Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

I suspect this Drudge headline is supposed to be controversial: “REPORT: 911 operator tells woman it’s OK to shoot intruder…”

Then, you click on the story. Perhaps it’s because I’m from Oklahoma, but I don’t see anything remotely controversial about the actual report.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby’s mouth and called 911.

“I’ve got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?” the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. “I’m here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?”

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

“I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

In other words, the 911 dispatcher didn’t tell her to kill the intruder, the dispatcher ran through things that could delay the intruders until police arrive, and just told the mom that she could do what she needed to do to protect her baby. And this is worthy of a headline why?

When I saw the original New York Times article blasting conceaed carry as a dangerous idea, I kind of dismissed it, because commenting on an anti-gun article from the New York Times is kind of like commenting on a cloudy day in Seattle. But apparently this one was pretty awful. Both Professor Reynolds, who has a roundup of blog reactions, and Professor Kopel, who notes what the Times didn’t tell readers, do a pretty good job of refuting the Times’ shoddy reporting.

I have little doubt the Times is doing this at the behest of King Bloomberg of New York, to create some ammunitino against HR822, which will will open the Big Apple to carry by permits from other states. Every once in a while I think something is “dog bites man”, but it turns out to be a big story. This is one of those occasions.

Now a company is selling CCW sashes instead of badges. This reminds me of when I was part of the Safety program in 6th grade, and you got a sash that says you were a safety. I don’t exactly remember what safeties did, other than queue the kids up outside the door in the morning. But I digress. I didn’t think anyone could come up with a worse idea than CCW badges, and I have unfortunately been proved wrong.

I’m not quite sure I follow why interest in non-discretionary issue of concealed carry firearms is considered hard to believe in Iowa.

The number of Iowans seeking permits to carry handguns and other weapons has increased 170 percent during the first 11 months of 2011 — a trend one Iowa sheriff calls “unbelievable.”

During the first year in which a new law gave sheriffs less discretion over which residents can be denied permits, 94,516 Iowans sought and received non-professional weapons permits from January through November, the Iowa Department of Public Safety reports.

Data from the state’s three most populous counties show an even greater surge in weapons permits in key urban areas. In Polk, Linn and Scott counties, the number of permits issued thus far in 2011 is 271 percent higher than in 2010.

It seems pretty damn easy to understand for me. I know people who have lived under may issue jurisdictions who wouldn’t even apply for a license to carry because of the risk of being turned down for absolutely no reason. If they are turned down, they usually have to report it to the states that issue licenses based on actual evidence that you’re law-abiding.

Based on the context of the “unbelievable” quote, I don’t think the sheriff who said it was speaking from an anti-gun perspective. I just think he’s truly baffled that interest surged in self-defense once it became known that discriminating practices in issuance were no longer allowed.

… if you use a gun, you’ll just end up getting that gun taken away from you. Like this robber did. How come the only occurrences I ever hear of this happening involve criminals getting a gun snatched by the victims?

Also, another rich neighborhood getting whacked by violent, armed individuals. This is probably the consequence of the disintegration in Philly heading out into the suburbs. Expect more of this.

SayUncle shows his carry assortment. I have the requisite collection of holsters that never worked, but I only have two carry pieces. I tend to think everyone needs at least one “carry when you can’t really easily carry” option, and one “carry when you can actually conceal well” option. Beyond that I think it’s just getting too complicated, unless you get to the range enough with your carry rig to be proficient with all the options.

I have a Ke-Tec P3AT for very discrete carry, and a Glock 19 for when I can actually conceal. I sheepishly admit that I’ve never been big on carrying a spare magazine, so I actually have no holsters dedicated to that purpose.

What’s in your carry mix?

People never can successfully defend themselves with a gun, if you ask our opponents. Remember, for them it’s only a DGU if there’s a corpse. Kudos to the homeowner, but three shots and not a hit? Time to get to the range. Also interesting is that neighborhood is rich. This is not far from where I used to work for ten years, and I could never afford to live in the neighborhood I worked, and I didn’t make bad money.

This means there are two criminals out there now targeting rich looking houses, and will no doubt be moving to what they think is an easier target. I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest society would have been better off if this homeowner had made some well placed shots, even if that only enabled the police to apprehend them when they showed up in the emergency room with gunshot wounds, which, BTW, still wouldn’t have been a DGU if you use our opponents statistical methods.