Gun Free Victim Zones

Once again, America comes face to face with the reality of what can happen inside a Gun Free Victim Zone. The widely publicized theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado needs no link from here.

A large focus of the discussion since has been to try to get anti-gun people to see that prohibiting firearms in any situation does not guarantee anyone’s safety.

The counter argument I have dealt with more than once is this: what could one lone armed individual do against someone with the kind of firepower that the Colorado shooter brought to bear?

My answer is and remains that the reaction of one lone gunner cannot be predicted, except perhaps in cases like this. But, the value of allowing lawfully armed civilians free roam is that potential criminals then do not know what kind of resistance they will encounter if they attack. They may encounter several people who are carrying, willing to resist.

This applies just about everywhere, from the movies to college campuses.

I took my family to see Dark Knight Rising on Saturday. The theater our family uses does not have a firearms prohibition policy. In fact, I’ve had a gun discussion with one of the off duty police they hire.

As always, I carried a pistol concealed, along with a spare magazine. I found myself watching others at the theater, looking for tells, signs that I wasn’t alone. I saw more than a few who were concerned that their shirt tales were down over their waist, and a lot of us were scanning the crowd. (I probably tipped my hand, too, but that’s not so bad.) I was very likely not alone.

There will always be evil people in the world. I might not be able to stop them, but, by knowing I might be there, maybe I can persuade them to go elsewhere. So, those of you who choose to go where guns are prohibited, you are on your own, relying on a sign on the door, and police who are ten minutes away, for protection. Good luck.

Pistol Choices

I’ve recently read several posts from other bloggers about their choices of Every Day Carry (EDC) pistols, and how they arrived at those choices. This got me thinking about my own thought processes, what I’ve chosen, and why.


GLOCKS


Anyone who’s read this blog more than once knows that I own Glocks. While I sometimes play the devil’s advocate to others about their gun choices, I’m not going to fault anyone for choosing the guns they own.


I can, though, tell you why I own my Glocks.


G21, G17, G19



I bought my first Glock 17, Bruce, in 1992. At the time, Glock was about the only affordable “high capacity” handgun on the market. I picked 9mm for the same reason I have them now – availability and cost of ammo. It helps that modern 9mm defensive ammo is almost ballistically comparable to .45ACP. But that’s another posting.


I got my other two Glocks, a G21SF and a G19, by way of my membership in the Glock Sport Shooting Foundation. The G21SF I bought at the Law Enforcement price, and the G19 I won in a GSSF match. So my choices of gun came about as much by serendipity as it did by conscious choice. 


My next choice in a handgun will probably be a Glock, because I and my family already know how to run them, and I already have spare parts, magazines, holsters, and the like.


Now, if a similar circumstance arose for me to acquire a similar striker fired polymer gun, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. With enough practice and training, I and my family would learn to run them just as well.


Having said that, I don’t think I would ever get a 1911 as a home defense or personal carry gun. There are several reasons for that.


In my home, besides me, are my wife, son , and daughter. Each of them has shot and trained with these guns. They know how they work, and they are comfortable shooting them. In an emergency, I would not hesitate to assign them each a Glock, and they would not hesitate to carry it and shoot it if need be.


However, the weight, reliability, and complexity of the 1911 precludes my family from ever being able to rely on them. This can best be illustrated by relating a story I heard from someone who is a frequent guest on a lot of the podcasts I listen to, who claimed that the 1911 was a superior gun precisely because it was so complicated that, if he lost it or it were taken away, an assailant would not be able to operate it. I thought that was one of the most ridiculous statements I had ever heard, especially since I am more likely to need to enlist someone’s assistance than I am to lose a gun to an assailant.


So, here is the current batting order, as it were:


Batting first, as EDC, is my Glock 21SF. About 90 percent of the time I carry it on a belt holster.


Batting second, in the top shelf of my pistol safe, is my Glock 17. It also doubles as my competition gun.


Batting third, on the bottom shelf of my pistol safe, is my Glock 19. 


Now, when the Glock 17 goes off to compete, the G19 pinch hits, and moves to the top shelf of the safe, with a G17 magazine installed. 


And, in the times when circumstances preclude my carrying the G21, the G19  goes in a IWB holster under a tee shirt or polo. The G21 goes on the bottom shelf of the safe.


Note how this is arranged: there’s always a 9mm Glock on the top shelf of the safe, and there are always loaded spare G17 magazines on top of the safe with a flashlight. There are also loaded G17 magazines in other places around the house.


In case of zombie apocalypse, I would take the G21, my wife would take the G17, and either my son or daughter would take the G19. In that event, I would also take the Mosssberg 500. We would also move the the lower half of the lineup, and break out the SKS, Ruger 10/22, and Browning Buck Mark. And, in the extreme case that the Mongols are coming over the hill and we need to go long, there is also a Mosin Nagant.


++++


COMING: How the guns we have figure into a matrix of preparedness – who is involved and what are we up against.

The First Death Knell for "May Issue?"

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation won another battle today, as a Federal judge ruled that Maryland’s “may issue” concealed permit law, which required that citizens show a “good and substantial reason” why they need a gun for self defense, is unconstitutional.

Quoting U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg:

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Amen.

+++++

How long until the other “may issue” states’ laws go by the same way?

I am reminded of when I received my first concealed carry permit in Alabama. After everything was set, the Sheriff stuck his head out from his office, and looked me over, and approved the permit.

I didn’t think much of it at the time, because I didn’t know much about “may issue” and “shall issue” permits. But now I know that Alabama is a “may issue” state, meaning, the Sheriff has the last word on who does and does not get a permit. I guess I got lucky.

Of course, I’m white, which may have been a lot of the luck I needed.

Advice for Concealed Carry

I ran across a couple of posts from Rob Reed of the Michigan Firearms Examiner, ostensibly aimed at new Concealed Carry Permit holders. I would recommend them for people of all levels of experience – for the new permit holder as a check of your intent and understanding of the purpose and techniques of concealed carry, and for the more experienced holder as a check that you are still following good practice. I found them very useful.

Here is Part 1 and Part 2.