What?

Here's news to me - the U.S. Department of Education has "combat training and protocol[s]" that require short-barreled shotguns. What the heck does the Dept. of Education need combat training and protocols for? Raids on unauthorized homeschoolers?

(h/t SayUncle)

The mind boggles...

at this insanity.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime. [emphasis mine]

I have my doubts as to whether that attitude would withstand the test of reality, but the fact that this waste of carbon would even spout such insanity means it's possible. In fact, it seems like he's a True Believer in the "Progressive" agenda:

An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

So, not only would he rather see his own children dead than sully himself by using an evil gun to defend them, but he would also follow the "Progressive" doctrine of "equal opportunity must mean equal outcomes" and see all the children dead rather than allow any who can to "unfairly" use their resourcefulness to survive when others might not be able to.

Why is this idiot allowed to teach? Has anyone looked at how he grades his students? If he believes this strongly that "Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful," does he give every student the same grade? Does he grade based on performance, or based on his own little "Progressive" agenda? After all, it's not "fair" for students who work harder or are innately more talented in whatever subject he teaches to be rewarded for their work/ability when the less motivated or less gifted don't do as well.

If this twit had his way, we'd still be reading by candlelight because Edison would have learned as a child that hard work and resourcefulness shouldn't be rewarded, and he would never have bothered trying.

Any teacher who states his belief that resourcefulness and intelligence shouldn't be rewarded because it's not "fair" should immediately be banned from teaching anything for life.

(h/t SayUncle)

Update 2009-12-29:

It's been opined, at Uncle's, at comments in the original source, and by Jenn at A Conservative Shemale (thanks for reading!) that the letter was actually intended as satire. On reflection, I think there's a good chance that they're right. A comment at Uncle's actually links to another letter by the same person

Satire or not, I think the main points of my post here still stand on their own, and anyone who that seems to support that idea. On the other hand, I've actually met people who think like that, and it's written believably enough that I just can't bring myself to dismiss the possibility that it's real.does think like that still should be banned from teaching for life.

Holsters

I've been talking for a while about getting better holsters for my 2 main carry guns. I had been looking at the Comp-Tac M-TAC after hearing good things about it from other blogs, but Comp-Tac doesn't actually make that model, or anything similar, for any gun that I actually own. A quick internet search for something similar took me to Crossbreed Holsters. On Saturday night, I finally took the plunge, and ordered these two holsters.
[click to embiggenate, but beware - it's a cell phone photo]



Delivery was quick. They came in today - less than a week after I ordered them - despite a disclaimer on their site saying "Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. We are a small shop and make them by hand. Thanks for your patience and understanding." I like that kind of service. They also come with a lifetime warranty.

The one on the left is their SuperTuck Deluxe, in black, made for my Taurus PT-145 Millennium Pro. The smaller one is the MicroClip, with my Kel-Tec P3AT. The total cost was $140.20 ($58.50 for the MicroClip + $69.75 for the SuperTuck + 11.95 S&H). Not unreasonable for a pair of good, tuckable IWB holsters.

Since I only got them today, I can't really give an in depth review, but they seem to be solidly built and well put together. Since they came while I was at work, I was able to do a "test run" when I got home using the MicroClip (which is intended for wear at work, with a suit), and it seems to be comfortable and secure, and looks like it conceals well. Draw testing shows good retention, but not too much - though the leather backing means I can't get my thumb around the grip until it clears the holster. They offer a "combat cut" on the SuperTuck to alleviate that issue, but not on the MicroClip. I may eventually want to make that modification myself, and maybe on both holsters, but I'll wait to see how the "road testing" goes.

The SuperTuck may need a little adjusting - the (unloaded) Taurus will fall out if you hold it upside-down - but the holsters also come with instructions on how to adjust the retention. I don't plan to do anything until I've had a chance to actually wear it "as is," since it might be just fine once it's inside my belt. We'll see, since my preferred method of disarming myself is to remove the entire holster with the gun still in it (there's less chance of an ND from accidentally frobbing something I shouldn't in the process).

No matter what, they certainly look to be better than these:


That's an Uncle Mike's IWB holster and a BullDog ankle holster. Cheap and functional, and that's about all you can say about them. I've been using the ankle holster five days a week for about 6 months now, and the elastic is just about shot. I also learned that I don't like ankle holsters for anything but a back-up gun anyway, because you essentially have to become immobile to access it. Even if it's just for a moment, that's a bad idea in a real-life situation.

I'll probably have a more in-depth review up in a couple of weeks.

(Silly Gubbmit Agency Disclaimer - Sorry guys, I paid full retail price for everything I've ever gotten from this manufacturer/retailer - the sum total of which consists entirely of these two holsters.)

On Self Defense

Rich at Shots Across the Bow has a good post up about one of the fundamentals of self-defense - avoiding the need to defend yourself. You should read the whole thing, but here are some

Today, my son texted me and asked me how much it cost to get a Handgun Carry Permit. I gave him the ball park figures for the class and the application. He thanked me and told me that his roommate had been robbed at gunpoint the night before.,

Yeah, I called him immediately.

That should prompt a call from any parent.

"Your roommate was robbed by two men with guns right at your front door, on a well lit street, and they got away clean. You live in a bad neighborhood."

This is really the only point I disagree with. While crime happens more frequently in "bad neighborhoods" (which is usually why they're considered bad neighborhoods), it's certainly not limited to bad neighborhoods. This could have happened in the most upscale, hoity-toity part of Beverly Hills or the most run down part of Detroit. This one incident, by itself, doesn't make it a bad neighborhood. Crime knows no boundaries.

"The first step in self defense is being aware of your surroundings." [emphasis mine]

That is the money quote, right there. I'll repeat it - The first step in self defense is being aware of your surroundings. The three steps of self-defense are avoid, evade, fight. You cannot avoid danger if you are not aware of your surroundings before you enter the area of danger. If you take nothing else from his post, take that truth with you.

His final paragraph sums things up nicely.

Anyway, I believe I got the point across to my son that carrying a gun is only one small part of self defense. The first piece is maintaining an awareness of your surroundings, and the people in them. The second is forethought. Have a plan. Know what you're going to do when things go south. The third piece is to have multiple layers of defense, but that's a post for another day.

The idea of awareness as the first part of self-defense is especially important in my town today. It seems there are still no leads in last weeks double homocide in Jefferson National Forest. There is no indication that there is a suspect, and no way to know if the killer is still around or if he's fled the area, if he lives here or was just passing through, if he targeted the victims or if they were randomly chosen, or if it was a one time event or if he'll do it again.

Maintain awareness, please.

(h/t to SayUncle)

The Mexican Gun Canard Rises Again

We thought it had died, as it should. But like a zombie, it's lifeless corpse keeps rising from the grave. Yet another example at the Roanoke Times:

Legal gun sales in this country facilitate this illicit trade.

According to federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data collected over the past three years, more than 90 percent of firearms traced after being seized in Mexico are from the United States.

It's hardly a mystery where many of them come from. The ATF agent in charge of its Houston division noted in a New York Times story in April there are about 1,500 licensed gun dealers in that area alone.

No mention of the fact that 90 percent of firearms traced is not 90 percent of firearms seized. That little fact is not mentioned, and left for the observant reader to figure out on his own - probably in the hope that the majority of readers won't notice it.

No mention of the fact that it doesn't make economical sense for the Mexican drug gangs to find someone who can pass the background check who would be willing to do a straw purchase, and front the approximately $800-$1000 the average "assault weapon" costs at a legitimate dealer, when they can send someone to their south and buy the same weapon for only a couple of hundred dollars on the black market there.

No mention of how many of the weapons traced to the US were sold to the Mexican government, or another South American government first. (How many governments or revolutionary movements did we prop up during the Cold War, anyway?)

This was an editorial, so there's not the obligation to present an unbiased summary, but this smacks of a deliberate twisting of the facts. Even in an editorial, this is irresponsible and unethical behavior for a newspaper that wants to claim journalistic integrity.

New acquisition and Gun Pr0n

Well, I did it. Like I said in my last post, I was leaning toward the Ruger, and I got it.


Nice, isn't it? I got a brick of 500 rounds of .22LR for less than a box of 50 .45ACP or .380ACP. This should make practicing a lot cheaper, and therefore more frequent. Hopefully, I'll be able to get to the range in the next couple of weeks. A range report will be forthcoming when I do.

Score!

I figured I'd join the crowd. We get regular bonuses at work, and since I just got one, I went out to my local gun shop to take a more in depth look at some of the toys I've been eying for a while. Well, the two model 1898 Mausers I'd been eying for the last two months had, of course, been sold (this morning, too, dang it!), but they do have a Lee-Enfield rifle that looked interesting. It looks like a No. 4, Mk. I. I could use a good rifle. I've also been debating between getting either a Rock Island 1911 that they have had for a while, or a Ruger Mark III. I need a .22 pistol for practicing the basics without breaking the bank, but I really want a 1911.

I didn't buy any guns today, but while I was there, i got this:


I like my local gun shop. They have apparently started holding back a few boxes of .380ACP off each shipment for customers who bought .380 pistols from them, and to sell to customers when they buy a new .380 pistol. That last part's just good business sense. It keeps them from losing a sale when somebody might otherwise decide not to buy that Kel-Tec (or whatever), because it's no good without ammo.

This gives me both carry and practice ammunition for the Kel-Tec, and twice as much practice ammunition for my PT145 as I usually get. Of course, this purchase set me back $118.00.

I was leaning towards getting the Ruger anyway - need over desire, and all that - but this helped push me even further in that direction. The Ruger is cheaper than the 1911 (about $345 for the Ruger, $425 for the 1911), and I tend to get frugal after I lay out a bunch of money on something.

And I really do need a .22 to practice with. Sigh.

A Question for My Reader

Or readers if I'm thinking positively. :P

For the .25 I was using as a BUG, I didn't bother with hollowpoints. The .25ACP is weak enough I knew I probably wouldn't get adequate penetration with hollowpoints, and I was confident that I wouldn't have to worry about overpenetration with FMJ rounds.

Assuming I can actually find any, what would you recommend for my new .380 - FMJ or hollowpoints?

(Belated) Buy a Gun Day - With Pictures!

Well, I promised pictures, and here they are! (Click to embiggenate.)

First, the Colt Junior .25ACP I traded in:

Next, the new acquisition:

Finally, the Kel-Tec next to my usual carry piece, my Taurus PT-145, as a comparison:


The Kel-Tec is much smaller and lighter. It will probably be carried much more than the Colt Junior it replaced. It's a little bigger than the Colt was, but still much lighter (even with a full magazine).

(Belated) Buy a Gun Day

Well, I finally broke down and traded the old Colt Junior .25ACP that I'd been using as a BUG for a Kel-Tec P3AT. I know that a .25 will do the job, if it's used right, but .380 is more effective, and doesn't require precise shot placement like the .25 does in certain circumstances.

I'd been considering this for a while, but had hesitated because the Kel-Tec felt slightly "cheap", and because I had read about the "fluff and buff" so often. If I'm going to pay roughly $265 for something that's supposed to be ready out of the box, I don't want to have to finish it myself. The fact that the fluff and buff is mentioned almost every time I see the gun itself mentioned in a blog or forum made me wary.

The effectiveness differential finally got to me, plus the fact that my local ironmonger was going to offer me $250 trade-in for the Colt. The Colt is a nice little gun - very pleasant to shoot - but it's not a "plinker", and it was only barely up the the job I had it for. Trading that, plus $15 out of pocket (plus tax and $2 NICS fee), for a much more effective BUG was too much to resist.

I lucked out and got the last box of .380 ammo, too!

I'll have pictures later.

The New, Improved, Mexican Gun Lie. Now 5% Bigger!

Several bloggers have been pointing out how FOX News is debunking the lie that "90% of Mexican crime guns have been traced to the US." You should go read it, it's good. You'll get these quotes in context, too. The truth?

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

[...]68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. [...]83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

You would think that might be a significant fact, wouldn't you? Apparently, the AP doesn't think so:

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently reported that up to 95 percent of guns seized at scenes of drug violence in Mexico can be traced to U.S. commercial sources. [Emphasis added]

So, yesterday 90% of guns seized were traced to the US, today it's 95%? How does that work if 83% of gun seized could not be traced to the US?

Does. Not. Compute.

Something else worth noting is that they don't tell you how many of the guns that were traced to the US came from the civilian market. Consider this:

More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them[...]

and, according to "Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol":

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Gee, I bet those guns "can be traced to U.S. commercial sources." I'm sure Colt could be considered a "commercial source" - depending on how you define the term. Notice that the AP never tells you what they mean by "commercial source."

The AP's "Authorized Journalists" apparently think that if their lie isn't working, they just need to make it a bigger lie. Look for them to start repeating it more often, too. That's what liars do when they think someone's going to put some inconvenient facts out where people can see them.

Gun Show Thoughts

I've realized something. Going to a gun show with less than $1000 to spend is pure self-inflicted torture. Lots and lots of guns that I would like to buy, and no money to buy them with.

Torture.

All I want for Christmas...

It looks like it's gunny Christmas list time. As long as I'm dreaming, here's mine:

1) a basic, but good quality, 1911, with 2 spare mags
2) a Ruger LCP with a spare mag
3) holsters (IWB for both, and an ankle holster for the LCP)
4) an M1 Garand, with a dozen clips and a bayonet
5) 2000 rounds for each of my guns

It would be nice.

H/T to Robb at Sharp as a Marble.

It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47

Well, I haven't done the fisking thing before, but this article just cries out for it, and I haven't seen where anyone else has done it yet. So, here it is:

It Doesn't Get More Deadly Than an AK-47

PEORIA —

The recent discovery of two rapid-fire, high-powered assault-style rifles in Peoria has alarmed police because they know the devastating punch they pack. And when police are worried, residents ought to be.

Rule 1: The language is always loaded.

The first gun, a knock-off version of an AK-47, was recovered Oct. 29 from a Central Peoria house as police raided the home looking for drugs. Three days later, another AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle was used against officers in a shoot-out that ended with the gunman being killed.

"It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47," Peoria police spokesman Doug Burgess said.

What about those horrible .50 caliber rifles? Aren't they supposed to be able to cut a man in half from a mile away, and knock 747s out of the air? That sounds more deadly to me!

Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show a marked increase in the number of AK-style weapons traced and entered into the agency's computer database because they had been seized or connected to a crime.

The number of such tracings rose even while the federal assault weapons ban was in effect and has continued to climb since its expiration.

So wait, you're saying the AWB didn't work?

Since 1993, the year before the ban took effect, ATF has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in the guns - which includes the original Russian-made AK-47 and a variety of copycats from around the world. The number of AK-type guns climbed from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 last year.

The numbers confirm what is happening here locally with the guns: They're getting into criminals' hands.

But.... they're criminals! It's illegal for them to have guns! There oughtta be a law against that!

"Personally, I know a lot of these guns are out there," said Peoria police Sgt. Doug Theobald, adding officers occasionally find the rifles during raids or arrests. "Most of the time it's regular gun owners that have them in their gun safe. They don't sell drugs or shoot at police.

"The concern is if a criminal has one," he said. "It's not the gun itself, but the person standing behind the gun."

I'm surprised this made it into the story. It almost sounds like they're trying to say that regular gun owners aren't criminals. That's completely contrary to what the MSM's masters at the Brady Campaign say. It must be a typo.

Because the weapon is shoulder-mounted, its accuracy is substantial.

Shoulder-mounted? You mean it attaches to your shoulder, unlike every other rifle out there?

The standard bullet, a 7.62x39mm, is highly lethal as it can travel up to 400 meters.

WOW! Up to 400 meters! That's really lethal! But, wait a minute, I hear a .22 can travel over a mile. So a .22 must be so lethal it can kill you just by looking at you! The killer doesn't even have to pull the trigger!

The common AK-47 magazine holds 30 rounds and is flat with a curve in it to allow the bullets to feed properly. Other higher-capacity magazines, some holding twice or triple the normal amount, also can be used.

With such a large magazine attached, the rifle has the capability to "lay down suppressive fire," meaning it can shoot 20-30 high velocity rounds as fast as the gunman can squeeze the trigger, said Theobald.

So if I only shoot 19 rounds, it's not suppressive fire? What about 5, or 10?

"(The bullets) can go through brick walls, a car, just about anything," Burgess said. "The penetrating power of the round is unbelievable."

So can almost any round used for hunting. In fact, the rounds that can't are generally not allowed for hunting in most states, because they're not considered powerful enough.

Police have reported finding the rounds inside the former Warner Homes public housing complex after they blew through the exterior brick wall. Two years ago at Landmark Apartments, eight bullet holes were found in an apartment. Shell casings found outside the apartment matched bullets used in an AK-47 assault rifle.

Another example of the gun's packing-power is in the 1999 homicide of Marcus Risby. Charles Childs fired an Egyptian-made AK-47 rifle 30 times into a house on Garfield Avenue. His best friend, Risby, was killed by one of the bullets as he stood outside the front of the house, as part of a plan to get revenge on the home's occupant. The bullet went all the way through the house to kill him.

When faced with criminals armed with these kinds of weapons, Peoria police are equipped with higher-powered guns to match the threat.

I thought it didn't get more deadly than an AK-47. How can the police have higher-power guns if they don't exist?

"We have the capacity of going against weapons systems like that," said Theobald, who oversees the department's Special Response Team, whose members are trained and certified to use fully-automatic, military-style assault rifles.

You mean the bullet-hoses-of-death? The ones that no one can possibly control? I thought the only purpose of those was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The police shouldn't need to be able to do that, should they? They should only shoot at the bad guys, right?

Thirty-two patrol officers also are commissioned with semi-automatic rifles and have the guns with them while on-duty.

So, there's some magic field that means the police don't need to worry about overpenetration? Just the criminals and "regular gun owners?"

"The concern for the public is the same as for police," Theobald said. "These bullets will keep traveling and go through cars and houses, regardless of what the intended target was for the bad guy. They can hit innocent bystanders."

They just keep going, and going, and going....
----

H/T to David Codrea at The War on Guns for this one.

Gunman Stopped by Armed Citizen!

Found this on Snowflakes in Hell, who found it at Dustin's Gun Blog. The basic story is that a man went into a Nevada bar and started shooting, killing two and wounding two. When he stopped to reload and then started shooting again a bar patron with a concealed carry permit shot and killed him. The police and District Attorney have determined that it was a justifiable homicide under Nevada law.

First things first: THANK YOU, UNNAMED CITIZEN! You have shown your true colors as a good, caring, person. I hope you have friends and family who will support you. Killing is not easy (and I never want to meet someone for whom it is easy), but remember, you did the right thing! Never let anyone tell you differently.

Now, several points come to mind:

a) There were only two reasons for this guy to reload. Either he didn't get the people he was there for, or he was just going to keep shooting until someone stopped him. Either way, he wasn't done killing. Most likely this was a mass murder in the making. He brought extra magazines. With most targeted killings or confrontations that escalate, the shooter fires a few times and then runs, trying to avoid police. This guy stayed and reloaded, indicating that he was going to keep shooting. This could have been a very bad incident. According to the story, there were about 300 people "in and around" the bar.

b) With an armed, law abiding citizen on scene, the whole incident was over by the time the police arrived. Even with an extremely fast reaction and response time by the police, there would have been a much higher body count if this good man had not been allowed to carry his weapon. Remember, the killer was reloading when he was stopped. Even if he was after a specific person, he obviously didn't care about hurting innocent bystanders. Out of an entire "high capacity" magazine, only four people were hit. How many shots missed? How many of those four was he actually aiming at? This is a perfect example of how armed citizens prevent such mass shootings. [Correction: He had already reloaded, and had started shooting again, when he was stopped.]

c) "High capacity" handgun. "At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again." They do not clarify what they mean by "high capacity." Chances are, it was just a regular gun, i.e. 10-14 round capacity. This appears, on it's surface, to be intentionally inflammatory language, and smacks of biased (and therefore bad) journalism. Leave the bias to the editorials, and report the facts - all the facts - and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

All in all, an excellent example of how armed citizens can save lives. I shudder to think of what might have happened if this had happened here in Virginia, where concealed carry is illegal in any establishment that is licensed to serve alcohol. Unless there was an off duty cop present (they're exempted), it would have been a massacre. (Surprisingly, open carry is allowed in such places, but even many who carry regularly are uncomfortable with doing so openly in a bar.) [Note: I'm not against open carry anywhere, even in bars. I'm just surprised. I would have assumed that if anything was allowed, it would be the other way around. But that's another post for another time.]

Shedding the Light on Concealed Handguns - Again

The same post at The War on Guns that prompted the rant below also reminded me of this. For those who don't remember, or aren't from here in the Blacksburg/Roanoke area, Christian Trejbal wrote a column on March 11, 2007 called Shedding Light On Concealed Handguns, in which, as part of "reflect[ing] on the importance of open government and public records" he used the process of obtaining a statewide list of concealed handgun permit holders to demonstrate how open government is beneficial. Then he published the entire list on the paper's website, complete with addresses!

Needless to say, a great public outcry followed. (The paper's blog comments are here.) One of the loudest outcries was that many of the people on the list had a permit because of an abusive ex-spouse or ex-significant other, who now had access to their most recent address. The outcry was such that the Roanoke Times removed the list the next day. They claim they did so because:

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”

Probably just to avoid lawsuits when some ex-spouse goes to his ex's home and attacks her because he got the address from their site.

It looks like the Medford Mail Tribune is getting ready to do the same thing, and they've won the court case to get the list. For the whole story, go to The War on Guns.

This Just Makes Me Mad

I stumbled on this old editorial (from the Medford Mail Tribune, 12 Sept 07) from the blog The War on Guns. There are so many things about this that make me mad, it's hard to figure out where to begin. A quick summary:

The teacher reportedly is afraid of her ex-husband, whom she has served with a restraining order. After district officials reminded the teacher of district policy and told her not to bring a gun to school, she contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation and a Portland attorney, who says he will ask a Jackson County judge to declare the district's policy illegal. He says state law specifically declares that only the Legislature has the power to regulate firearms.

The Legislature also both banned guns from schools, and exempted concealed carry permit holders from that ban.

Many of the usual anti-gunner "guns don't belong in schools" arguments follow. What really makes me mad though, is this:

The chances of an accidental shooting — or a gun making its way into the wrong hands, with tragic consequences — are far greater than the chances of an intruder bent on mayhem. And let's not forget — this isn't just about teachers. If the loophole remains, any person with a concealed handgun license could bring their gun to the next football game or parent-teacher conference. Is that a good thing?

He seems to ignore the fact that she's not afraid of just a random intruder. She's afraid of a specific person, namely her ex-husband. Although the article doesn't mention that he's made any specific threats against her, the fact that she's gotten a restraining order means it's very likely that he has.

He also ignores the fact that an "accidental" shooting, or the gun "making it's way into the wrong hands" can only happen if she takes the gun out. It's not going to "go off" in the holster. It's concealed. Even if, because of this idiot's article, someone knows she has it and wants to take it away, they won't know where she has it.

But what really, really pisses me off is this:

In the meantime, there is the question of the Medford teacher's situation and what risks it may pose to students, regardless of whether she is armed. If she is so afraid of her former husband that she feels the need to carry a gun at school, what threat might he pose to her students? Parents would be justified in asking that question, and school officials should be prepared to answer it.

He suddenly remembered that she's afraid of a specific person, and uses that to call for parents to complain as a way to try to get her fired for someone else's actions! There is no reason for this except sheer damned vindictiveness. She hasn't done anything herself except to dare to challenge the "holy writ" that "guns don't belong in schools."

I don't know how this story turned out, or how it stands today. But if this bastard succeded in getting her fired, every teacher in the country should be worried. If someone threatens you, whether you did anything or not, you may find your self out of a job!

Fresno Student Shot, Killed by Police Officer After Bat Attack

Full story here.

Here's what apparently happened:

A police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old high school student Wednesday after authorities said the teenager clubbed the officer with a baseball bat on the packed, urban campus.

The officer fired at the student shortly before noon, after the Roosevelt High School sophomore allegedly came from behind and struck the officer in the head with a crude wooden baseball bat, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

The officer fell down dazed, and reached for the gun in his hip holster, but the clip fell out.

As the student came at him a second time, the officer grabbed a secondary weapon — a semiautomatic handgun he carried as backup — from his ankle holster and fired one or two rounds, Dyer said. The student reportedly died within a few minutes.

As soon as I read the details, I knew there would be something like this:

Silvia Carrillo, whose daughter is a sophomore at Roosevelt High, said the shooting did not seem justified.

"My son and my brother went to school here too, and nothing like this ever happened. I think this wasn't enough for him to kill the kid," she said.

Let's get this straight: A baseball bat IS a deadly weapon. It can be used to kill you. He attacked a police officer with a deadly weapon. The officer was justified in responding with deadly force when his assailant moved to continue the attack.

The officer was injured, on the ground, with an assailant moving towards him with a deadly weapon. Any chance the officer might have had to hold the assailant off at gunpoint was lost when his primary weapon failed. By the time he was able to draw his backup weapon, the attacker was probably right on top of him, too close for a warning. Based on the facts available from the story, this sounds like a fully justified shooting.

Frankly, I'm surprised he had time to get the backup gun out without getting hit again. By necessity, an attacker with a baseball bat is only about 4 feet away when he hits his victim, maybe closer. Just at a guess, the attacker may have hesitated when the officer drew his primary weapon, and hesitated again from sheer surprise when the magazine fell out. This officer is very lucky he's still alive.

Pilot's Gun Fired in Cockpit

I know, I know, this happened a few weeks ago. I've been watching the news for more information since it happened, since the official line is always "We can't say anything until the investigation is done." I like to make sure that my opinions are as well informed as I can make them. Well, the investigation isn't done yet, but I've learned enough by now to have formed an opinion. However Michael Bane says it better than I can in his blog. Here are some excerpts:

First, a picture of the "safety" system the pilots are required to use.
From Michael Bane:

All true...my understanding is that the gun chosen for the pilots is the double-action-only version using H-K's LEM (Law Enforcement Module) system to lighten the DA pull. Here's the H-K catalog page.

What do we know about double-action only guns, whether they be semiautos or revolvers? Well, the first thing we know is that if you pull the trigger, the gun will go bang. The longer DA stroke guarantees that there has to be a deliberate pull of the trigger for the gun to fire.

Here's an important question...does it take a deliberate finger to pull a trigger? Ummmm, no...the trigger doesn't know or care what pulls it. You can pull a trigger with a pencil, a tree branch or the snagged tail of your shirt. People who carry pocket pistols not in a pocket holster have pulled the trigger with their pocket change. And consider the word "deliberate." A finger on the trigger can unintentionally fire a gun, say if the person whose finger is on the trigger is jossled or bumped, or if they have to grab with their weak hand, which can sometimes cause a sympathetic clinching of hand on the gun. Or let's say your finger is on the trigger when you attempt to reholster the gun...it'll go bang every time...probably the most common neglient discharge in the world.

That trigger thing is why we have moved to holsters for concealed carry and competition that fully cover the trigger guard, blocking access to the trigger. The harder it is to get to the trigger accidentally, the less likely the gun is going to go bang when we don't want it to.

What's another thing we've learned from the last 30 years of practical pistol shooting and the revolution in civilian training about gun safety? An important thing is to minimize the Futz Factor, loosely defined as "Every time you handle the gun, it has the opportunity to go off; reduce the times you handle the loaded gun, and you reduce the opportunities for a negligent discharge."

And:

This from the Crime Files News, one of the few tiny bits of information to leak out no damning the pilot or the gun:

The insane procedures required by the TSA demands that our pilots to lock and then un-lock their .40 side arms was and is a solid recipe for disaster. Did the TSA deliberately create this bizarre and unconventional Rube Goldberg firearm retention system hoping for this result? The sordid history of the FAA and TSA’s total resistance to the concept of arming pilots to protect Americans is in itself a scandal.

Putting a gun into a holster and then threading a padlock through the trigger and trigger-guard is required every time the pilots enter or leave the cockpit.

And, the most important point:

Let's talk about that holster now. Why do we cover the trigger guard? To keep something hard from coming in contact with the trigger. What would we call a holster that has a hole cut in it to allow a person to place a hard object that can potentially come in contact with the trigger of a gun that has no additional manual safety? Unsafe...or more appropriately, stupid.

Very very stupid.

And what would you think if a requirement of your job was to constantly remove such a holster and then place the hard steel bar of a lock through the holster and trigger guard, then remove the lock and redeploy the holster when you came back? Personally, I'd be pretty worried — as a firearms professional, I'd find this system guaranteed to fail. Sooner or later, it goes bang.

And it did.

For the full post, go to http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008/03/tsa-stupidity-puts-pilots-at-risk.html

While I do not believe the conspiracy theories that the TSA designed the rules hoping for something like this (because they've been opposed to the FFDO program from the beginning), the rules do seem to do everything possible to maximize the "futz factor" pointed out in Mr. Bane's article.

I can only add two things to his well written piece.

1) Trigger locks are inherently unsafe. They violate two of the cardinal rules of gun safety: Rule 1 - The gun is ALWAYS loaded; and Rule 3 - Keep your finger (or anything else) AWAY from the trigger until you are ready to fire.

2) Something I have believed for many years - Every gun should have a safety! Even with the (understandable under the circumstances) mistakes the pilot had to have made, a safety could have prevented this. Being double-action-only does not make a gun immune from accidental trigger pulls, or snags, or foreign objects making their way into the trigger guard! It only means that the gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. The gun does not care who or what pulls the trigger, if the trigger is pulled it will go bang!