Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

… now in Dolby surround.

Joe Huffman takes an excerpt from a book on the topic.  Surprising, or perhaps not surprising, nothing seems to beat a shotgun loaded with 00 buck for dropping a grizzly, but rule number one seems to be the first rule of gunfighting: have a gun.

Brillianter has more, and I think he makes one very good point:

Ultimately I see a lot of people painting themselves into a corner where they are going to have to pull the trigger in order to have any self defense response. I hear a lot of talk in training circles about “lethal force options.” Lethal force is not optional, it’s mandatory. If I had a choice to make I would choose something other than shooting. Lethal force is what happens when all those options are taken away. If I am not facing a deadly force threat then shooting isn’t even an option.

Read the whole thing.  When I carried pepper spray, back when I spent more time in Philadelphia, I always found the cylinders to be cumbersome.  They are tough to grab out of a pocket and get into action, and they are rather obnoxiously conspicuous on a belt.  You can only carry so much before you just look ridiculous.

But as much as I wish someone made a pepper spray in a package as compact and pocket friendly as, say, a Kel-Tec P3AT, they seem to make spray these days with clips on it just like they do with pocket knives.

Brillianter looked at the results of his private citizen survey, and was surprised more people aren’t carrying defensive sprays.  He makes a case for it.  When I was spending more time in Philadelphia, and more likely to run into drunk assholes than I typically am in the burbs, I carried OC.  Once I talked to someone who was on a grand jury over in New Jersey, who deadlocked over the issue of “Why did the nice police officer shoot the guy with a knife when he could have used pepper spray?”  Ultimately they ended up no billing him, but a several folks on the jury were not happy about it, but it was the law, and the guy I talked to ultimately blamed the training that teaches officers to shoot people charging at them with knives.  Apparently he expected kung-fu moves with the officers night stick, and thinks pepper spray drops a deadly threat as reliably as a pistol.  I figured I didn’t want to end up in a similar situation, so I solved the problem by not carrying a spray.

I think Brillianter makes a good case.  You’re a lot more likely to end up facing a non-lethal force situation than you are a lethal force situation, so it makes sense to carry a spray.

Tam has some sage advice.

1010AM in New York is reporting that New York City will be put in danger by Wyoming’s weak gun laws if Congress passes national reciprocity.  Considering New York City has a violent crime rate roughly three times that of Cheyenne, I don’t think New Yorkers get to lecture Wyomians on what constitutes sound public safety measures.

Brillianter wants to know what you’re carrying on you.  Well, that depends, but I went and gave my typical equipment.  Kel-Tec P3AT, Glock 19, Leatherman, and a SOG Aegis.  Sometimes a SureFire 6P.

It’s amazing that the debate is still thick in Tennessee over a provision that essentially just makes it more like most other states in terms of being able to carry a firearms into a restaurant.  But why the hysterics from businesses about people being able to carry guns into their establishments when all they have to do is post in order to stop it?  Why the hysterics about needing an “opt-in” type system rather than an “opt-out” type system.

Because the restaurants are quite happy to pass that buck to the state.  What restaurants are worried about is signaling.  By putting up a sign saying guns are prohibited, you’re sending a signal to potential customers that this is the kind of establishment that has to prohibit people from carrying firearms.  It can imply that perhaps there have been incidents in the past which could have prompted the sign.  Restaurants have a fairly powerful signaling incentive not to post a sign prohibiting firearms.  That’s why they are moaning so loudly for an opt-in system, since it puts the signaling burden on the parties that wish to allow firearms.

Ironically, I think the best course forward for the restaurants once they lose the legislative issue, would probably be to do nothing, since the more press attention this gets, the more you’re signaling to customers that restaurants are the types of places people might want to carry a gun.  You’re also signaling to those afraid of guns that restaurants are now places people can have guns.  Even though that might be true just about anywhere else you go, most people don’t understand the law, or understand the issue.

But the restaurant associations are actually pretty powerful, since most every representative will have a number of restaurateurs in his or her district, and they are interacting with their constituents on a regular basis.  The power of the restaurant associations are the reason many of these restrictions exist at all.

When it comes to gun laws, it might as well be a Northeastern state.  But California still has very western laws on self-defense.  My understanding is that castle doctrine is largely already law there.  That’s why in cases like this, I would expect the defenders to walk.  But as the article mentions, a lot depends on your jury pool.  California may have better self-defense laws than Pennsylvania does, but I’d much rather face a jury in Carbon County Pennsylvania, than an Alameda County jury in California.

Looks like Arizona is starting to mirror Tennessee in hysterics over restaurant carry.