Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

He essentially used law enforcement for cover on vetoing it. None of the law enforcement groups opposing this represent the rank and file, but as is often the case, the leaders of many of these groups are willing to coddle the politicians that feed them, and offer them cover for vetoing bills the people’s representatives have voted for.

Forbes has an excellent article on the Myths of the Gun Control Lobby. Finally a reporter has started calling out the other side on the bullshit:

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing.

I can tell you where they are getting that information — they are pulling it out of a place most decidedly devoid of sunlight. That said, they don’t get everything correct:

A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

NCVS does count those. The issue many had with NCVS survey method is they did not get to questions about defensive gun use unless the person reported themselves as a victim of crime first. Thus it’s believed NCVS undercounts DGUs. It will be greatly disappointing to the writer of the Propiganda Professor, a darling of our opponents, that the serious academic studies on DGUs, some by our own government, show the number to be in the hundreds of thousands on the low end, despite what he and his friends in the gun control movement might want to imagine.

I believe a large number of DGUs do go unreported. A friend of mine had a DGU in Philadelphia, but didn’t fire. As soon as he drew on his attackers, they fled. He called 911, who’s attitude was, if there wasn’t someone bleeding out on the sidewalk, it wasn’t important enough to warrant  further attention. I know this is anecdotal, but I think there are many cases like this. How many do you know of, or have directly experienced?

Clayton Cramer has an article in the Washington Times outlining the fact that use of a gun in self-defense is more common than many people think. Way more common than our opponents will admit, even to themselves.

Our study examines a variety of incident types: concealed-weapon permit holders (285 accounts); home invasions (1,227 incidents); residential burglaries (488). There are categories that we would never have thought were all that common: 172 incidents where people defended themselves from animal attacks (some wild, some dogs gone wild); 34 were incidents where pizza delivery drivers defended themselves from robbery.

As Clayton mentions in the article, the low end, from the National Crime Victimization Survey, is 108,000 DGUs per year. That’s already higher than the much vaunted “gun death” rate suggested by our opponents. Self-defenses incidents are going to overwhelmingly end without the need for bloodshed with a defensive gun use. You have criminals who don’t want to get shot, combined with defenders who don’t want to shoot, and that’s a recipe for resolving confrontations without having to shoot someone.

Miguel caught a bit where CSGV, and their foaming at the mouth supporters, lambasted what looks to be a case of legitimate self-defense by a Florida CWL holder. I have to agree with Uncle that they are not grounded in reality as most people understand it. I do have to admit, it’s kind of fun watching the anti-gun groups get farther and farther out there. We’ll have to see whether the Brady Center comes back to some modicum of reality under their new leadership. Still, the guy who’s next move I worry about is Bloomberg. He has the money, he’s a sharp strategist, and has been full of surprises.

Lyle notes a problem with OC, namely that the gun can get rusty exposed to the elements. The first gun I ever carried was a Bersa Thunder .380. I carried it for about six months before getting a Glock 19. During those six months the slide started to rust. I have to give Glock credit with their materials and finish; I’ve never found a spec of rust on my Glock 19. I bought a Kel-Tec P-3AT a while back, for moments when Glock carry was just too impractical. That held up well to pocket carry, but once the surface bluing started wearing off, rust rust rust, and it didn’t take that long. With firearms other than the Glock, it’s a constant battle on the carry pieces. I also, for a while, carried a Makarov, and that also experienced rust after a month or so.

Inside pockets and inside waistbands are hot, moist areas. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have to wash down there regularly, and there wouldn’t be much of a market for Lotramin.

An armed robber was shot by an armed customer of the store the robber was attempting to rob. One more victim of gun violence for our opponents to light a candle for.

UPDATE: It looks like all parties, including Piazza, have come to an agreement on this issue.

Just as a follow-up on my linking yesterday to Kevin’s review of Front Sight, a reader from the CalGuns Forum pointed me to this, which shows Piazza, Front Sight’s owner, is throwing his weight behind a highly flawed ballot initiative in California to get concealed carry.

I’ve taken a look at the ballot measure, and it is indeed bad:

(a) The applicant has no history of medically diagnosed mental illness requiring medication or admission into a mental institution.

So depression that an anti-depressant is prescribed for will disqualify you? Years ago they used to institutionalize homosexuals. Is that still disqualifying if you’re a gay old codger and want a permit?

(e) The applicant is not under investigation or indictment for any criminal activities.

Under what circumstances is an investigation disqualifying? If your spouse dies suddenly, the police may investigate you, to determine whether or not there’s foul play involved. They might know foul play isn’t likely, but it’s their job to be sure. Is this a disqualifying investigation?

(c) The applicant has no history of substance abuse.

So a recovering alcoholic on the wagon for years can’t get a license?

(d) The applicant has no history of domestic violence.

What kind of history? What if they were the victim? This whole initiative reeks of someone who doesn’t know how to carefully draft legislation. Plus, I don’t know how ballot measures work in California, but here voters typically only see a summary. In that case, why not be careful and make a good shall-issue bill? It looks to me like this was put together by rank amatures.

I’d note that it also requires training for every renwal, of up to eight hours. I’ll give you one guess why Piazza, who’s training facility is located just a few hours drive from Southern California, is getting behind this. My problem with Front Sight has never been that it’s bad training, my problem is with its proprieter, who’s always, in my opinion, come off as a shameless self-promoter. That’s certainly a crowded field in this issue, but Someone at CalGuns has another theory on why he’s backing this.

The big problem with this initiative, is that we’re screwed whether it passes or fails. If it passes, it will likely moot all the carry cases moving forward in the 9th circuit. We’d then be stuck on arguing the specifics of the measure, rather than California’s restrictive discretionary regime. That’s not a good place to be in. Courts are reluctant to twart legislators, let alone the will of the people, on an issue they are hostile toward to begin with. Ballot measures are also not fixable by the legislature; it takes another ballot measure to adjust language.

If this measure loses, the anti-gun crowd will point to it and say “See, the people have rejected even this modest bill. That proves that they reject the radical NRA agenda.” I should note that if I had to put money on it, I’d put money on it losing. I’d not take a bet, or would bet in favor of a ballot measure on this issue in many parts of the country, but not California. This is doomed, and it’s only going to hurt the movement.

UPDATE: It looks like all parties, including Piazza, have come to an agreement on this issue.

In this one in Reading, PA, the victim was a 65-year old man. But it didn’t end like the one in Philadelphia:

The man was riding his bicycle about 11 a.m. on the Thun Trail near the Bertolet Fishing Dock in West Reading when the boys knocked him off his bicycle, police said.

Two of the boys were assaulting the man when he pulled a handgun and shot them, police said.

The police arrest everyone, but released the 65-year old victim, and sent the uninjured kid to juvie. I’m going to guess the Berks County District Attorney is going to decline charges in this case, except for the juveniles. This isn’t Philly.

Looks like Galco has decided to ride to the rescue of people who like the Crimson Trace Lightguard by making a holster for it.