All too often we hear horror stories about school shootings. These stories are tragic, and heartbreaking to hear. When these horrific events occur, the media is quick to point the finger at the weapon, and are insistent on restricting the availability of them. However, I think we need to increase the availability.
In today's society, it is very difficult to receive a permit for guns. If you do have a gun, it is very difficult to use it and carry it. When people make the decision to buy and own a gun, it is decided for a number of different reasons: hunting, sport, or self-defense.
With so many school shootings that have happened, you never know when something might happen at your college. Almost all of the past school shootings have occurred at schools with gun free zones...so what's the point? A school banning its students from having guns is a school failing to protect and keep its students safe. If students are allowed to have guns on campus, they would be safer in an emergency situation. With violence increasing, it is always better to be prepared for the worst. When it comes to weapons and guns, many think of it as a safety insurance of some kind. One of the biggest issues with allowing guns on campus is that the topic is taboo and controversial. If guns were simply allowed on campus, it wouldn't be such a big deal when someone has one.
Certain schools are located in crime-ridden areas of town. There is no telling whether someone, who may or may not even be a student, will come onto the campus and start shooting. That is why it is very important to be proactive and prepared for anything. If someone has a strong desire to shoot, they will find a way to do it; all we can do is be ready and prepared for the worst of situations. Colleges and universities should not requirestudents to have guns, but they should by no means ban students from having them. When students attend college, they want to feel safe and protected. If a student feels a little bit safer having a gun, let them! The best thing a university can do to keep its students safe is allow them to have guns for protection. If even one person has a gun, and is in the right place at the right time, hundreds of lives can be saved.
http://theodysseyonline.com/grand-canyon-university/concealed-carry-for-college-students/
Kevin Michalowski of United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) introduces a very familiar concept for Concealed Nation readers: fighting from inside a vehicle.
If you recall, we did an article discussing an incident that was captured on dashcam. A driver captured an armed thug stepping out of a vehicle at a red light and threatening him with a brandished pistol.
Thankfully, the driver got away without incident. It could have gone much worse.
In this episode of Into The Fray, Kevin Michalowski discusses the realities we’re faced with when fighting from a vehicle. In short: it’s bad.
Bullets striking the front windshield may actually be deflected down, giving a lot better of a chance of a critical hit on the defender. He briefly mentions that a concealed carrier is going to have to make a decision — take your chances being a sitting duck or get out of the vehicle.
In almost any case where you feel your life is physically threatened and you are in grave danger, it’s always best to nip it in the bud and use decisive defensive force.
Giving the initiative over to an attacker only means we have fewer critical moments to react. This is a criminal’s best case scenario and a worst case scenario for the concealed carrier.
Michalowski appears to advocate for dismounting from the vehicle prior to engaging a known armed adversary. This is echoed by a lot of other firearms professionals and instructors.
There’s a bit more detail given in a SIG SAUER instructional video about drawing a gun from inside a vehicle.
One of the biggest considerations: your seat belt.
Most states — like Georgia — require you to wear your safety beltwhile operating a vehicle. This means that in addition to the heightened adrenaline of dealing with a life or death scenario, you’re also worried about getting unbuckled from your vehicle.
One exercise we can all practice is properly dismounting to engage a target.
SIDENOTE: Check out an article we wrote on using an airsoft gun to practice complicated techniques that you can’t do at most conventional ranges.
This exercise requires zero rounds to be fired and should be done in a controlled, safe environment away from bystanders. Using an airsoft replica of your everyday carry handgun can help you judge the basic mechanics of how you will deal with transitioning out of a vehicle.
Most individuals who take their own self-defense seriously should be well aware of the somewhat broad topic of situational awareness. Certainly the principle of maintaining awareness of one’s surroundings is an old one, but like so many things related to self-defense Jeff Cooper did wonders for this concept and the ability to teach it to others. Cooper urged all of his disciples to maintain a condition of relaxed-awareness, which he referred to as condition yellow on his now-famous color code awareness scale. Situational awareness is one element of defensive mindset that is of the utmost importance for anyone who chooses to be prepared for the evils this world contains, but there is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the topic.
I encourage students of self-defense to practice what I refer to as “proactive” situational awareness. This approach suggests a level of action on the individual’s part beyond simply remaining alert to your surroundings. As armed citizens, or even unarmed citizens that seek to further our own safety, we want to be aware of the things that surround us in the world. Look at the masses of humanity that we live among on a daily basis. The people in the streets, in the shopping malls, in public places, in your place of work, the majority of these people have no clue as to what is really happening around them. These folks inhabit “condition white,” the mental state of complete lack of awareness as Jeff Cooper so warned us against. The modern example that typifies condition white is the individual who walks right through a door into a new environment while staring at the screen of his phone or some other electronic device. If you are concerned with your own safety, don’t be that guy.
We typically consider situational awareness a state of being observant to what is transpiring in our general vicinity. This, of course, is a big part of it. When we are in a public place we want to know what is happening around us, and always conscious of what is behind us, the general direction that we cannot easily observe. We should be primarily looking for anomalies in the environment. If we are surrounded by many people in a public place, we want to be alert to anyone who appears out of the norm. Learning to trust our instincts regarding individuals is a good thing, as often our sub-conscious mind knows something is wrong when even our conscious mind tells us that we are just being paranoid. Being aware of anything that is potentially dangerous, as well as being aware of that danger‘s proximity to our own location, is what we should strive for. However, simply observing is not necessarily enough.
The concept of “proactive” situational awareness that I propose is the active investigation into one’s surroundings at the outset of inhabiting a space. Simply watching what happens around you is a good thing, but more may be required if you wish to avoid being in a bad place at a bad time. A proactive approach to awareness involves specifically reading the environment of a space and determining if you should even be there in the first place, and if you have to be, identifying what can go wrong right from the outset. Let me explain further:
It is a somewhat common image projected onto serious gun people that they like to “sit with their back to the wall.” This, of course, can be greatly embellished like any other stereotype. But essentially we should all admit that positioning ourselves in a place that grants us a visual of the environment and also minimizes our vulnerable back, where we do not have eyes, is a good thing. The problem is, even just walking into a public place and going immediately to a location where you can sit with your back against the wall is hardly enough if that is the extent of what you do. A proactive approach to situational awareness would begin as soon as we enter a new environment; let’s say a restaurant, for the sake of this example. If we walk into a restaurant and go straight to the table in the back of the room and sit with our back to the wall like we are Wyatt Earp, does that do us much good if we ignore the fact that there is an armed robbery already in progress when we walked in? Obviously not.
Realistically most would probably not miss the robbery in progress, although it has certainly happened, but the point is that our situational awareness should begin at the very moment that we are entering, perhaps even before we enter, a new space. When we walk through a threshold into a new environment we should proactively scan and see several different elements in that space. I suggest looking for these four criteria: First, who is there and what are they doing? Second, where are the entries and exits in the room? Third, what is the most likely target area for trouble in the space (hint: probably the location of the cash registers) and fourth, what in the space could serve as cover or concealment if things go bad in a big way? Now, I am sure there are many who will read what I just suggested and label me as paranoid and declare their refusal to live in such a manner. Sure, your choice. But this whole process takes about three seconds and goes unnoticed by anyone else. I consider pre-emptive preparation a relief from anxiety, not the cause of it.
When we scan a room to observe individuals that are already there, what should we be looking for? There are too many possibilities to even begin to list, but there is one essential element that covers it all: we want to look for anything that is unusual within the context of the current environment. Sticking with our restaurant example, if we scan the room what should we typically see? Obviously, people sitting and eating, or perhaps people sitting and conversing. We know what normal behavior should look like within this context because we have witnessed it so many times and we are also, at least sub-consciously, aware of what would be abnormal behavior for such a setting. A person seated alone will probably be either eating or doing some other activity. If the lone individual at a table is not eating, what would constitute normal behavior? Probably reading, or on an electronic device. If not, there might be something unusual happening. Is the person sitting quite relaxed, perhaps just waiting for their food to come out, or do they seem very observant, nervous, or tense? That might be a clue.
Groups of people sitting together in a restaurant are also going to fit into a predictable pattern of behavior. Groups of people typically talk to each other. Perhaps a couple of individuals are sitting without conversation, but reading or looking at their phones. However, a group of men sitting and not talking, while appearing unusually observant or nervous, is possibly an indication that there is something unusual going on. The bottom line is this: you have been in similar environments, probably hundreds of times in your lifetime, and you can generally identify what is normal and what is abnormal within such an environment. When something does not seem right, you might be right. As humans we live in constant denial about many things, one of which is our own safety. It is easy to say to ourselves, “it won’t happen to me, it won’t happen here.” This, of course, could prove to be the last thought to ever cross our earthly mind. If something does not feel right, there may be more to it than simply being “paranoid” and typically acting on your instinct is the best thing to do. What is wrong with simply walking right back out the door from which you came and eating at a different restaurant? This is an option when we exercise proactive situational awareness. I am not suggesting here that you be scared of your own shadow and never go to a restaurant, I am suggesting that you be cognizant of a situation that truly raises your suspicion and taking preemptive action.
Another example, let’s say you need to use an ATM machine late at night. The ATM machine sits in an isolated location directly adjacent to a proverbial dark ally. Is the best time to be aware of a criminal intent on holding you up at the ATM machine when he is already directly behind you? Rather, proactive situational awareness would involve knowing what is in the environment surrounding the potentially dangerous zone. A dark corner or ally next to the machine? Light it up with your Hi-lumen handheld light before using the machine. You do always carry a good light don’t you? If not, this is a far more likely use for it than actually using it in conjunction with a handgun for a defensive shooting. If there is a criminal of opportunity lurking there, what do you suppose has just happened to the predator/prey relationship when you actively light him up with a hi-powered light? You now know that he is there, and he knows that you know he is there. His element of surprise is gone and you are now a hard target rather than an easy mark, hopefully avoiding a violent encounter before it even transpires.
Let’s say you are a woman leaving the office late and you approach your vehicle in the parking garage only to notice that there is another vehicle in close proximity to your own, in an otherwise vacant lot. Giving the unknown vehicle a wide birth to provide some reaction time, walk past it and scope it out before you stand with your back to it while getting into your own vehicle. If you have a bad feeling about it, listen to your instincts and avoid the situation entirely. Feel free to go right back into the office and call for help or enlist an escort to your vehicle. Might you feel silly for taking such precautions? Sure. But you may feel quite silly when you ignore your instincts and get dragged into a vehicle by an assailant who quickly emerges when you are vulnerable.
Situational awareness should not simply be reactive, but proactive, as is illustrated with the examples provided here. Just as you proactively seek to ensure your own security in a financial manner, or as it may pertain to minimizing other hazards such as accidents or fire, so should you proactively seek to secure yourself and those that you love from the criminal element, even if it is inconvenient sometimes. Seek out the surprises before they surprise you and control your space, and feel free to simply walk away from a potentially bad situation if you think you should.
http://concealednation.org/2016/03/proactive-situational-awareness-for-the-armed-citizen/
Mar 23, 2016 |
Recently major British medical journal Lancet released a studycalled “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.” Is it a surprise to us that the majority of the information they published is bogus and easily debunked?
How convenient for a major medical journal in an anti-gun country to point out the “faults” of a pro-gun country like the U.S? They are scratching their own backs and tootin’ their own horns, people.
I love how Dean Weingarten of Ammoland broke this down for us, lets take a look.
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- My Colleague at Gun Watch, John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), has published extensively. He has some insight into the recent “study” published in the Lancet:
The major British medical journals are heavily politicized — both Lancet and BMJ. Lancet even criticized the Iraq intervention under George Bush II. When they stick to their knitting — medical research — they do publish some good studies and are prestigious because of that. But the people running the journals are obviously Left-leaning — like most academics — so they can’t help misusing the platform they have to hand in order to promote their Leftist views.
That is of course bound to be an amusing exercise. Leftist claims are so counter-factual that a political study is bound to require all sorts of distortions and evasions to make any case at all. And the political studies they do publish are so unscholarly that the editors have obviously put their brain into neutral before publishing them.
The latest such study in Lancet(“Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study”) is a good example of that.
An article covering the “study” in The Hill starts out with pure misdirection: From medicaldaily.com:
The United States has some of the most lenient gun ownership laws in the world. It also boasts one of the highest gun-related death rates of any country. Researchers from Boston University say the U.S. can cut those deaths by more than 80 percent by enacting three specific laws on a federal basis. These rules would require background checks for all ammunition and gun purchases as well as ballistic imprinting or microstamping of firearms so they leave identifiable traces when fired.
Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and South Africa have much higher “gun related” death rates than the United States. but the very term “gun related” is a propaganda term. It includes suicides, which are about two thirds of the total for the United States. When you look at total homicide and suicide rates, the U.S. is far from the top. Using the Washington post pick of 26 “developed” countries, this is what we come up with:
You can see that the U.S. is a little closer to the top than the bottom, but not by much. As a multicultural society, I would expect as much. Suicide and homicide are culturally driven, not implement driven. After all, there are a lot of people from Mexico, and other cultures in the United States.
The “study” claims that:
“Background checks for all people buying guns and ammunition, including private sales, are the most effective laws we have to reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S.”
Yet two thirds of “gun deaths” are suicides. How would background checks stop them?
The other two laws touted are gun identification through ballistics, and gun identification through microstamping.
Not a single crime has been solved by the ballistic identification laws. Two of the three states where they were passed have repealed them because they were so costly and ineffective.
Not one state has implemented a microstamping law. Yet the “study” claims that microstamping and ballistic imprinting laws reduced gun related deaths by 84%!
It is complete junk science. Pure correlation causation confusion.
What the “study” authors found is that states with low numbers of gun owners are able to pass insane laws that have no effect. Because those states have low numbers of gun owners, and because “gun deaths” include suicides, they could find statistical artifacts to support their preconceived bias.
States that have more hospitals have more deaths in hospitals. That does not mean that hospitals cause the death rate to rise.
I absolutely love this article, it’s absolutely true what Dean is saying. These medical researchers and publishers truly believe that guns cause violence and death more than they prevent it. And unfortunately, it bleeds into their studies.
You cannot believe every “accomplished” study that comes out and claims this and that about guns. The truth is there for the taking, and I believe it is up to each individual to find it.
The Second Amendment was created as a means of protection for the American people in more ways than one. We each have the constitutional right to own a gun to protect us and our family from the precariousness and unpredictability of every day.
Yet also, a large number of Americans owning and carrying guns protects the people from the valid threat of tyranny. It may seem preposterous to some, but our forefathers knew how imperative it was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their own government.
They unfortunately had to experience this themselves to release how important it was. Hence the exact words, “Shall not be infringed.”
It’s up to us to point out the faults of ridiculous studies like this, and to ultimately protect our right to bear arms.
http://defendandcarry.com/heres-example-wrong-prestigious-medical-study-guns-us-can-truly/
At the Newtown, CT, vigil, Obama said, “if there’s even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try.” The president reiterited this view, nearly verbatim, during the press conference announcing the 23 executive orders, saying, “if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.” Vice President Joe Biden also said during the press conference, “We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect that anything like this could happen again.”
This sentiment is often heard from gun control advocates. It’s sloppy – because it seems correct on its face, it doesn’t require you to do any thinking about it. This can be very dangerous. We ought to be thinking very critically about this idea and asking ourselves several tough questions: How many lives will it save – and at what cost? Will this policy endanger lives, and if so will it endanger more lives than it might save?
We ought to compare the potential for lives saved vs. lives endangered, and then weigh the cost we pay in exchange for any benefit or loss.
Endangered lives: the D.C. gun ban
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the endangered lives and risks, stating: “a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.” He would know something about it; as prosecutor, Shapiro enforced firearms and ammunition cases during D.C.’s gun ban. Though he dislikes firearms, he is skeptical of benefits “many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts” (emphasis added).
Chief among the dangers to the people of D.C. is that the gun ban had unintended consequences. “It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves,” Shapiro continued. He states that violent crime and homicides increased after the law was enacted, with homicides going from 188 in 1976 to 369 in 1988. By 1993, annual homicides reached 454.
Civil liberties were also endangered and police efforts wasted – leaving citizens with less police protection. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days. There were also efforts to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. Police cracked down on guns, creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. It was disbanded two years later in 1997 having been found ineffective, so more uniformed officers could be assigned to patrol the streets. Police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade, all with little effect.
Contrary to gun control advocate worries, after the gun ban was struck down, homicides in the D.C. have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012 – the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.
Kennesaw: To save a life, allow more guns?
Kennesaw, GA is among the safestplacest in the United States. The violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 85.16%, and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 46.46%.
This chart shows violent crime over a 10 year period, comparing Kennesaw against the state of Georgia, and the U.S. national violent crime incidents per 100,000 people (to get an accurate apples-to-apples comparison, adjusting for population size).
This chart shows various violent crime offenses for just 2010. Remarkably that year, Kennesaw had zero murder or manslaughter crimes.
What may hold the key to Kennesaw’s secret? In 1982, Kennesaw passed a law requiring“every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition.” After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and still today, Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.
Trampled liberty, endangered lives of average people
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. This is a parapharse (with “liberties” added) to what Benjamin Franklin actually said, but regardless I believe it holds true. It certainly has bearing in our quest to answer the question: “How many lives at what cost … to liberty? to other lives?”
Often lost in the debate is that homicide and violent crime in the U.S. are at a 20 year low or longer. (Homicide numbers are actually the lowest on record since at least 1976, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a DoJ agency). Mass shooting homicides have qualitative differences from “plain ol”” homicides that elicit an emotional response from us; that response is valid. However, when all is said and done – for all the media coverage these shootings receive – mass murder accounts for a fraction of 1% of homicides.
How many lives are we talking about saving? And at what cost to our liberty? Some may scoff at the question of “liberty,” but some are quite alarmed at calls to confiscateweapons, as well as calls for a national registry – fearing if not today’s administration, perhaps a future administration could abuse such a list and confiscate citizen’s guns. What cost to liberty will we accept when homicide is the lowest it’s been in decades?
“Lost in the debate is that average people use guns to defend themselves”
Lost in the debate is that average people use guns to defend themselves; that average people are victimized by criminals – sometimes in their own homes – and want the means to defend themselves secured. These stories often don’t make headlines, as most homicides don’t make headlines, but are a part of us nonetheless.
One story that has made headlines involves Melinda Herman, a Georgia mother who shot an intruder while protecting her kids in their own home. Fortunately, she didn’t face more than one attacker as her 6-round revolver was empty after confronting a single attacker. In the Pacific Northwest, a group of masked men, one of which had an AR-15 rifle, tied up a family in their home during a home invasion. This home invasion also involved multiple attackers. The video below shows an average citizen confront a thief with his shotgun (also note this is a solid argument against those who claim “guns only purpose is to kill” – he points his shotgun at the criminal and holds him until the police arrive; no shots fired – no one killed, just an average guy protecting himself and his loved ones their home).
Whether the individual chooses a revolver, a shotgun, or an AR-15 rifle (should there be multiple assailants to defend against) – shouldn’t the law-abiding be able to decide how to defend their lives and their families in their own homes?
The rebuttal is often: “Would you just do nothing? Gun rights advocates never want to budge on any reasonable gun laws.” Of course, every gun control advocate thinks their version of new guns laws are simply “common sense.”
The truth is though, there are many gun rights advocates that do advocate some changes, such as stronger background checks, fully funding NICS (the background check system), stronger prosecution of those who falsify background check forms – which the Justice Department rarely prosecutes, as well as stronger enforcement and prosecution of straw man purchasers and illegal gun trafficking.
Gun rights advocates want safer streets, homes, neighborhoods, and schools too. Many of them have families of their own and want to be able to defend and protect their lives should the police be minutes away when seconds count. They want to put the emphasis on enforcing existing laws, which our government is not doing fully. Washington D.C.’s residents fought a long battle and suffered high crime for many years – as well as restricted liberty. We shouldn’t make the same mistake nationally. Restricting gun rights of average, law abiding folks, puts us all in danger.
Mar 18, 2016 |
Yes, gun-free-zones are unconstitutional, and yes this does seem like not the best of compromises, but at this point it will have to do. To me it’s disappointing that it has to come down to this when gun-free-zones are targeted constantly and should be abolished- not just sued.
92% of mass shootings since 2002have happened in gun-free-zones. It’s time we do something about it.
Take a look at this update from The Tennessean.
Several other gun bills have been proposed this session, with some gaining momentum recently, including one sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, that originally sought to allow any valid handgun permit holder the ability to sue a person or business in the event that the gun holder was injured or killed by “invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals and defensible man-made and natural hazards” while in a gun-free zone.
Gresham amended her bill to address concerns expressed by some of her colleagues. While discussing the amendment, Gresham said her goal was to rewrite the bill to get property owners to take down signs indicating gun-free zones.
She cited comments from John Lott, a Fox News columnist, who spoke in favor of several gun bills on Feb. 10 and who also said posting gun-free signs can create problems.
“What you are essentially doing was saying ‘Active shooters welcome here,’ ” Gresham said, noting that the original version of her bill would have made a business owner liable for anything that happened to a gun owner while on the premises.
“This one says, take the sign down and you will have civil immunity in case anything happens,” she explained.
Harris said he opposed the bill because it would set a dangerous precedent in the treatment of private property owners.
Gresham’s amendment was adopted before the committee voted 6-2 in favor of the bill, which now heads to the Senate floor. Harris and Kyle voted against the measure, while Overbey abstained.
So, once again, I appreciate this bill, but I still think it’s not enough. Gun free zones should be removed for the kill-zones that they are.
This means that law-abiding citizens who have a lawful permit to carry a gun and use it for self-defense have to wait until they are injured or dead before they or a family member can sue the person or business responsible for the gun-free-zone. To me that’s not enough.
It is our constitutional right to bear arms, we should be able to defend ourselves wherever we go without being faced with a felony.
We hope Tennessee has the sense to pass this, in the meantime be aware of your local bills and changes happening in your state.
By Robert Farago via The Truth About Guns
We recently ran a story about a cop who shot someone with an AR inscribed with the words “You’re F*cked.” A modification that was used against him in court. Responding to that incident, the Yankee Marshall advises against modifying your handgun’s trigger. “If you ever have to use that gun for self-defense and it’s a questionable shoot, a prosecutor could easily say ‘Maybe you didn’t intend to shoot them but you made your trigger so light you fired accidentally.’” Yes, well, I’m generally pro trigger modification . . .
Other than a handgun’s ergonomics (how it feels in your hand), the trigger is the key to user accuracy. A gun with a heavy, gritty and/or unpredictable trigger is difficult to shoot well. A handgun with a light, crisp, perfectly predictable trigger brings out the best of any shooter’s ability.
Think of it this way: you can play a lousy piano well. But a Steinway automatically ups your game.
So why wouldn’t you modify your handgun’s trigger to increase your shooting accuracy? Because you bought one with a Steinway-class trigger. The FNS-9c, Walther PPQ, SIG SAUER Legion, any Performance Center Smith & Wesson revolver and the Ruger LCR spring immediately to mind (so to speak). Why mess with perfection? Which reminds me . . .
While GLOCK detractors point out that Gaston’s gats don’t have a natural point of aim, the Austrian handgun’s trigger is the real “challenge.” So as not to antagonize firearms fanboys, let’s just say a GLOCK 19 with a Ghost trigger is a blessing whereas a stock GLOCK’s trigger-related accuracy issues can be a curse (especially if you’re a New York City police officer).
Again, you can master a less-than-wonderful trigger. Jessie Duff could outshoot me with a NYPD duty GLOCK, regardless of what handgun I had to hand. But if you want to improve your shooting accuracy and pleasure without trading in your gun, I say go for it. Modify your trigger. Lower the pull weight (if you like) and improve its function. Enjoy the extra accuracy — which could save your life.
That said . . .
If we’re talking about a handgun used for self-defense, the Yankee Marshall’s case against modifying your handgun’s trigger pull weight isn’t entirely wrong.
Under stress, blood flows away from your extremities towards you internal organs; you can’t “feel” your fingers as much. Or maybe even at all. Worse, under stress, most shooters “register” their handgun’s trigger (i.e. place their finger on the trigger before they intend to shoot). This is not an ideal combination.
If you think it’s impossible to trigger a gun before you consciously decide to fire, try switching straight from a standard GLOCK to a Walther PPQ. I’ve seen it happen lots of times: that surprised look of “Holy sh*it, the gun went off before I meant to shoot!” Once a shooter acclimatizes to the trigger, all is well.
The way to avoid that unfortunate occurrence: consider buying a gun with a DA/SA trigger (heavy initial trigger pull, followed by a lighter one). Alternatively, recognize the danger and train accordingly. I know of only one way to knowyou’ve got that sussed: force-on-force training. If you can keep your booger hook off the bang switch under that kind of stress, you’re good to stow.
As for a prosecutor suggesting that your modified, lighter trigger indicates a cavalier attitude towards human life or a lack of ballistic control, I’ve never heard it argued. More than that, as the Yankee Marshall rightly informs, a judge or jury examines the totality of circumstances surrounding a defensive gun use.
If you don’t have Molon Labetattooed on your forehead or some other indication that you’re an irresponsibly hot-headed gun owner (e.g., “You’re F*cked” inscribed on the inside of you AR’s dust cover) , it would be hard for a prosecutor to argue that making your gun more accurate makes you a trigger-happy killer. Which, of course, you’re not.
By Robert Farago via The Truth About Guns
Calling 911 during or after a defensive gun use is a necessary practice fraught with danger. If you call the cops during an attack (e.g., a home invasion), the operator willtry to keep you on the line. Not only will his or her questions distract you from the business of defending yourself and your loved ones, but anything you say — and the wayyou say it — can be used against you in a court of law. If you call after a defensive gun use, same thing, with bells on (as the Brits say). My advice: call 911, give important info as calmly as possible and hang up. Here’s what I think you should say and the one thing you MUST say . . .
First, remember: less is more. The less you say, the better. BUT you need to give the police vital information and prepare a defense of your defensive gun use (which includes “simple brandishing”). Here’s a sample 911 call for a defensive gun use during an attempted street robbery.
NAME: “My name is Robert Farago.” [Please use your own name, m’kay?]
This isn’t the most important information, but it gives you time to gather your thoughts and helps you start speaking when you’re high on adrenaline. Also, people who commit crimes generally don’t provide their name. Stating your name helps establish your innocence.
LOCATION: “I’m at the corner of 6th Street and Waller.”
Pretty obvious really. But again, adrenaline may make it difficult to process anything. Give the best location you can. If you’re flummoxed and there’s a witness, ask them for your location. Feel free to say “hang on” to the operator at any point to stay silent and gather your thoughts, or if the situation changes and you’re distracted.
DESCRIPTION: “I’m white, 5’10” wearing a blue shirt, blue jeans and glasses.”
THIS is the bit you MUST say. Police responding to an incident don’t know the bad guys from the good guys. Mistaking you for the bad guy — especially if you’re holding a gun — could have fatal consequences. And the police may already be on the way (if someone else heard a gunshot).
WHAT HAPPENED: “I’ve been attacked.”
There’s no need to provide a full account of your defensive gun use to the 911 operator. Again, any account you provide is recorded and can be used against you in a court of law. Do NOT say “I shot someone” or “I pulled my gun on the guy.”
YOUR FUTURE DEFENSE: “My life was in danger.”
While you don’t want to describe your defensive gun use to a 911 operator, this simple statement will form a basis of your legal defense, should you need one. This and no more.
OPTIONAL BUT VITAL: “My attacker was a big guy, around 250 pounds, wearing a grey sweatshirt” (and any other details you can remember, such as the direction of an escaping perpetrator).
ACTION: “Please send the police and an ambulance.”
Requesting an ambulance — even for simply drawing your gun — also helps establish your innocence: you were focused on protecting the innocent (yourself and others). It’s also common sense: you or others may be injured without being aware of it.
It doesn’t matter if the bad guy’s lying on the street bleeding out or disappeared down an alleyway. Again, responding cops can’t tell the players without a scorecard; you want them to have a good idea of who’s who before they arrive on scene. Also, of course, you want the police to arrest or transport the bad guy.
DONE
Some people carry a concealed gun also carry a card with a 911 script on it, knowing that they may not be able to think clearly during or after a defensive gun use. That’s not a bad idea.
In any case, don’t be distracted (i.e., tricked into providing more information than you have to) by the 911 operator’s inevitable follow-up questions. You are under no legal obligation to answer. Either hang up or place the phone down on the ground — which will then record everything you or others say in the immediate area. Only maintain the connection if you are confident you can keep your mouth shut about what happened until the police arrive.
There’s a bunch of stuff you should do when the police arrive, but that’s the subject of another post.
http://concealednation.org/2016/03/defensive-gun-use-heres-how-your-911-call-should-go/
