First off, sorry it's been so long, life just gets in the way sometimes.
Anyway, the news has just been hammering on this new "thug music" trial in Florida. Now, it's just about impossible to find out the "facts" of this case without getting a huge helping of spin, which direction depends on which news source you go to. Much like the Trayvon Martin case, there is so much emotion and passion on the different sides that it's hard for anyone outside the situation to get facts without getting all of the extras. That's why I'm not going to go into the specifics of these cases, I don't have all of the facts of these cases and I wasn't there, so I can't say one thing or the other about guilt or justification. That's not my place.
Both of these situations are obviously tragic, whenever anyone dies violently it's tragic. All of the families involved have my deepest sympathies, let there be no doubt about that.
The topic that I would like to talk about, that keeps being brought up, are Florida's "Stand your ground" laws.
Now, pretty much every state has some clause for situations where a person defends themselves. If you are in fear of your life you have the legal right to defend yourself, of that there is no real question. The difference in Florida (and many other states with these laws) is that in public you are not required to flee the situation or attempt to defuse it before responding defending yourself (in these cases with firearms). That is the only distinction between other state's self defense laws and the laws in the states with "Stand your ground".
Now, in traditional self defense cases if the victim shoots the perpetrator there is a burden of evidence on the victim. They have to prove that they were scared for their life, they have to prove they tried to defuse the situation or flee, and that there was no other way to avoid the shooting. If the victim cannot prove those things they will most likely be indicted on criminal charges. In fact, in most states it's standard procedure for the shooter to be taken into custody until all the questions are answered and it's decided whether the state wants to file charges.
The reason that I think the "Stand your ground" laws are a good idea is that it lightens the burden on the victim. High profile cases aside, the victim has been through a harrowing, scary ordeal, and next thing they're being hand-cuffed and taken to the police station. Suddenly the victim has become a suspect, all because they defended themselves. With "Stand your ground" there is less liability on the part of the victim, less they have to prove before they can get back to their normal life.
With the media attention it's easy to find cases where these laws have come up under questionable circumstances, but what about the cases where it has been a good thing? We don't hear about those. They aren't controversial so they don't tend to hit the national networks. And have you ever notice that these high profile cases tend to involve all males? Let's do some pretending:
A woman is walking home alone at night, a big guy grabs her and wrestles her to the ground. He starts punching her. She pulls a gun and shoots him dead. Would that classify as "Stand your ground"? No, it would fall under the traditional self-defense laws. She couldn't run because she was on the ground, it would probably be deemed justifiable.
So, what if he didn't knock her down? What if she didn't kill him?
He grabs her, punches her. She pulls a gun and shoots him in the leg, then runs away. Now we're in a sketchy legal position. Could she have de-escalated the situation somehow? Could she have simply run away? Was her response a justifiable use of force? The state might charge her and the guy could probably sue her in civil court. Unless this state has a "Stand your ground" law, which would limit the possibility of her being liable.
There's all these loud voices calling for repeat, but what would happen if "Stand your ground" was repealed? There would still be plenty of cases of self defense in the states affected. There would still be controversial cases in the national media. There would still be families crying foul and shooters claiming self defense. Repealing the law wouldn't change any of that, it would just make it easier to take legal action against shooters in otherwise justifiable cases.
So, if you ask me "Stand your ground" just clears up some of the gray area in the self defense situations. It helps keep victims of crime from becoming victims of legal action afterwards. Just like arguing "self defense" has been misused on occasion, the same can be said of "Stand your ground", that's why there is always a legal review afterwards which hopefully catches the perpetrators who tried to use the law for nefarious purpose.
Again, I'm not trying to make light of the legal cases around "Stand your ground" or the families involved, I'm just trying to give another perspective on a law that has received so much public attention over the last few years.
On a personal note, I'm not a particular fan of guns for personal defense especially in public, there's too many situations where a gun would just escalate the situation. Of course, I'm also a big young guy, fairly fit, trained in martial arts, and pretty confident in my hands, so take all this with a grain of salt. A gun can also be taken away from you, could get you in legal trouble, could misfire, could hit bystanders... to me there are just too many variables. Which is why I would encourage anyone to think through carrying a firearm very thoroughly and receive proper training in gun handling and the laws in their area. It's not hard to imagine that if Michael Dunn or George Zimmerman had used punches or pepper spray their legal situations would be entirely different.
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Friday, February 7, 2014
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Some Range Time and Conversation
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. For the most part we have very similar ideas on firearms and gun control, though he leans a bit more towards some of the legislation proposed recently. His girl friend is a High School teacher, so I think that probably plays a role in some of his feelings. I'm sure he worries about her with all these stories in the news about school shootings.
Anyway, he's in the military and was toying with the idea of getting a pistol for his girlfriend for while he is deployed. I'm sure it is as much for his peace of mind as for hers.
I offered to take them to the range and let them try out a few of my pistols. She had never handled one before (was kind of scared of them), so this seemed like a good chance to show her the basics and try out a couple, see what she liked. I brought my Smith & Wesson MP-22, Glock 17, and my Ruger Blackhawk .357.
Having never shot a pistol, she obviously liked how easy the .22 was to handle. After a bit of practice with the .22 we got her moved up to the 9mm. She was alright with the 9mm, put a few magazines through it, but she wasn't quite as enthusiastic about it as the .22. We even got her to try the Blackhawk once, but the gun itself was so heavy that she quickly went back to the other two. She handled the recoil just fine, it was the actual, physical weight of the revolver. That was fine, him and I had plenty of fun with the Blackhawk. He's a revolver guy too.
Afterwards, he was still puzzling over whether or not get her a pistol. I offered my two cents. I told him first off that he should get two pistols, one for him, one for her. The way pistol purchases go in Hawaii, it's a lot of back and forth between the police station and the gun store. If you are even toying with the idea of buying two pistols, you buy them at the same time and it halves the trips to the police station. Secondly, if he thinks it might be a good idea to get him and hers pistols, he should do it now. There is a minimum two week waiting period for all pistol purchases in Hawaii. I told him that a home defense firearm is kind of like insurance, you don't ever want to use it, but if you need it, you need it now and not in two weeks.
Also, if he gets it now then they will have plenty of time to get her well practiced before he leaves. Obviously, having a pistol for home defense doesn't do her any good if she she isn't comfortable and accurate with it.
We all had fun at the range, so whether or not they decide to become gun owners, at the very least she had an opportunity to learn about firearm safety, got to shoot a variety of pistols, and have some fun.
Anyway, he's in the military and was toying with the idea of getting a pistol for his girlfriend for while he is deployed. I'm sure it is as much for his peace of mind as for hers.
I offered to take them to the range and let them try out a few of my pistols. She had never handled one before (was kind of scared of them), so this seemed like a good chance to show her the basics and try out a couple, see what she liked. I brought my Smith & Wesson MP-22, Glock 17, and my Ruger Blackhawk .357.
Having never shot a pistol, she obviously liked how easy the .22 was to handle. After a bit of practice with the .22 we got her moved up to the 9mm. She was alright with the 9mm, put a few magazines through it, but she wasn't quite as enthusiastic about it as the .22. We even got her to try the Blackhawk once, but the gun itself was so heavy that she quickly went back to the other two. She handled the recoil just fine, it was the actual, physical weight of the revolver. That was fine, him and I had plenty of fun with the Blackhawk. He's a revolver guy too.
Afterwards, he was still puzzling over whether or not get her a pistol. I offered my two cents. I told him first off that he should get two pistols, one for him, one for her. The way pistol purchases go in Hawaii, it's a lot of back and forth between the police station and the gun store. If you are even toying with the idea of buying two pistols, you buy them at the same time and it halves the trips to the police station. Secondly, if he thinks it might be a good idea to get him and hers pistols, he should do it now. There is a minimum two week waiting period for all pistol purchases in Hawaii. I told him that a home defense firearm is kind of like insurance, you don't ever want to use it, but if you need it, you need it now and not in two weeks.
Also, if he gets it now then they will have plenty of time to get her well practiced before he leaves. Obviously, having a pistol for home defense doesn't do her any good if she she isn't comfortable and accurate with it.
We all had fun at the range, so whether or not they decide to become gun owners, at the very least she had an opportunity to learn about firearm safety, got to shoot a variety of pistols, and have some fun.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Guns by Stephen King
In case you haven't noticed, I like firearms a lot. I like their shape, their engineering, the variety, the culture, the practice, and the focus it requires to get the perfect shot. Obviously, I'm a fan of the Second Amendment that allows me own these firearms. However, that doesn't mean I'm totally against gun regulation or controls.
I also read a lot and I'm a huge fan of Stephen King, so when he came out with a Kindle Short called "Guns", I picked up a copy.
This is an extended essay on Stephen King's opinion on gun violence and gun control. It's a no BS take that doesn't pull punches toward any group or party, he pretty much mocks everyone involved and all of the politicians. He also discusses politics in general and American culture. I would call it a page-turner but I'm not sure that term really applies to an essay. Lets just say it was a quick and interesting read. His wit keeps it rolling along well. I think it's worth a read, whatever your opinion on gun control (Hint: King is for it).
SPOILER ALERT
In the end he agrees with a lot of the President's proposed legislation. Universal background checks, limits magazines to 10 rounds, and ban "assault" rifles. He backs it with studies and examples.
While I don't agree with some of his points, and I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions he draws from his examples (granted, I'm fairly biased), it is an interesting read. It is at times funny, thoughtful, respectful, or even sadly retrospective. It is as well written as all of King's works.
If you are a fan of gun control, or King, or just looking for an interesting read, you should check out "Guns".
Now a couple of thoughts in response to to his conclusions:
The two points that I disagree with are the ones on magazine restrictions and the ban on "assault" style rifles (and the misuse of the term "assault" drives me nuts these days. They mean 'military style' semi-auto rifle, not one with selective fire).
First, the magazine restriction is a hindrance to legal firearm owners and does nothing to limit illegal use. Look at two guys with Glock pistols, one trying to kill the other. The legal owner has 10 rounds (or 7 if you are in New York) and the illegal owner has the 15 round magazine that gun originally came with (or an after market 33 round mag). Or what if two (or more) criminals break into your house, you're ability to defend yourself is hampered against those that don't follow the law. Another point, many "restricted" magazines are standard magazines with a block installed that limits the capacity. A criminal can simply take the block out to go back to the larger capacity. On the other hand, it's harder to justify the 30+ round magazines that are available for some rifles (unless preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse).
I totally agree with the universal background check and closing the gun show loop hole. Those decrease the likelihood of criminals and crazies buying guns. I'm also OK with waiting periods, as frustrating as they are, because that would force any emotions to cool. Those are two concessions that I think gun owners should make because they could actually make a difference.
As for the "assault" rifle ban, it would block the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Banning a certain weapon will only mean that other weapons get used by criminals and crazies. I think a better option would be to make legal gun owners liable for their fire arm, how it's stored and used. Or require fire arms to be locked up (you could exempt one or two for home defense when the owner is home), or require specific security measures for specific fire arms. After all, the owner goes through the back ground check, their family, friends, or robbers don't. I think that would drastically limit access by those that couldn't pass a check.
As a legal gun owner I have no empathy toward anyone owning, carrying, obtaining, or using firearms illegally. I absolutely support logical gun control that limits the illegal use of firearms. It's just too bad that so many of the proposed restrictions do more to restrict legal owners than the criminals.
I also read a lot and I'm a huge fan of Stephen King, so when he came out with a Kindle Short called "Guns", I picked up a copy.
This is an extended essay on Stephen King's opinion on gun violence and gun control. It's a no BS take that doesn't pull punches toward any group or party, he pretty much mocks everyone involved and all of the politicians. He also discusses politics in general and American culture. I would call it a page-turner but I'm not sure that term really applies to an essay. Lets just say it was a quick and interesting read. His wit keeps it rolling along well. I think it's worth a read, whatever your opinion on gun control (Hint: King is for it).
SPOILER ALERT
In the end he agrees with a lot of the President's proposed legislation. Universal background checks, limits magazines to 10 rounds, and ban "assault" rifles. He backs it with studies and examples.
While I don't agree with some of his points, and I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions he draws from his examples (granted, I'm fairly biased), it is an interesting read. It is at times funny, thoughtful, respectful, or even sadly retrospective. It is as well written as all of King's works.
If you are a fan of gun control, or King, or just looking for an interesting read, you should check out "Guns".
Now a couple of thoughts in response to to his conclusions:
The two points that I disagree with are the ones on magazine restrictions and the ban on "assault" style rifles (and the misuse of the term "assault" drives me nuts these days. They mean 'military style' semi-auto rifle, not one with selective fire).
First, the magazine restriction is a hindrance to legal firearm owners and does nothing to limit illegal use. Look at two guys with Glock pistols, one trying to kill the other. The legal owner has 10 rounds (or 7 if you are in New York) and the illegal owner has the 15 round magazine that gun originally came with (or an after market 33 round mag). Or what if two (or more) criminals break into your house, you're ability to defend yourself is hampered against those that don't follow the law. Another point, many "restricted" magazines are standard magazines with a block installed that limits the capacity. A criminal can simply take the block out to go back to the larger capacity. On the other hand, it's harder to justify the 30+ round magazines that are available for some rifles (unless preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse).
I totally agree with the universal background check and closing the gun show loop hole. Those decrease the likelihood of criminals and crazies buying guns. I'm also OK with waiting periods, as frustrating as they are, because that would force any emotions to cool. Those are two concessions that I think gun owners should make because they could actually make a difference.
As for the "assault" rifle ban, it would block the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Banning a certain weapon will only mean that other weapons get used by criminals and crazies. I think a better option would be to make legal gun owners liable for their fire arm, how it's stored and used. Or require fire arms to be locked up (you could exempt one or two for home defense when the owner is home), or require specific security measures for specific fire arms. After all, the owner goes through the back ground check, their family, friends, or robbers don't. I think that would drastically limit access by those that couldn't pass a check.
As a legal gun owner I have no empathy toward anyone owning, carrying, obtaining, or using firearms illegally. I absolutely support logical gun control that limits the illegal use of firearms. It's just too bad that so many of the proposed restrictions do more to restrict legal owners than the criminals.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
So... I was browsing Amazon. Cold Steel War Clubs
Isn't that a great way to start a blog post? It's almost as good as starting out a story "So, I was drinking with the guys one night..." You just know what follows will be worth your time.
Anyway, I was bored this afternoon and decided to see what kind of hunting vests I could find on Amazon. I'd seen one at Cabela's when I was on holiday and regretted not getting it. I figured Amazon would have a decent selection.
They did, but they also have that "customers who looked at this also looked at..." bar. I hate that bar. That bar has probably led to me spend two or three times as much money on that friggin site. I'm on a cool product, then I see three other cool products in that bar. I check out those products, on each of those pages the bar will lead me to three other cool products. It's exponential, which I'm sure is exactly why they have it.
So, I get off of vests and on to back packs. Then I get off of back packs and on to swords somehow. That's cool, I like looking at knives and swords.
Then this thing pops up:
Edit 01-21-13: And I was beaten to it again. The guys over at Zombie Go Boom have already posted two videos on the Cold Steel Gunstock War Club. The first the Gunstock club against zombies, the second is for general survival uses, clearing a window, throwing for hunting (I thought of throwing it for hunting rabbit or small game, I didn't think of throwing it to hit something with the blade point).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=n-V6CBT2_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_126712&feature=iv&src_vid=n-V6CBT2_2A&v=_N7a25X9F4Y
Anyway, I was bored this afternoon and decided to see what kind of hunting vests I could find on Amazon. I'd seen one at Cabela's when I was on holiday and regretted not getting it. I figured Amazon would have a decent selection.
They did, but they also have that "customers who looked at this also looked at..." bar. I hate that bar. That bar has probably led to me spend two or three times as much money on that friggin site. I'm on a cool product, then I see three other cool products in that bar. I check out those products, on each of those pages the bar will lead me to three other cool products. It's exponential, which I'm sure is exactly why they have it.
So, I get off of vests and on to back packs. Then I get off of back packs and on to swords somehow. That's cool, I like looking at knives and swords.
Then this thing pops up:
Cold Steel Gunstock War Club ($35 dollars, Amazon)
My first thought is, of course, "holy sh*t, it's the perfect Zombie club!"
I'm a dork, I know.
There has been a long standing debate in certain zombie killing forums over what the best melee weapon would be. Popular selections are swords or axes, bladed weapons, but those run the risk of getting stuck. It's all too easy in the movies to lop off a zombie head without missing a beat, but the reality would be far more difficult. Bone, ligaments, muscles, are all designed to keep body part attached, separating them isn't all that easy. You're weapon gets stuck, you're f*cked. For most zombie 'experts', the consensus is that a club is the best option. It can deliver enough damage without the risk of it getting stuck on bone. The only problem with clubs is getting tired out swinging the weight around.
This Gunstock War Club weights in at 2.2 pounds, almost three feet long, is angled like a kukri for added leverage, and has a 3 inch blade on the other side. This design is historically proven, if you've ever seen the newer "Last of the Mohicans" you've seen this style before. Don't believe me? Look at nearly every club ever made, thin handle, about 3 feet long, with a weighted end. Many also had that angle near the head too for added punch.
Pretty freakin' cool, if you ask me. I'm not entirely sure how practical it is, maybe for home defense, or maybe as a hunting stick. It would probably be pretty effective for hunting rabbits or birds. And, obviously it would be bad ass against zombies.
I want one. I really, really want one.
That and the S&W M&P 15/22 and I'll be totally set up for Z day.
Oh, and if that doesn't tickle your fancy this thing popped up on that magical bar:
Cold Steel Indian War Club ($40)
Edit 01-21-13: And I was beaten to it again. The guys over at Zombie Go Boom have already posted two videos on the Cold Steel Gunstock War Club. The first the Gunstock club against zombies, the second is for general survival uses, clearing a window, throwing for hunting (I thought of throwing it for hunting rabbit or small game, I didn't think of throwing it to hit something with the blade point).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=n-V6CBT2_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_126712&feature=iv&src_vid=n-V6CBT2_2A&v=_N7a25X9F4Y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)