Part of that comment from Reason made me think about a recent conversation I had with an acquaintance. Jacob Sollum notes:
The new law "clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home" to move a gun from one room to another. It also "clarifies" the District's firearm storage requirements, saying a gun may be unlocked and loaded "while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.
Much hinges on what counts as a "reasonably perceived threat." If you're awakened in the middle of the night by a crash, may you carry a loaded gun with you as you investigate? Evidently not. The Washington Post reports that D.C.'s acting attorney general, Peter Nickles, "said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property." According to Nickles, if you see an armed criminal charging your home, or in the event of "an actual threat by somebody you believe is out to hurt you," you're allowed to get your gun, unlock it, and load it.
In an offhand exchange, my acquaintance, a single mom who has three children, one still living at home, looked tired and I asked if she was feeling well. She mentioned that she hadn't been sleeping well the last two nights. Her youngest child was nineteen and had went to visit her sister for a few weeks left of the summer. She said she doesn't sleep well when no one else is at home.
I thought that it was empty nest syndrome and asked if that was a factor. She agreed that it might be part of it, but it was more because her neighborhood had been rather "active" the last few nights. Active? I asked where she lived exactly since I had never known exactly the location. She mentioned the area which wasn't exactly on my "bad neighborhood" radar, but not exactly "upscale" either. She said that there were a number of break ins going on and that she had never really been comfortable at night ever since she had experienced a home invasion when the kids were younger.
I was surprised at this revelation. My acquaintance is very much a quiet, introspective person that doesn't share much beyond the current occurrences. She doesn't curse. Is always very courteous. Her favorite subject is "her babies": her grandchildren who always come to visit.
I was definitely, "OMG! What happened?!"
The long and short was that, right after she and her husband had divorced, she and the kids had gone grocery shopping one evening and came home to find the house open and some appliances sitting on the kitchen table, ready to remove, back door wide open. Apparently, she had came back and surprised the robbers who left out the back. She called the police. They came and took a statement. She inventoried the house and nothing was gone.
To the police, there was nothing really to be done. Nothing was gone. No one was hurt. All's well that ends well, as they say.
Two nights later, she and the children were watching TV when someone started kicking the front door open. She grabbed the kids and ran for the back door. She caught a glimpse of two men, one had a knife. She and the kids ran to the neighbors who were not home and then to the next house. Fortunately, someone was home. They called the police. By the time they got there, the invaders had taken the TV, VCR, computer and some other portable appliances and were gone.
Apparently, after being scared off two nights before when she came home with the kids, the invaders had cased her house and realized that she was a single woman living alone with three children. Realizing that, they felt no compunction about coming back two nights later and kicking the door in while they were actually home. And, they brought a weapon, probably just in case she or the kids did cause a problem.
She said that it happened so fast she didn't have time to do anything, but grab the kids and run.
I was really surprised. I asked her if she had considered moving, but she said the she got the house in the divorce and it was outside of her limited single parent budget. I said I would feel uncomfortable being there after that.
She said she thought about it all night long after the police left and her door wouldn't close all the way or lock. She said the next morning she got the door fixed and "then I bought a gun."
She said she kept thinking about how these men did not care that anyone was home, had, in fact, watched to see who was in the house, discovered there was no "threat" (ie, man) and had been willing to hurt her or the children for some cheap appliances.
She didn't question her decision to run. She didn't care about the appliances. As hard as it was to replace them on their restricted budget, they were cheap in comparison. She kept thinking about if they had been in another room or separated somehow, she wouldn't have been able to get all her kids and get out. She definitely would not leave them.
Ten years later, when she goes to bed, the pistol is on the nightstand right beside her pillow.
I asked her if she actually knew how to shoot and take care of the pistol. She said that, yes, she had immediately went to take lessons at the local range and routinely went to practice. (You see, I believe in responsible gun ownership, too, but I think that responsibility begins with knowing how to safely operate and maintain a weapon, not locking it in pieces in a locked cabinet where it would do no good for its primary function: self defense).
I nodded my head. I understood, even with a weapon at the ready, she was still afraid. A gun does not automatically equate to total safety. But, it does increase the odds of survival. And, maybe, somebody in the neighborhood got the news that the lady in "that house" was now armed and dangerous.
If you met my friend, you would never know that this quiet, unassuming, grandmotherly lady was "packing".
According to the DoJ, citizens of the United States have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being a victim of assault with injury; 1 in 1,000 will be raped and 3 in 1,000 will experience robbery. The DoJ also indicates that, in 2005, citizens reported over 23 million crimes; 22% (5.2 million) were violent crimes.
Thus validating half of the expression, "Nickled and dimed to death" ...
Nothing was gone. No one was hurt.
It is unlikely had they returned, that "no onewould be hurt". Most crooks that are afraid of meeting the home owners don't take their sweet time like that.
She caught a glimpse of two men, one had a knife.
Oh goodie a knife. I bet you two strikes it'll be going into the wielder's body after he tries to intimidate me with it.
It's always nice when people bring you the tools you need to get busy. That way, you don't have to carry the weight around nor deal with the legal consequences of carrying or using what would be called a "weapon with the intent to kill". Although, I don't think it would be a good idea to use another person's firearm. Who knows what kind of crap he bought and how he maintained it? Best to use the tools of the trade that's always available.
It's always very funny when the criminal kills himself with his own knife. And the proof is that only his fingerprints are on the device. That's so convenient, just in case some prosecutor wants to say that I went and bought me a Bowie knife so I could carve up some burglars. Ya never know what with them lawyers and all.
not locking it in pieces in a locked cabinet where it would do no good for its primary function: self defense
I'm one of the few people that always prefered hand to hand. If the range is too long, then by all means, bring in the missile weapons. But usually these types of criminal encounters, even the Virginia Tech shooting, occurs within meters of people. And I always worried about hand to hand grappling problems especially if wielding a firearm. After I saw enough of human military history, the idea that a firearm is the "ultimate tool of death and violence" didn't cut it any more. Once somebody gets past the "range" of that missile weapon, you're going to need to go melee and hand to hand. Bayonets for the army.
I understood, even with a weapon at the ready, she was still afraid. A gun does not automatically equate to total safety.
No, what equates to total safety is popping out the burglar's eye, preferably the right one if he is right handed, taking his little iny knife, and cutting us some finger slices so we could hang them outside over the door with a tag that says "next time, I'm going to acquire some toes".
That may or may not be illegal, so as an alternative if you also dislocate all four of their ankles, snap back their index fingers to the back of their wrist, and break the hip and patella/knee joint, I'm pretty sure a jury will not charge you if you are a woman with 3 children in the house at the time.
I'd say rotate their necks using the rotation force from your torso and the planet's gravity well on his and your body weight, but prosecutors might not want to let that one go as "self-defense". It depends really. If he's already stabbed you somewhere, then you can probably get away with a no charge from the grand jury by injuring the man's cervical in that fashion. The doctors say "do not move somebody's head if he has a high cervical injury". I'll just say I 'tripped' over his head trying to get to a phone so I can call medical attention for myself. Three times, I tripped. Okay, maybe that's a little bit too much.
As for DC, it is the place of the bureaucrats and politicians. Back in feudal times, weapons were severely limited to the knights and nobles. The serfs could not be allowed handed crossbows and shat. Why? Cause crossbows can easily kill a knight wearing plate armor. The loss of a knight, who trained all his life for that position, is much more devastating than a peasant dying cause he lacked both armor and weapons.
Now, in modern times, Washington DC has seen the benefits of one aspect of feudalism, at least.
She said the next morning she got the door fixed and "then I bought a gun."
Some people believe the law is more important and sweet to people than life and liberty. Other people believe life and liberty are always far more important than the law or even the anti-law.
She sounds like a person that would benefit much from classes that teach hand to hand violence. I recommend targetfocustraining since that's my favorite, but there are other classes that deal strictly with the self-defense portion of "resistance", if active violence and lethality is not people's cup of tea. And it isn't, for the most part. Although, technically, anybody that buys a gun, has already accepted that the target he/she is going to use that gun on might die of their wounds.
It is just that, on a purely legal perpsective if nothing else, you have a lot more control on whether your target lives or dies using bare hands. When using bullets, it's always hard to know just what exactly that bullet is going to pass through. People get shot by bullets and it is never a certainty that they will stay down, unless you get a head shot. If I put 80-120 pounds of force to a person's wind pipe with the edge of my forearm, I know, more or less, whether he will get back up again sometime later. His reactions will tell me that plain as day. And if that's not good enough or certain enough, just put your entire body weight (via the knee) on the top of his throat (via knee drop). That'll make things certain, for sure. If you need more power, just jump up in the air a little. Gravity is our friend if we want to hit somebody with the planet, just in case we can't find a baseball bat or tire iron, wrench, or two by four.
She said that, yes, she had immediately went to take lessons at the local range and routinely went to practice.
There's some interesting tricks that they usually don't teach you at the range. I, personally, don't use any range, but a firearm owner that's a friend in California, does and so does John Ross Ross is a former candidate for Missouri's 2nd district, I believe, which fought for Concealed Carry in Missouri via lobbying and overriding the governor's veto. The two never mentioned that they did anything except test fire different weapons and improve their accuracy. Supposedly, a lot of people like firing Uzis or submachineguns in full auto and go through entire clips. Thrilling, I think it was said. But to the tricks.
When somebody grabs your gun, when you have it out in front of you, all you have to do is to go and sit on your back side. The gun naturally extends and points in the direction of whoever is in front of you, so long as your hand is on the grib and your finger on the trigger, and the assailant catches as many bullets as you want. Even if he is strong enough to lift your entire body weight with one of his huge arms, he will have no leverage to do anything to stop this move. He cannot prevent you from dropping your weight back, because his hands are on your gun or your shooting hand. If he lets go, he's dead. If he pushes you, he's still dead, you just happen to hit the ground harder with your butt. If he tries to swing your gun out of targeting alignment, the fact that he is still holding your hands in a grip will naturally straighten the gun sight out when you land on the ground. If he is strong/massive enough to hold your entire body weight up with one or two arms just by holding your gun, then you're just going to be floating when you pull the trigger.
This is why people wrestling over the "gun" is something that only Hollywood could make up. If you "need" the gun, because you think yourself too physically weak to hurt the other guy, then wrestling over it is not going to give you jack. If you believe yourself too weak to handle the target with bare hands, then trying to pit your strength against the assailant's is a big no no. Let the planet's gravity well do your wrastling for ya.Much more convenient that way.
I also like the various little tricks people try when they attempt to steal a weapon from a person's holster. As well as the counter moves.
Nothng's more embarassing than getting shot by your own gun cause the criminal pulled it from your holster first when you were distracted by his buddy. Although, for most people, that's an issue that cops usually have to deal with, since civilians with Concealed Carry aren't that many actually.
but I think that responsibility begins with knowing how to safely operate and maintain a weapon
Funny you should say that after the National Guard in New Jersey's "accidental discharge" incident ; )
But, on a more serious note, if yout put the gun, your gun, into a safe place and never take it out except for skill maintenance, what tends to happen is you stop thinking about how to operate the tool. So when you do have to use it when adrenaline is turning your vision into a tunnel and where adrenaline has literally blocked out all sense of loud sounds, you're going to hit a road block in the mind. The road block that said "we never had to think about loading and using a firearm in the house, so why should we do so now, at this moment in time".
Train as you fight. If the NG member had thought longer and harder about his rifle and how that thing actually worked or would work in a situation where firing it is demanded, he might have caught his mistake in time, regardless of whether he was tired or not.
But, it does increase the odds of survival.
Peace through superior firepower. That's a nice philosophy, all in all.
P.S. Grim's photo of the quick draw shooter is pretty amazing if you haven't seen it already. He posted it up at Cassandra's place somewhere.