Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

Looks like today is link to Clayton day.  Or it’s just that it was a busy week, and am now just getting caught up with my RSS feed to find out what I missed.   Apparently one of the things I missed was Nebraska releasing a list of reciprocal states.  Florida is on the list, and they recognize non-resident licenses, so I can carry there now.  That’s good news considering I recently lost the ability to carry in Nevada.

Clayton also points out that the finger eating Obama supporter, who is charged with mayhem, could have been legally killed by the man he was attacking.  Seems California allows people to use deadly force to stop felonies, even arrest felons.  They have crappy gun laws, but their self-defense law is still Western in its roots.

I know that a lot of liberals have some trouble controlling their emotions–that’s part of why liberals are generally supportive of restrictive gun control. They are convinced that everyone is as out of control as they are, prone to fly off the handle and kill someone for no particularly good reason. If you can’t control yourself enough to notbite someone’s finger off, then you should stay away from political demonstrations.

Sounds familiar.  Much like what I was arguing in the post below about violent criminals not being ordinary people who just snap.   But I think perhaps we can come together with the Brady Campaign and agree that there ought to be no baring of teeth at political demonstrations.  Lest someone be too intimidated to speak out.

Mostly Genius doesn’t get pistol bayonets:

Some people have made the “weapons retention” argument, but I remain unconvinced. This is about as useful as a fish bicycle.

The reason man put bayonets on long arms is because absent ammunition or in case of malfunction, it allows the long arm to be used as a pike.  I’m not sure what a pistol with a knife would offer that wielding a knife in your hand doesn’t.  For retention, it would seem you’re far better off using the knife independently on an attacker while you try to secure your firearm with your strong hand.  If you can bring your pistol bayonet to bear, wouldn’t you just be better off shooting the guy?  Knives and firearms are both deadly force, after all.

Marko asks what you would do as a parent in this situation.  I’m not a parent, but as soon as the threat was made I would have shoved him away from my kid and sprayed him.  I would assume that would stop your average 61 year old child slapper.  It’s a low enough level of force you don’t have to wait for him to follow through.  He announced his intention to commit and assault, a felony assault in most states, since it’s against a child.  Anyone who grabs my kid is getting a gun drawn on them.  I’m not going to wait to figure out what their intent is.

Another Gun Guy posts his self-defense experience.  Certainly not a perfect DGU, but self-defense is seldom pretty or clean.  If it were, we wouldn’t need lawyers.

High school student, unarmed, saves a bus full of his peers in Mississippi from a girl who boards the bus wielding a .380 caliber pistol.  This is the exact kind of behavior the powers that be discourage, but quick thinking and quick action on his part saved the day.  When it comes to self-defense, the things we carry are just tools.  The real weapon is you.

If you were to listen to Brady Campaign material, National Parks are the safest places in the world.  Well, yes, they are generally pretty safe.  Just like most places in the United States, save maybe places like Detroit.  But the problem in National Parks is there’s no recourse to the authorities, or to good samaritans.  If you find yourself in trouble in a National Park, you’re largely on your own.

That’s why the trend toward larger illicit marijuana grow operations on federal land is should be disturbing:

Each camp is typically tended around the clock by guards who may be equipped with assault rifles, night-vision goggles, walkie-talkies and radios to monitor law-enforcement chatter.

I’ll be honest, considering when I’ve hiked out west, I’ve enjoyed traveling a bit off the beaten path, this makes me wonder if just having a pistol is enough, or whether an AR-15 might be a better option.  You end up getting into it with drug gangs, you’re effectively on your own.  Law enforcement help is going to be hours away.  I’m going to suggest if you’re going hiking on federal land that have been found to have grow operations, you need to carry thinking more along the lines of combat rather than a street confrontation.   If you think that’s paranoid, consider this:

So far this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, federal agents have raided 487 pot farms on forest-service land, where they destroyed 2.6 million marijuana plants, seized 138 firearms and made 369 arrests on felony drug charges.

That’s not a small problem, when you consider the how few federal lands are involved.

Bloomberg is looking to crack down on drinking while carrying a firearm.  I wouldn’t have too much issue if there was a legal limit for carrying, much like there is driving, but I take exception to the mayor’s claim that:

“Carrying while intoxicated is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated and should be just as illegal,” Bloomberg said at a Wednesday campaign announcement discussing three anti-gun law proposals. Alaska, Missouri and other states already have laws prohibiting carrying a firearm while drunk.

Is it though?  In 2006, 13,470 people were killed in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents. If you factor in other drugs, that number increases by about 7600 to 21,047. In 2006, there were a total of about 642 accidental deaths from guns.  Even if you include intentional deaths from guns, that number only rises to the same level as the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities.  That’s without even controlling for alcohol or other impairing substances being a factor.  Clearly this is not as large a public safety issue.

So while I would have little objection to carrying a firearm over some legal limit being a minor misdemeanor, and cause for revoking a license to carry, I have a big issue with it being treated as more dangerous than drunken driving.  It is clearly not.  The punishment should fit the crime, and Bloomberg’s proposal, of a year in jail and 10,000 fine, does not.

What I think Bloomberg is doing is attempting to create more legal hazards, in anticipation of the Courts gutting a lot of New York City’s gun laws.   Facing the possibility of no longer being able to make gun possession largely illegal in the Big Apple, Bloomberg will do the next best thing; make it so outrageously hazardous legally that no one bothers.  I would call that the New Jersey method.  It’s very effective, and difficult to take to court.

On the advice of Brillianter, I thought I’d give another flashlight a try.  I had been known to carry around a Surefire 6P.  The 6P was certainly bright enough, but too bulky to be carried anywhere other than on the belt.  Not too long ago the bulb on my 6P blew out, and I wasn’t all that motivated to get another one (especially considering the bulb costs almost as much as a new flashlight).  Here are some problems I had with the 6P:

• Too big to be carried in a pocket.
• Takes lithium batteries that are expensive, and tougher to find.
• Prone to switching on, which if it happens in a case will melt plastic or nylon, and possibly burn you.  For mine, by the time I thought to myself “What’s the burning smell?,” there was already a large hole burnt in the top of the nylon.
• Battery life is measured in minutes, but the unit can’t be operated for more than ten minutes anyway before the bulb gets too hot.

So when I saw Brillianter’s post on flashlights, I thought I’d order one and give the Fenix LD10 a try.  It’s a very nice light.  It puts out a lot of light for a single AA battery, as much as the 6P really, and has a much higher run time off that battery than a 6P gets off its battery.  Let’s go over the pros:

• Small enough to fit in a pocket.  In fact, it can be carried comfortably in a pocket riding along side a pocket holster, without interfering with the draw of a pistol or the light.
• Light output is very good.
• The LED light allows for a strobing “dazzle” feature.
• Takes a single AA battery
• Run time is considerably longer than Xenon lamp bulbs

The Cons:

• Still prone to switching itself on, but the LED puts out little heat, and doesn’t drain the battery as quickly.  You can prevent the unit from switching on by loosening the cap, but then you need two hands to make it operate.
• The output adjustment by twisting the bezel is a little awkward.
• Nylon belt holster it comes with is so tight, and makes drawing so hard, as to be useless.  But pocket carry is a better option with this light anyway.
• Could really use a pocket clip to help facilitate pocket carry.

I’m happy to have tried this, since I find having a flashlight on me to be quite handy, and while I never really missed keeping a 6P on my belt, I did miss the convenience of having a flashlight that I could easily carry around.  Like my Leatherman, it comes in handy quite often.

This case in Florida is a great example of the kind of situation you don’t want to find yourself in, and this is happening in a state with a “stand your ground” law.  Based on what I saw of the reaction to Marko’s post from the other day, I think a lot of folks out there are confused about what a force disparity is, and when you can claim it.

Grandma has a pretty good case claiming a force disparity if she shoots a young adult male who is attacking her.  But a healthy young male is going to have a difficult time claiming a force disparity against another healthy young male even if that other male is larger than you.   When you get into healthy males against healthy males, force disparity is whatever you can convince a jury it is.  This is the situation our Florida friend is going to end up in.  All the “stand your ground” law does is eliminate a duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force, and reduce self-defense to a “preponderance of evidence” standard from a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.   It does not change the fundamental calculus about when deadly force may be used.