Apr 24 2007

He doesn’t want to be a victim either…

Published by Mugwug at 06:23:47 under Firearms

My brother is in the final stages of getting his CCW down in Texas.

This is an option I do not have up here in the great white north, and I’m starting to resent it.

12 Responses to “He doesn’t want to be a victim either…”

  1. # Pieteron 24 Apr 2007 at 08:19:59

    The problem with people being able to carry concealed is, stupid people carry. Lets face it, anyone that has ever taken a firearms course knows that they aren’t hard to pass. Texas concealed carry qualification is no different. The same standards hold true for concealed carry, as do with a driver’s license. Simply put. Would you rather ANYONE can carry, or no one?
    The reason I went through the process is, on the off chance I want to carry, and if you have a carry license you no longer need to fill out the NICS check when you buy a weapon. Am I going to walk around “Locked and Loaded”? Sorry, no. I have little interest in lugging around two pounds of steel in my pants, but it’s nice to have the option.

  2. # Mugwugon 24 Apr 2007 at 08:24:19

    Agreed, much like the federally mandated Firearms Safety Course up here (as you well remember), as near a rubber stamp course as I’ve ever been on, and there were at least two people on the course that should be prohibited from ever using the word firearm, not to mention owning one.

    Oh I understand the benefit when it comes to the NICS check, but the fact remains you DO have the option should you choose the exercise it. I’m just making an assumption here that once you obtain your CCW permit the world will not come crashing down, crime will not suddenly increase, mothers will not lock their children inside their homes and the gommint will not suddenly fear it’s citizens.

    I could be wrong of course.

  3. # Pieteron 24 Apr 2007 at 08:46:00

    To be honest, it was a long and vary dry course, I might have faded out during the “You are now the keeper of peace, the righter of wrongs” part.
    Wait a minute, crime doesn’t stop in the presence of a armed citizen?
    The only thing carrying ensures, is the involvement of a firearm, and that’s, more often than not, is a bad thing.

  4. # Mugwugon 24 Apr 2007 at 08:51:05

    …The only thing carrying ensures, is the involvement of a firearm, and that’s, more often than not, is a bad thing…

    I don’t know about that, it occurs to me that you’re most likely to produce your firearm only in the presence of another firearm carried by the bad guy. At this stage in the game a firearm is already present, and carried by the wrong person. While an armed citizen doesn’t cancel out the bad guy, it would seem to push things closer to balance.

    We’ve long been (certainly up here) conditioned to cooperate with the bad guys to prevent them from using their weapons. Compliance ensures safety. The statistics would tend to belie this, certainly where the bad guy is unbalanced or looking for some cheap thrills.

    It occurs to me that this is a lottery I am not keen on playing, and yet me and 30 some odd million of my fellow citizens play it every day.

  5. # Pieteron 24 Apr 2007 at 09:15:48

    Now I’m not saying I would produce my side arm over a minor exchange of words, but, the fact that I am armed means involvement.
    What would normaly be at worst a wresling match, or a fist to cuffs, now has the all too real possibility of me being disarmed, weather the pistol is holstered or not. I have little issue taking a ass kicking (matter of fact I think I might be due) but, an ass kicking and lossing my fire arm,
    or worse having it used on me is not a pleasnt thought.
    I will carry, follow every law put forth regarding carrying. But ultamitly
    taking the life of anyone (including someone trying to injure me) is something I have reservations about.
    There were people in the class more than willing to fire on an unarmed trespassers for simply being on there land. Human life is entirely to important to even entertain that train of thought.
    Of course I understand you are coming from the same place as me with this: To protect our family, and our selves, by and and all means necessary.
    Truth be told, it’s of little comfort to know I can carry a gun, when faced with the fact that the world has gotten so bad that I feel as though I have to carry one.

  6. # Mugwugon 24 Apr 2007 at 09:23:50

    I disagree.

    These concerns you mention are all concerns I had when carrying as an armored car guard, they applied then because the firearm was prominently displayed on my hip. My actions were guided by law and by policy, and the nature of my duties suggested that I may get stuck in a situation where I was forced to use my sidearm against the possibility of the agressor disarming me and using it himself.

    This doesn’t seem to apply as directly with concealed carry. First you have a responsibility to conduct yourself well when carrying, being a dink isn’t going to be a good thing if your Glock is riding inside your waistband. Second I would assume that a verbal altercation allows you the opportunity to disengage except in rare circumstances, finally if you’re instigating fist fights you’re likely not the best person to carry a concealed weapon.

    This leaves, as far as my thinking takes me, to where you are attacked physically with little or no provocation and with no opportunity to disengage, a situation that would be specifically why people carry firearms. If you can overpower your assailant fine, if you believe he will win and you will be disarmed then you would be justified (legally and morally I suspect) in using your firearm.

    Now, lets think back to how many fights you’ve been involved in over the last 12 months (I have no idea how many this is). How many were instigated by you? How many had a nice big verbal escalation, and how many simply exploded into violence with no warning?

  7. # Pieteron 24 Apr 2007 at 09:59:23

    Ok, I think I misspoke. It’s not that I’m walking around being a “dink” or that I pick fights. If for any reason a fight does brake out, I’m attacked by an unarmed man, or there is more than one, what would more than likely be just a beating for me, now ends in someone’s death. Is it better to take someone’s life because they have the intention of “bodily harm”?
    The law says yes. I would hate to see take a life, and have there be any doubt that it would have just ended in a black eye, head ache and me applying for new credit cards.
    People always present the worse case. Sure if two huge guys jumped out of the bushes pointing “assault weapons” at my wife and screaming like banshee’s, I’d unload and not blink.
    But in the real world, when you carry a loaded gun, you have to walk a straighter line.
    By the way, I know you don’t think I’m a dink.

  8. # Mugwugon 24 Apr 2007 at 10:08:51

    -whew-

    I know you are not a dink. I may be speaking out my ass on most of this, quite simply I carried a sidearm for a period of months over ten years ago. I remember spending too much time sitting in the truck thinking about the ramifications of carrying that handgun. I too am not keen on taking a life.

    I agree, it’s not the clear cut incidents that will give you pause, a man produces a handgun and shoots someone near you, there are not likely to be many sleepless nights if you draw, fire and kill that man. I suspect its the marginal, or judgement calls that will cause the most concern. The “what ifs” are always killer. A man produces a firearm, or what appears to be a firearm and menaces those around him (or just yourself), you draw and fire. Setting aside the scenarios that involve it being a replica, unloaded or an attempt at suicide by cop, there are a million what-ifs that involve consideration that the man may not have actually intended to use his firearm.

    Your beating analogy is well taken. It does occur to me however, and it seems anecdotally supported by the RTKBA blogs I read south of the line, that a violent person meaning to inflict physical harm on you may be deterred merely by your producing the handgun. Note well that this is not to say that you should produce the handgun with any intention other than it’s use, as that’s a bluff all too likely to be called.

    There in is the nub. You are right, you may have to use it where fist would have sufficed mere weeks before. This, it seems, is the responsibility and the risk that accompanies CCW.

    I feel certain, knowing you, that the odds of this particular scenario coming about are slim. As we discussed in my “whoopsy” post however, you’ll have to be wary of the fine line between confidence and carelessness.

  9. # Mugwugon 24 Apr 2007 at 10:11:58

    As an added note, I’d recommend swinging over to Hell in a Handbasket and giving a read through James Rummels stuff, or even dropping him an email. He not only teaches CCW but in his writing I’ve found him to be a literal one-stop-shop when it comes to matters of self defence.

  10. # Gregon 24 Apr 2007 at 13:47:39

    Strangely, I’m wanting more self-defence options as time goes on. Even more oddly, I’m less interested in carrying a firearm for that purpose, but more interested in something like OC or a tazer.

    I’d almost only carry it when I’m running: Too many idiots let their dogs run free. The owner knows I’m not a threat, but the dog doesn’t. He just sees a big person running towards their owner walking along. So the dog throws itself inbetween me and it’s owner. In it’s mind, it’s willing to fight and die for the asshole that has put it in a circumstance that it doesn’t need to be in. While I’m not the sort to be happy about hurting an animal, if the choice is my blood and feeling bad, I’ll feel bad.

    The only real defence option I have is to kick the dog. As this usually happens when my legs are nice and limber from running, combined with the massive adrenaline dump of getting attacked by a dog(A pet fear of mine from getting mauled as a child by a Husky and nearly bleeding out), means that the kick that lands puts the dog right out of the fight. The last dog that tried to protect it’s dumb master ended up flying right into it’s master. Other times have seen me knock the dog out and once leave one wheezing on the ground. That time, the owner got angry at me for kicking his dog. I told him to back off or he’d be on the ground twitching next to his dog.

    I guess what I’m saying is that I’d like to have the option for carrying some tools, especially when I’m running, to make sure that I’m not mauled because of an idiot.

  11. # kyleon 26 Apr 2007 at 15:39:16

    sweet!

    I just got my CCW licnese earlier this year. I love my glock 19 but it’s too bulky to carry in the summer. I’ll be buying a small S&W or Taurus .357 revolver after this school semester is over.

  12. # Danon 30 Apr 2007 at 01:50:59

    I find myself toting my rifle to-and-from work; with a gun-lock on and inside my briefcase, of course. The fact that the last Canadian ATC (authorization to Carry, like a CCW) was issued sometime in the early 1980’s leads me to believe that it is the bureaucrats in the CFC offices - far more than any politician - who are crushing the freedoms of canadian citizens with respect to firearms.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply