The Minuteman » Gun Grabbers

Category Archives: Self Defense

Zero Tolerance is Really Zero Brains

By | | , , ,
1 Comment

Via A Girl comes this wonderful bit of idiocy.

A Nebraska preschool is asking a three-year-old deaf boy to change his name because it violates the school board’s weapons policy.

Hunter Spanjer signs his first name by making what looks like shooting gestures with both hands. He crosses his fingers when he does it – a modification to show it’s his proper name.

Think about that.  They are so intolerant of people and cultures they are insisting that a deaf child change his name.  This is what our opponents are like.  They don’t hate guns, they hate us.  They hate our culture, they to destroy it.

Speaking of zero brains was this wonderful individual on twitter today:

image

 

Remember my rant yesterday?  Yup, he was another delusional individual of from that bunch.  How delusional?  You’ll be glad to know that JayG does not have a series on defensive gun uses.  Evidently none of those incidents were justified use of a firearm.  (Remember read bottom up)

image

Note that bottom tweet links to JayG’s DGC.  I then also link to this story about a man defending a police officer with a firearm.  To which he has no reply and starts stating how he wants to make all guns disappear.  Because some how that’s going to stop violent criminals from being violent?

I ask again, why are these people so insistent on disarming and preventing citizens from obtaining arms?  It’s like they need us disarmed so they can more effectively redistribute our wealth without our consent.

I keep trying to restrain this comment but I can’t any more.  After Amy’s comment I think it makes perfect sense.

The reason Beta Males support gun control is because the only way they can effectively attempt to reproduce is by means that would usually result in a case of lead poisoning.

I state the above because often anti-gunners talk as if it is going to be me shooting them.  That I am going to shoot them at any point.  As I have said though, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

If I ever do kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.

The solution to not getting shot by law abiding citizens is simple.  Don’t try and victimize them.  Don’t steal, wrong, defraud, assault, rape, or otherwise attempt to do harm me or my family and my gun is going to stay right in it’s holster where it belongs.  Get it?!

The real kicker though is this bit of PSH:

image

Why I Get Angry…

By | | , , , ,
10 Comments

Recently I had an individual engage me in debate on twitter and he couldn’t understand why I felt like I was being victimized for him saying firearms should be taken from law-abiding citizens.

Today I stumbled across something that put it oh so well. (Emphasis mine).

There is a perception that a gun will turn a sane man, or woman, into a crazed, trigger-happy criminal, or that a gun is a gross over-reaction to the threat of rape. I contend that the gun is a great equalizer. Why do only criminals, police and nut-cases get to have guns? Do we, the potential victims, not get access to these same implements, so that we might properly defend ourselves? In fact, might we have these tools so we no longer have to be victims? Maybe we can take some action in preserving our own safety instead of just staying in well-lit areas and hoping for the best.

The other side of this debate doesn’t seem to understand that they are forcing potential victims to have to be complicit in their own attack.  The arguments are “for the greater good”, often because they think that crime merely exists because of the firearm.  First it assumes that the limitation on access will have an effect on criminal access to arms.  That’s impossible and history in both England and Australia both have proven that. Also it ignores the truth about collective punishment and responsibility.

Further, how do you effectively ban something that can be made from simple materials available at Home Depot and soon will not need much more than the ability to hit print?  What effect does gun control accomplish other than provide methods to prevent the law-abiding from carrying defensive arms?

Honestly, those who support gun control, answer the question, criminals and crazy people can obtain a weapon if they so feel like it, what good do gun laws do?  If someone is intent on killing someone else, they have numerous weapons to substitute even if they cannot get a firearm.  I also love how some people call for “reasonable restrictions on firearms” and then compare it to cars as if they are some how more regulated.

So, let me get this straight:

I could continue but why bother?  The fact is there is law after law that does nothing to stop criminals, but does everything possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining effective arms for their own defense.  The idea that cars are some how more regulated than firearms is false.  While they are “registered” that is done as a tax measure as the vehicle is considered titled property.  Further obtaining a license is simple and easy and it is recognized in all 50 states.  I am required by law to muffle my vehicle, however the law prevents me from muffling my firearms.  My license is recognized in all 50 states without question while my CPL is not.  My vehicle is required to meet a minimum standard of safety requirements, read headlights, tail lights, blinkers, seat belts, but the remainder of the car can be left up to my imagination.  Further if I buy an old car frame, some of the safety requirements are lifted.

The fact is, guns are extremely heavily regulated and it is the law-abiding who is on the short end of the stick.  It is the law-abiding who’s access is restricted.  Think I’m pulling your leg?  Let’s as some members of a gang in Chicago (h/t Sebastian).

Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

“You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

Consider that, with my comments from above.  Then consider how hard it is for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm within the City of Chicago, even post Heller and McDonald.

You can not look at these facts and then tell me with a straight face that gun control has anything to do with “public safety”.  The public is in no way safer disarmed while the criminals are still able to obtain weapons.  You cannot stop them.

So yes, when you go off spouting your mouth about how gun control would help the world, yes I take it personally and yes I will call you on it.  Because the day may come where my wife, my daughter, my son, any of my friends, and lastly even myself may have to call upon my firearm to defend ourselves or our families.  And no one has any business telling me, my family, or my friends what tools we should or shouldn’t be using to defend ourselves.  Firearms and this community do something no other tool or group can.

Most importantly, the act of shooting and owning a gun has a profound impact on the way most women see themselves and the world around them. Shooting a gun is empowering, energizing, stress-relieving and confidence-building. In my experience, women who shoot walk taller and apologize less. They are also sensitive, caring and protective of their loved ones. Women who carry guns have already decided that their lives and their bodies are valuable enough to protect.

To which Mom With A Gun adds the following:

To this I would add only that the above is doubly true if you’ve already been a victim of rape or other violence and you’re trying to reclaim your sense of empowerment, energy, confidence and competence. For twenty years after I was raped, I became meek, submissive, withdrawn, terrified. The worst thing my rapist took from me on that terrible July afternoon was my sense that I was worth defending, that I was worth fighting for. That I was worth the space I took up in the world. That I was anything other than prey.

To which we then look at the comments made by A Girl about this community and the start contrast to our opponents.

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance…

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.

Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.

This is where I belong.

These are my people.

So yes I take it personal, yes I get angry, and yes the mere suggestion is an insult and a disgrace to humanity.  Only a cold-blooded animal would wish real victims to continue suffering after an attack.  We see how each side of this debate treats victims of violence.  One wants to rebuild them, make them stronger, and faster, because we have the technology.  The other side would rather bury their heads in the sand and use the force of government to make everyone else do it too.

*For those who don’t know, a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and pistol grip are actually safety features.

  • A barrel shroud protects the user from burns from the hot metal of the barrel.
  • The collapsible stock allows the weapon to be easily modified to properly fit the shooter, especially handy when you regularly deal with new shooters of different sizes.  The wrong size can result in injury to the face and shoulders.
  • The pistol grip allows disabled shooters to more easily and effectively hold and use a weapon and depending on the disability prevents injury.

Another Compare and Contrast

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on Another Compare and Contrast

via Uncle comes this story.

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer.  Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer.  Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

The other kicker is the following:

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer.  The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

There is also this assessment of the NYPD shooting from the Balloon Goes Up.  If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you do.  Of significance is the behavior of Officer 1 versus Officer 2.  It gets better though because Joe found something I saw a while ago but couldn’t remember where I found it.

A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

Sit back and let that sink and and absorb into your brain.  Remember that one of the arguments against concealed carry is that lawful carriers are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders.  The problem is the facts do not support this and there is a serious reason why.

Sit back for a second and think about your job, odds are your job provides you extra training from time to time relevant to your specific field.  For instance I once or twice a year attend classes specifically on power systems and power protection, paid for by my employer.  I am also regularly evaluated on my performance, including my ability to apply skills as well as learn new ones.  That said, while I do occasionally study power system material on my free time, that is a rare occurrence.  I do often study up on software design, as well as write my own applications.  I went into software and EE because I love the subject, so studying it doesn’t really bug me as it’s something I enjoy… That is until I start getting a headache from trying to follow some of the math.

Many officers however carry a gun because it is a part of the job.  They attend merely the mandatory training and leave it at that.  Luckily for a majority of officers this is not a problem until such time as they require the use of that skill.  Officer Doughnut though doesn’t want to spend his own money and off time practicing a skill with something he doesn’t inherently enjoy.  There is no incentive for him to do that.  Unlike me, where I love to shoot, it is my choice to carry a firearm, and I love learning new skills.  I have no problem spending my own money or time on such an endeavor, many within this culture have no problem with that.

We do have a problem with mandatory training requirements because as a wise man once told me, “You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.”  Officers of the law are no exception to this rule.  Just because they went into law enforcement doesn’t mean they enjoy firearms.

This closing comment from Ron in his article on the Empire State Building shooting I think drives the point home sufficiently well.

But that is the power of video’s like this! It allows us, with a clear head, to review the actions that occurred and learn from them. If you don’t think about how you are going to respond and just think you will rise the occasion, you are wrong.  You will default to your level of training.

The Empire State Building shooting is a chance for us to learn what went wrong and what we need to do better.  On both sides of the fence.

A Compare and Contrast Exercise

By | | , ,
2 Comments

Lets look at exhibit A:

The results?  15 rounds, 9 innocent bystanders wounded.

Exhibit B:

Result, no innocent bystanders shot, 2 perps wounded and found in the hospital.

So can someone please explain to me again why concealed carriers are so dangerous?  Especially given the following information:

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

I really should spend some time aggregating the stats for the number of innocent people shot by officers during an engagement versus the number of innocents shot by a concealed carrier while defending themselves.  I hate spending my time doing that because I already know the answer and I know there was a study on it, my Google fu just can’t find it again.  I have a feeling though it may be buried and I will probably end up doing it.

Intrepid readers, if you find it, please let me know!

Quote of the Day – @JeremyAllan (8/24/2012)

By | | , , , , , ,
3 Comments

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I want her disarmed, yep. I don’t want her to be prey.

@JeremyAllan – Tweet
August 24, 2012

[Those two statements are mutually exclusive and I tried multiple analogies.  He also couldn’t understand how group punishment wouldn’t serve any purpose and is unfair.

That “conversation” on twitter was long and drawn out in the end three things were blatantly obvious.

First he suffers from Peterson Syndrome.  He would gladly have a higher overall crime rate for fewer “gun deaths”.

Second he cannot comprehend that disarming the law-abiding public makes them prey.  To most illustrate this point here was his final tweets:

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc I truly hope you’re never in a position where you would feel the need to use your guns for defense.

@GunFreeZone @barronbarnett @linoge_wotc Because I don’t wish you or any of your loved ones harm. The opposite. Rather, prosperity.

Yet he admits he would prefer my wife who has a physical disability to be disarmed unable to effectively defend herself.  How can you be prosperous when you’re dead because you weren’t able to effectively defend yourself?

This also completely ignores the analogy I made for group punishment for alcohol and holding everyone who drinks responsible for the actions of others.  He dodged the question at first.  Then when he came back around, he said he would give it up if the law told him to.  Except history says that prohibition doesn’t work and any attempts to outlaw “insert noun here” always fail.  His solution was to say that didn’t matter and my argument was invalid.

Lastly he lives in a world of complete denial.  How warped is his denial, I linked to the Harvard study I talked about yesterday.  This was his response:

@barronbarnett @linoge_wotc @dthurstonHarvard is not infallible. This is propaganda.

When presented with facts and evidence, that has been peer-reviewed mind you, his response is to dismiss it as propaganda.  When someone is so ready and willing to dismiss any facts brought before them without a second thought what else is there?

I will add that throughout that entire debate, Linoge, Miguel, and I were the only ones backing our statements with examples and evidence.

All they offered was that guns should be banned and that would solve the problem.  What they don’t realize is that option has been examined, and the conclusions have been proven false, and the adults in the room have moved on in the conversation.  Their solution is to bring new people to the debate to scream for the same old thing as if some how doing it again, this time only harder will work.

I have some bad news to our opponents though.  No matter how badly you outlaw guns, people will have them.  Especially when it’s as easy as pressing the print button.  The debate is over, we’re merely still here because you’re currently grieving. -B]

In Which I Think We All Know Why

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on In Which I Think We All Know Why

Given the following incident, I think the answer as to why his roommates did not renew his lease becomes obvious.

When he came to collect his belongings on Saturday night, the two residents were escorting Simpson out of the house when Simpson grabbed a shotgun, racked it, and pointed it at them. The residents ran to the back of the house and called Pullman Police Department.

I wasn’t kidding when I said this was a lively time of year for little old Pullman.  Though this year so far has been considerably more lively on the firearm front than usual.  Now I don’t have specifics but I know it’s safe to say that pointing a shotgun at someone is against the law.

I have a feeling there is more behind the scenes here, however the answer is not to the shotgun.  Incidents like this though are what our opponents grab and latch onto as a reason why college students should not have firearms.  Many students, as well as employees are disarmed by the schools policies yet things like this still occur.  Yet this incident occurred only a half mile from the last incident.  Not to mention that students have been attacked walking home after class through these neighborhoods.  It’s as if all those policies and laws don’t really do anything except prevent responsible law-abiding people from having or carrying arms legally*.

So I would like to stand up, applaud, and thank this moron, James Simpson, for supplying ammunition to the enemy and furthering their goals to keep their honest law-abiding fellow students disarmed to be easy prey.

*After VT,  I know for a fact that there was a decent number of people who started carrying against school policy to class.  They did so after they discovered there was no real legal bite to the policy.  At worst they could be expelled if caught and the individuals felt, “Concealed means Concealed” and if they need it expulsion is the least of their worries at that time.

Doubly interesting is a good chunk of those who carried were engineering students.

Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes

Honestly I don’t weep or feel sorry for the kids involved in this:

A boy, who was a passenger in the carjacked vehicle, was pronounced dead at the scene.  The other three juvenile occupants in the vehicle were apprehended at the scene by Irvington officers.  They were a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old and a 17-year old.

Except it goes from bad to all around unpossible.

Police say they found a weapon in the carjacked vehicle.

Underage minors can’t legally have a firearm.  Carjacking is against the law as well.  So is threatening someone with a weapon.  Why didn’t the law stop them?

It’s almost as if the law is merely a tool to punish bad behavior.  Nah, that couldn’t be it because the anti-rights cultists keep insisting laws help prevent and stop violence.  Never mind the fact they merely provide a method of punishment.

Bummer for the car owner that probably now has a totaled Jaguar.  It’s a good thing that NYC is so restrictive on their distribution of Concealed Pistol Licenses as well.  That car owner could have effectively defended his life and property from those kids wielding an illegal weapon.  It’s a good thing someone else made the decision for that car owner to disarm him.*

*If you can’t tell, I’m being  sarcastic the fact is it is not the states job or role to tell be how they should be defending themselves and their property.  The state carries no liability when you’re shot by a carjacker so what right do they have to sit in the back and force you to be shot?

The Plot Thickens – Unpossible I Tell You!

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

So last Friday I made a post regarding an incident of an unpossible nature.  Well today the plot thickened!

A man was arrested Thursday morning in Pullman for assault in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm.

For those who aren’t aware, here is the beginning of RCW 9.41.040:

(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

It continues on this way throughout the entire law.  This is basically the state equivalent of “felon in possession” and would be listed as prohibited by the state of Washington.

So it begs the question where did he get the weapon?  Not that it really matters because it is yet another nail in the coffin of “laws controlling criminals.”  The fact is criminals don’t care about the law, it is only the law abiding that actually pay attention.

So here’s the skinny, we have a college bar, next to a college campus that forbids concealed carry.  When I say next to, we’re talking a block from the WSU Presidents house, 2 blocks from the WSU Campus Police station and the main bust stop for campus, 2 blocks from numerous on campus dorms, and centered smack dab in the middle of Greek housing.  The state forbids carrying firearms into bars, as well as being intoxicated while carrying a weapon.  Lastly this individual was a prohibited person under Washington State law.

Tell me, what in the name of god would another law have actually done in this instance?  All those laws have effectively done is ensure that any responsible person that would be in that area would be disarmed and lacking the most effective tools when criminals don’t bother to play by the rules.

That’s right, not a damn thing.

(Misc Rant/Story/Joke)

As an FYI, that area on campus is by no means my favorite.  I had friends that went to many of the bars in the area but for the most part I just went to friends places when they had parties.  The reason being is because one should avoid dangerous situations and those bars are exactly that.  When I spent some time with Pullman PD and did a couple ride-alongs I found out how bad that little part of campus really is.  There are numerous people who hang around the area to prey upon people leaving the bars.  Now I’m going to leave the user to apply the term prey how they would like because it applies to both genders.  Assault is the main issue, but other incidents abound as well.

About the only way I’d go in those dives is with a bunch of buddies from back in the unit, mainly two particular Sergeants come to mind.  One of whom is the only man that has ever really intimidated me.  That man made our Gunny look like a baby and that’s just not right!  The other one got kicked out of Burma while he was a Embassy Guard.  Yeah, I had some awesome friends going through my college career.

Though me and some other friends did think it would be funny to come out of some of the college hill bars acting drunk and kick their ass.  We just realized it would be pretty hard to explain it all away after.

Cop: So why were you all at the bar?

Us: Because the food is that awesome!

Cop: This is a campus bar, wanna try that again?

Because: We were studying human physiology?

Cop: You’re all stone sober yet everyone said it looked as if you were drunk as you all left?  They also said you left one by one headed in the same direction with regular spacing, why?

Us: Well we wanted to blend in!

Cop: Why?

Us: Umm, would you believe us if we said so you’d follow us instead of our drunk buddies driving away?

Cop:Wanna try again?  Besides, you were all armed in different manners as to remain legal, why?

Us: Because we were playing a game!

Cop: And what game is that?

Us: Induced Victim Selection Failure

Cop: What the hell is that?

Us: It’s where you try and get a wolf to go after a sheep-dog thinking it’s a sheep.

Cop: What happens to the wolf when he bites?

Us: Well that’s his own damn fault, should have just stayed his ass out of the kitchen if he can’t take the heat!  All he had to do was let us walk on by!

Yeah, I don’t think I would have been able to stay out of a jail cell if we tried that.  I have a feeling it would be treated as hunting over bait.  Not to say it wouldn’t have been worth it.*

*As an extra note, these assaults were done predominately by 3 to 4 individuals with one person leading the attack.  As one group leaves Pullman another one usually fills its place.  Seriously the group could be considered along the misfits from A Clockwork Orange and for that reason if we did it, I wouldn’t have shed a tear.  Again, that wouldn’t have been good for my court appearance.