Being clueless is hardly an excuse.
We all know that the guns laws in Britain are beyond crazy, but if you can get a shotgun license, Webley & Scott can make you a field cannon.
Proofed for 2lbs of shot over 1/4lb of black powder.
I know you can get cannons in the US, but this would be like one of the major makers producing one. Fun.
This probably isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but here goes.
Starbucks was never really for us or against us. They were selling coffee, and wanted to stay out of politics. So they said “follow the law, and we will respect it.”
Fortunately for us, that was a win for the pro-gun side.
Unfortunately for us, a de facto win was taken as Starbucks trying to place themselves in the middle of a debate, exactly what they were trying to avoid.
So what happened? People started open carrying in large groups, not only handguns, but long guns. Now the antis have something to actively protest. Now Starbucks has active protests, and no matter who’s side you come down on, that isn’t good for business. A small percentage of Americans on both sides feel strongly about gun rights, most of the rest rank it in there somewhere as something maybe they have an opinion about.
Take an issue that I feel that way about, maybe right-to-work. I fully support right to work legislation, but if I walked into a coffee shop and found an active political debate going on, I would probably go find myself another coffee shop. And I feel more strongly about right-to-work than many Americans feel about guns.
A lot of this comes down to what Uncle said: Don’t Scare the White People.
Or Don’t Scare the Suburbanites.
What we have here is a bunch of people that decided that the way to appreciate someone staying out of a debate was to drag them into the middle of it. When Starbucks needed to find a way out of the middle of it, they couldn’t ban the anti’s non-guns. You aren’t going to get very far asking everyone to wear a gun. Can someone explain a better way out of this for Starbucks, other than a change in the wording to the letter, as Sebastian points out? And while I agree that requesting people not display their weapons would be much better, the whole tone of the letter is “take the politics somewhere else.” And I can’t really blame them for that.
Shoving anything in people’s faces generally backfires. This is another instance of that.
Further Reading: The Practical Tactical Podcast
US currency is going through another redesign to make it harder to counterfeit. Sounds great, until you realize that 20 year old bills without all the new features are just as valid, and counterfeiting those hasn’t gotten any harder.
So is it bad to design anti-counterfeiting measures into money? No. But I would be curious what the last few revisions have cost taxpayers, and how effective they have actually been.
I got my start with guns and shooting hunting with my neighbor when I was in my early teens. As time went on, that stopped. Between lack of time and money, and personality clashes with other members of the group, I no longer hunted with them.
I was away from the whole scene for several years, then I got married, had my own place, and started buying guns. I have been wanting to get out hunting again, but that whole time and money thing kept getting me, as well as needing a group to go with. This year, the bug got me good, and I have been working on getting the gear together. I also talked to some friends, and plan to go deer hunting with them.
Last weekend the squirrel season in Wisconsin opened, so I looked at the DNR website for some local public land, found there was a surprising amount open a short drive from the Milwaukee metro area, so I grabbed my shotgun, vest, and squirrel call, and headed out for the woods. I ended up taking one shot at a squirrel, but missed it. Nice walk in the woods with a shotgun, but it was great to be outdoors again, great to be hunting.
In the future, I am planning to work in some hunting content along with the shooting and news content I have had so far.
Caleb asks if the bolt action rifle is a valid weapon for self defense. I have to ask: “how many situations is a rifle is your best option for self defense?” In any concealed carry situation you obviously need a handgun. Arguably a shotgun or handgun is a better option for most home defense scenarios. Rifles are the most likely to over penetrate and hit non-target people, and harder to maneuver and aim than a handgun, and are likely to need more shots than a shotgun.
While a rifle is arguably the most effective individual combat weapon, we are talking self defense, not combat. There are a number of trade-offs between the two uses. Combat situations you sacrifice portability, discreet carry, overpenetration risk, etc. for increased range, body armor penetration, more shots between reloads, and knockdown power. In civilian self defense use, you can easily sacrifice range, since in no reasonable day to day situation are you going to be able to argue that the guy 200 yards away is a threat you need to engage. In home defense, you may get more shots, but you are likely to need more than a shotgun, making it more or less a wash.
There are a couple scenarios I can think of where you are likely to benefit, the big ones being riots and other societal breakdown. In these cases you are likely to have to deal with multiple targets, who may be shooting at you. These are more like a combat scenario, where you really need the higher rate of fire and range.
The one time I thought of reaching for a rifle in a self defense scenario was when there were some armed robbers on the lam close to my house. Even in that scenario, I probably would have been better off with an 870 with an extended magazine, but I didn’t have one.
But back to Caleb’s original question, in those scenarios where I might reach for a rifle, I can’t think of a good reason to reach for a bolt (or lever) gun over my AR in anything that is a self defense situation. All that having been said, bolt and lever action are very popular hunting, and if that’s what you have, the gun you have will be more effective than anything you wish you had when you need it.
We already know that bringing up Hussein is verboden, now we aren’t supposed to call him Obama, either.
I get the idea of using language to try to undermine someone’s position of authority. We watched the liberals do it to Bush for the last 12 years. But I don’t call him Obama out of any disrespect, I call him that BECAUSE IT’S HIS NAME. Same as I did with Bush.
$10.79 at Brownells.
When the whole point of her series of articles was that she was stupid and the law allowed it? Taking her own words, “the experiment was designed to show how easy it is to obtain a gun without being required to know how to use it.”
Before going any further, If someone suggested that she should kill herself, they are in the wrong. Flat out, without a question wrong, and if someone really did that, it’s time for them to do some real soul searching. I also do not support any attempt to reveal the address of gun owners, but remember, the main offenders in this are the anti-gun members of the media who on several occasions have obtained lists of CCW or firearms permits.
Many of the things she did were irresponsible. And the worst part is that she did things she felt were irresponsible. She went with a level of training that she felt was inadequate, because a political point was more important than being responsible.
I am guessing she thinks that’s many people try to skate by on the minimum, but in my experience it is not. I live in Wisconsin, and in the state there are several ways you can fulfill the training requirements, including classes specific to concealed carry, the state DNR’s hunter’s safety program, and proof of military service. I know several people that had the hunter’s safety certificate, but planned to pursue more training before getting a carry permit. If Ms Yewman primary objective was not making a political point, I have little doubt she would obtain the training required to feel confident with her gun.
Many of the things she experienced bear out what I have told people. If you are going to have a gun for self protection you NEED to be able to make the decision beforehand that in a case of self defense, you could take a life. I have wrestled with this, but feel that my responsibility to my wife and those around me is to come home tonight, and if someone is going to try to prevent that, I will respond with the maximum force available to me at the time. If this takes someone’s life, I know it won’t be me who started things, and they decided to gamble their life for whatever gain they were seeking. I pray this day will never come, but if it does, I have come to a decision about it that I can stand before a court, and my God, with.
The weight of responsibility she feels is normal, and most people who carry feel this, as well. It isn’t as empowering as someone who has never carried might think. If you are carrying, you have to have it constantly in mind that any confrontation could end in a deadly force situation. In these cases, even if it is legitimate self defense, you can quite easily find yourself in court, and maybe convicted of something, up to and including murder, if the state feels you started things or acted inappropriately. Because of this, most people that are carrying aren’t belligerent, but on the contrary are often much more careful not to find or give offense than the general public.
One part I really have difficulty even seeing her point of view on is the part about how she sees the world while carrying. I understand becoming more aware of the potential dangers, but I can’t see how a rational person sees that as a bad thing. The dangers didn’t increase because she was carrying, only her awareness of them. More importantly, the dangers don’t decrease because you aren’t thinking about them.
Maybe it’s about the idea that when you are more aware of dangers, you can assume there are dangers in a situation where there are not. Any time you are aware of dangers, you will at times overreact. Ever hit the brakes harder than you need to? Better that then rear-ending someone. While carrying a gun could make an overreaction quite serious, it seldom comes to that point. The vast majority of the overreactions are to avoid a deadly force situation. If you take a couple too many looks at someone, or cross to the other side of the street to avoid someone who’s not a threat, that’s a small price to pay for a little added safety.
She point out that people with guns have been killed in crimes. Yes, a gun is not some sort of talisman that protects you from everything, and I don’t know anyone who claims it is. I do find it interesting that the example she provides is four police officers, evidently in uniform, since they were wearing bullet proof vests. I am willing to be they were the first ones shot, since they were easy to identify as a potential threat to the attacker. That’s one of the biggest benefits of concealed carry: a criminal can’t easily identify the people able to defend themselves.
I would be interested to see what Ms Yewman thinks is adequate training. Mandatory training may sound like a good idea, but what is sufficient? I really don’t want to end up in a situation like Germany, where to get a hunting license you need to pass an exam that requires that ‘You have to learn “butchery,” “veterinary,” “ranger,” “groundsman,” “lawyer,” “gunsmith” and “ballistic.”‘
Bottom line, carrying a gun is a big responsibility. You need to take the time to learn not only the techniques of general self defense and using your weapon, but also the law, and most importantly when not to use your weapon. Most people follow the built in alarm system that lets them know when they not at a point where they can be effective. Ms Yewman’s articles actually prove that: the alarm went off, she silenced it because a political point was more important to her than being responsible.
Thanks to Sebastian for the link to the rest of the articles.
The Antis try to cloud the argument by calling stand your ground laws “Shoot First” or “Shoot the Avon Lady” laws. The only person likely to shoot the Avon Lady is Joe “just fire the shotgun through the door” Biden.
So in the interest of accuracy, here are some more accurate names:
- Don’t have to get backed into a corner laws
- Don’t have to take off running blindly in unfamiliar areas laws
- Don’t have to wonder who’s waiting outside your window when laws
- Don’t run out of every other option laws
Retreat is sometimes a viable option, and a good option if it’s available. If you can easily move back to a lighted area with other people around, it may be the safest way for everyone involved to deescalate a situation. And as the Zimmerman case proves, even if you are eventually cleared, a legal self defense shooting can have a lot of negative consequences. But often in a situation, you don’t have a clear path of retreat, and retreating could make a bad situation worse.
Take the pizza guy in a bad area, especially if he can’t get back to his vehicle. Where is he supposed to run? On a dark night, it’s impossible to know. When the lawyers show the brightly lit pictures take in the daylight, it can seem like he had plenty of options to retreat. But when you are alone there in the dark, who knows where the thug’s buddies are hiding? And how long are you going to take your eyes off an attacker to figure it out?
Frankly, I don’t have a need to kill or capture the bad guys, shoot it out, or do anything but get home safely tonight. That’s why I want all options available. If a situation can be deescalated without shooting, great. That should be our first option. But to have to worry if there was one last avenue for retreat that a lawyer could latch onto to claim that I didn’t need to shoot is ridiculous.
What do you think Stand Your Ground laws should be called? Tell us in the comments.