Women are the next big thing!

Even CNN.com admits that when it comes to guns, it’s all about women these days.  I have a feeling that in 30 years, guns may be like college, more women will own and practice with them than men.

But gun manufacturers need to shape up their image. Too often the marketing is “shiny guns, big boobs”.  This = BAD MARKETING.

You want to hit it out of the park…I’d do an add campaign showing a “soccer mom” in various stages of life. Serving lunch to her kids, picking the kids up from soccer, etc, etc. All while wearing a concealed carry firearm, and photoshopping the image with translucency to show it beneath her garments. Don’t go super hot, go for chic mom appearance. I think that will hit it out of the park.

Also, start modifying your inventory. More adjustable rifles. Ruger…WHY THE HECK have you not released an adjustable stock 20 gauge shotgun? You think the LCP sold like hotcakes. What one gun can you hunt everything from pheasant to deer, and use for self defense. Put in the arms of a 6ft tall man or a 10 year old girl.  Seriously, this is the gun that DOES NOT EXIST – BUT SHOULD!!!
Stats

• 80% of firearm retailers reported increase in female customers in 2012
• 22%/28% of Florida/Texas carry permits are held by women. (The latter up seven fold in the last decade.)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/companies/guns-women/index.html?source=cnn_bin

Mexican Vigilantes to Be Legalized, Keep Your Weapons “Just Register Them!!!”

Part of me is happy that the Mexican government is recognizing the vigilantes, and using an old part of their defense system to essentially “officialize” the militias.

But I’m not sure I’d trust the call of “You can keep your prohibited rifles, so long as you register them with the military.”

If I were the militia leaders, I would argue that we will register ourselves as active in the militia. But not our arms. You should be able to simply verify that if any members is active in the militia, then they are justified in their arms.  No need to know what arms specifically.

But as for registering their guns….IMHO “DON’T DO IT!!!”

Also interesting is this bit…

“the agreement also allows those who qualify to join local police forces. “The majority of us want to get into the police …””

Interesting, perhaps this will allow enough fresh blood to enter the Mexican law enforcement to bring it back to being a legal policing force.

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-legalizes-vigilantes-nabs-cartel-leader-001339749.html

Lastly, just goes to show “outlawing” such weapons does NOT make them cease to exist.

Cop shoots Cop, again…

California BART police officer shoots a second officer while conducting a search in connection to a string of robberies. The officer accidentally fired and hit the other officer.

Okay, really, so essentially in a crowded train environment you have an officer walking around with his loaded gun drawn sweeping everybody? Or was he so trigger happy he drew his weapon and discharged.

Seriously California, you are getting the just deserves of your policies. You have completely destroyed the civilian gun culture in your state. The result of this is law enforcement officers with zero experience with firearms, lacking even the most rudimentary basics of firearm handling. This is the consequence of destroying
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/justice/california-officer-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Movie theater texter shot… by Only One

Okay many have joked about the frustration of someone texting while a movie is showing.  Especially the rude loud ones.  But heck this was just the previews. That isn’t even worthy for jokes.

Now a father is dead. We constantly hear that if we only had this or that restriction, if only cops and military.

I was worried when this was reported to have transpired in the Florida panhandle that it’d be a CCW holder. Well the media has just reported that the shooter was in fact a member of that elite privileged American royalty – a retired “only one” who has the privilege to carry where and when you do not. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?sr=fb011414textingfatalshooting930a

I am a big advocate for fixing gun laws by mandating they apply equally to law enforcement officers – retired AND active. If civilians can’t have more than 7 rounds in a magazine.  Neither should the cops.

Sadly, this tragedy has left a 3 year old girl without a daddy. =(

REMEMBER YOU CARRY A GUN TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE – NOT to deal with minor social inconveniences.

Mexican Militia Routs Drug Cartel

Potentially interesting. The Templars Drug Cartel accuses the militia of being a proxy force for a rival drug cartel, in which case this is just more of the same. However, if this is actually a collection of citizens unconnected to the drug trade and cartels, who have armed themselves, and are taking on and in fact defeating the cartels. Than I must say this is a beautiful thing. And in fact is how many governments are initially established.

They’re being labeled vigilantes. However, if they are an en masse of the communities themselves, than they are far more akin to a militia. And one must remember, we’re talking about a region where the rule of law has essentially collapsed.  So in no way would I consider such a group vigilantes. Vigilantes operate outside of the law, if the law is not there…is it really vigilantism?

“Towns began to form vigilante forces in February 2012, saying they were fed up with the local police’s inability or unwillingness to stop the cartel’s murders, kidnappings and extortion rackets.”

That sounds like a militia to me…

http://news.yahoo.com/mexican-vigilantes-seize-drug-cartel-bastion-220248151.html

Now, how about the U.S. give these folks some assistance (no, I don’t mean more guns run across the border). I mean ending the drug war, eliminating the financial base of these violent cartels.

Our community is changing…

Times are changing.  The gun owning community is no longer about old fat balding white men.  Much of the growth and activism is being led women. Us men a vocal and lazy.  The women who own guns, they’re an independent, determine crowd, vocal crowd. Simultaneously, many minorities seem to be re-embracing their rights to defend themselves. After 50 years of accepting disarmament in cities, and seeing very little change in crime or gang gun shootings.  Minorities have been re-approaching their own histories of self defense. The fact that firearms, were prevalent during the civil rights movements.  And not just by those people might first associate with guns, such as the Black Panther movement. But even men of peace like Martin Luther King Jr. understood the need for strength.  (Yes, MLK owned firearms, and even applied for a carry permit.)  Why? Possessing strength does not require the use of said strength.  And never the initiation of force.  Which is what I believe MLK was pressing for in his call for a peaceful movement. He believed that progress could be achieved without the use of arms. I think he was right. But I don’t think he ever expected any father to sit back and not defend his family from harm. Just never be the initiator of harm.  Following such reasoning leads one to realize that no good man will ever bring harm to another good man.

NOTES:

Article on changing attitudes
http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/26/evolving-christian-attitudes-towards-personal-national-self-defense/

Article on MLK owning guns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

Summary and link to 114 page PDF
http://connecticutlawreview.org/articles/firearms-policy-and-the-black-community-an-assessment-of-the-modern-orthodoxy/

Book on the history of the importance of arms for those who are not able to rely upon the state for protection.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/161614839X/thevolocons0d-20

Firearms and Feminism
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358594/firearms-and-feminism-natalie-foster

 

In the news today…. “(un)Common Sense” zero tolerance policies and vigilante justice.

 

Two university students face expulsion after using a handgun to defend themselves from an intruder in their university-owned apartment. 

So a stranger claiming to just have gotten out of jail exclaims he wants money. They offer him a blanket and food to no avail, he enters the apartment.  One roomate shouts to the other who comes out with gun drawn.

These apartments are not gated, no key cards, etc. The university exclaims that they have security.  But we all know how slow that is.  The man was later captured by police and identified as a six-time felon.

In other words, had these students NOT had a firearm, they might be dead corpses of which Campus security would be filing a police report for.  And for protecting their lives, the school wants to expel them – cause that’s “common sense”.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/us/gonzaga-guns/index.html?sr=fb111013studentsguns3p

***

 

When is vigilante justice, justified?

Man looking for abducted cousin enters an abandoned house and shoots and kills her kidnapper. Sheriff’s department has thankfully ruled the shooting justified.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/justice/louisiana-cousin-kills-kidnapper/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

UPDATED:  Just to clarify, no this is not technically vigilante justice. Though some have described it as such.  But an actual felony was in progress, as such this was action taken to defend one’s self and/or family.  So even in the legal definition, it is not considered vigilantism.

Now, whether there are times more traditional vigilantism is justified is a subject for much debate.  But I do believe there are times when it is necessary.  But 99.8% of the time, you’re wrong.  And your actions will likely be seen as nothing but murder.  It is taking a lot into one’s own hands to be judge, jury and executioner. And most of the time within the confines of a stable society, that is frowned upon as criminal behavior. 

Outside of a civilized and ordered society, things become far mor gray. Why do we have a justice system? because, we as a society decided to put distance between the enraged victims and the perpetrator, to ensure that questions regarding whether the perpetrator in fact did the deed, and to what level of guilt they did so, are answered before any pronouncement is made. And that is a major part of why we have society today. And we truly don’t want to lose that…ever.

 

Why Guns and Ammo’s Best States to CC is flawed IMHO

Guns and Ammo’s best states to carry in…

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/10/24/8-24-2013-text-only/

First, I feel that the results of this ranking is that it’s all about reciprocity agreements. If you have a lot of reciprocity agreements, you can essentially match all other points 1 for 1.  And I don’t feel that it is legitimate to weigh one area so heavily. Reciprocity is stacked so high that it dwarfs other issues. Take Connecticut for example, should the ease of access, or lack there of, to a permit weigh less than reciprocity?  How many points is reciprocity worth vs never even becoming a gun owner because the entry barrier is too high?

Don’t get me wrong. Reciprocity is good. Great even. But it is secondary, if you can’t even get your permit.  States such as Pennsylvania (no training requirement) and Vermont (no permit requirement) often run into difficulty establishing reciprocity agreements. Many other states will only reciprocate with those states that issue permits only after mandated training. Pennsylvania and Vermont’s should not be penalized for offering their citizens greater freedom and liberty. 

While I will grant that “Constitutional” carry is a big item. And that should push those states ahead of PA. I do feel they drop the ball on “freedom and access” to carry. And feel this should be a heavily weighted category. (ie: Campus Carry, carry in establishments, right to drinka nd carry,   carry in parks, etc).

There are a lot of auxilliary issues and those should have been scored as well. How many states can you go out on your wedding anniversary and have a glass of wine with your wife? You’d be surprised, #1 state Arizona – NOPE!!!  Pennsylvania, yuppers. That may seem like a little trinket. But it’s not. It is very significant.

When the NRA convention was in Arizona, I had to leave my carry piece in the hotel because the venues served alcohol. What good was reciprocity then? A few years later when it was in Pittsburgh, not only could I carry. But I was able to attend the wine tasting with my LCP in my pocket. And yes, Arizona changed the law so that folks are no longer banned from entering venue that serves alcohol.  But they still didn’t acknowledge your right to drink and still protect yourself.

 

Guns and Ammo also ranked training time based on the hours. But I feel a quick look at their ranking shows it to be extremely flawed.

Ranking 0 Hours = 10 Points 1-3 Hours = 9 points 4-6 Hours = 8 points 7-9 Hours = 7 points 10-12 Hours = 6 points 13-15 Hours = 5 points 16+ Hours = 0 points

They based it on required hours, that was just out and out dumb. And I challenge any editor of Guns and Ammo to reason out this one for me.  Connecticut requires training and has very few facilitities to provide it. The result, Connecticut access to pistol ownership is extremely complicated and discouraging.   The difference between no training required to own, purchase, or carry a firearm is HUGE compared to  even a 1 hour requirement.  The requirement of 2 days is a bit more, and yes anything beyond 2 days is unwieldy.

The correct way to rank this aspect is:

0 hours = 10 points
1-8 hours ( 1 day or less) = 5 points
9-16 hours (2 days or less) = 4 points
> 2 days = 0 points

Why? Because just a single hour presents a huge huge huge barrier to gun ownership. You now much find a training source, and wait for a class. If you have a restraining order on a violent ex, this little training caveat can equate to your life or death.

The next aspect was their use of the “best gun owning states”.  First off, this is essentially counting many aspects twice.  Pennsylvania is ranked #20. And I really really really have no clue how we got ranked that low. 

– shall issue
– no mandated training requirement
– low fee $25 for 5 years
– no fingerprinting
– open carry except in cities of the First Class (1 million + population)
  > And many will point to that much of the legal basis is that open carry does not require a permit.
– Castle Doctrine
– protection from civil lawsuits
– Pre-emption
– ability to carry in establishments that serve alcohol
– ability to drink alcohol and carry
– large amount of ranges (extremely important)

How did Pennsylvania rank 20th?  And I can’t really find how they ranked the states. But something was missing.  Cause I can’t see PA being below the top 10.

Now I’m not saying PA should of beat out AZ.  I do believe Constitutional carry is a huge +.  But I definitely do think there is a lot of gun culture and freedom being grossly left out.

7. Pennsylvania
Permit Issuance: 20
Reciprocity: 14
Training Time: 10
Application Fee: 10
Stand Your Ground: 8
Best States for Gun Owners: 8
Duty to Inform: 5
Pre-Emption: 5
Issued to Non-Residents: 5
TOTAL: 85
Overall, obtaining a license to carry in Pennsylvania is considered very easy compared to other states. No formal training or handgun proficiency is required, and license fees are reasonably priced.

 

1. Arizona
Permit Issuance: 25
Reciprocity: 18
Training Time: 10
Application Fee: 10
Stand Your Ground: 10
Best States for Gun Owners: 10
Duty to Inform: 5
Pre-Emption: 5
Issued to Non-Residents: 5
TOTAL: 98

 

Humor for CCW’ers

The following link has some humor for those who carry concealed. Some of it is nearly universal, some not as much.  But enjoy…

http://www.concealednation.org/2013/10/20-things-that-only-people-who-carry-concealed-would-understand/

LAX Shooting -the Day America Civil War began…

UPDATE: Gerardo Hernandez, who would have turned 40 next week. He is the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty. While I greatly despise the TSA.  It is good remember that those working are really just average Joe’s.  The policies are set in DC. That is where we need to enact change. VOTE ‘EM OUT!!!!

***

LAX Shooting, the TSA, and broken security….that was the original title upon hearing about the shooting. I wrote the entirety of the article below the link based on that topic. But part of me wondered, was this shooting directed at the TSA itself?  Was this the first person to say that they were willing to give up their life to stand up against the TSA/NSA/etc.

We didn’t know…

But the latest report is that the shooter went around asking “”Hey, are you TSA?” and — if a person answered “no” — he would move on, according to the official”. 

If true, this wasn’t a mad man nor was this a terrorist (he wasn’t attacking civilians). This was out and out rebellion against the government.   I wager the NSA had just as much influence in the shooter’s decision, they likely just found the TSA a much more available target. Today most American’s may not realize it. But this may date, 11-1, may be more monumental that 9-11. What, I’m crazy you say….how could a couple of TSA agents being shot equate to the worst attack in modern history on America? Can’t I see the Twin Towers are gone, GONE!!!

Yes, but one needs to remember history.  Powder kegs are often preceded by several matches.  When did the American revolution begin? Did it begin on July 4, 1776?  Did it begin in December 16, 1773 at the Boston Tea Party?  Or did it begin March 5, 1770 when Crispus Attucks was killed at the Boston Massacre?

What becomes the measuring point?   Is it when one man stands in opposition? 10?  100?

We can debate the morality of this shooting.  But I do not look at this event as an act of terrorism, nor some deranged lunatic. Had it been those, the targets would have been anyone near by. This was an act of war, declared by one individual against a government which is increasingly becoming invasive and tyrannical. 

And that is why, some ways, today, 11-1 is scarier than 9-11. My point is THIS shooting is DIFFERENT

*** 

THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE SHOOTER WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETING THE TSA

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/us/lax-gunfire/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
The CNN report is that the shooter drew an assault rifle from out of a bag and began to fire. The result is one TSA officer killed, and two individuals injured. (Are the other injuries TSA officers as well or just civilians? The reason I ask is because it could point to a motive.)
 
Having just flown from the West to the East Coast on Wednesday. This stirs up a lot of feelings.  First off, while a tragedy. TSA is security, that is who WE WANT to have be killed in these type of situations. So in thise case, it appears at least one TSA officer did their job.
 
That said, it does show just how ineffective security at airports really is.  First off, TSA has always been “responsive” rather than “proactive”.  Considering that there are almost no two terrorist attacks that are the same, this seems to pose a significant failing.
 
Second, most of the policies are focused on reaction, and usually with little intelligence or insight.  We have to take off our shoes because Mr Reid tried to blow his up. By this same logic, why do we not have to take off our underwear after the Underwear bomber’s attempt?
 
It pretty much confirms that the checks imposed upon us by the TSA are mainly security theater. They give the perception of safety and effectiveness but really do not accomplish much.
 
 
The article states
 
“A gunman concealing an assault rifle walked up to a Los Angeles International Airport checkpoint and opened fire on a TSA agent Friday morning”
 
If this is the case, it almost appears that TSA itself was the intended target. And having seen some of the videos of TSA abuse, I wonder if we are going to identify this individual as one of the victims of TSA abuse. And suddenly have a case where not a single camera in the area will have the video of the prior incident.
 
 
Is this incident part of a brewing backlash against the TSA?
 
I don’t know…