their utility, and because they can be used as weapons in rare occasions like when some starving beast grabs your kid by the face. I'm going to put this out there: having a knife on you does not mean you're a sociopath waiting for the chance to massacre a tanning salon full of meek people. Neither does carrying a firearm. In fact, I'd say that carrying a gun further removes us from our alleged neanderthal roots. What did they carry to protect their gift of life? A stone club and a rape whistle made of bone?
People go out into the world entirely unprepared to deal with problems that have existed since this world was created. Right outside my door are woods chock full of hungry critters, and it's not a good idea to go there without the means to keep them at bay. Fortunately, the dad that saved the day had a simple knife on him, but in many parts of this world even a knife is unlawful to carry. I hope people wake up and realize that it's not the tool, but the man, that has the capacity to be evil, and evil people are way more rare than good people. It is a dishonor to bar people from carrying the tools that will prevent them or their family from being eaten by savage creatures.
Rules #1 and #2!!!!!
There's a firestorm going on over the pictures of a police sniper at Super Bowl XLVI. If you did not know, there are snipers at most major sporting events; but the brouhaha is not over the snipers so much, but that the guy in the picture is using a rifle as a pair of binoculars, which violates two of the four firearm safety rules.
I have to side with the folks who have their panties in a bunch: being tasked with protecting a stadium from an active shooter -- a rare occurrence -- does not make you so high speed that you can arbitrarily point a rifle at people. Being highly trained does not make one infallible, so the idea that one sudden sneeze can cause a marksman to sympathetically squeeze the trigger and lobotomize a wasted fan is just as plausible in a sniper's hide as it is on a police training range. That is why we have the four rules, which is why we don't point weapons at people.
The people who are defending this violation are under the impression that operators operating operationally in an operational environment are so Tier 1 that they can use their rifle as a spotting scope up in a skybox where nobody can see them. I say that a rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Treat it as if it were loaded and don't point it at anything you do not intend to destroy, including drunk fans and blue painted bewbies.
I have to side with the folks who have their panties in a bunch: being tasked with protecting a stadium from an active shooter -- a rare occurrence -- does not make you so high speed that you can arbitrarily point a rifle at people. Being highly trained does not make one infallible, so the idea that one sudden sneeze can cause a marksman to sympathetically squeeze the trigger and lobotomize a wasted fan is just as plausible in a sniper's hide as it is on a police training range. That is why we have the four rules, which is why we don't point weapons at people.
The people who are defending this violation are under the impression that operators operating operationally in an operational environment are so Tier 1 that they can use their rifle as a spotting scope up in a skybox where nobody can see them. I say that a rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Treat it as if it were loaded and don't point it at anything you do not intend to destroy, including drunk fans and blue painted bewbies.
He must have been reading my blog
Former Tucson Drug Enforcement Administration chief Tony Coulson lays out some damning information in the Fast and Furious debacle. I'm going to quote a big piece of this article because it sounds an awful lot like some of the stuff someone you may know has wrote about in the past, almost word for word:
Weird. It's like Coulson is telling the truth or something. I've pointed out before that Agent Newell is almost always the guy in the news harping on gun control, and that he has to know the information he's passing to the public is BS. I've also pointed out that the real military hardware used by the drug cartels is coming from Central and South American countries in the form of US weaponry that we gave those governments, or from the Mexican government itself. Though it's not something I'm usually concerned about, it does feel good to be right!Coulson also said most other law enforcement officials in Arizona knew Newell had a gun control agenda behind his actions with Fast and Furious and other operations. “Whenever Bill would make those [anti-gun rights] statements [with inflated gun trafficking statistics], everyone would roll their eyes and say, ‘when is someone going to call him on this?’” Coulson said. “That’s because it was only weapons which the Mexican government seized which they chose to trace back to the United States.”
“[Newell] is trying to make this political statement that there is this river of guns, which then the Mexican government picked up on, and said ‘it’s your guns, that’s why we’re having all this violence here,’” Coulson added. “And there’s never any accounting for the fact that probably a majority of the guns, in terms of what law enforcement generally knows, are coming up through Central America and they’recoming from other countries. The 90 percent figure has been debunked as you go along the way. It’s actually something considerably less. … They’re just picking a figure and saying 90 percent of the weapons they seized come from the U.S. Well, really, it’s 90 percent of the weapons that they choose to do a search on results in it originating from the U.S.”
Prepping in the news
Very surprising to me that this article and video doesn't smear the idea of preparing for a world without functioning ATMs and Food Lions, though I caution the use of the word "arsenal" to describe a 12 gun battery of .22 rimfires, shotguns, and a lone AK clone. There's all sorts of good ideas to be seen in the 5+ minute video, such as keeping a small trailer loaded up with equipment that can be used when the power grid goes down during the Red invasion. Keeping honey bees is one of the most practical ideas for a bona fide survival situation that I've seen, but sadly, I could never keep them because I'd be constantly fighting the urge to toss a burning five gallon gas can onto the hive to KILL THEM ALL WITH FIRE!!! I hate bees.
I'm sure there are naysayers out there that mock the idea of prepping; their plan in the wake of a devastating earthquake is to hide out in their therapist's office, living off the bowl of yummy lollie pops from the lobby until men with uniforms and guns rescue them. That's also a very smart idea -- the faster the unprepared die off from starvation, the more furry faced resources are left over for the screwy Mormons who stockpiled 7.62x39 for their assault thingies.
The luxury bunker thing is interesting. Without getting into details, I can tell you that being below ground when a large nuclear device goes off will give you a much better chance at survival, but I question the need for such a structure when you live 150 miles from the nearest city that anyone would consider attacking. It's like keeping tools, manuals, and provisions for an exotic car you will never own. I mean, who's really going to attack Bismarck, North Dakota? You guys up there don't need a bunker. Spend your money on ammo or board games or something.
I appreciate the idea of being prepared. I don't have room in my teeny little house for cans of chicken with 15 year shelf life and a high quality reverse osmosis system. Hell, I don't even have much room for ammo! My food plan for the end of the world is to live off the abundance of squirrels, rabbits, and labradoodles in my crappy subdivision, cooking them on my MSR Dragonfly stove until we can bug out to somewhere with less of a population. That basically rules out 90% of Virginia; everybody and their brother has decided this is precisely where they want to live, so in the apocalypse you can expect half the country's population to meet their demise here when Starbucks sells out of vegetable paninis.
I'm sure there are naysayers out there that mock the idea of prepping; their plan in the wake of a devastating earthquake is to hide out in their therapist's office, living off the bowl of yummy lollie pops from the lobby until men with uniforms and guns rescue them. That's also a very smart idea -- the faster the unprepared die off from starvation, the more furry faced resources are left over for the screwy Mormons who stockpiled 7.62x39 for their assault thingies.
The luxury bunker thing is interesting. Without getting into details, I can tell you that being below ground when a large nuclear device goes off will give you a much better chance at survival, but I question the need for such a structure when you live 150 miles from the nearest city that anyone would consider attacking. It's like keeping tools, manuals, and provisions for an exotic car you will never own. I mean, who's really going to attack Bismarck, North Dakota? You guys up there don't need a bunker. Spend your money on ammo or board games or something.
I appreciate the idea of being prepared. I don't have room in my teeny little house for cans of chicken with 15 year shelf life and a high quality reverse osmosis system. Hell, I don't even have much room for ammo! My food plan for the end of the world is to live off the abundance of squirrels, rabbits, and labradoodles in my crappy subdivision, cooking them on my MSR Dragonfly stove until we can bug out to somewhere with less of a population. That basically rules out 90% of Virginia; everybody and their brother has decided this is precisely where they want to live, so in the apocalypse you can expect half the country's population to meet their demise here when Starbucks sells out of vegetable paninis.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Open Carry in Detroit
Several residents note that carrying openly has been a deterrent against scumbags. There's also the fudd police chief noting that he doesn't have a "quarrel" with people carrying lawfully, and then goes on to paint these lawful residents as being part of the problem of shootouts in the streets. Perhaps if Detroit's police chief did a better job of preventing the shootouts, residents wouldn't feel they need to carry guns for protection.
I love this part:
"Be vigilant!!"
"Take a stand!!!"
"We need the citizens help!!!"
My question is: how? How does a man or woman do any of those things without the means to? It seems to me that the people the article is talking about have figured it out on their own, and the mayor and the chief are whimpering about it. Good.
I love this part:
Over a 24-hour span beginning Aug. 12, seven people were shot to death and nine others wounded. That prompted Mayor Dave Bing to issue a "call to action" to city residents to take a stand against crime.By "taking a stand", I presume the mayor and his police chief mean to be quick on the cellphone when they're victimized, or to take good notes and be a better witness. What a joke.
"Be vigilant!!"
"Take a stand!!!"
"We need the citizens help!!!"
My question is: how? How does a man or woman do any of those things without the means to? It seems to me that the people the article is talking about have figured it out on their own, and the mayor and the chief are whimpering about it. Good.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Satisfactory answer to a strange question
This probably doesn't fit well on this blog, but I can appreciate it none the less. It's the real answer to why David Lee Roth insisted on no brown M&Ms. Clever.
Menace to society
This post is many parts; the lesser of the post being the first, which is that coyotes in King George's county, Virginia are now in an almost continuous open season, and hopefully this will extend to other surrounding counties, as my county is starting to see their population increase. I take issue with some parts of this ordnance, the main one being that if you use a rifle, it has to be larger than .22 caliber. I'd love to see some evidence of how this regulation was established, and would enjoy seeing some bureaucrat publicly defend it. It's asinine. If you frequent predator forums, you'd be hard pressed to miss that hunters note the faster calibers being the ones that put coyotes down quickly, and thus "ethically" like the DGIF official wants. The gist of it is hunters have had well hit coyotes run off after being hit with larger calibers with less velocity, and anchored them well with the same hits with zippy small caliber rifles. Call it what you want, but there's definitely a trend. My guess is that this regulation is put here now to make sure that icky AR rifles don't end up being the killing tool for coyote hunters.
I'm going to go off on a tangent for a minute: this caliber restriction applies to whitetail deer hunting as well, and I've never seen any scientific evidence or studies that show that .22 caliber bullets are less effective than anything larger. The .223 Remington cartridge is a premier deer round in states where it's lawful, but general public ignorance and baseless ordinances have led them to be demonized. I've argued this with people for years, and none of them can offer anything other than "it's not powerful enough." Do you have proof of that claim, because I've seen evidence that says otherwise.
Interestingly enough, many hunters that I've known throughout the years who subscribe to this bullshit tote a magnum caliber rifle that they can't shoot because they flinch with it on every shot, and believe it has more "knockdown power" because it's so biiiiiiiiiiiig. I've tracked a ton of hit deer for them, too, some of them where the hunter felt confident to shoot a 180 lb running doe square in the ass because their cartridge case has a belt, and that bullet will definitely make it to the vitals, sure. "IT'S A GREAT BRUSH GUN!!!!" - my personal favorite. To be blunt, I've tracked more dog-sized Virginia deer hit with a magnum than I can count, but never had to track one hit with a .22 Hornet, .22 Magnum, or .220 Swift. I don't account this fact to the caliber, but to the fact that the trigger man did his job and hit them properly, and did not rely on 30 extra grains of powder, 2 more millimeters, and piss poor shooting to get the job done. Just to ensure that this dead horse is adequately beaten, if you claim that to use a .223 Remington or other similar caliber cartridge on deer, you have to "hit them just right," you are implying that using a larger cartridge means that you don't have to hit them just right. Get it?
Good. Moving on.
The "no hunting on Sundays" is an archaic regulation that needs to be repealed. I don't know where it comes from, but to my knowledge folks believe that God will be angry with them if they're in their treestand on Sunday vice raking leaves or fixing the sink. The Lord didn't smite David for eating the showbread, and I don't think He will condemn Elmer Fudd for sending a ballistic tip through Wile E's guts. If you believe otherwise, then I invite you on a witch hunting journey with me in Salem. It'll be swell! My county this year has had a continuous doe-day this hunting season in a vain effort to control the population, and if they let hunters hunt one more day out of the week, a balance in the herd might be struck. The insurance companies would surely be happy with this concept, as they wouldn't have to shell out millions every year because of all the deer hit by vehicles.
Next up on my list of shit I don't like is this:
You mean to tell me that laws and regulations subjected on Pennsylvanians was born out of politics and emotion instead of facts? Weird. Don't quote me, but I think this sort of shenanigans has happened elsewhere in the country.
Anyhow, the conclusion from the linked study from Pennsylvania is that shotguns are "more risky" when fired from the ground at a zero degree angle, and Paw Paws 30.06 is "more risky" when fired at an angle, such as from a treestand -- but the risk factor in the study is based on the "danger zone" after the projectile has ricocheted, which is based entirely on the distance that it travels. My point is that who cares if the round ricochets one mile or ten: it's one bullet, and it's dangerous no matter how far it goes before it lands. It would be different if the bullet rained death down on everything below it during its brief flight, whereas the further and longer it flies, the more harm is done. That's not the case though; what we're talking about here is if a hunter fires a rifle at a deer, and the bullet skips off a rock and heads out of the pasture, that if it strikes Timmy in his back yard a thousand yards away it's "more safe" than if the round came down and struck grandma in the next county. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
According to the PA study, the criteria for the "danger zone" came from studies done by the US military on the ricochet distance for small arms for military ranges. So yeah, a two mile danger zone behind Edson Range is a good idea because thousands of Marine recruits fire millions of rounds there, and all those rounds will fall in a predictable area. Finding out how big that area is and making sure some developer doesn't build a Kroger there is in the public's interest. How this somehow applies to Elmer and his carbine is anyone's guess; I just don't see how a shotgun slug bounding half a mile is less dangerous than a .30 caliber Accubond skipping two miles. The telling part to me is the chart on page 26, where it shows that the probability of a rifle round ricocheting when fired at a 10 degree down angle is 38%, and the probability of a .50 round from a muzzloader or a shotgun slug ricocheting from the same angle is 91%; what I get from this is that there's less chance of an errant projectile to begin with if I stick with a rifle, damn the distance it flies. Go ahead and look that chart over real well. See how much more probable a ricochet is when you don't use a rifle?
It seems to me that we have the dumbest possible people struggling to make public policy, which I guess is better than letting them figure it out on their own using common sense, or worse, emotion.
I'm going to go off on a tangent for a minute: this caliber restriction applies to whitetail deer hunting as well, and I've never seen any scientific evidence or studies that show that .22 caliber bullets are less effective than anything larger. The .223 Remington cartridge is a premier deer round in states where it's lawful, but general public ignorance and baseless ordinances have led them to be demonized. I've argued this with people for years, and none of them can offer anything other than "it's not powerful enough." Do you have proof of that claim, because I've seen evidence that says otherwise.
Interestingly enough, many hunters that I've known throughout the years who subscribe to this bullshit tote a magnum caliber rifle that they can't shoot because they flinch with it on every shot, and believe it has more "knockdown power" because it's so biiiiiiiiiiiig. I've tracked a ton of hit deer for them, too, some of them where the hunter felt confident to shoot a 180 lb running doe square in the ass because their cartridge case has a belt, and that bullet will definitely make it to the vitals, sure. "IT'S A GREAT BRUSH GUN!!!!" - my personal favorite. To be blunt, I've tracked more dog-sized Virginia deer hit with a magnum than I can count, but never had to track one hit with a .22 Hornet, .22 Magnum, or .220 Swift. I don't account this fact to the caliber, but to the fact that the trigger man did his job and hit them properly, and did not rely on 30 extra grains of powder, 2 more millimeters, and piss poor shooting to get the job done. Just to ensure that this dead horse is adequately beaten, if you claim that to use a .223 Remington or other similar caliber cartridge on deer, you have to "hit them just right," you are implying that using a larger cartridge means that you don't have to hit them just right. Get it?
Good. Moving on.
The "no hunting on Sundays" is an archaic regulation that needs to be repealed. I don't know where it comes from, but to my knowledge folks believe that God will be angry with them if they're in their treestand on Sunday vice raking leaves or fixing the sink. The Lord didn't smite David for eating the showbread, and I don't think He will condemn Elmer Fudd for sending a ballistic tip through Wile E's guts. If you believe otherwise, then I invite you on a witch hunting journey with me in Salem. It'll be swell! My county this year has had a continuous doe-day this hunting season in a vain effort to control the population, and if they let hunters hunt one more day out of the week, a balance in the herd might be struck. The insurance companies would surely be happy with this concept, as they wouldn't have to shell out millions every year because of all the deer hit by vehicles.
Next up on my list of shit I don't like is this:
King George doesn’t allow the use of high-powered rifles during hunting season. Bullets fired by more powerful weapons travel farther, and that can be dangerous in areas with dense populations or flat terrain, which is the case in King George.Caroline County has the same restriction.Now, this DOES NOT apply to shooting coyotes in the county -- it's for deer hunters -- but going off on a tangent again (I can do that, you know) I note that this is an asinine regulation, and it's one that plagues many counties around mine. Whoever came up with this should be kicked in the balls. The concept is that rifles are dangerous because the bullet has the potential to go further, so some counties only allow hunting with shotguns and muzzleloaders. The problem with that is that that concept is baseless:
Of Pennsylvania’s approximate 900 miles of border with other states, it was found that the centerfire rifle was unlawful along the entire boundary with the exception of western Maryland. They found that in no case was any state able to provide definitive information upon which they based their decision. In fact, most reported that they simply responded to the public perception that shotguns were less dangerous than centerfire rifles. At that time, PGC staff found there was no data to support the contention that shotguns and muzzleloaders are any less risky than centerfire rifles. They found, instead, that in the “shotgun-only” states this appears to be “an issue driven by emotion and politics rather than sound scientific data.”2
You mean to tell me that laws and regulations subjected on Pennsylvanians was born out of politics and emotion instead of facts? Weird. Don't quote me, but I think this sort of shenanigans has happened elsewhere in the country.
Anyhow, the conclusion from the linked study from Pennsylvania is that shotguns are "more risky" when fired from the ground at a zero degree angle, and Paw Paws 30.06 is "more risky" when fired at an angle, such as from a treestand -- but the risk factor in the study is based on the "danger zone" after the projectile has ricocheted, which is based entirely on the distance that it travels. My point is that who cares if the round ricochets one mile or ten: it's one bullet, and it's dangerous no matter how far it goes before it lands. It would be different if the bullet rained death down on everything below it during its brief flight, whereas the further and longer it flies, the more harm is done. That's not the case though; what we're talking about here is if a hunter fires a rifle at a deer, and the bullet skips off a rock and heads out of the pasture, that if it strikes Timmy in his back yard a thousand yards away it's "more safe" than if the round came down and struck grandma in the next county. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
According to the PA study, the criteria for the "danger zone" came from studies done by the US military on the ricochet distance for small arms for military ranges. So yeah, a two mile danger zone behind Edson Range is a good idea because thousands of Marine recruits fire millions of rounds there, and all those rounds will fall in a predictable area. Finding out how big that area is and making sure some developer doesn't build a Kroger there is in the public's interest. How this somehow applies to Elmer and his carbine is anyone's guess; I just don't see how a shotgun slug bounding half a mile is less dangerous than a .30 caliber Accubond skipping two miles. The telling part to me is the chart on page 26, where it shows that the probability of a rifle round ricocheting when fired at a 10 degree down angle is 38%, and the probability of a .50 round from a muzzloader or a shotgun slug ricocheting from the same angle is 91%; what I get from this is that there's less chance of an errant projectile to begin with if I stick with a rifle, damn the distance it flies. Go ahead and look that chart over real well. See how much more probable a ricochet is when you don't use a rifle?
It seems to me that we have the dumbest possible people struggling to make public policy, which I guess is better than letting them figure it out on their own using common sense, or worse, emotion.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Locks keep out honest people and teenagers
A building two doors over is under construction and police said the suspect used that. He took the tools that were left behind to break through a wall to get inside the seafood eatery. But then he kept going and broke through another wall, police said, to get into another room where he thought the money was.I'm surprised it took this long for crooks to figure this out. A brick wall is fairly easy to bust through with a sledgehammer, with reinforced concrete being the only serious barrier for criminals to get through. Residential homes are even easier - in VA in the 90's, many homes being built were only required to have plywood on the corners; the only thing separating a scumbag from your nifty watch collection was plastic siding and foam insulation, all of which can be breached quietly with a utility knife. Knowing this, I used to shake my head at builders who would turn around and install solid oak front doors with six pin locks, to say nothing of sliding glass doors and vinyl windows.
Very few structures in this country will keep out a determined crackhead with primitive tools. If you're shopping for barrier security from Lowes and Home Despot, know that it's only temporary at best.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
They say advertising helps
An appropriate cartoon at War on Guns shows how a store can quickly lose business.
When I was on the hunt for a dive watch, I got the idea to go to Jared because they carry a much larger selection of watches than the local mall. I had never been to one, and as my hand touched the door handle I spotted their "No Guns" sign, making me about-face on the balls of my feet and get back into my car.
The logic of such signs may make sense to some people at first glance, with the desire to not have armed maniacs visiting places that sell expensive jewelry, but they have never considered that said maniacs don't care about the signs during the course of armed robbery, if they are even literate enough to read them to begin with. Like it makes sense to prevent a scumbag from using a firearm to violently steal from a store by posting a sign telling them not to.
But why would someone neeeeeeeed to carry a gun to shop for jewelry? CTone, it just seems so silly! Well, consider that a shopper going into a jewelry store, where merchandise has heavier price tags than say, the dollar store, is very likely to have large amounts of currency on their person; and people leaving the store are likely to have small and highly valuable property in their possession. If you try to think like a criminal, if you were looking for the maximum payout for the holiday season, would you be looking to select a victim from Jiffy Lube, or Jared? Making sense now, huh?
Same thing with banks. Only a criminal would carry a gun to a bank, I've heard it said. Well, that's thinking like a criminal too, as people that harbor that mindset don't see a gun as a defensive weapon for preservation of life, but as an offensive tool to hurt somebody. Shame on you. Sit in a bank parking lot for a couple of minutes and watch who goes in and out. There is a high likelihood that those individuals are flush with cash. A Piggly Wiggly, not so much.
When I was on the hunt for a dive watch, I got the idea to go to Jared because they carry a much larger selection of watches than the local mall. I had never been to one, and as my hand touched the door handle I spotted their "No Guns" sign, making me about-face on the balls of my feet and get back into my car.
The logic of such signs may make sense to some people at first glance, with the desire to not have armed maniacs visiting places that sell expensive jewelry, but they have never considered that said maniacs don't care about the signs during the course of armed robbery, if they are even literate enough to read them to begin with. Like it makes sense to prevent a scumbag from using a firearm to violently steal from a store by posting a sign telling them not to.
But why would someone neeeeeeeed to carry a gun to shop for jewelry? CTone, it just seems so silly! Well, consider that a shopper going into a jewelry store, where merchandise has heavier price tags than say, the dollar store, is very likely to have large amounts of currency on their person; and people leaving the store are likely to have small and highly valuable property in their possession. If you try to think like a criminal, if you were looking for the maximum payout for the holiday season, would you be looking to select a victim from Jiffy Lube, or Jared? Making sense now, huh?
Same thing with banks. Only a criminal would carry a gun to a bank, I've heard it said. Well, that's thinking like a criminal too, as people that harbor that mindset don't see a gun as a defensive weapon for preservation of life, but as an offensive tool to hurt somebody. Shame on you. Sit in a bank parking lot for a couple of minutes and watch who goes in and out. There is a high likelihood that those individuals are flush with cash. A Piggly Wiggly, not so much.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
A snake has its rattle, a bee has its stripes. . . .
And some store owners "get it," as this sign captured in a photo by Ragin' Dave at Peace or Freedom shows. Giving notice is the godly thing to do.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Random thoughts about stick fighting
I see advertised time and time again in self defense schools about using a cane as a weapon, but I rarely see anyone using a cane these days. It doesn't make sense to me to learn tactics for a weapon that hardly anyone carries, but it did get me thinking. I see senior folks walking in subdivisions every morning, and most of them are carrying a good sized sturdy stick. This isn't something I see every once in awhile, either; literally I see some stick carrying old dude with an angry look on his face at least once a week, and I have to say that if I were a scumbag, it would be a deterrent. I'm a physically capable individual with no doubts that I could overcome someone twice my age if they were unarmed, but I would be hesitant enough to attack a potential Korean war veteran with a nasty case of untreated PTSD and a treated hickory stick.
So, what about stick tactics?
So, what about stick tactics?
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
What cartridge?
If you're looking for a rifle for something in particular, one of the age-old problems is choosing a cartridge that will perform for your intended purpose. We live in a shooter's heyday right now in that the selection of bullets and rifles is getting close to the peak of what man can possibly do, so there is literally a cartridge and rifle platform that will fit perfectly for what you want to do.
If you want to know the particulars of specific cartridges, this thread on the topic at Sniper's Hide is the place to start. I also highly suggest using JBM Ballistics as a means of calculating the range and power of different cartridges that you may be interested in.
In my youth, the unchallenged answer to getting more range for hunting was to go bigger bigger bigger bigger with a side of as-fast-as-possible. In those days, hunters didn't use rifle scopes with turrets or rangefinding reticles to compensate for distance; duplex reticles were the most popular by far, so in order to get a gain in Point Blank Range, you had to have lots and lots of velocity. This is why there are cartridges like the .220 Swift and .300 Weatherby Magnum. What cracks me up is that even today I know plenty of people who still subscribe to this mindset, and have seriously overbored cartridges for shooting little Virginia deer at ranges that seldom go beyond 80 yards.
To each their own, I guess.
If you're not into being way overgunned, than a little bit of research combined with JBM Ballistics will lead you to the proper hunting/target/tactical cartridge that won't break your shoulder or your wallet. Why feed a barrel burning .338 Thorhammerlighningdragonslayer when you could accomplish the same job with a .270 Winchester?
If you want to know the particulars of specific cartridges, this thread on the topic at Sniper's Hide is the place to start. I also highly suggest using JBM Ballistics as a means of calculating the range and power of different cartridges that you may be interested in.
In my youth, the unchallenged answer to getting more range for hunting was to go bigger bigger bigger bigger with a side of as-fast-as-possible. In those days, hunters didn't use rifle scopes with turrets or rangefinding reticles to compensate for distance; duplex reticles were the most popular by far, so in order to get a gain in Point Blank Range, you had to have lots and lots of velocity. This is why there are cartridges like the .220 Swift and .300 Weatherby Magnum. What cracks me up is that even today I know plenty of people who still subscribe to this mindset, and have seriously overbored cartridges for shooting little Virginia deer at ranges that seldom go beyond 80 yards.
To each their own, I guess.
If you're not into being way overgunned, than a little bit of research combined with JBM Ballistics will lead you to the proper hunting/target/tactical cartridge that won't break your shoulder or your wallet. Why feed a barrel burning .338 Thorhammerlighningdragonslayer when you could accomplish the same job with a .270 Winchester?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
One trench at a time
A small town victory in Fairfax, Virginia where air gun legislation was addressed in order to bring it down to something less insane. It appears that despite media hype, there was no opposition to my fellow Virginians who stood in front of the Board of Stupervisors and supported the bill. VCDL President Phillip Van Cleave gives a down to earth statement about what it all means here in this video, and the reporter does a balanced job of covering the issue without butchering the facts.
Wish I had been there.
Wish I had been there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)