Inalienable Rights

The "three inalienable rights" as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. They are:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It seems fitting that with the approach of the anniversary of that declaration that those words, which helped spawn a nation, be revisited in light of the current controversy around guns.

Sometimes, regardless of one's feelings about guns, guns are often necessary to protect those rights. Sometimes it takes millions of guns, sometimes it takes only one. But, it is certain that there are times when only guns will do the job. If a nation is being threatened and its citizens are being killed by its enemies, it is going to take guns, lots of guns, to take care of the bad people. If a person is being threatened with death or grievous bodily harm by others, sometimes only a gun will protect them. I won't insult your intelligence by giving examples. If you can't think of any you are either simple minded, disconnected with the world the rest of us occupy or just a gun hater. I can't help you with any of those, however I can assure you that there are times in which only access to a gun will prevent harm from coming to innocents. It isn't guaranteed, just like your seat belt, but it will most certainly be a big help.

While all of this may be blindingly obvious to most people, it does not seem to make a dent in the minds of most gun haters. To understand and accept the fact that people have the right to defend themselves and other innocents from evil people and evil deeds requires one to accept that the world is a messy, unpredictable and sometimes violent place. Wishing it was not so does not make the need for protection go away or become somehow invalid. That is what we call wishful thinking which should be left behind with other childhood beliefs as one assumes adulthood.

Well reasoned, logical and supportable argument does not make headway with people who have emotional and unrealistic attitudes about guns. Those people are afraid of guns. They don't understand guns or why anyone would like or want to have them. They think guns are dangerous, which is one of the few true thoughts they may have about guns, and hence, no one should possess one because they themselves, might get shot.

I must confess, I don't get this attitude. If gun haters were to get their way and make it totally illegal for anyone in the United States to own or possess a gun, why do they think that would make anything better? Do they think people who want guns to do bad things won't get guns and continue to do bad things? Do they think that making heroin and crack illegal has removed heroin and crack from our streets or society? Do they think a crack addict looking for money for his next pipe will give a shit if they may have to kill someone to get it? Do they think that knowing the law-abiding citizen won't be carrying a gun will make the criminal more mild, meek and gentle as he robs you and leaves you as another dead witness to his crime? Do they think a 90 pound female can defend herself against a determined 200 pound rapist? Do they think calling 911 as the psycho home invaders kick in the door will do the job?

No, they don't think this at all. They don't think this will happen to them. Maybe to some poor unfortunate who should have known better than to walk to her car in the dark after work, but, certainly not to them, and besides, they wouldn't be caught dead carrying a gun anyway.

Just like trying to convince a new-age science hater that homeopathic cures, acupuncture, Reiki and ancient Chinese folk cures don't work, or a bedrock fundamentalist that Jesus didn't ride around on dinosaurs, rational discussion will not convince a gun hater that guns are only benign tools that can be used for any purpose the gun's owner determines, whether that be for good or evil. For them, guns are bad, evil, scary and dangerous and they will forever fight your right to own or carry them to defend your inalienable rights.

Except when someone uses a gun to preserve theirs.

In the end, it is a free country and if the gun haters don't like guns, that's ok with me, but don't think you can tell the rest of us what we can and can't do to preserve and protect our inalienable rights. Grow up. Take responsibility for your lives and stay out of mine.

Posted with Blogsy

Are those firecrackers?

I had originally thought to begin my articles on holster comparisons for AIWB carry. I received some holsters from Alan Bogdan of Remora for inclusion in my comparisons that included a couple of new designs which are interesting. But, that changed while I was mowing the lawn last Sunday.

We live in a very small Colorado town. It is in a rural area and I would guess that at least half the households in town, and more than that outside on the farms and ranches, have at least one firearm. So, it's not unusual to hear shots off in the distance. However, while my trusty mower was hacking at the grass, someone opened up not more than two blocks away. A group of shots. Then a few more. Right in town. Got my attention.

Considering the times we live in and the fact that bad things can happen anywhere at any time, and being the cautious person I am, I stopped the mower and went into the house to trade my LCP in for the Ruger SR9c loaded with the 17-round magazine. I strapped it on, clipped a spare magazine to my belt and went back outside.

More shots.

"Are those firecrackers?" my wife asked.

"No. Gunshots," I said.

She looked at the black Ruger poking out from under my shirt.

"Don't worry," I said. "Probably nothing. Just being prepared."

She went back to weeding the flower bed. I went back to mowing and listening. After a while the shooting stopped. Someone shooting targets, I thought.

I mowed all of the front, and most of the back, carrying the Ruger all the while. Now, many people I know, some from my "former life" in California, and some here in Colorado, would consider me paranoid. I consider myself prepared.

Then, over the next few days I read about things like this:

A man jumped into a woman's car at a busy carwash in broad daylight and started to drive it away. She jumped on the hood as he pulled out and, hanging on for her life, was carried away toward a busy street. A bystander who was a concealed carry holder, drew his gun, chased after the speeding car and shot the carjacker through the driver side window, causing him to stop and saving the woman who was still hanging onto her car. People at the scene felt that she was in danger of being killed if the carjacker had managed to get out into the busy traffic.

The Chicago Tribune reported that a Uber driver and holder of a concealed carry permit in Chicago (that must be a rarity...) shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square thereby saving a number of innocent people from injury or death.

In New Holland, Wisconsin, a man drove up to a busy fire station where there were also women and children present, got out of his car and pointed a gun at them. After getting people out of the back door two firefighters who have concealed carry permits, put the man at gun point, finally convincing him to put his weapon down. He was arrested, but unfortunately, released on a relatively low bond. He needs help and one hopes he doesn't return or try this somewhere else.

Orem, Utah, Macy's parking lot. A fugitive from the police, after wrecking a stolen pickup truck he was driving while fleeing from the law, tried to steal another car in Macy's parking lot. He dragged a woman out of her car but before he could drive it away, an armed bystander with a concealed carry permit, stopped him and forced him out of the stolen car at gunpoint. The fugitive then attacked the citizen, trying to wrest the gun from him, and was shot by the citizen. He later died in the hospital. Who knows how much more damage and possibly death might have been caused had the fugitive gotten the citizen's gun and continued his rampage?

There are many incidents like these that happen every day. How many make the "national" news? How many get compared to the anti-gun stories that flood the outlets and television shows when a bad guy uses a gun, or, sometimes, when the police use weapons to do their job and protect themselves and us?

Seldom, if ever.

This brings up an important consideration for those of us who elect to legally carry a concealed weapon in public.

There may be times when we are faced with a frightening physical and ethical situation: other peoples' lives are at risk and we have the means to effectively intervene and possibly stop that threat.

It seems to me that we have signed up to do more than just be able to defend ourselves when necessary. We have also implicitly signed up to protect those who are not so prepared, even those who would gladly deny us the right to carry a gun in order to defend ourselves and them.

Most times we are concerned with and interested in such things as holsters, carry positions, caliber, ammunition characteristics, sights, lights and automatics versus revolvers. We don't spend enough time talking about or thinking about the responsibilities and implicit social contract we have taken on by carrying a concealed weapon. This is not a good thing, for when the shit actually hits the fan, we will be dealing with a life-changing crisis that unfolds in seconds and doesn't allow time for reflections or second thoughts.

You have to think about this hard, well in advance, and prepare yourself for what may happen, even if you happen to be mowing your lawn on a sunny day.

Colorado Concealed Carry on Campus: The Facts are In

Image: usconcealedcarry.com

I suppose if you have your emotional life bound up in something, it won't matter whether that something turns out to be true or not. You will continue to insist your emotional viewpoint is right even though the facts (reality) show you to be wrong. Case in point, Colorado's twelve year experience with legal on-campus carry.

When the Colorado legislature decided to even the field, dispensing with the often contradictory and unrealistic web of local, municipal and county concealed carry laws by establishing state wide statutes that invalidated all of those others, the Regents of the University of Colorado felt that they were somehow superior to the lawmakers and could rule over the state colleges regardless of the wishes of the people and legislature.

The Colorado Supreme Court said otherwise. Naturally, certain segments of the communities involved were terribly shocked and outraged, predicting an onslaught of gun violence on campus. Pretty standard fare for them. However, after over twelve years in which adults with valid carry permits have been carrying their guns on Colorado campuses, there have been no shootings by concealed carry permit holders, or by anyone else. A Colorado University employee did discharge her weapon while "showing it" and was promptly and properly fired.

I want to put forward a few quotes by David Kopek from his Washington Post article of April 20, Guns on university campuses: The Colorado experience.

"In 2003, the Colorado legislature enacted the Concealed Carry Act. The statute was written by County Sheriffs of Colorado, the organization which represents all 62 of Colorado’s elected Sheriffs. The Act passed with broad bipartisan support, including all Republicans and almost every Democrat except some from Denver and Boulder." 

Even though, as Mr. Kopek points out, the act had broad bipartisan support, there were some people who felt that their personal opinions matter more and they needed to help everyone else bow to their wishes. They are still pushing to get their way mostly by fear-mongering and presenting their cherry-picked and skewed ideas that "guns are bad”. Even after twelve years that solidly demonstrate otherwise, these people are still not satisfied and and tried again in 2013 to have legal handguns banned from college campuses. As the Colorado Sheriffs have pointed out, adults who have been licensed to carry guns in the state should not lose their right of self defense when they attend or teach at a college campus.

I think the most telling parts of this story are demonstrated by two things: the fact that violence has not escalated on Colorado campuses since this act was enforced, just the opposite, and that especially for women, the campuses are safer places than before. Here are a couple of examples from Mr. Kopel's article that brings this point home.

"The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of these cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon."

And, in particular the testimony of Amanda Collins, again from Mr. Kopel's article:

"In 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the University of Colorado must obey the Concealed Carry Act. This was consistent with the precedent the CU has no special exemption from civil rights statutes.

But in 2013 a bill was introduced to outlaw licensed carry on all campuses. Rape survivor Amanda Collins testified before the Senate State Affairs Committee about how a ban on campus carry had affected her life. As a 21-year old, Msw Collins had a Nevada defensive handgun license. But the University of Nevada at Reno did not allow licensed firearms on campus. She was raped in then parking garage of the campus police station, which was closed for the night.

The crime took place just a few feet from an emergency call box.

 “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?” she asked the Colorado Senators. State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins that if Collins had been carrying a gun, statistics showed that the gun would have been taken from her. Actually, statistics show that fewer than one percent of defensive gun use results in the defender’s gun being taken.

“Respectfully senator, you weren’t there,” Collins responded. “Had I been carrying concealed, he wouldn’t have known I had my weapon; and I was there. I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would’ve been able to stop my attack by using my firearm. He already had a weapon of his own; he didn’t need mine.”

Because the rapist was not stopped that night, he later raped two more women and murdered one.

Senator Hudak resigned in December 2013, to avoid a recall election.”

I think that supporting licensed adults the right to carry on campus for self defense has been proven to work, regardless of the dire predictions from the hand-wringing fear ridden opponents, and that it is certainly a step forward for women in Colorado. Predators like to prey on the weak and having a concealed carry equalizer on your person takes that advantage away.

Women, arm yourselves.

Armed to the Teeth

My wife and I went on our regular walk around town today. It was pleasant for 7000' in southern Colorado. Small town, little traffic and it seems you know most everyone you meet. Still, there are strange cars and strange people in town. Now that summer is coming, so will the tourists and travelers. The last thing you expect here is trouble. But like Monty Python so accurately noted: No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

I remember in another small town in Oklahoma, many years ago, awakening in the middle of the night to see a large man standing in our bedroom doorway in the moonlight. He didn't linger after I snatched my S&W .41 from the bedside table. I chased him though the house, out the back door into the night. He disappeared into a car that started up on the street and sped away with the lights out. He was caught a few days later. Had a record. Peeper. Looked to me like he was trying to climb the perp ladder.

So, even here, you never know.

The interesting thing was that I took an inventory of the weapons I was carrying today on our walk. Well, two were actually weapons and two were tools that can readily serve as weapons if the need arises.

One S&W M&P Shield in 9mm.
One Ruger LCP
One Spyderco Delica 4
One Spyderco Tenacious

Why two of each? I've come around to Massad Ayoob's philosophy that if you are going to carry a gun, you might as well carry two. If one becomes inoperative, dropped, taken, then you have another. If you have a friend in a bad situation that could work with you and he or she doesn't have a gun, you have an extra to give to them.

Two knives? Well, I like knives. They are the most basic of tools. With a knife you can make other tools. I don't really need a backup knife, I just like the ones I have and sometimes take two along just because I feel like it.

Now there are some people who would consider a senior citizen who walks about his own little village packing what they would consider to be four deadly weapons to be odd, if not a little crazy. I understand that but I can't do much with people like that so I just don't raise the subject. I can also see the remote possibility that some might be thankful for it, should the worst ever be realized.