All they know is what they read in the papers

The Trace references an independent study which purports to prove ... statistically ... that private individuals who legally carry guns do not reduce crime. (see below the fold for detail)

The thing is, crimes which do not occur because of legally carried guns are rarely reported.

Woman Waiting For Her Commute:
During the bitter winter of the year in which Oregon permitted concealed carry, a lady friend of mine was waiting in the transit station to catch her ride into Portland.  She was approached by a trio of young men who threatened her and demanded her purse.  She slipped her hand into the pocket of her overcoat ... and the thugs backed off.   

They said (words to the effect) "Oh no, you don't gotta pull a gun on us, lady.   We're out of here!"

And they left. 
A few minutes later, her bus arrived and she went to her job.

Did she report the attempted mugging?   No, she did not.   She was cold, worried more about getting to work on time, and the crime (of "Threatening", if nothing else) was never reported.

Man Leaving The Office:
Another friend was threatened in the parking lot of the Corporate Headquarters building where he and I both worked ... this was just after he got off work.    He had stayed late to finish a product, and he was the only employee in the parking lot. 

Again, multiple assailants ... but this time he had a pistol in a concealed carry holster; he pulled the gun just far enough to display it, and the gang ran.

He unlocked his car and went home to dinner.  No report was filed with the police, the incident never appeared in the newspapers. 

Just life in The City.

I worked for several years in an educational institution.  I carried every day.  Even though I had a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) it was not legal for me to bring a firearm into the buildings, although it was legal for me to (concealed) carry on campus.  (NOTE: Oregon does not recognize any other state's handgun license; we are that weird.)

Nobody knew I was armed, and I kept the pistol in a locked desk drawer during the day; I only carried it between the parking lot and my office.   And I was never assaulted during that most dangerous time of the day ... on the way to and from work.

If I HAD been approached by someone who threatened me, I would have lost my job by defending myself with a gun; it was obviously a violation of my "Terms of Employment" for me to possess a firearm in any building on campus.     I wouldn't have reported it, either.

In Oregon, CHL folks are the Red-Headed Stepchild; nobody recognizes us, nobody likes us, so we just keep a low profile ... at least, in our professional life.

I suspect many CHL folks around the country are much the same way.  We don't advertise.
And i wouldn't even be writing this, if I wasn't retired.  Now Oregon laws on CHL have been updated just a little bit, but I still can't carry inside of any building on any campus in Oregon.


BELOW THE FOLD: CHL does not reduce crime

More Huffington Post Propaganda

An Open Letter From Hunters About Gun Reform | HuffPost:

We do not need AR-15s or any assault-style weapon to hunt game. That’s not to say some people won’t use them to hunt. But they are simply not necessary, and are actually not preferable for legitimate, fair-chase hunting. We believe that simple, responsible reforms in firearm policy are an urgent necessity. Hunting and hunters should not be seen, or used, as a shield against constructive bipartisan solutions. We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.

Actually, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Nobody who is legitimately advocating for Second Amendment Rights is using "Hunting" as a justification for the Second Amendment.   The argument presented here is not only facetious, but also misleading.

I have hunted, most of my life.  I have also fought a war, where I used weapons which are not available to me in private life.

This article is not about Second Amendment Rights; it's about infringing upon Second Amendment Rights.  The thrust of the article is that access to various ("non-sporting") types and models of firearms may not be "legitimate" because they are not commonly used in hunting.   And that's just bizarre, because the Second Amendment is constitutionally protected  to protect those Americans who may be called upon to defend their nation in time of war.   (Originally, it assumed that civilians would have the same or similar firearms which were available to members of the Army.)

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about firearms which are only appropriate for "hunting" (although some of them are particularly appropriate for Snipers).

We need to accept and legitimize that some firearms are appropriate for "non-hunting" purposes.  For example, I have several pistols which are definitely not appropriate for hunting.  Would the author of this article argue that they are not "legitimate"?

"Self-defense" is a different issue; but still, no less legitimate.

Ban Assault Weapons!

A new poll shows that 70% of Americans — and more than half of Republicans — support stricter laws on assault weapons in the wake of a deadly shooting in Florida.

According to the poll from Business Insider's partner MSN, 87% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans support stricter laws on assault weapons.

I don't know what most Americans consider an "Assault Weapon", and I suspect the most Americans don't know what it is, either; but a recent poll suggests that 90% of Americans are "against them"!

(MY best guess: it's a semi-automatic long-arm which fires one shot with one pull of the trigger, without the need to deliberately cycle a bolt or other mechanism to load the next round into the chamber.   But that's just a guess!   MSM isn't telling us what they consider an "Assault Weapon!")

I don't know why so many people are against a semi-automatic rifle,

I own a .22 caliber rifle which by the most vague of definitions, might be considered an "Assault Weapon"; but it constitutes no great threat to Joe America,

Main-Stream America seems to have rallied against the term, even if they don't seen to know what the heck it is.

Which doesn't speak well for Joe America, or the Mainstream Media ... all of whom seem determined to rally around the public outcry against a squirrel gun!


Assault weapons ban: 70% of US wants stricter assault weapon laws - Business Insider:

 A new poll shows that 70% of Americans — and more than half of Republicans — support stricter laws on assault weapons in the wake of a deadly shooting in Florida. According to the poll from Business Insider's partner MSN, 87% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans support stricter laws on assault weapons. The nationwide average of 70% is even higher than the 67% that want to ban assault weapons and the 66% that wanted tougher gun laws in general in a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Those figures are the highest ever in the 10-year history of the poll.

TEMPEST IN A TEA POT!

"The highest ever" outrage against "Assault Weapons", and they can't even define them? That doesn't speak well for either "Mainstream Media" or the "American Public".

Americans sometimes seem to pay more attention the the media than to our own native intelligence.

It doesn't speak well  of us when we allow ourselves to let strangers dictate our political and moral interpretation of the daily opinions we read in the newspapers.

Ask yourself; when was the last time you were threatened by someone who wasn't trying to hold up a liquor store or a late-night market?

And when was the last time you were threatened by a legal concealed-carrier who just wants to be left alone? 

(HINT:  You probably never knew that the guy next to you in the check-out line was carrying a concealed weapon .... because it never is shown except in defense.)

But if you really needed somebody on your side, and that anonymous stranger defended you and everyone else in the store ... I bet you were glad he was there.

Gruesome: The Ultimate Cost of A Cheap Holster

There is a reason why experienced shooters urge you to invest in a good holster.

That's a decision which could save your ass. Literally.

Gruesome pictures at gunfree zone.com

Back story: Bearing Arms

I decline to post the really ugly photos of a guy who shot himself in the leg: three holes, one shot.
(In, out, in again)

"New Shooters" tend to spend big bucks on a pistol, and all the accouterments ... but often won't spend 10% of their investment on a decent holster.  Hey, you may decide that pistol shooting isn't what you want to do, so why waste the money?

Answer: Because you're not as good as you think you are.

I've been competing in USPSA competition since 1983; performed tens hundreds of thousands of draws from the holster, and I haven't shot myself yet ... even though competition requires you to get the gun into action as quickly as possible.

Why haven't I shot myself yet?

Because I always spent the money to provide myself with the safest (if fastest) holsters I could buy, because I always chose holsters for competition, not EDC (every-day carry).

I Can't access the trigger in a holstered gun, because of the holster design. With this type* of holster, you learn to MUST keep your finger off the trigger until the pistol is pointed in a safe direction ... which is defined as "pointed away from your leg". 

 ( *Note:There are other holster manufacturers which provide the same level of safety; I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the best version of a "safe" holster!  It's only an example.  In fact I don't own or use this holster, or any holster by this manufacturer.)

If you decide that your "usual" mode of carrying a pistol is predicated on safe retention, you may choose another design.

Yet a third design may be your best choice. 
You should evaluate your options and make your own decisions, based upon your circumstances.  What are your priorities?  Concealment is only one priority.  Accessibility may be another, and retention yet a third.   This is not the best source for recommendations, but I urge you to consider all these criteria

If you;re concerned about EDC (Every Day Carry) your choices will perhaps not be my choices.

More Wapo Lies

The Washington Post is up in arms (so to speak) about new legislation which acknowledges the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

The GOP's idea of gun control | Washington Post | heraldstandard.com:

Incredibly, what the Republican-led House appears ready to do is make it easier for people — including those with dangerous histories — to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country. 

No, what the Republican-lead house appears ready to do is to acknowledge the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon ... which is enumerated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was the National Rifle Association’s “highest legislative priority,” so Republicans fell in line, brushing aside the reasonable objections of law enforcement officials about the dangerous consequences to public safety.

No, Republicans fell in line to acknowledge the right (already confirmed in most states) for law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon in all states if they have already been vetted in their home state to do so.

" ...— including those with dangerous histories — ..."

No state in the union will issue a Concealed Carry Permit to anyone with "dangerous history".

All states perform a thorough background on every candidate for a concealed carry permit'; nobody who has a criminal history will ever be issued a Concealed Carry Permit, in any state, if the candidate fails the background check.

There is no reason for the Washington Post to lie about this; they have a professional staff of researchers who can readily identify the process for allocating Concealed Carry Licences at both the state and (now) the national level.

The Washington Post lies about this because they choose to.

They are (apparently) politically against issuance of a firearms carry license to anyone, and they have obviously chosen to lie in order to ramp up public resistance to the new process.

Criminals ... those previously convicted of a crime ... are not likely to be missed in the vetting process.   EVERYONE who wishes to purchase a firearm from a legitimate dealer must be vetted by the current process to determine that purchases of firearms are not felons or otherwise forbidden to own firearms.

Of course, criminals who get their firearms from folks who steal guns and sell them on the black market will not go through this process; they never have.   When they do, they are committing another crime.    There's nothing new about this.

And when WaPo lies about the new effort to support America's First Freedom (the Second Amendment), they perform a disservice to the American people.

Most states have laws which permit individuals with no criminal background to carry a concealed weapon; this is what WaPo calls permission to  carry hidden, loaded guns across the country.

Their choice of verbiage is loaded to describe a legal process, but to express it in the most negative terminology possible.   Criminals already do this; under this new national law, honest people can protect themselves without the risk of running afoul of the widely varying laws of individual states;  all states will have the same standard, so if you are legally permitted to carry a concealed firearm in Florida, you may also do so in Washington.

This law merely standardizes laws so that honest people will not be harassed during interstate travel.
There is nothing dishonest, nefarious nor shameful in this law.

What is dishonest, nefarious and shameful is the way that the Washington Post has chosen to blacken its name before it is officially enacted.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others ... wtf?

Okay, so I "Get" that some Arkansans are ... um ... safer than others?  So why are the others different?

And who gets (understands) what, and why?


Enhanced Arkansas Concealed Carry Permit Allows Guns More Places: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. --

More than 200,000 Arkansans have their concealed carry license, according to Arkansas State Police. In the coming months, the enhanced carry permit will allow guns in more places. Firearms will be allowed in public buildings, universities, bars and churches. Arkansas State Police is expected to release its training program in January. One concealed carry instructor said if you get a permit you're entering a good faith agreement with the community when you carry.  "Second Amendment gives you the right to own arms, but if you carry in public you enter a social contract with us," said Ron Garatt, the G.I. Guns and Ammo owner. Instructors also recommend coming in at least once every few months, to re-qualify. One instructor said some people quickly forget the basics, like loading a magazine.

Ok, so here are MY questions:

(1) Why are some CCL's better than others?  If you are 'trusted' to carry concealed, what makes you "less trusted" than others?
(2) If you are a CCL, but you are trusted in the streets ... what is it about you that renders you un-trusted to carry in a courtroom, school, church or low dive?  To my way of thinking, churches and bars are equally unattractive:    I'm not buying what they're selling.  (The same goes for Universities.)

I'm just saying .... and while I'm at it:

this is so friggin' lame.  Who forgets 'loading a magazine" and still passes the qualification for Concealed Carry License?   This is just SILLY!

Are they this silly in Arkansas?

The Bag Trick

The Bag Trick…How to easily conceal a weapon in public | Active Response Training:

Not for everyday carry, but this  ad hoc technique allows ready access to a defensive weapon in "unusual circumstances".

Originally posted on May 27, 2014 by Greg Ellifritz in Articles, News and Tactical Advice

Dems Deny Concealed Carry By Charging Preposterous Permit Prices

John Lott details the obstructions anti-gun states use to deny Concealed Carry by "Undesirables".

How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich - Chicago Tribune: A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage-point increase in a state's presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by about 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

 In addition to prohibitive fees, some blue states — California, Illinois — require four times as many training hours as the national average, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of obtaining a concealed-carry license. In California counties, the mandated cost of training can run from $250 to more than $1,000. Compare heavily Democratic Illinois, where the cost of permit and training runs over $450, with neighboring Republican Indiana where the total cost for everything is $50.

I'm on the side of encouraging firearms training ... I teach it at my local gun club.   But there is no 'certification' awarded in my class;  it only serves to familiarize students in safe gun handling, with an emphasis on competition. So I can attest that It Ain't Rocket Science; what you PAY for is the certificate, which some states/localities require before a Concealed Carry License will be issued.

The states which mandate "certification" aren't using this requirement to "ensure proficiency"; they're using it as a club to beat the shit out of anyone who has the gall to demand that their Constitutional Rights will be honored.   Then after the expensive training, they add on this absurd fee for the permit itself.

Dr. Lott is, as always, absolutely correct.   This is all a great scheme on the part of the so-called "Liberals" (who are anything but liberal) to obstruct the American Citizen's access to firearms as noted in the Constitution.

This is why we can't have any fun any more.    The Democrats are, literally, doing everything they can to discourage law-abiding private citizens from exercising their rights.   Why are they doing that?

There are two reasons why Democrats are against the Second Amendment.

The first reason is that they are, as a class, a bunch of narrow-minded fuss-budgets who pretend to believe the Government can solve all your problems for you ... and if you aren't the government, you're not competent to run your own life.

The second reason why Democrats are against the Second Amendment is that Conservatives (not all of them Republicans) are FOR it.   Anything Republicans like, Democrats instinctively denounce.

Yes, many Democrats are nice people; many of my best friends are  ... uh ... no, not really.   A couple, at best.   But I'm sure there are a lot of nice Democrats out there, that I just haven't met yet.

Having said all that, the Democrats in "Blue State" of Oregon are among the "Nice Democrats".    For example, the cost for a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is in the $50 - $65 range.    You can actually take an online course for about that same amount, and apparently their certification of completion is acceptable in Oregon.   (Also, it seems that most County Sheriff offices will accept USPSA membership as certification of handgun competence.  Go figure.)

(The same website offers a neat summary of Oregon Gun Laws)

Responsible Concealed Carry Drivers who are pulled over for a traffic stop

Posted as in informational text for those who carry a concealed weapon.
[H/T: thegunfeed]

If you haven't already seen this article, check it out; it may save you some embarrassment in the future. Even if you think you already know what is 'the right thing to do' if you're stopped by the police while you're legally carrying a firearm on your person, it should reinforce the message:

why be confrontational?

(Introduction from the video:)

"If you conceal-carry, and if you drive and  you're pulled over by a Law Enforcement Officer, what do you do?  What do you do, what are the things you DON'T do, that are going to keep you safe and are going to keep the Law Enforcement Officer safe?"

CPSO: How should you react when pulled over with a firearm in yo - KPLC 7 News, Lake Charles, Louisiana:

The Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office has teamed up with Legally Armed America to create an instructional video on how you should act if you get pulled over and have a firearm. The video demonstrates the difference between a compliant and non-compliant driver. It also explains some dos and don'ts if you have a weapon on you when you get pulled over.

I won't steal the traffic from the original article, so go to the above CPSO link to find the video.

"When you have nothing to gain by being non-compliant ... why be non-compliant?"

The ultimate message, of course, is: "don't be THAT GUY!"

DC Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

At least ONE congress-critter got it right.

Congressman Massie introduces D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act - The Highland County Press:

Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky, chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, has introduced H.R 2909, the D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow individuals with a valid concealed carry permit issued from their home state to carry their firearms in the District of Columbia.

This act would not grant "Special Privileges" only to Congressmen; it would allow ANY private individual who has already been vetted in his/her home state to carry in the District of Columbia.

(Earlier motions were an insult to Americans.)

No word yet on whether that extends to carry within The Hallowed Halls of Congress (one would assume NOT!)

And I'm not certain that I would wish it otherwise.

NC Cops Oppose Constitutional Carry ( they might have seen it coming)

Fraternal Order of Police opposes NC gun permit bill | WCNC.com: CHARLOTTE, N.C.
(June 08, 2017)

New North Carolina gun bill will allow concealed carry without a permit.

But perhaps .. not just now.

(FOP Spokesman): "I just feel like it's going to put a lot more guns on the street readily available that is really not necessary ..." 

The officer may be correct in any or all of his objections; but here's the root of the problem:

 Permits are currently granted to legal gun owners 21 and up, but the vetting process can take months.   (emphasis added)

MONTHS?   What's so hard about a simple NICS check?

So ... these guns will be on the street eventually, right?  So why bitch about the legal process?

Question: What's so special about North Carolina, that they are so slow to respond to a simple background check?

Answer: Any Honest Citizen will revolt against this administrative delay, and refuse to abide by it.

Translation:  they will ignore your silly-ass regulations and do what they think is necessary..
...

This new bill will allow NC citizens to carry without the delay of applying for a Concealed Carry License.  Which benefits the citizens, but the NC Police are reluctant to resist opposing the movement.   Which may, in part, explain the months long delay in granting Concealed Carry licenses in the past.

NC is not serving the interests of their citizens. 
 They get money for processing applications!

Any state must accept that if a citizen is not dis-allowed from purchasing a firearm, they are also not dis-allowed from a Concealed Carry License.  If you can buy a gun, you should be free to carry it.

 It's in the Second Amendment ... you can look it up.

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that "KEEP" (own) and "BEAR ARMS" (carry) are equivalent.

But it takes NC "Months" to process applications.

North Carolinians,  already frustrated by their attempts to legitimately purchase a firearm, are once again frustrated by the states refusal to promptly vet their right to bear those arms.

It may be that the citizens of the state of North Carolina have lost faith with their 'protectors', and decided to take matters into their own hands.   It's "The American Way", and perhaps part of why the Democrats among us distrust gun owners.

We don't fit their ... whatchamaycallit?  
(Someone please fill in the word; I can't keep up with current liberal hatespeach)

If The State does not trust its citizens, then why should the citizens trust the state?

I don't have and answer to that question.  

Do you?

Anyone?

Oregon Bills May Prove Expensive: Especially SB1065

A couple of Oregon firearm bills are up for votes immediately .. including

SB1065:

SB 1065 includes language from several previous anti-gun bills that died due to a procedural error made by Floyd Prozanski, a sponsor of this bill.The bill is a 26 page monstrosity, but here are the lowlights.  Among many other things this bill does, it nearly quintuples the length of time the State Police can deny you a firearms transfer with no cause.  It also drastically complicates the process for getting a concealed handgun license.

Also:

. Online classes will be prohibited unless the class is provided by the NRA or an “Oregon law enforcement agency or association. “

I'm sure there are several professionals who provide this training locally, but I don't know if they are NRA Approved or if they need to be; the law isn't clear about that.  They are usually expensive, running into multiple hundreds of dollars.  I know of at least one Oregon provider, and I'm sure his training is worth the money.

The problem is that not everyone can afford it.

This bill may prove burdensome for some law-abiding Oregonians,

Fortunately, I acquired my first CHL fifty years ago .. which lapsed, but I re-applied some years later.

Here's a hint:  If you have a CHL in Oregon, do NOT let it expire.  Mine did, last month (they're only good for 4 or 5 years, which is enough time to forget you need to renew it) and now I have to go around collecting signatures from friends and neighbors signifying that they think I'm an honest responsible gun owner.

It's a LOT easier if you renew before your CHL expires.  In my state, at least, and probably in most states.

Expired? Who ... ME?

My CHL *(State issued Concealed handgun License)* expired on the 17th.

That means I have to go to the county sheriff's office, get my picture taken, pay them a couple of bucks (I think it's on the order of $15 for the processing fees), and then wait for a week for them to send me a new CHL.  I doubt they need to take my finger prints again, but if they do that's okay.
They already have them on file, have for years since I got my first CHL from this office.

This is the third time I've had a renewal (I got my first CHL in 1966, but it expired LONG ago!) and as I recall it takes about a week for them to make a new card ... which looks a lot like a drivers' license.

It's my fault, really; but how often do you look at those cards to see when they expire?

Credit cards are nice, they write you a letter to let you know when yours is about to expire, and make it really easy.

But the sheriff is not exactly 'customer oriented'; and they need to know you're still alive before they re-issue.  (Credit cards don't care; they know you have a bank account, and they'll charge you even if some stranger is using your card, unless you deliberately cancel the card!)

This may be a good time for you to check your CHL (or whatever passes for a concealed carry license in your area) and make plans to update it before it expires.   Note that the cops CAN arrest you for carrying with an expired CHL ... depending on the local laws.

I think the sheriff considers CHL processing to be a mundane administrative chore .. they only schedule two days a week, and always after lunch  (if I recall correctly) to process either new or renewals.  So I'll have to make an appointment, and then get a haircut; nobody wants to license a handgun owner with scraggly hair.

Hell, if it weren't for scraggly hair, I wouldn't have no hair at all!

But nobody wants to look like a fugitive on their CHL picture!

Why do gun control advocates seem like bottom-feeders after mass shootings?

Why do gun purchases spike after mass shootings? - CNN.com:

Nicole Hockley lost her 6-year-old son, Dylan, in the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. On the day of Dylan's memorial, the National Rifle Association issued a statement about the shooting that left 26 dead, mostly children. 

"The Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun, Is A Good Guy With a Gun!"


Don't buy it:  Read on.


The Rash.

People keep dying, and gun control advocates keep bottom-feeding on the worst of murders.  So why do the anti-gun organizations (all of which are tax-free foundations) keep making the most vocal declarations based on tragedy?

Because this is where the money is.

EVERYBODY denigrates the National Rifle Association (NRA), a self-declared political nosebleed organization which unabashedly survives because of its PACs in support of the right to keep and bear arms ..  but nobody talks about the anti-gunner Political Activity Committees which similarly live to provide fodder for it's anti-Second Amendment constituents.


 "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said the association's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.

That statement is widely poo-pooed by the Democratic community, but so far nobody has actually found a rhetoric which disproves the polemic.

And the sad fact is ... the Bad Guys With Guns community have nobody who can stop their horrific massacres ... not police, not FBI, not the Army,'

In the ultimate event, nobody stops the Bad Guy With A Gun except for the quiet private citizen who happens to be on the scene, has a gun, and perhaps had the nerve to pull the trigger on the Bad Guy to a well-deserved everlasting hell.

Although that's not always necessary, as we shall see.

We don't see it very often, but we see it often enough to quietly whisper:

 "I'm so glad he was there".

Admit it.  You said it to yourself, when "The Bad Guy With A Gun" was rampaging his way through a Thursday afternoon shopping mall, and the $6-an-hour mall guards were not to be seen, and the cops couldn't get there in time to stop the shooting, and this one little mouse guy just .... stopped it.

Right there.

It doesn't  happen often.  Not as often as we would wish.  But even once is enough.

Enough to let a mother go home to her kids, and hug them, and tell them "I'm all right".

Enough to let a clerk in an aromatherapy store go home to tell his own kids ... "I'm all right".

Hugs are important, and when you stop to consider that value, think about the clerks and jerks who don't  get to go home and tell their children .... "I'm all right"; often it's due to the presence of a Good Guy with A Gun.

..

Clackamas Town Center in December, 2012, Nick Meli pulled his pistol and set his sights on the shooter ... but did not pull the trigger because there were "too many people" in the area, and he was loath to fire downrange, at the risk of hitting an innocent with his fire.

No matter, the shooter saw that he was being aggressively engaged by an armed citizen, and rather than be shot by another he committed suicide by gun ... thus ending the massacre.

After action, Meli declined to exaggerate his role in ending the siege, only saying that he "didn't shoot", but did point his legal concealed carry pistol at the Active Shooter.

That was enough to end the fire.  The Bad Guy With A Gun shot himself rather than to face the fire of a Good Guy With A Gun ... whether out of remorse or determination, nobody knows.

No further shots were fired; it was sufficient that the Good Guy with A Gun was present, and actively engaged in the exchange.

So, Silly ass Liberal Commentators ... comment on that.

A good guy with a gun CAN prevail on a bad guy with a gun.

Nick Meli is just one example of what a responsible Concealed Carry person can do to make his community stronger than it was ... yesterday.

You don't even have to scare the children;sometimes you just have to be there, and be bold enough to be willing to do the very difficult job.

Carry a gun? You're a Paranoid!

Quote of the day—Vivek Murthy | The View From North Central Idaho:

I got into some trouble for saying gun violence is a public health issue. A little bit of trouble. But you know, I was stating what I think is the obvious, and I think most people in the country understand, which is that far too many people die from gun violence. And in my book, every single death from gun violence is a tragedy because it was preventable. It’s unacceptable.

-- "Surgeon General", via Joe at joehuffman

well, yeah.

You must understand, there are various gradations of "Public Health", mostly determined by the actions of the the victim!

Minor example: if you don't brush your teeth for years, you're a skuzz and you get a lot of dental issues.

If you don't go for an annual check-up from your doctor, minor infections can become major illness.

And if you don't prepare to defend yourself against violent criminals, you are a a possible victim of homicide.

Oh, Wow!   That's a HUGE step beyond Halitosis and Skin disease!

Strangely, many of us are more concerned with relatively 'minor' infections, and completely oblivious to violent attacks.   You got to ask yourself ... if the risks of all three threats are roughly similar possibilities, why don't more of us go for semi-annual checkups, brush daily, and carry daily?

The answer is that brushing your teeth is easy to do and socially acceptable; annual medical check-ups are just "a reasonable thing to do: because we're all subject to communicable diseases;

But being attacked by a violent predator?

Gee ... you must be PARANOID!

• Here are some highlights from Crime in the United States, 2014:
• There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.
• Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.

I'm kind of hoping that someone will compare the rate of Gingivitis annually, vs violent assault.


Considering the consequences of each, I'm still willing to bet Big Money that more Americans brush daily, compared to those who regularly carry means of physical defense against assault.

So, what's it going to be?

Brush every day?

Carry every day?

Why can't you do both?

On the value of legal "Concealed Carry"

Op-ed: Federal concealed carry reciprocity is wrong for Pennsylvania and the country — NewsWorks:

 An explosion in the number of people interested in carrying concealed weapons has occurred in recent years, due to the belief that a "good guy" with a gun can deter crime or violence. The facts simply do not support this notion. A recent study that analyzed data on number of concealed handgun licenses issued from 1998 to 2010 and arrests in every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas found no significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates ...

Cherry-picked data is no data at all; the above quote is a non sequitor, because to doesn't really have anything to say about the value of  "allowing" law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm.

It doesn't' matter whether anyone can find verifiable data that a CHL ("Concealed Handgun License", in my state) has had a "significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates";  what matters is that the 'good guys' may legitimately carry a gun to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

In a way, I have some issues with the CHL system.   I think that the 2nd Amendment already justifies carry of a defensive weapon, and the CHL system is redundant.

But it does have some value, in that a LEO meeting an armed citizen can easily separate the felon-with-a-gun from the honest citizen (one whose right to be armed has not been abrogated by a felony conviction, etc.)

On the other hand, when a LEO meets an armed person, it's a matter of moments before a background check can identify a convicted felon who is forbidden by law to carry.

While I resent having to "prove" my status as a non-felon, it does have value because when (for example) I am pulled over by a LEO for a minor traffic infringement, the officer knows before he gets out of his car that (a) I am probably armed, (b) I'm not likely to be a threat to him.  As I'm forthcoming with my drivers license, insurance card and CHL license when he arrives at the window of my automobile,

This avoids the possible tragedy demonstrated by the Philandro Castille episode, where a CHL driver was shot by a cop when he reached for his CHL .. inside his jacket ... and the LEO thought he was reaching for a gun.

Cops aren't perfect; so you have to be.

Thus endeth the lesson/

Yes, I've already said all these things before; they bear repeating.

Federal Judge Opines ... open & concealed carry not justifiable

GUN WATCH: Judge Claims to Support Second Amendment, Just not the "Bear" part: open and concealed carry laws were a danger to any community.

"I think open carry (and concealed-carry) laws, with all due deference to the Second Amendment, which I support...are dangerous to any community because of the epidemic of mental health issues throughout this country," he said. "Putting guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people is a recipe for disaster."

Well ... yes.   The insanity clause seems reasonable.  But who decides who is insane?
What criteria is codified to determine insanity?

To most Liberals, anyone who thinks he/she needs a gun is ipso facto insane,

That's Crazy Talk!

Oregon, and the Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries

Oregon bans weapons in state workplaces:

Oregon officials have banned state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace unless they're needed for their jobs. The move caused consternation Thursday among Republican leaders in the Legislature. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services said it imposed the ban, which became effective on Jan. 6, in hopes of "providing a safe and secure environment for employees and visitors." Banned are firearms, daggers, slingshots, and a host of other specified weapons. Oddly, even knobkerries were mentioned. Knobkerries are clubs used by indigenous people like the Zulus in southern Africa, and are probably unknown to most Oregonians.

You realize that this would not make for a "safe and secure environment", right?

But if I was still working for The State, I would be a criminal.   Because what I did legally last month, would be illegal today.

For almost 20 years I carried a concealed Knobkerry at work, in a State Office, every day.  Nobody knew because it was ... well ... concealed.  
And I certainly wasn't going to mention it.

It was legal, because of state laws in effect in Oregon at the time, and I had a "CKL" (Concealed Knobkerry License".  But the place where I worked had an administrative rule disallowing the possession of knobkerries ... either open or concealed carry.    They could have fired me for wanting to exercise my God Given Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries  (RKBK).  

But I would not have been subject to legal action;   I was not breaking any laws.

My thinking was that Knobkerry Free Zones (such as schools) were a prime target of 'mischief makers', and if  'mischief' were to occur at my work place,  I wanted to have options.  

I always felt much more "safe and secure" knowing that I could pull out my trusty knobkerry and pound the living crap out of anyone who decided to use an illegal knobkerry to attack my workplace.

Well, that has all changed now.   Because we are defenseless ... by legal fiat.

I am disgusted ... California Politics are creeping into Oregon.

"Get Training"

The Shooting Wire today included an excellent commentary on the problems of training would-be gun handlers (AKS: "New Shooters") in the safe gunhandling practices, which include drawing from the holster.

"Get Training" | Shooting Wire:
(Rich Grassi: December 09, 2016)

We continue to face a huge number of new gun owners and new shooters – something that had its beginning in 1986 with the advent of 'shall-issue' concealed carry permits, continued through the years of the Clinton gun ban from 1994 until its sunset, and really ramped up in the age of internet forums, internet video and the Global War on Terror. Something that continued the drive to more private gun ownership was self-identification of the Democrat Party as the "Party of Infringement" (h/t, Stephen Wenger) and a federal government that continued to be threatening as certain individual states rushed to get state-level infringements of their own passed.  

Still, to the new gun owners and new shooters, we've all been saying "Get Training!"

Grassi points out that there are so many new shooters, there are not enough experienced/qualified instructors to provide the training which they need.   And again, even people who have some experience shooting pistols are usually not experienced in drawing from the holster.

Which is a special skill ... and that is not intuitively obvious!

If I exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights, Should I feel like a 2nd Class Citizen?

I've asked this question before, and I still haven't found "A Good Answer".
My  personal answer is to yield to my family preference ... but I've never felt comfortable with it;

New York Times: What To Do If A Guest Wants to Bring a Gun to Thanksgiving Dinner - The Truth About Guns:

No doubt Anonymous’ sister rolled her eyes at the anxiety in her sibling’s voice when the question was presented.Mr. Galanes’ response: Follow up. Ask, “How did Jim feel about leaving his gun at home?” In the event of pushback (or noncommittal dithering), add: “We know that Jim is a responsible gun owner. We just don’t want guns in our home.” If you continue to believe she’s shining you on, install a metal detector at the front door. Happy Thanksgiving!

Yes, I've been exposed to the same question in my family, and I've never felt comfortable with it.

The answer is a personal response, and so far I've always yielded to the preference of my family.

 When I asked "I suppose it would better not to bring my gun to the wedding" (for example), my family has always been negative ... and I have always acquiesced to their preference.

I've never felt comfortable that I bowed to their preference, and I'm darned if I know whether it was better for me to feel uncomfortable, or for them to feel uncomfortable.

Ultimately, I think it's better that they not know that I continue my usual habit of carrying.

If they can see that I am armed, I am not "doing it right".
If they feel uncomfortable knowing I'm armed in a social situation, I'm not carrying "concealed", and that't My Bad; there should never be a circumstance when I'm obviously carrying.

But that's the whole point.  Do I have a responsibility to inform them that I'm carrying?

I feel a responsibility to inform my family that I'm armed in social situations.  Perhaps I'm offering them a choice which is not fair to them, because nobody else in the family carries a firearm.

And perhaps I'm asking them a question  (should I leave my gun at home?) which causes them great discomfort, and in doing so I'm asking them to tell me that I should not carry in a familial situation?  I get the impression that they would rather I had not asked, because they really didn't want to deal with the question.

Should I ask their permission to carry in a family gathering?
Or should I merely tell them, so they are informed?
Or should I just carry without informing them; leaving them outside the "Decision Curve"?

I've been carrying for decades.  My family is aware (although I haven't made an issue of it), and of course there has never been a cause for it to become an issue.  But when I ask if it's 'appropriate' for the moment, the answer from my family is invariably "NO!"

Who do I listen to:  My family (to whom I will lie, and carry anyway), or my conscience?

Ot to my personal judgement?