Weathering the Broken Links

Rarely do you see a story about someone who is not in law enforcement who uses a gun for self defense told in a way that doesn’t spin against gun ownership and use.   This one is a refreshing change.

… “When she pulled over to check her tires one of those person in that other car got out and attempted to rob her at knife point.”

But what the thief didn’t expect happened next. Coppinger says the female driver pulled out her handgun.

“She pointed that at her attacker and he backed away, got in the car and they fled.” …

Quite simply she used a gun judiciously to deter a crime against her. She didn’t lose her mind and go on a rampage killing people because she was carrying a gun.

I congratulate Jared Broyles and KFSM-TV for running this story.

I recorded a show called “Guns in America” on the National Geographic channel last night. I was really hoping to see some sort of positive representation of guns, gun ownership, and gun use. What I saw when I watched this morning was a bad attempt at pretending to perhaps provide a fair story in the topic. They certainly did showed positive aspects of gun ownership, but always managed to inject some disparaging comment from the anti-gun camp.

I could go on and on about all the idiotic things they said pretending to be neutral. But this commentary really got me ROFLing…and then crying:

“This is a family of law abiding gun enthusiasts. Still, if this cache of weapons ever were stolen, chances are they would make it into criminal hands.”

I suppose they meant they’d be sold to gangbangers and such. But I just can’t see how Peter Coyote (the narrator) could have uttered that line and then not complained to the writer, Patrick Prentice, that he’s going to sound like a moron.  After all, a gun stolen is a gun already in the hands of a criminal.

More importantly, this logic is one of many tells of the anti-gunners. They love to see laws that blame the gun owners when a criminal breaks into your home and steals your guns.**  They even want laws that allow prosecution of the original owner of the gun (i.e. the one that it was stolen from) if the gun is used in a crime.

These mindsets are clearly aimed and persecuting gun ownership.  Unless the owner of the gun that was stolen is criminally negligent, for example leaving their gun lying in the street, why are they to blame for being a victim of theft?  Do we try and charge typical burglary victims with conspiring to sell stolen goods when their DVD player or TV shows up on the black market?  No!  Why is a gun any different?

Discussion on the open carrying of firearms has been pretty popular the past couple years.  I don’t know how many times I’ve run across various discussions for or against open carry.  The discussions always talk about the element of surprise, deterrence, ease of access.  I really don’t want to get into a debate as I don’t favor one or the other on principle.  But I think I have yet another factor that I don’t recall seeing mentioned in this endless debate:  the gun’s temperature.

It get’s damned cold where I live.  I’ve not done much outdoor shooting in the winter, but I’ve heard quite a few stories of autoloading handguns not functioning properly in the colder weather.  It’s sometimes attributed to choice of lubricant and sometimes to ammo that doesn’t perform well enough at lower temps.  Regardless, I imagine it can be an issue if you’re not carrying a wheel gun.  I can see this being a rationale for concealed carry in cold climes?   After all, many, modes of concealed carry keep the gun closer to the body, under cover garments and coats, and not as exposed to the elements: i.e. warmer and more likely to function correctly.

I suppose your leg might not kick off enough heat to warm up that ankle holstered gun if that’s how you carry.  I don’t, so I can’t do the experiments.  But I do say that when I carry IWB, my gun stays nice and warm even when it’s 10 degrees below.

Yes, of course if the gun is covered up enough to stay warm it’s not as accessible…but remember I didn’t really want to start the debate again.  I just wanted to point out that I don’t recall ever having heard this argument.

One last thought, I bet there are a bunch of cops and non-cop OC’ers out there who don’t maintain their guns a lot and who haven’t “winterized” them who are carrying some cold guns that aren’t going to work so well if they really have to use them when it’s 0°F or even colder.

Reminder to everyone who carries: go forth and winterize that handgun, just in case.

The residents of the Bay Area are going to be footing the bill for a 40- to 50-million dollar metal net to help stop suicides of those who would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. The Golden Gate Transportation District’s board of directors approved the project last month.

Discussions here and here attempt to refute the possibility that this expensive project will serve no effect as it will drive those contemplating suicide to make their attempt somewhere else or in some other manner. The problem with the numbers in the latter link is that they conclude (see this study) that because only 6% of the 515 thwarted Golden Gate jumpers eventually committed suicide, that static barriers to suicide will have the same effect. The authors of that paper state that a liability of their methodology is it doesn’t consider those who may have eventually committed suicide outside of California.

But I think it has a much, much larger liability: it only considers individuals who were “restrained.” In other words, the people who were studied, had been actively thwarted; they experienced an intervention of some sort. A static barrier (metal net) is much different than an intervention by law enforcement or health professionals. You cannot assert that the metal net will help convince suicidal people from taking their lives as well as compassionate human beings can.

Sadly, I don’t have any studies to challenge the claims that the nets will work. It stands to reason that these studies likely cannot exist as there almost certainly is a massic paucity of data from suicidal people who decided to abort an attempt because of a physical barrier and instead did or did not move on to another method. The people, by virtue of their willingess to end it all as opposed to seeking help from others, are not likely to report their change of heart upon seeing the sight of a metal net.

Now, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying that the study seems to suggest ONLY that of those who experienced a compassionate intervention when trying to jump of the Golden Gate Bridge had a low rate of subsequent suicide. I’ll go out on a limb and assert that an expensive net will not have the same effect. It may have a positive effect, but not as extreme as the supporters will have you believe. And lucky for them, they’ll no one will be able to disprove them.

It is sad that so many people think that preventing access to things (edges of bridges, guns, etc) will prevent suicides. What actually does seems to work is people paying attention to eachother and helping out when they see warning signs.

I just started this blog recently and I’m still laying my cards on the table.

I believe self defense is a human right.  Efforts to disarm law abiding people infringe upon this right by reducing the individual’s ability to maintain primary responsibility for his own safety.

Governments and organizations all around the world stigmatize weapons by treating them as if they are solely for causing trouble.  Whether they ignore the constructive uses for weapons intentionally or not doesn’t matter because society has largely been conditioned to ignore them as well.

Instead, most folks blindly assume that they’re not at risk of anything bad happening.  Worse, a lot of them don’t consider what if something bad did happen?  They don’t have a plan.  At best many of them might try to comply when confronted with the threat of violence and/or call 911.  These reactions aren’t necessarily wrong, but they are unlikely to help if a criminal is intent on doing you harm; compliance gives them a greater opportunity to control you; if you call 911 when seconds count, the police are at best minutes away.

As I said, compliance and emergency responders are certainly useful to have as part of your toolkit for maintaining your safety.  There are situations where the threat is not as imminent and they can help.  However, if you have no other part of your staying-safe-toolkit, then you are simply at higher risk of becoming a victim.

Good additions are awareness and avoidance.  A large majority of people walk around in condition white, unaware of the innocuous and not so innocuous things going on about them.  If you are unaware, you are in denial that bad can happen to you.  If you are in such denial, you are less likely to avoid situations that can lead to trouble.

And any good self-defense advocate knows that avoidance is a lot less expensive than ignoring a threat or facing it unnecessarily.  You can pay with your health/life for ignoring it.  You can pay with your pocketbook (legal) and freedom if you don’t avoid it when you could have.

That said, not everything can be avoided and eventually tools of self defense will come up: guns, knives, chemical sprays, martial arts, etc.  Too many people think that these are crime causing tools or fashion accessories for the insecure.  Sadly, criminals use them as force multipliers and some people carry weapons for the cool factor.  But a lot of other people responsibly train with them and carry them as tools of last resort, for when awareness and avoidance don’t pan out.

I will, from time to time, be posting on issues surrounding self defense, firearms, etc.