Call me Ahab

posted by Caleb on Jul 3

I normally wouldn’t post this kind of stuff because I think it only provides fodder for the “Kill Hadji” folks, but this time it’s an actual news article instead of some crazy guy rambling about terrorists coming out the closet to put the butthurt on you. (h/t sebastian)

IN a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he’ll return in the evening.

Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the “infidel” and Muslim collaborators.

I agree with a number of commentators that any attempts to try and implement this strategy in certain parts of the United States would likely be met with a violent response from the citizens - the problem is that the likely government reaction would be to try and disarm the very citizens defending their lives against terrorist action.

posted by Caleb on Jun 24

Armed citizen stops bank robbery, June 18th.

The robber demanded a stack of larger bills instead and moved both hands to the window to collect the cash. Within seconds, Fawzi drew his handgun, racked a round in the chamber and told the man that he wasn’t robbing the bank.

I am not going to Monday-morning quarterback the guy’s tactics - those aren’t the issue.  What I want to highlight is another instance of a law-abiding gun owner legally using his firearm to stop the commission of a felony crime, and acting in the defense of other citizens.

posted by Caleb on Jun 12

These idiot teenagers are extremely lucky that none of them got killed.

Sheriff Dan Watts said the man heard noise in his backyard and went outside with a flash light and a gun. Several Ely teenagers who had been trespassing on the man’s property got into a vehicle and one of them shot him in the eye with a paintball gun as the car drove away. Watts said the man thought he had been shot with a real gun and returned fire striking the car but not injuring any of the occupants.

…

The man who was shot with the paintball has a detached retina and it was not known Monday afternoon if he would lose sight in one eye, according to Watts.

So, these stupid kids decide that it would be awesome lulz if they went around shooting people up with a paintball gun, and then they shoot a cop in the eye who rightfully fearing for his life, returned fire.  He did not hit any of the kids because he had been shot in the eye with a .69 caliber paintball and could lose sight in one of his eyes.

Personally, I hope they do file charges against these idiots.  Felony charges, give ‘em the book for assaulting a police officer - and yes, before you complain that I’m only saying this because it was a cop, I’d be just as pissed if it was anyone else that could be permanently maimed because of stupid teenagers.

The other lesson incumbent in this is don’t shoot people with toy guns.  Having been shot with paintballs before, I can vouch that it’s an unpleasant experience if you’re not wearing protective gear - I can honestly say that in similar circumstances I would have likely shot back as well.

h/t Unclesaurus

posted by Caleb on Jun 10

Read about it at NRA-ILA:

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland today signed the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed “Castle Doctrine” legislation into law to expand the self-defense rights of law-abiding citizens. SB 184, sponsored by State Senator Steve Buehrer (R-1), protects the rights of innocent victims to defend themselves from criminal attack while expanding the rights of concealed-carry permit holders.

Good for him - it’s nice that my next door neighbor in Ohio (full of good peoples like Breda) have had their right to self-defense further protected by law.

posted by Caleb on Jun 10

Recently, my beloved state of Indiana has experienced some pretty dramatic flooding, as well as mass power outages and a loss of emergency services in several areas.  Thankfully, despite me repeatedly tempting fate with my giant trees in the backyard, my house has so far been spared any damage (knock on wood).

Oddly enough, during all the catastrophe, a co-worker and I were talking about (of course) why I own firearms.  The recent flooding, power outages and accompanying loss of emergency services in some areas serve as a stark example of why I choose to own firearms, as well as keep a decent supply of food on hand.  Yesterday, the word was that Indianapolis Metro PD was having to patrol some areas in Hummvees, because the water was so high that they couldn’t reach the affected areas in their regular patrol cars.

Now, to the credit of Hoosiers, we haven’t descended into looting and pillaging areas where the power is out and services are down; in fact there has been a very strong and concerted effort amongst residents to work together to make sure that everyone is cared for.  But imagine for a second that you’re in a bad neighborhood, the power’s out and flooding has made your area inaccessible to the police and fire departments.  You’re fine, you have food, fuel and a generator enough to last for a week or so, but some other people aren’t.  In this situation, you’re on your own.  If someone decides they want to take your food or your fuel, the police can’t get to you to do anything about it - is it any wonder that I’d want to have a firearm to defend myself and my family?

You’d probably argue that the above is a hypothetical scenario, and you’d be right.  But it’s not a far-fetched scenario either for a lot of people; it doesn’t take much for flooding to get to a point where cars “just don’t go” any more, and it’s certainly not a hypothetical situation for people who lived through the looting in the aftermath of Katrina.

My bottom line remains where it has always been, I keep firearms because I believe that I am personally responsible for my safety and the safety of my family - despite my LE/Military background, I don’t believe that it’s the police, military, or anyone’s job to help me when I’m up the creek.

posted by Caleb on Jun 2

Apparently, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie keep firearms in their home for defense.

Angelina - who is pregnant with twins - said: “If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them. “I bought original, real guns of the type I used in ‘Tomb Raider’ for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. I’d be able to use it if I had to.”

Well, good for them. I imagine that she probably has an easier time getting her horse pistols HK USPs serviced than the average person does, since I think that HK hates you less when you’re richer than some small nations.

Aside: I feel dirty blogging about celebrities, even when it’s relevant to my normal subject matter.

posted by Caleb on May 29

Crazy guy goes into bar intent on murdering a crapload of people - there is an armed man with a carry permit in the bar as well.

Predictably, a massive gunbattle with dozens of wounded bystanders ensued the bad guy shot a couple of people before the permit holder drilled him. Two innocent people were shot by the badguy, and then the shooter was put down by the guy with the carry permit.

What’s interesting to note is that the criminal shooter was shot while he was reloading - he had the intention and means to continue shooting and possibly kill/wound more people in the bar, but instead someone who was there and carrying ended the threat.

So as a quick review:

1. No bystanders shot by guy with CCW permit
2. No raging gunbattle spilling into the streets
3. The police were pretty easily able to distinguish the good guy from the bad guy (hint: the bad guy was the dead one)
4. The good guy had a gun in a bar, which according to the Brady Bunch is a surefire way to kill dozens and dozens of innocent people.

Honestly, this is pretty self-explanatory, I’m also amused by what amounts to a total lack of media coverage on this. Imagine if the CCW holder hadn’t been there, and the shooter had killed four or five more people; this story would be leading the news.

Unc keeps a list of all the times that armed citizens have been on hand to stop violent mass shooters before they turned into mass shooters - while anecdotes != data, it is very handy to be able to refer to actual incidents whenever someone on the anti-gun side brings up Columbine or VA Tech.

The other interesting item related to the shooting is the amount of hysterics that it’s introduced amongst a small set of people. Robb has a fantastic post up on debunking the op-ed about how the CCW holder should have tackled the guy or whacked him with a beer bottle. He quite accurately points out that life is not a movie, and people are rarely knocked unconscious with a beer bottle to the head.

Firearms in the hands of private citizens save lives - I am a big supporter of police, but the reality of the situation is that it would have taken them some time before they arrived at the bar where the shooting took place, and in that time more lives would have been lost.

The difference between pro and anti-gun factions is actually kind of subtle in situations like this, because anti gun people still want to be protected by a brave person with a firearm; the difference is that you or I believe that person can be Joe Everyman, and the anti-gun people want him or her to have a badge.

posted by Caleb on May 17

A “man with a rifle” started shooting outside of a Catholic church in California today, however before he was able to kill anyone (one wounded person is in critical condition, but not dead) he was stopped by civilians.

The suspect was reloading his weapon when he was tackled by several witnesses who were volunteers at the festival.

Bravo to the citizens who went after this guy - it’s an excellent demonstration of what actions to take when you’re confronted by a person obviously bent on doing harm: fight.  Do not “give them what they want”, you fight back.

The one way I can think of that would improve my reaction to this story would be if it had happened somewhere that allows people to carry firearms, and after the first shot the “gunman” had been cut down in a fusillade of gunfire from law-abiding citizens with carry permits.  But today I’ll settle for tackling.

posted by Caleb on May 13

I mentioned yesterday that I had picked up a Beretta 950 Jetfire from Gander Mountain, it’s a little pocket sized .25 ACP. Beretta has been making pocket pistols in .25 ACP since the early 1900s, in fact, I have one of their early 1919 models - sort of the great grandfather to the Beretta 950.

The Beretta 950 is a single action, semi-automatic magazine fed pistol; like most pocket guns it’s blowback operated. Because it’s chambered for .25 ACP, it lacks an extractor, although the Beretta style open slide usually allows for positive ejection of spent cases. While pre-1968 models lack an external safety, mine does the safety which allows me to carry the little pistol cocked-and-locked.

Of course, you want pictures. Click for a fullsize picture.

With the pocket holster, it just drops right into a jeans or trouser pocket, and can basically go anywhere that there aren’t metal detectors or pat searches. Sure, the .25 ACP isn’t a manly super-blaster of a cartridge, but when I can’t carry the 9mm or the .45, it certainly beats going around unarmed. Sort of by way of compensation for the tiny, tiny bullets, the 950 does have an eight round magazine, plus one round in the tip-up barrel/chamber - giving you nine rounds of .25 ACP.

The biggest appeal of this gun to me, aside from the fact that it says “Beretta” on the gun, is that it really is a spectacular deep concealment piece in terms of ease of carry. I’ve never made any bones about the fact that I’m a small of stature, and being able to be carrying a 9 round pistol plus an 8 round reload without even a hint of a “print” is a nice feeling.

posted by Caleb on May 6

All the anti-gun crowd is saying that we don’t need to have firearms in National Parks as a reaction to the proposed rule change by the Department of the Interior.  Because parks are a safe place, where there are no wild animals that would happily kill and eat you.  And we certainly don’t have a problem with coyotes attacking people.  Except that coyote attacks are on the rise; for example in California a nanny had to save a 14 month old baby from a coyote.

The girl was playing Friday in a sandbox at Alterra Park in Chino Hills in San Bernardino County. Around 10:30 a.m., the caretaker heard screaming and saw a coyote trying to carry the child off in its mouth, officials said.

While this incident did not occur in a National Park, it aptly demonstrates the primary reason that people would want to arm themselves in said parks - defense from wild animals.  A coyote is relatively small, but I certainly wouldn’t want to go backpacking in an area with mountain lions, wolves, and bears without some form of personal protection that was more potent than “bear mace”.  Which reminds of a joke that I often use to illustrate the need for firearms in national parks:

A hiker is asking a park ranger about what he should do to stay safe from bears in Alaska.  The ranger says “Well, some people wear bells to scare the bears off, and other people carry ‘bear pepper-spray’, but the best thing to do is to avoid the bear entirely.”

The hiker asks how you know if there are bears around, and the ranger replies by telling him that you can tell a bear by it’s feces.  Confused, the hiker asks how to identify bear feces, and the ranger smiles and says “It smells like pepper and has bells in it.”

Now, that’s obviously a joke, but I could point to hundreds of stories of bear attacks, coyote attacks, and even one or two mountain lion attacks to factually illustrate the point.  Note that I’m also not even bringing up defense from bipedal predators, which are dangerous in their own right.