Ignorance - for people who carry concealed, it can be tragic

People who like guns and have a concealed carry permit most often focus on guns, caliber, holsters, concealment and other every day topics that keep us entertained and up to date. However, today, I saw and responded to a disturbing thread on a gun forum that dealt with none of these things.

The poster related an incident that could happen to anyone, but his attitude toward it and his responsibility as a gun owner - it's not a situation that is confined to concealed carry - was ill informed, based more on folklore than fact, and perhaps too common. In brief, the situation was this, and I'm paraphrasing and leaving out any identifying details.

The gun owner and his friends were sitting on his property enjoying their conversation when an adult male, riding a bicycle appeared and began riding around on the gun owner's property, and making stupid remarks. The bicycle guy was asked to leave repeatedly and finally rode off uttering generally threatening remarks and bad language. Then the bicycle guy returned. The gun owner sent his guests into the house and confronted Mr Bicycle Man, who at one point moved his hand toward his hoodie pocket at which time the gun owner drew his pistol so the bicycle man could see it, but didn't point it at him. Bicycle man rode away, mouthing threats.

Well, there are probably a few things the gun owner did wrong, or on the edge of wrong, but the most disturbing thing was the follow up posts. These were from the gun owner and a few other forum members, the essence of which is that the gun owner stated that he was within his legal rights to shoot someone who is trespassing on his property and refuses to "follow orders" to leave.

This is undoubtedly wrong, regardless of the state in which Mr. Gun Owner resides. It is wrong, both legally and ethically. I certainly am not familiar with every state statute on defensive shooting, but I will say that I believe there is a requirement on the part of the shooter to know, without a reasonable doubt, that he, or some innocent person at the scene, is threatened with severe bodily harm or death and the person threatening this has demonstrated the means to do so.

Carrying or having access to a firearm should make one more responsible and less willing to engage in confrontations for that very reason. If I have a legally sanctioned carry gun and some bozo wants to argue, insult and question my manhood, well, fine. I don't have to bite. I know that I have the means to defend myself if I am significantly threatened and frankly, I don't really care what other people on the scene may think. I know I am armed. The others don't. And I intend to keep it that way.

So, once again, people who have guns, especially those who carry legally, have a serious and constant burden to know the law and to know when deadly force, or the threat of it, is appropriate, legally and morally.

The scenario I proposed to Mr. Gun Owner who posted on the forum was this: suppose a twenty-something male, dirty, oddly dressed and mostly incoherent appeared on his property. Mr. Gun Owner argues with the man and orders him to leave his property. The man doesn't comply but continues to wander around raving incoherently, maybe walking toward the Gun Owner's house. The Gun Owner decides the other guy is freaking him out, doesn't know what he might do and besides, has not followed orders to leave the property, so he shoots the raving man. Afterward, Mr. Gun Owner is informed by the police that the raving man was an honorably discharged veteran who was undergoing treatment for PTSD, tended to get confused and babble when off his meds and had wandered away from home where he was being cared for by his elderly parents and was confused and looking for help.

The responsible gun owner cannot resort to deadly force unless there is no other viable alternative present at the time. Period.

I'm not a lawyer, or am I offering this as legal advice. I'm saying, know your legal and moral requirements if you carry or own a gun. From what I have seen on various gun forums, many people do not.

Actual Facts

I have been in correspondence with many of my state and national legislators, and have written my views directly to the White House. In response, and in some stories I have read in various media, people who are pushing an agenda often quote supposed "facts" in order to substantiate their claims and viewpoints. Now, there is nothing wrong with using facts to oppose or support a given topic, but often what are presented as "facts" are not objective and real. Many statistics and so-called facts are not without bias, sometimes extreme. One example I have seen references a study that if a certain measure were to be passed by the legislature, it would cost the average person over $700 per year more to pay their basic expenses - food, utilities, rent, etc. While this may be true in the aggregate, the study failed to take into consideration a projected $300 per year general cost of living increase, whether the measure under discussion passed or not. The real fact was a $400 increase, not $700.

There is an organization of researchers who find and publish actual factual data, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not. It is really not a matter of debate, but of provable fact derived from actual data. Studies with a high degree of objectivity and integrity. Statutes. Laws. Regulations. See them at http://www.justfacts.com

The, of course, have a section on gun control. It is quite extensive, even containing relevant state and federal statutes. At the beginning, there is a very interesting section of facts that anyone engaging in reasonable and rational discussions about firearms and violence should be familiar with. There are frequently 'facts' quoted in the media that seem to indicate that guns in the hands of citizens don't deter crime. However, the statistics and facts compiled by this organization speak otherwise.

I encourage you all to visit www.justfacts.com and see for yourself, but I am also quoting the beginning part of their section on gun control that I think can serve as good information to educate those who are opposed to gun ownership out of fear, misunderstanding and reliance on biased 'facts'.

From www.justfacts.com

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Finding What You Want » Click on the footnote numbers for meticulous documentation of each fact. Introductory Notes This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility. Ownership * As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5] * Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7] * Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:  Households With a Gun  Adults Owning a Gun  Adults Owning a Handgun Percentage  40-45%  30-34%  17-19% Number  47-53 million  70-80 million  40-45 million [8] * A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership: Category  Percentage Owning a Firearm Households  42% Individuals  30% Male  47% Female  13% White  33% Nonwhite  18% Republican  41% Independent  27% Democrat  23% [9] * In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons: Protection Against Crime  67% Target Shooting  66% Hunting  41% [10] Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12] * Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] * Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

Lessons

When things don't work, it is usually a sign that there is a lesson there, that some changes need to occur in order to correct whatever is wrong. The shooting in Connecticut is another example of something that does not work.

I have stayed far away from this story, as I did with the shootings in Colorado recently. Not because I do not grieve with the parents, friends and relatives, but because the story will be beaten to death in order to sell advertiser time, and to push various agendas. What gets lost in all this are the, to me, essential lessons.

The first lesson is that gun control as envisioned by gun haters is not only ineffective at resolving incidents like this (not to mention much smaller, frequent and more personal incidents that happen almost daily in America and across the world), it can contribute to the likelihood of things like this happening again. If guns were removed from law-abiding citizens, that fact would not stop the crazies, criminals and terrorists from getting and using guns, it would, in my opinion, make that much more likely and the consequences of that class of people more devastating. It would be plain open season on anyone without the means to protect themselves and their loved ones, and those people would, of course, be the law-abiding citizens who had to give up their guns.

Bad people think hard about confronting other bad people because they would know that the other guys are armed. Not so with the disarmed public. They would be easy prey to anyone who had a gun, knife or club.

The second lesson is that by prohibiting law abiding citizens from legally carrying in a designated place, that place then becomes what we used to call in the military, a free fire zone. Anyone wanting to wreak death and destruction would most likely pick a gun-free zone to do so for the simple reason that the odds are high that no one there would be armed and able to stop them. This is so obvious that I do not understand why we would ever want to create and advertise a free-fire zone to the criminals, crazies and terrorists.

I spent some time in Israel recently and I can assure you that the Israelis don't allow their school children to be unprotected or attend gun-free zones. You see a group of students out for a field trip, or a trip across town and they are invariably accompanied by adults with weapons. Go to a nice sidewalk cafe by the sea in Tel Aviv, and the guy at the entrance is packing. The Israelis don't think it is smart to have their people give up their weapons because a bunch of Arabs are trying to kill them and their families. We shouldn't either.

The third lesson is that this is, and always has been, a dangerous world. Thinking that removing dangerous things from the world will make it safe is a delusion. Cars are dangerous. So are alcohol, airplanes, electricity, poisonous emissions, submarines, knives, axes, and... well, you get the point. However, it should be noted that by themselves, none of the items in that list are dangerous in of of themselves. Unless they are used, or mis-used, by humans, they are pretty benign. Airplanes don't fly by themselves. Knives, axes and alcohol are static items that without human interaction would slowly degenerate into molecules over time. Guns. The same. So, obviously, one of the most dangerous elements to humans are other humans, and until that changes, I refuse to surrender the right to protect myself from them as effectively as I can.

In the end, I cannot see how depriving law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms would have in any way stopped the tragedy in Connecticut. Or in Colorado.

I can see that if a teacher, aid or even passerby on the school grounds who was legally carrying a weapon that day might have stopped or minimized the damage that did occur. At least the possibility would have existed where, instead, the law had decided to make that school a free fire zone for a crazed criminal.

If you are scared by all this, be scared of the society and the dangerous people in it, not the many things those unfortunate individuals may use to express their violent souls. Also, be somewhat comforted by the knowledge that there are among you many who hold their freedoms and rights dear and who would seek to protect themselves and others, perhaps you, from those dangerous individuals, and who legally have the means to do so.

It Doesn't Change Anything

The furor over Aurora has abated somewhat now so I feel I can comment on the self-defense aspects of this tragedy. A few days after the shootings I was visiting relatives in northern Colorado and one, who should know better, burst out that it was all the fault of those concealed carry permits that are so easy to get. Obviously, my relative was not thinking clearly, so I ran over some basic facts with him, which cooled the situation quickly.

First, law-abiding citizens who have concealed carry permits usually won't carry in a "gun free" zone, which this was. That removed legal carry from the situation. Obviously, had there been one or more concealed carry citizens present, things might have turned out differently. We'll never know.

Second, even if there were no concealed carry permits, anyone who wants to buy and carry a gun will find a way to do so. Criminals and crazy people don't usually bother to go through the expense, background checks and training required of a citizen to obtain a carry permit. Still, they persist in using and carrying guns (not to mention knives, clubs, bats, martial arts weapons, or any handy weapon they can get their hands on at the time.)

The fundamental thing lost in all the noise is that law-abiding citizens of the USA have the right to protect themselves from deadly assault. Taking away that right, and that protection, will not change the fact that bad people assault good people every day.

Carried to an absurd extreme, the logic of taking away guns from the public so they can't defend themselves when they choose to fight back and not be passive victims of crime, will result in ever more 'police' or law-enforcement personnel being necessary to protect an unarmed society. Weapons cannot be kept from criminals who want them (if this is not clear, refer to the so-called "war on drugs", or even Prohibition in the early part of the last century. Acknowledged failures in separating the public from something the public wants.)

Since assault can happen any time and anywhere, there must always be adequate armed law enforcement personnel in the immediate area in order to adequately safeguard our citizens. In short,  cops on every corner, in every apartment, hotel, restaurant, church, baseball, football or basketball game, movie theatres, parking lots, grocery stores.... You get the picture. A basic police state with almost as many people required to be hired, trained, equipped and paid to protect about the same number of citizens. Not only is this financially impossible, but who wants to live in a police state?

Until someone figures out how to eliminate criminal and pathological behaviors, there will always be someone who preys on the innocent. In my opinion, the innocent must maintain the right to protect themselves and not be required to submit passively to whatever the criminals and crazies want to do.

Misinformed. Again

Easter Sunday. I am sitting in the back of the church in my usual spot, wearing a nice jacket, shiny boots and my Ruger LC9 discreetly tucked away when the guest preacher launches into a mini-tirade against the "make my day" law. His problems were three: he absolutely does not understand the specifics or intent of the law, he fails to see how protecting property justifies applying the law (basically the castle doctrine) to businesses, and he thinks people who have guns do so because they are afraid.
He and his wife also revealed later that they think anyone can go to a gun show and buy a fully functional "AK-47" which they equate with "machine guns."

I had the opportunity to discuss their assumptions with them, at some length, so that they were at least exposed to the facts of the law, that it is intended to protect people, not merely property, from harm regardless if one is in your home or place of business. That people should be afraid when encountering criminals or crazy people with guns and the way to not be afraid and to offer an effective way of protecting oneself and others is to legally carry and know how to use a firearm responsibly. And, I also disabused them of the notion that one can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun.

Now, I am not at all certain that they believed me or will approach this with a more objective perspective. Likely not, especially since he was invested in convincing people that if one believes in Jesus, then you don't have to be afraid, because if someone kills you, you are going to heaven anyway. I'm not kidding. This was the underlying message he gave to the congregation.

I am not buying into that. To state only one objection: would it be all right if I did nothing while innocent people were murdered and I had an opportunity to stop it because they might be going to heaven anyway?

All that aside, the essential issue is a common one. People are misinformed about the reasons why our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental and, in many cases, can only be guaranteed by our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from others who would seek to take those rights, and our very lives, away from us. People are misinformed. Why?

I suspect it is because of fear and ignorance. Fear of guns, since they only know what they see in the media - and by that I mean film and TV as well as gun-hostile press - and ignorance of basic facts regarding self-defense shootings and crime. A prime example of this is when the preacher also said that the number of self defense shootings had "doubled" over the last few years. That is statistically incorrect, however, he mentioned nothing about the curious facts that while the number of citizens arming themselves and acquiring concealed carry permits had grown tremendously, the violent crime rate has significantly dropped during that same period. That this interesting connection was not mentioned by the preacher tells me that he didn't know this, or, if he did, it did not fit his preconceived notions about guns and people. Certainly didn't fit with his "it is ok to be afraid" sermon.
I couldn't help wondering, sitting there with my legal, concealed 9 mm, if he would have condemned me should I have had to protect him and the others there from some crazy with a gun come to church to settle the demons in his head?

Need for Knowledge

As some of you know, I am one of the moderators on a large gun forum with over ten thousand members. ( elsiepeaforum.com ) Most of the members do not post, which is pretty much the norm for internet forums in my experience. But, from the ones who do post it is possible to discern some trends in people's attitudes and knowledge about carrying handguns for self defense - legally, of course.

The main thing I am seeing is that there are many more people getting their concealed carry permits, buying guns, strapping them on and carrying without enough basic knowledge about guns in general, gun safety and correct and safe use of their weapons in particular. I would feel better if those who were carrying legally were well versed in the law and their responsibilities, and solid in their knowledge of how and when to resort to their weapons.

For me this breaks down into two main areas: the legal and moral responsibilities one has accepted in order to carry a gun, and the minimum level of training in safety and shooting skills needed. As I have noted in a prior post here about the "Aftermath" class, the former can be acquired by attending a good class, reading many of the excellent books on that subject and engaging experienced members of a good gun forum in questions and discussions. The second is more complicated.

While books and videos can teach basic gun safety, they are only the starting point. Safety involves you and those around you, especially if you have children in the house, or likely to visit. Think grandparents, for example. The first impulse is to lock everything up in the safe when kids are around. This is obviously a good idea, but beyond that, what can you teach youngsters about gun safety when you are not around? Like, they are playing at Jane's or Jimmy's house and Jane or Jimmy comes up with dad's gun. This happens more often that we would like to think.

I believe it is imperative to teach young people about guns from the safety perspective. What they are, how they operate. That they are inherently dangerous and should be respected but not feared. And, most importantly, all guns are to be considered loaded. For my kids, I taught that and the basic rule, not to be trifled with, that if one of their friends comes up with a gun, to ask them firmly to put it down, and then leave immediately, encouraging any other child present to leave also, and report this to the nearest adult. If no adults are around, get out of the house and call 911.

Adults who carry with minimal knowledge and with preconceived ideas garnered by conversations, movies, the internet, etc. are potentially dangerous to themselves and to others. One example that comes up frequently in the forums are people who buy steel clips to attach to their carry guns so that they can be clipped to the waistband of their garment. No holster. Trigger not covered. This, as we always point out is a very bad idea and can get them and innocent bystanders shot. Even after a significant number of experienced forum members have pointed out the serious safety flaw in this type of carry, there are still those who think they know better and blow off any warnings.

We also see people who are basically afraid of their guns. Some will buy a readily concealable pistol like Ruger's LCP .380 and when they finally get around to firing it, the noise and recoil shocks them. Some learn to use it properly. Some shoot a few rounds and then stick it into their carry holster and go on about their daily business. Some sell it and get something bigger that doesn't have the perceived recoil. They don't shoot that one much either, but still rely on it as a carry weapon.

I could go on with other types of stories but the essential thing is that in order to carry effectively and safely, one must learn basic gun safety, preferably from an instructor who knows what she is doing and, better, is certified by the NRA or other recognized organization to be a firearms instructor. Then, one should practice regularly - not just shooting, but gun handling, loading and unloading properly, holstering and storing the weapon away safely. And, frequent cleaning and inspection, looking for anything out of the ordinary that might impede the safe operation of the gun. Often impending problems can be spotted and recified early if you practice regular inspections of your firearms.

All this makes sense, but can it be required of concealed permit holders? Probably not. There is little uniformity in state law that regulates how proficient a person has to be with shooting and gun safety before a permit can be acquired. In Colorado, you merely have to take a concealed handgun permit class, and present proof of that along with some other minor documentation in order to obtain your permit. You do not have to demonstrate you could hit a wall if you were shooting inside your house.

This is likely not going to change in the near future. Or distant future for that matter. One good reason is that, constitutionally, nothing of this sort is required as part of our right to keep and bear arms. I am sure that when that was written, most children were intimately acquainted with guns from an early age, learning from their parents and relatives how to use them and not act like a damn fool. I was taught very early on by my father and grandfather, and later by the US Navy and Marine Corps. All-in-all, excellent and unforgiving teachers. I thank them for it.

While the idea of mandatory firearms training in safety and shooting skills as prerequisties for a conceal carry license is, at first, an attractive idea, I don't like the idea of a bureaucratic mandate, controlled by government officials. That, to me, strikes at the foundation of a free people with second amendment rights. I think it is up to us to encourage and help those who need it in this area, not another government body.

If you are not as familiar as you should be with gun safety and your shooting skills, not target shooting, but self-defense shooting, please work on getting the necessary skills and knowledge. Take some classes. Find some good firearms instructors who can teach you these basic skills and practice and train with them so they are second nature. We all make mistakes, but it is good to make little mistakes, not big ones when people's safety or freedom are at stake.

 

The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting

Last night I drove for two hours to attend a class held by Colorado Handgun Safety entitled, "The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting" taught by a defense attorney, concealed handgun permit holder and former attorney with the US Army. Those of you who follow the Elsie Pea Forum (elsiepeaforum.com) will have already seen some of what follows.

First, if similar classes are available to you, by all means take one. Consider this as follow on training to accompany your concealed carry permit. Consider this to be another form of self defense. I obviously can't recap a three hour class but I can say a few things here. It was so good that although it was scheduled for two hours, we went for three. Conversation. Question and answer. Amplifications. Excellent. Some points made in the class:

Know the Law in Your State

In a defensive shooting situation, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it. This, from the mouth of a lawyer that knows what he is talking about.

This means that you should strive to absolutely understand the statutes in your state that pertain to what one might be charged with after a defensive shooting. Charged with does not mean convicted of, or that charges cannot be dropped or defended against, but be aware that serious charges can be brought, regardless of their outcome before or in court.

For example, If your state has a "castle doctrine" or "make my day" law, be CERTAIN you understand under what condition that law applies. One example: if "unlawful entry" is part of that statute, know, for certain, what "unlawful" and what "entry" mean. If you gave someone a key in the distant past to your dwelling (you have to know what "dwelling" means in your state), even though you kicked them out and told them never to come back, and they enter with the old key they still have, the court might not consider that "unlawful". You should have changed the locks. If a potential home invader screams he is gonna rob and kill you, runs on your porch waving a shotgun and you shoot him as he opens the door, did he actually "enter" your dwelling? There is a court case that says, in similar circumstance, no. Self defense? Most definitely. Castle doctrine? Probably not.

Why is that important? Castle doctrine, or similar statute, might protect you from consequences more than self defense will.

Know What Not to Do Afterwards

This is important. If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, the ONLY thing you should say to the police, a prosecutor, an EMT - anyone at the scene or later - is:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."

Did I say this is important? Yes. Why?

Because you may say something that will FOREVER REMOVE your right to using self defense in court. At the scene, these scenarios may play out:

Police: "That's ok. I know you are upset and you didn't mean to shoot him."

You: "Yeah, I don't know what happened, I didn't mean to kill the guy."

Adios your right to self defense. You didn't mean to kill/shoot the guy? If you didn't mean to shoot him in self defense, then why did you shoot him?

Police: "You've been through a stressful experience. I know it was an accident and you didn't want to hurt anyone."

You: "I'm freaked out, man. Yeah, it was an accident."

Slam! That sound was your right to argue self defense leaving the building.

Unless you are an experienced defense lawyer, you don't know the law, especially the finer points like maintaining your ability to exercise your right of self defense in court, so repeat after me: "My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney." Then, shut up. Period. Don't talk to anyone else, regardless of how sympathetic or helpful they are. Don't blab to yourself in the back of the police car - every police car these days has a tape recorder going. Shut up. Get a lawyer and listen to what he or she tells you.

Ask for your attorney, right up front. The questions should stop. If they don't tell them you want your attorney.

Our instructor also said that the first document that your attorney should file with the court is that your defense in your case is based on self defense. If you don't it may be gone forever.

Win The Race

Win the race to call 911. The order in which calls are logged determines, initially, who is the victim and who is the aggressor. Sad, but true.

After an incident - and it doesn't have to be a shooting, maybe you foiled a carjacking and the carjacker fled when you put your 9 mm in his face. Call right away. You don't want him calling and complaining of meancing, or someone else calling who only saw you point your gun at a young man who then ran away.

Once you call, state your name, location, your description (so the responding officers will be able to tell you are the caller not the perp), say you are the victim of the crime, maybe you have the assailant at gunpoint (if true) and you need help. Then PUT THE PHONE DOWN. Don't hang up and don't engage the sympathetic dispatcher in conversation. The 911 dispatchers are trained to keep you on the line and talking. Guess what? It's recorded and anything you say can be used against you.

Do Not Be Negligent With Your Gun

Society has certain common expectations of reasonable care. If you have a driver's license, society expects you to know the rules and how to safely operate your car so that it is not a danger to you or to others. The same expectations apply to concealed handgun permit holders, and even more so. Why more so? A handgun is an inherently deadly weapon. Where a car or a bottle or a baseball bat may be used as a deadly weapon, they are not, in themselves deadly weapons. A gun is. Without question. Therefore, you have a more exact standard of care. To use a gun otherwise is negligent, and usually criminally negligent.

To not be negligent you have to, among other things, hit what you shoot at. This is not as easy as it may seem. Not only must you practice to enable you to hit your target reliably every time, but you must practice in the manner you will most be likely to use in a self-defense shooting situation. This is quick, sometimes instinctive point-and-shoot at close ranges. It is also shooting under extreme stress and while your body and mind is raging in the "fight or flight" mode and all of your senses have been radically altered when your body goes into survival mode. This is not standing at the range popping paper targets. Studies show that even professional and expert gun handlers will miss often under these stressful conditions. You are likely not a professional or expert gun handler, so you must practice even harder to be proficient in self defense scenarios.

Practice like this is not convenient, easy or cheap. However, having made the decision to carry you must have accepted the awesome responsibility that goes along with that. Find a way to practice. Find a way to make the cost acceptable. One way is to buy a smaller caliber handgun, like a .22 caliber that approximates the one or ones you will be carrying and put a lot of lead downrange with the cheaper .22 ammo to build up your proficiency. Dry firing will help with things like grip and trigger control, but it does not give that BANG! and induce the small adrenaline rush that can cause you to flinch and miss.

You have to shoot safely so as to not endanger others. This obviously entails being accurate under stress, but it also means you have to be aware of your surroundings (not easy when cranked with fear) so that you don't endanger others. You also must consider the type and caliber of your carry gun, and the ammunition you choose for it. This is a complex issue, especially among gun people who always have their favorites. Simply put though, I think as far as hardware goes, the most important consideration is the type of ammunition you will be shooting. I favor somewhat lower velocity ammo firing jacketed hollow point type bullets that have a smaller chance of punching through something and hitting an unintended object or person.

There have been books written about all of this and more. However, in addition to reading, I highly recommend a class about these topics taught by a professional and an attorney that knows, from experience, what he or she is talking about. It is too important to leave to internet gossip or hearsay.

Take a class on what can happen, and what you should and should not do after being involved in a defensive shooting. Read books by Ayoob and others. And remember:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."

NRA and Politics

I am a member of the NRA, and plan to remain so. However, I am getting fed up with the continual barrage of emails and magazine content devoted to scare tactics and outright political distortions meant to make people vote for the candidates of their choice (regardless of the other issues on the table - not just Second Amendment rights), and to generate more money for their cause.

I want the NRA too get back to its roots as an association of gun owners and enthusiasts who support gun rights, safety, education and public awareness, not some "political action committee" dedicated to getting the candidates of the President and the board elected to office. For the NRA's information, there are many liberal minded citizens who support gun rights and the second amendment who do not also support right-wing conservative evangelical "the sky is falling" candidates or viewpoints. I am one of them and am tired of the NRA pushing the idea that since I am liberal in my political views, I must somehow be a gun hater and want to outlaw guns.

I will continue to be an NRA member in order to support their activities in support of our Second Amendment rights, education and safety, but will not give to their misguided and sometimes insulting political rants. In fact, NRA, reserve my annual membership money for activities directly related to gun rights legislation and educational programs, and don't give any of it to support political candidate activities.