72yr Old Businessman Shoots 4 Robbers

This is another good one. A 72 year old businessman sees one of his employees being pistol whipped by the 4 armed robbers that were in his store. He opens fire with a 12 gauge pistol grip shotgun and hits all 4 of the bad guys. Sadly, it looks like two of them might survive.

Here's a frustrating pair of quotes from the story:

Augusto told cops he bought his shotgun after a robbery nearly 30 years ago. Browne said it was unclear Thursday night if Augusto has a license for the weapon.

A police source said that if Augusto is hit with a charge, it will be a minor one. "It doesn't look too bad for him," the source said.

The guy stops an armed robbery, saves an employee from a life threatening beating and reduces the criminal population by two, yet they have to end the story with thoughts of him possibly facing some sort of criminal charge. This guy should get a marksmanship award from the NRA and a good citizenship medal from the mayor. If they decide to charge him with something, I hope the neighborhood drums the district attorney out of office.

(As always, clicking on the title link will take you to the full story.)

UPDATE:
Here's a link to the NY Times version of the story with a few more details.

Woman Beats Armed Home Invaders with Can of Peas

The title link is to a story about a Toledo woman who used some common sense survival instincts, ordinary household items and good preparation to triumph over home invaders. Per the article and the associated video interview, the woman heard a knock on her at 5:30AM. She thought it may have been her brother, so she opened the door and was attacked by two masked men, at least one which had a gun. One of the men pointed a gun at her and started pulling the trigger and for some reason the gun didn't fire. He then started beating her head and face with the gun. Fortunately for her, she had answered the door while holding her improvised home defense weapon, a long heavy sock with a can of peas at the bottom of it. She fought back and beat one of the attackers so badly that he was taken to the hospital in critical condition. Let's hope he doesn't pull through.

Let this story be a lesson to everyone. With a bit of thought, many common household objects can easily be transformed into effective and potentially deadly self defense tools. This woman said she stashed several of these sock and can flails around her house in case of emergency. When you use the sock to swing around a heavy object, the speed of the swing adds tremendous momentum and can deliver enough power to break bones. Even a large handful of change in a sock can be dangerous. For those afraid, unwilling or legally unable to keep a firearm for self defense, remember that you can still arm yourself in other ways. If someone starts pounding on your door at odd hours, having a weapon at hand when you answer the door could save your life.

Although I found it quite uplifting that this woman had the foresight and courage to fight back, there was one sad spot in the article. Here's a quote from a neighbor who witnessed the attack:

"Very scared. So scared that I thought I was going to die because I thought they were going to come to my place and kill me because I had my head out peaking [sic] out"

I find it disheartening that someone could witness this sort of brutal attack and do nothing more than "peek out". If people were quick to protect each other and fought back against crime more often there would be a lot less of it. Grab a chair, a wine bottle or a hammer and bash the attacker's head in while he is occupied with beating his victim. Stab them a dozen times with a kitchen knife. Come up behind them and kick them in the groin or knee as hard as you possibly can. Don't just "peek". Fear is never a valid excuse for not doing the right thing. I can somewhat understand not getting involved in a fair fight between two strangers when there is no obvious "bad guy" and "victim", but when you see two guys with ski masks bashing their way into your neighbor's home there is no doubt about who needs to be stopped. If a witness does nothing to help a victim they are partly responsible for whatever happens to the victim.

Stop AB 962, The Bill That Could Kill

In the never ending war against liberty, California is considering passing a bill that would likely result in accidental shooting deaths and injuries. The bill would prevent handgun owners from practicing sufficiently to maintain their skills. If a gun owner is forced to use a firearm in self defense, society at large will be much safer if that person has recently been target shooting and is not fumbling around incompetently. Regular practice can mean the difference between the bad guy getting shot and a stray round striking property or an innocent bystander.

The bill would reduce safe practice by:

• Forbidding the sale or transfer of more than 50 rounds of handgun ammo per month to anyone who is not a licensed dealer
• Require ammo only be bought in person (i.e. banning mail order sales)
• Requiring vendors to keep a record of every ammo sale and report all sales to the state
• Require vendors to keep all ammo out of reach from customers so that buyers must seek assistance from staff before purchasing
• Require vendors to pay a licensing fee to the state (even if they already have a license to sell firearms)

Anti-gun people will probably think I’m crazy for opposing these restrictions, but take a moment to think it through before you decide. A leisurely one hour practice session with a hand gun for most people consumes about 200 rounds of ammunition, even when most of that hour is spent loading magazines, setting up targets, inspecting targets, collecting spent brass and other non-shooting tasks. A semi-automatic hand gun fires a round as quickly as the user can pull the trigger. In a regular slow fire practice session, a person will fire a shot every few seconds. Thus, a standard 10 round magazine will be emptied in about 30 seconds. 50 rounds of ammo during an unhurried practice session can be consumed in about 2.5 minutes of firing. If the shooter is practicing double taps, defensive shooting and quick reloads they might go through 50 rounds of ammo in less than half of that time (1min 15sec). Do you really think it a good idea for people with potentially lethal defense tools to be forbidden to practice with them for more than 1-2 minutes per month? What will happen when an unpracticed gun owner tries to defend themselves? Where will the bullets go if they they pull the trigger and miss the bad guy?

To make matters worse, the law doesn’t seem to distinguish between different types of hand guns. A typical concealed carry permit holder might be allowed to legally carry two or three different kinds of guns. For example, they might be permitted to carry a tiny gun that can be easily hidden under summer clothing, and a regular gun that can be concealed under normal clothing. Chances are good that those two guns will use different kinds of ammunition. If you are only allowed 50 rounds of ammo per month and need to practice with two different guns, you can practice with each gun half as much. That brings us down to maybe one minute of practice per month per gun, less time than you spend brushing your teeth before you go to bed each night.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, gun owners commonly own both a rifle and a handgun that fires the exact same type of ammunition. This simplifies ammunition purchases and lets them carry a single type of ammo when shooting. .22 rimfire, 9mm, .38 special, .357 magnum, .44 magnum and .44 special are a few examples of ammunition commonly used by both rifles and handguns. How can you prove to an ammo vendor what kind of gun you plan to fire their ammo through?

A single round of .45ACP ammunition costs about $0.30 if purchased in bulk (1000 rounds) over the internet. If purchased in a typical 50 round box at a local gun store, a single round will cost about $0.40, 25% more than by bulk. If we ban bulk purchases and tack on licensing fees and compliance costs, the price of ammo could go up by 50%. The cost of ammunition for a typical one hour 200 round practice session with a common .45ACP pistol would go from $60 to $90 (assuming they remembered to save up 4 months worth of ammo to allow for a one hour practice session). Such a large increase would significantly discourage practice.

Note that a similar Federal law was repealed in 1986 after the BATF testified that it was useless at preventing crime. The City of Pasadena passed a similar law, and repealed it two years later after realizing that they were generating a huge and costly database wasn't actually helping the police.

Please contact your state assemblyperson and the senators on the California appropriations committee to demand that they oppose this bill. Even if you hate guns you should oppose this bill because it will only serve to reduce the competency of law abiding gun owners without reducing gun ownership. No matter how you feel about guns, it is in your best interest that whoever squeezes a trigger on a firearm be well practiced, accurate and safe when they do it.

'Anti-Stab' Knife On Sale in UK

New Point Knives in the U.K. is offering kitchen knives that are designed to minimize the risk of accidental and fatal stabbings while maintaining more or less their full functionality as food preparation tools. Many blogs and web sites are already overflowing with scornful comments about these products, with phrases like "knives don't kill people; people kill people" and other such rhetoric. Although I am about as pro-weapon and anti-nanny state as it gets, I decided to give this product the benefit of the doubt.
I am a somewhat serious amateur gourmet and am picky about my kitchen knives. They must each go into the proper slot in the cutlery block, be kept razor sharp, and must be washed by hand and put away the moment they are not in use. In spite of my fussiness about knives, I was hard pressed to come up with legitimate criticism for the concept of these new products. There really aren't that many uses for an endlessly long point on some larger types of kitchen knives. The New Point knives that I have seen so far do indeed have points, but the points are protected by a smooth rounded curve that would make it more difficult to thrust the blade deeply into something. Enough of the point is exposed to easily split the skin on fruit and even slice most food items. Granted, this sort of design would be impractical for various tasks such as boning, filleting and paring, but New Point doesn't appear to be offering those kinds of knives.

If the New Point knives are well balanced, sharp, comfortable and of high quality steel, I see no harm in their use and there are a few situations in which they could be quite helpful. For example, when teaching cooking in a home economics class, these knives might slightly reduce the risk of accidental stabbings in a room crowded with uncoordinated students. People with repetitive motion issues and nerve problems might find such a knife comforting as it would be less likely to stake a foot to the floor if it slipped out of a hand.

In short, I think it silly for someone to get angry about these products, especially if the person claims to believe in liberty and personal choice. Although I have no interest in owning one, I see no reason to grumble about them being on the market. To be honest, I think such grumblings just portray the pro-weapon and anti-nanny state people as unreasonable and makes it easier to dismiss their opinions on more serious issues. As long as nobody mandates their usage or tries to ban traditional knives, they aren't hurting anyone and could even be useful in certain situations (if they are of decent quality). I do, however, hope that people are not so foolish as to think that these are magically safe knives that can be treated carelessly or that all knives should use this design. They still have an edge and presumably can remove fingers and open arteries. Nonetheless, they may slightly reduce the frequency of some of the more serious accidental kitchen injuries that are commonly treated by emergency room staff.

Student Uses Gun to Stop Robbery and Rapes

Another great self defense story. Click on the title link and see the full story, complete with a video clip of the news story. Here's an excerpt:

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’”

If you read further and watch the video, you will learn that the student pulled out a gun, shot and killed one of the attackers and then kicked down the door to the room where the women were being held and opened fire on another attacker who was trying to rape his girlfriend.

Although one student was admittedly shot in the exchange of gunfire, they are expected to fully recover. Even with this mishap, this is a great outcome as it prevented one or more of the women from being raped or worse. It's great that this student had both a gun and the courage to use it in defense of others.

Only You Can Stop Gun Crime

For those worried about the possibility that guns may cause violence and crime, the title link goes to a site made just for you. There is a web cam showing an evil firearm for you to carefully monitor. Watch closely, for you never know when it might wreak havoc.

Be sure to leave a comment here if you see it causing any trouble.

S.C.O.T.U.S. Affirms 2nd Amendment (sort of)

By now, nearly everyone has heard of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Washington D.C. ban on handguns. For the most part, it affirmed the 2nd Amendment, which is fantastic news for anyone who believes in the right to bear arms for self defense, checking government power, or both. It also affirmed that the 2nd Amendment bestows an individual right, and not merely a right for militias to bear arms.

For the most part, this ruling made me happy, but I'd like to caution firearms advocates not to celebrate too hard. There are several things that really should be considered about this ruling, lest complacency lead firearms owners to think that they can rest on their laurels.


Problem #1:
The fact that this issue was credible enough to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court is a bad sign. The 2nd Amendment is very clear, and should not require a prolonged process of legal escalation for a gun ban to be thrown out. The very first judge who looked at this case should have thrown out the ban without much more than a few minutes consideration. What part of "shall not be infringed" did the lower courts not understand when this was first challenged?



Problem #2:
This was a 5 to 4 decision. That means that a single swing vote is all that stood between the highest legal authority in our nation declaring that the 2nd Amendment was null and void. It means that 4 justices, people that are considered the most experienced and powerful legal experts in the country, disagreed with the the decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Think about that for a moment. Our country is still dangerously close to invalidating a cornerstone of the U.S. constitution. What happens when this issue comes up again (it will), and on that day we have one additional anti-gun justice on the bench?


Problem #3:
This decision included enough wiggle room for other kinds of gun bans to successfully be passed. Here are some quotes from Justice Scalia:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Note that the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording says nothing about conditional limitations on the right to bear arms. Scalia's comments undermine this simple clarity by saying that it is indeed possible to establish quite a few limitations on firearms ownership, and if enough of these limitation are passed into law, owning, selling and transporting firearms could become so onerous as to create a de facto ban of them.



Don't get me wrong; I think today's ruling came out about as well as we could have expected, and gun owners are entitled to a little celebration. Nevertheless, I think it is important to keep this ruling in perspective and continue to actively support pro-gun organizations and vote against any politician who expresses a desire to further restrict the private ownership of firearms.

Weapons and Tactics Reviews from Iraq

The title link is to a letter posted on the Tactical Shooting Forums allegedly from the son a U.S. Marine in Iraq. It provides an interesting review of both U.S. and enemy weapons, and describes some of the groups of people that our soldiers are fighting.

Here is an excerpt:

The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one.
With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso
hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it. The old government model 45's are
being re-issued en masse.

Warning:
The full story contains some profanity and may not be safe for work or appropriate for young children.

Thanks to Palantirion of Sanitycheck 101 for sending me the link.

11yr Old Girl Kills 2 Armed Illegal Alien Home Invaders

Here's an excerpt from the Libertypost.org story apparently borrowed from the NRA Files:

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington...
It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

You've got to read this full story. You'll enjoy where this little girl shot the first of her attackers :)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find main stream news sites discussing this story in more detail. From what I can tell, it may have appeared in a November 2006 printed copy of an NRA publication, as this is how have I seen it posted as on various gun friendly discussion boards and forums.

Disney Fired Husband and Wife Over Legal Gun

Zendo Deb over at TFS Magnum pointed out the story in the title link. Here's a couple of excerpts from the letter published at NRA-ILA.com:

I represent Doug and Linda Gray, a husband and wife who were both employed by the Walt Disney World Company. ...The Grays had to begin their commute before sunrise, and had to travel through some less than safe areas. In fact, they had been accosted on their commute to work in the past. They contacted law enforcement about this and were advised that they should purchase a firearm for their own protection during their commute. Based on this advice, Mr. Gray purchased a revolver to protect he and his wife. When the Grays arrived at work, the revolver was locked in their vehicle.

...

Just 17 days before their 10th anniversary of employment at Disney, they were both terminated. While Mrs. Gray was being asked about an absence from work, she responded that her husband was unable to attend, and she didn't feel safe traveling into work without him. Upon further questioning, Mrs. Gray revealed that Mr. Gray had the firearm in their vehicle for their protection. Disney had the vehicle searched, and the firearm was found, locked in the vehicle where the Grays indicated it was. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray were terminated. Additionally, Disney had the Orange County Sheriffs issue a trespass warning against Mr. and Mrs. Gray, so that neither could step foot on any Disney property again.

This same basic issue has come up repeatedly. Weyerhauser fired a dozen employees for possessing firearms in their vehicles, and in response to this the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a law forbidding employers to prevent employees from having legally owned firearms in their vehicles. (Here's my post on that story.)

I think employers should not be able to inquire about the contents of nor search employee vehicles. When you drive your car on a public road, police officers do not have the right to search your vehicle without either a search warrant or some evidence that your vehicle contains an illegal item (i.e. probable cause). Under the law your automobile is treated much like your home or your clothing in terms of privacy and the search rights.

I have often heard people say that the private property rights of the employer should allow the employer to make any rules they like about what vehicles can park on their property. I strongly disagree. An employer should have the right to forbid people to enter their property, but they should not have the right to violate your privacy as a condition of granting you access. Allowing employers to search private vehicles is a violation of privacy similar in spirit (albeit not as traumatic), as allowing employers to conduct daily body cavity searches. After all, an employee could hide a folding knife, a home-made hand grenade, poison, drugs or other potentially dangerous items in an orifice.

Just how far are people willing to let employers violate the privacy of employees? Could an officer of the company require all female employees to bare their breasts to them so that the officer can verify that they don't have a small Seecamp or a Bobcat hidden inside their bras? Could an employer demand the right feel the breasts of busty female employees to try and determine if their allegedly silicone implants and gel filled bras might instead be hi-tech liquid explosives? (TSA agents already have the right to do this at airport security checkpoints.) Can an employer randomly squeeze the crotch of male employees or put their hands up women's skirts to make sure they aren't wearing Thunderwear holsters?

If an employer can forbid employees to have legal firearms in their vehicles, I don't see why they couldn't legally ban any other item they don't like. With this crazy logic, a Christian Scientist employer could forbid medicine in cars, an atheist employer could forbid bibles and a censor-happy employer could forbid "immoral" books and music. Perhaps a Catholic employer could even forbid contraceptives and copies of The Da Vinci Code.

I say that the 4th Amendment should protect employees from such unreasonable searches and bans:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Housing Community Bans Possession of Firearms

According to NewsChannel5.com:

ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

I haven't found a more detailed version of this story yet, and the article in the title link is unclear about exactly what gives the property manager the right to impose such restrictions. At one point, it is referred to as being in a letter from a "homeowner's association", and in another place it makes it sound as if the rule was decreed by "Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village".

This article makes me wonder if homeowners associations actually have the power to vote in firearms bans. I would think that if they can control what color you paint your home, where you can park your cars, etc., there's probably a legal mechanism for them to hold a vote and decide to ban the ownership of otherwise legal firearms from your property. Things like this make me glad that I absolutely refused to consider buying any home under the dominion of a homeowner's association. I can't understand why anyone would volunteer to be subjected to an additional layer of bureaucracy in their lives, especially since we are already burdened with a plethora of government bodies and agencies that regulate how we use our private property.

Dangerous Ruling for the Bad Guys

Recently a U.S. Court of Appeals overturned portions of a 1976 law that bans Washington D.C. city residents from possessing handguns in their homes. It also removed the requirement that long barreled firearms be stored with trigger locks or in a disassembled state. According to the judges, the Second Amendment protections

"are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

This fantastic news for several reasons:

• Residents of crime ridden Washington D.C. can now more easily own the means to defend themselves, and can store these vital safety tools in a more accessible manner
  
  
• If D.C. residents start using guns to defend themselves in their homes, we should see the usual drop in violent crime and home invasions that accompany gun friendly cities, and these improved crime statistics will make excellent fodder for pro-gun and pro-liberty activists.
  
  
• If anyone appeals this ruling at the U.S. Supreme court, there's a fair chance that we could reestablish a federal mandate that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, which would in turn help people throughout the nation roll back the various gun bans they have been oppressed by.

Not surprisingly, a Washington Post editorialist did not share my enthusiasm for this turn of events. Here's the opening sentence of their opinion piece (emphasis added by me):

a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment. If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.

It's really a shame how so many members of the media misinterpret the right to bear arms. The only danger in this ruling is to the criminals who used to be able to invade private homes at will without fear of being shot by homeowners. The criminals are the "more people [who will be] killed and wounded", and that's good news for the rest of us. The right to self defense is far more important than the government's right to govern, and every time a ban is lifted to empower self defense the media should celebrate rather than bellyache. When guns are banned violent crime goes up, as seen in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Washington D.C. and New York. As gun bans are lifted and things like concealed carry are allowed, violent crime goes down, as seen in numerous states and cities.

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason media people favor gun control is because gun bans lead to juicy violent crime stories and eye-grabbing headlines that help to sell more copy and attract more viewers. If the world actually became safer, these people might have to actually look for something newsworthy rather than continue to inundate us with depressing crime stories.

TFS Magnum, The Freeholder, Musings of a Geek With a .45, QandO, Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Hot Air, and The Volokh Conspiracy have also covered this story.

500 S&W Magnum

Ever since I posted earlier about a video of a watermelon being shot by a person using a S&W .500 magnum revolver, I've been getting a lot of referrals from search engines for people searching for things like:

• .500 mag
• s&w 500 mag
• 500 mag
• 500 magnum watermelon
• s&w .500 ban

Given that there seems to be a lot of interest in this, I thought I would provide some information about it here so that my visitors from search engines don't go away disappointed.

Basic Info about the .500 Magnum cartridge:
According to Wikipedia:

It is the most powerful handgun cartridge commercially manufactured with over 2600 ft·lb_f (3.5 kJ) of energy created with a 440gr bullet travelling at 1650 fps.

The .500 S&W Magnum can develop over 2600 ft·lb_f (3.5 kJ) of muzzle energy, nearly three times as much as the 900 ft·lb_f (1.2 kJ) generated by the .44 Magnum made famous by Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movies. This is a difference of over 600 ft·lb_f (0.8 kJ) of energy more than the .454 Casull, the previous commercial record holder.

Currently available is an even more powerful round developed by DoubleTap Ammunition which produces a 350 grain, 1975fps monster punching at over 3032 ft-lbs!

Reviews of the S&W .500 Magnum Revolver:

Shooting Times has a great review, complete with a nice photo showing the size of the .500 Magnum cartridge next to a number of large caliber rounds for comparison.

Popular Mechanics has a nice 3 page article about both the gun and the round, and goes more into more of the technical details about the cartridge.

Guns and Ammo also has a good review, and includes a chart comparing the muzzle velocity and muzzle energy of the .500 S&W to a number of other large caliber handgun rounds. There's also a photo of a .Model 629 .44 Magnum next to the Model 500 to give you an idea of just how large this revolver is.

Reloading Info for 500 S&W:
For those of you interested in reloading this round, ReloadAmmo.com and Handloads.com each have a page that you might find helpful.


Taurus Raging Bull in S&W 500:
If you are looking to buy a revolver chambered in S&W 500, you can now add Taurus to your list of choices. Gunblast.com provides a review, complete with gun photos and short video of mean being fired.


.500 S&W Special:
According to an American Handgunner and Wikipedia Article, there is also a shortened and weaker "Special" round available, which should make this gun a lot cheaper for plinking, though it won't have nearly the fun kick. This is the same concept as how a .357 Magnum being able to fire .38 special special rounds.


.500 S&W Ban:
For those trying to find out if this caliber has been banned, I did some research and thus far have not found any credible articles saying that the .500 S&W round is banned. In CA, a ban was passed against the .50 BMG rifle caliber (something altogether different), but not on the .500 S&W handgun round. I found a few references of a Florida democrat calling for a national ban on the .500 S&W, but it appeared to be local partisan whining without any real support. If anyone has a link about a ban being in effect for this specific round in the U.S.A., please post it in the comments so others can see it.

.500 S&W Lever Action Rifle:
I have seen a few references to a 500 S&W Lever Action rifle possibly being made for this round, but as of yet I have not found any actually for sale.


.500 S&W Collectors Knife:
Amazon.com has a .500 S&W collectors knife for a very reasonable price, and it includes the folding knife, a single .500 S&W cartridge and a collector's tin.

Students Taught To Attack Gunmen

It's been quite a while since I noticed something in the news positive enough to inspire me to write about it, but at last something truly great has happened.

According to the MSNBC.com article in the title link:

Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got — books, pencils, legs and arms.

Students are also instructed not to comply with a gunman’s orders, and to take him down.

...

Aim for head
Browne recommends students and teachers “react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down.”

Response Options trains students and teachers to “lock onto the attacker’s limbs and use their body weight,” Browne said. Everyday classroom objects, such as paperbacks and pencils, can become weapons.

“We show them they can win,” he said. “The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun.”

I think that this a fantastic lesson for the following reasons:

1. It completely removes the payoff/reward that an attacker is looking for
2. It teaches children that sometimes it is worth to risking your own safety in order to protect others from harm
3. It teaches kids that crime and cruelty do not pay

People that attack schools typically have some very specific objectives in mind. They are angry about something and are trying to lash out in the worst possible way. They desire as much media attention and publicity as possible so that EVERYONE will see the terrible vengeance they are wreaking upon a society that they believe wronged them. They also generally want a period of total absolute power over a group of helpless and terrified people. They want to savor the power of life and death over others while they watch people cower, tremble and beg. At the pinnacle of this, they then take their own life so that nobody can ever take this moment of triumph away from them or punish them for their terrible actions.

If everyone instantly and mercilessly attacked such people on sight, they would be denied everything they want to achieve. There would be no cowering, begging for mercy nor a prolonged moment of power over others. There is no time for news helicopters to circle the campus or camera crews to fill the parking lot to memorialize their actions. Instead of obtaining power and attention, the attacker would find themselves on the defensive, receiving injuries or death at the hands of the intended victims, and most likely will end up captured, prosecuted and imprisoned. Instead of a few moments of supreme power, the attacker will ultimately end up in pain and spend many years as a helpless prisoner of our justice system.

During a battle some children or teachers may be killed or injured but the attacker will still be denied the specific "reward" that they came for. This is much better than the certain death they will face if they meekly cooperate with an attacker. If the news was filled with stories of attackers being beaten, captured and imprisoned, sociopaths would be less likely to attack schools because they would realize that they are unlikely to achieve their objectives. Over time, such attacks would diminish.

When students are taught to fight back, they will learn that saving the lives of their classmates is a noble goal. Zero-tolerance anti-violence policies that punish students for self defense and pacifist rhetoric have been teaching people that it is better to be a victim or allow others to be harmed than it is to fight for what is right. The news often features stories of people being raped, robbed or beaten in public places while passersby look the other way and try not to get involved. If students are taught to defend themselves and others, the world will become a better place. Keep in mind that 9/11 probably would have failed if the passengers on all of the planes had fought back.

If people learn from an early age that those who commit crimes will be opposed by everyone within sight, they will be less likely to commit crimes themselves. Consider the Columbine attackers Harris and Klebold. They were supposedly unhappy bullied kids who plotted revenge against their tormentors and the people who witnessed their victimization. If kids were taught to fight bullies and attackers, chances are good that the Columbine killers would have experienced less victimization and thus would have been less enraged against their classmates. Far more important, if the Columbine killers knew with total certainty that the moment they pulled a gun on their classmates EVERYONE would have tried to kill them, they might not have had the guts to engage their classmates in mortal combat. Remember, they wanted to inflict fear and retribution from a position of power. They may have been willing to die on their own terms, but they did not want to be defeated by their intended victims before accomplishing their objectives.

I hope that this bold idea catches on and that more schools embrace a method that will discourage attacks rather than train more people to become helpless victims and tolerate evil.

New Tiny Swiss Revolver

According to the site in the title link:

Its total length does not exceed 5.5 cm.

It shoots 2.34 m/m rim-fire ammunition.

This firearm is a scaled-down model of the much acclaimed and mystical Colt Python with all the same features as are found on the real size gun.

According to the manufacturer, the gun will fire a 1.9753 grain round at 426 feet per second. In my opinion, that it makes it more dangerous than the average BB gun and is something I'd rather not get hit with, but is far too weak to serve as practical option for self defense. Undoubtedly it is intended as a collectible and not as a viable weapon. Let's hope that the anti-gun crowd doesn't panic over this and start trying to ban it as it would be kind of fun to add this to my collection.

Note:
Photos were taken from the manufacturer’s web site and modified to fit on this page.

Airline "Security" Going Overboard Again

Now that a terrorist plot has been uncovered that was attempting to blow up as many as 10 airplanes, the airport security folks are forbidding liquids, gels and pastes on airplanes. This means items such as hair gel, toothpaste and contact lens solution can't be put in your carry-on luggage.

Articles like the one in the title link are also speculating that cell phones, iPods and other electronic devices are potential threats because their batteries could be used to detonate bombs.

This whole travesty of airport security is getting out of hand. If anything, this process just annoys travelers and encourages terrorists to be more resourceful. Liquid and gel explosives have been around for decades, yet suddenly everything that is liquid is banned. Earlier, the bans went after deadly tweezers and lethal toenail clippers. Now they are going crazy over common cosmetic products and bottled water. This is nothing more than security theater and does not really make us safer.

Here are five ways that terrorists could probably defeat this security:

• Since liquids, pastes and gels are allowed in checked baggage, put the explosives in there. A detonator could probably be hidden in a dummied up hair spray or shaving cream can.
  
  
• Use a plastic type explosive and pack it in a carefully sealed container to prevent the sniffing devices from detecting it. Hide it in a seemingly innocuous item, such as batteries, bars of soap or practically anything
  
  
• Give a female suicide bomber explosive breast implants
  
  
• Get a suicide bomber to swallow a bag full of explosive liquid

I'm not writing this to encourage terrorism. I am not a terrorist and in truth I hate terrorism. I am writing this only to point out to how idiotic it is to cripple our airline industry all in the name of security when this mock-security won't actually stop a determined group if they have any brains. If I can think of five plausible methods in under a minute that could be used to bypass airport security, I’m sure a well funded terrorist organization can think of these ideas and many scarier ones.

I am someone who used to fly quite a bit for business (domestic and internationally). I also usually take a plane somewhere every year for vacations, and occasionally use a plane to visit relatives. I would rather assume the miniscule risk of being blown out of the air by terrorists than spend an extra couple of hours going through bogus security screenings and not be able to transport travel essentials such as water, toothpaste, mouthwash, etc. Even with the threat of terrorism, air travel is safer than driving. The chance of being killed by hijackers is very low. (I acknowledge that the threat is real, as proven by 9/11, but it is nevertheless statistically unlikely.) Since the annoying security measures are unlikely to stop a smart terrorist, my odds of dying are not significantly reduced by this security, yet my comfort and ease of travel is greatly diminished by it.

Convenient, comfortable and efficient methods of travel are important to our nation. Businessmen frequently use planes to get to meetings and conventions. Patients fly to visit specialized doctors. Family members fly to visit each other. Couriers often carry donor organs on commercial flights. Tourists, who make huge contributions to our economy, fly to their destinations. Thus, interfering with air travel should not be done lightly. If the government tried to interfere with automobile travel as much as they do with air travel, the people wouldn’t stand for it. Why does America patiently tolerate these extra delays and searches before flying rather than lobby against it?

Our planes already have the hardened doors to protect the cockpit so that hijackers can't get to the flight controls. Thus, the chances of another 9/11 hijacking in which terrorists take over a plane and use it to destroy specific targets is virtually nil. As I see it, these are the three worst things terrorists could do on a plane:

• Kill the passengers and flight attendants
  
  
• Destroy the plane shortly after takeoff when it has a full fuel load and is over a densely populated area
  
  
• Spray the passengers with a slow acting and highly contagious disease that they will then spread throughout the nation

All of these things would be hindered if you allowed the passengers to be armed in some capacity. Imagine if even 20% of the passengers had something as mild as pepper spray or mace. If a group of terrorists jumped up and started causing trouble, they would have to deal with a cabin full of a gas that would pretty much disable them and everyone else on the plane. If you throw in a few stun guns, a couple of CCW holders with legal firearms and some trained air marshals the terrorists wouldn't stand a chance. Unarmed passengers stopped Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), and unarmed passengers kept flight 93 from hitting its intended target. Armed passengers could do the same thing more easily and with a higher likelihood of success.

Since most people will probably think my "arm the passengers" idea is crazy, here are a few more ideas that would probably work better than the security measures that are currently hindering travelers:

• Most planes have several bathrooms. Passengers could be forced to use random bathrooms rather than one closest to them so that multiple terrorists can’t easily smuggle bomb parts into the same bathroom and assemble a dangerous device.
  
  
• Assign passengers random seats. Passengers could still request aisle, window and emergency exit row seats when they buy their tickets, but they wouldn’t be told which specific seat they will get until they board. This would ensure that terrorists cannot sit next to each other to coordinate their attacks.
  
  
• Planes have a central air system. Add a tank of nitrous oxide, pepper spray or other knockout agent. If the flight attendants believe an attack is underway, they can hit a panic button and knock out the passengers until the plane can be diverted to the nearest airport
  
  
• Air marshals: put at least one undercover and one uniformed marshal on every flight (if we can send 150,000 soldiers to Iraq, we can figure out how to train enough air marshals)
  
  
• Allow flight attendants to be trained and armed in some capacity. Martial arts, pepper spray, TASERs and/or firearms could all be very effective deterrents if used by those who are sufficiently skilled and trained in their use. Granted many attendants won’t volunteer for ninja-combat training, but I bet a significant number of them would be willing to at least carry pepper spray or something simple.

"Scary Movie" With a Twist

I found the video in the title link entertaining and just had to share it. There are two minor problems with this film, though.

1. Unless she was using special ammo, bullets from that weapon very likely would have passed through the intruder and into the surrounding neighborhood, posing a threat to innocent people and property. As much fun as it would be own one of those, for urban home defense she probably would have been better off with a shotgun firing shot or a handgun firing hollowpoints or safety slugs to reduce the risk of over-penetration and background damage.
2. From a legal standpoint she should have probably waited another 3 seconds for the intruder to slightly breach her outer defenses before taking him down. The courts will go easier on her if there was some broken glass inside her home, or if the lock or door was damaged from the outside. This would have made for more creditable "reasonable" fear for her life if she had to deal with a jerk District Attorney. Since she received the harrassing phone call, and since the police will find the knife on his body and evidence of tampering with her home wiring, she still probaby won't have any legal problems, unless she lives in an anti-gun place like California. Given that she had a full auto weaon, chances are she was in a gun-friendly state as Class III firearm permits aren't exactly easy to obtain in anti-gun areas.

Words to Live By

Gun control defined:
The erroneous theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, assault, robbery and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

Knife Amnesty in the UK

From the BBC:

Machetes, meat cleavers and axes as well as knives were among the haul of 17,715 surrendered to the 43 police forces across England and Wales.

...

Mr Coaker urged those who had not yet handed in their weapons to do so.

"The initial figures for the first week of that campaign are very encouraging, " he said.

"That is 17,715 fewer weapons that can be used in a crime against ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

"If you carry a knife out of self-defense, you run the risk of having it turned on you. Carrying a knife is illegal and will not be tolerated. It could land you four years in prison"

...

Police say that from 1 July tough action will be taken on those found armed with knives.

However, some families of victims of knife crime have questioned the effectiveness of an amnesty, calling instead for tougher sentencing.

I know the weapon bans have been going on for quite some time, but every time I read about them I still get angry. These pompous and officious fools have no moral right to tell people they should remain as helpless as possible in order to maintain public safety. This crap about "carry a knife out of self-defense and run the risk of having it turned on you" is not justification for disarming people. Sure, some fools might think that a knife makes them invincible, but they probably aren't bright enough to survive an attack no matter if they are armed or not. Those who actually bother to learn how to use a self defense tool, such as a knife, pepper spray, stout walking stick or best of all, a firearm, are going to be able to do a lot of public good. A trained and armed person is less likely to be a victim, more likely to help someone else and more likely to remove a criminal from society.

This issue of disarming the public is never truly about public safety. Disarming the public only benefits criminals who want helpless targets and governments that wish to control people. Police officers prefer to arrest unarmed people. Leaders don't want to worry about rebellion when they pass laws that they know will anger the people. Keep in mind that it is already against the law to harm someone else without a good reason (e.g., self defense). Thus, outlawing weapons is redundant unless there are motives other than public safety. If you have a weapon and don't hurt anybody, you aren't a problem. If you use a weapon to harm someone, you've already broken battery and/or murder laws, regardless of the weapon. If you use a weapon to scare someone without cause, you have broken assault and/or robbery laws, regardless of the weapon.

SF Gun Ban Overturned

Although this really isn't much of a surprise, the new San Francisco law banning the possession and sale of handguns has been overturned by a judge after an NRA backed lawsuit. Here's a quote from the foxreno.com news story:

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here. Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

While I am always glad to see self defense rights upheld in court, part of me was curious as to how bad crime would have gotten in San Francisco. Had this law been allowed to stand, pro-self defense people would have had another example of how gun control leads to increased violent crime. Nevertheless, I am glad that it was overturned as I'm sure that there are many people in San Francisco (albeit not the voting majority) who disagreed with this law and would have either been turned into criminals or rendered defenseless had it been allowed to take effect.