So, how’s that gun control working for ya?

In London, where gun control is in effect, a gunman shot a bunch of unarmed citizens.

A taxi driver described as quiet but friendly went on a shooting spree across a picturesque rural area of northwestern England on Wednesday, killing at least five people and wounding 25 others before apparently turning the gun on himself, officials said.

The rampage, in a region famed for its tranquil beauty, shocked a country where handguns are banned and multiple shootings rare — it was Britain’s deadliest mass shooting since 1996.

And people wonder why we gun owners in America prefer to stay armed. Being able to shoot back is preferable to being placed in a box.


Another instance of concealed carry for the win!

An off duty police officer was shopping with his girlfriend when a man opened fire in a cellular phone store.

Moore was off-duty and shopping with his girlfriend in the Commercial Drive store Thursday when 79-year-old Abraham Dickan entered and opened fire on the employees.

Moore used his personal gun to return fire, killing him, police said.

I love how it was his personal firearm that was used and he was out shopping. Only one person was struck by the attacker. After seeing this earlier today I just had to laugh:

Posted by Coran T at 6/1/2010 11:14 a.m.

You know Malichite, 

thats kind of the point. We as a society shouldn’t have to feel the need to carry all the time every where. I don’t begrudge anyone that choses to, but I myself (an avid gun owner) feel that stores are the last place that I need to carry one. You are right, no one knows when and where, but to carry one into Lowes, and then should Thug Joe walk in waving his around, I doubt I or anyone else would have the presence of mind and the requisite training to take him down without endangering others around us. And I can assure I have had extensive training in firearms use, but that was a different setting, not a local store. Lowes is not a controlled gun range, nor is it a competition urban range either. Those are controlled areas where everyone that could be harmed are moved into secure areas up range. This is a live area, with real bullets coming at you as well as yours going at them and anyone near them. So to walk into a store expecting to take the bad guy out in a grand display of heroism, is foolish at best for even the most avid of shooters. Another thing to take into account is that this is not a war zone. There are consequences for collateral damage here. This wasn’t some burned out hovel in the streets of Fallujah. This is an American store populated and operated by Americans, just like you and me. And when a bullet goes astray or off target because you squeezed one off while taking cover has far more dire consequences than taking out a Islamic extremist in Baghdad. So in short I would have to disagree with you on principal here. Disarming idiot thugs in this setting should be left to the professionals and not the weekend warriors with a penchant for Dirty Harry movies.

The whole incident was ended with only one innocent injured because someone was carrying a firearm while shopping. Very few people I spend significant time around do not carry. Those that do carry firearms all state the same reason for carrying everywhere, even for a trip down to the corner store, “It can happen anytime and anywhere and it benefits no one to be disarmed by choice.” Being an unarmed victim is a choice that can easily result in your death. My goal is self preservation of myself and those around me, if you see something wrong with that might I suggest seeking professional help. There are those who truly live by the scout motto, and those that just pay lip service. Guess where I live.

Also the comments regarding proper training are a joke. You have officers that screw up so badly they kill a 7 year old girl. Most officers only have to qualify twice a year and even then it’s a minimal course. I shoot more rounds a year than three average officers in Pullman PD combined. There are also many instances of civilian response with 0 innocent casualties due to civilian responders. If you don’t want to carry a weapon that’s fine. Don’t be bigoted towards those who are willing to do the job because you’re too cowardly to handle the responsibility.

Rules one must live by

You must always treat any firearm as if it was loaded, as such when someone shows a firearm it is presumed to be loaded. Just because you’re waving around an unloaded firearm doesn’t mean anyone else knows it’s unloaded.

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine told Action 3 News that 18-year-old Marquail Thomas had no shells in his shotgun, but may have been aiming at customer Harry McCullough when he was shot.

This is yet another example of people who don’t have proper firearms training passing judgment. There is not a gigantic neon arrow pointing to the gun that says “Unloaded”. The presumption is that every firearm is loaded, even when you know otherwise. Hind sight is always 20-20, just because more comes to light doesn’t mean it was a bad decision. The judgment of the decision must be made within the context of the information available at the time. Interview

So I got an email yesterday morning asking if I was willing to be the blogger of the month for I responded with a sure, why not. I’m not exactly sure why they chose me over so many other blogs out there, but it’s not as if I’ll refuse.

I did the interview last night and here it is. Enjoy.

“Green Economy”

So I was searching around catching up on recent events and stumbled across an article from The University of Washington. Evidently the college Republicans and Democrats had their debate recently.

I was skimming through the article, it had the standard boiler plate arguments about “cap and trade” and concealed carry on campus. What caused the sudden in-depth review of the article is the following line:

‘”A green economy doesn’t have to be a successful one,” Rigsby said’

Did you just say what I think you said? We need to legally mandate an economy that will be unsuccessful. Obviously you’re a little short of brain cells. If our economy stops being successful everything is going to come to a crashing halt. Here’s a question, if the economy structure is going to be unsuccessful, why will anyone invest money in it, including China which is paying for the bailout and Obama-Care? This includes both private and government investors. The goal is to make money; if something is uneconomically viable something has to change. You can NOT legislate that change, though you can try to provide incentives.

I just find the above statement as the prime example why I think government should be extremely limited. Often those in power are not faced with the immediate and harsh consequences of their decisions. What’s worse is when their idea fails; they insist that the failure is the result of some outside influence that needs to be fixed.

A prime example of this is the gun-control debate. Chicago has one of the highest homicide rates in the country as well as the most strict gun control measures. The problem according to Daley and the bigots though is not that gun-control doesn’t work; it is that guns are brought from the outside. Now the powers that be would like to bring in the National Guard to help fight the crime wave. Evidently Chicago’s finest is not enough and they think that deploying the soldiers will somehow curb crime.

Here is a solid lesson in how things work. Police are there to enforce the laws and punish those who break the law. Note I did not say prevent. It is the duty of the civilian population to prevent crime. This is done by making the criminal environment an unsafe one. Why is Chicago’s homicide rate so high? It is because the environment for criminals is safe. A law abiding citizen cannot protect themselves without breaking the law themselves.

Gun control doesn’t have to be successful about controlling crime, just in controlling the slaves.

This one time at band camp!

I saw this earlier today and just couldn’t stop laughing.

QUARTZ HILL, Calif. (AP) – Don’t mess with the marching band. That’s what California authorities are saying after a 17-year-old girl used her marching band baton to beat back two would-be muggers.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s Deputy Michael Rust says the Quartz Hill girl was walking to school April 24 when two men approached her from behind, tried to grab her coat and demanded money.

Instead, one got a punch in the nose and the other a kick to the groin. Rust says the girl then beat both of them with her band baton before she ran away.

The men had not been caught. But Rust says there’s a clear message to take from the encounter:

“The moral to this story is don’t mess with the marching band girls, or you just might get what you deserve. Final score: marching band 2, thugs 0.”


All I can add to that is it’s a bummer that they’re not dead. On the upside, one might well be removed from the gene pool… Well at least one can only hope. For those who don’t know, I married a band geek.

The Bullet Counters and Self Defense

Thomas Sowell is an economist and excellent writer who frequently writes articles that are aligned with my view of the world. He recently wrote an excellent article on self-defense and the media repose. What really caught my attention was the following:

“People who are full of excuses for criminals– bad childhood, unemployment, unfair world– sit in the safety and comfort of their editorial offices and presume policemen to be guilty until proved innocent. And they concoct clever headlines about killing an “unarmed” person, as if someone trying to run you over with a car poses no danger.”

In a previous article I wrote about someone who charged the police with a pellet gun. In that case the media statement was to point out that it was a pellet gun in the title, but ignore the fact is was manufactured to look real. There was a response from the community based on 20/20 hindsight. Again something Mr. Sowell points out strikes me:

“Such people seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition, that there are times when decisions have to be made and acted upon immediately, whether or not we know as much as we would like to know or can carry out our decisions as perfectly as we wish we could.”

There is a reason it is called 20/20 hindsight. Often you learn and discover things after the fact that would have altered your actions and resulted in a different outcome. My problem is the same as Mr. Sowell’s; these people often speak without any knowledge of the subject, and refuse to be educated even though they realize they have no understanding. Often we have to act upon assumptions based on the data available. Often however you gain more data that charges the assumptions, however when this happens after the decision is made, only the information leading to it should matter.

For instance if someone breaks into my house in-the middle of the night I assume him to be armed. Here’s why: small cramped space with a single entry/exit. This makes the assumption he is armed because I have no way to retreat, and due to the cramped space I will have little reaction time. If he does what I tell him when I tell him, I will have no reason to shoot; if however I cannot see his hands and he doesn’t cooperate I must shoot because I have no other option to ensure my wife’s safety and my own. Because of the situation, a 20/20 scenario is likely, however if I don’t react I could easily end up dead. To those that think dead is an option, it is not, he came in my house and I am the one guaranteed to leave under my own power.

I used the above merely as an aid in illustrating how decisions must often be made by assumptions and not just pure data.


Fish in a Barrel

So I woke up this morning to the news that Washington State University is now providing classes on what to do if an armed gunman comes on campus. It is to “educate students when to hide and when to flee.”

For those who don’t know me or the way my brain functions, this is what I heard; “when to be shot cowering in the corner, and when to be shot in the back.” My immediate response was to yell at the radio, “what about how and when to shoot back!?” The school has now all but blatantly admitted that they cannot prevent an armed person with criminal intent from coming on campus. Yet they still insist on disarming law abiding citizens with permits that carry every day. There is no magic line one crosses that makes a gun act on its own, much less makes the owner a crazed maniac. A firearm is a tool, and just like any other it by itself presents absolutely no threat. In this case it presents an equalizer that scares many who do not have the will or want to protect themselves. There is no negotiating with someone who wants you dead. I know many who carry every day, I have been to numerous events where people carry, and I have never seen an incident of violence.

My response to those who say you’re increasing your chances of something happening, I believe a buddy of mine said it best, “Well if you own a toaster you’re much more likely to be attacked by said toaster.” The possibility of being injured by accidental discharge is less than you dying by a heart attack or being struck by lightning. Stop forcing people to be victims for the sake of people’s dissolutions in security. Allow licensed permit holders the right to carry on campus.

I would like to thank and point out both of those images are by Oleg Volk.