Andrew Branca posted this at Legal Insurrection.
It is an important issue, and one that is not addressed adequately in the training that a person receives when they get their gun permit.
It is also not a scenario that most people prepare themselves for, and that lack of preparation can cause hesitation or indecision at a crucial moment.
Well worth your time to read.
In the aftermath of another black-on-white racial gang attack (this time at a Kroger market in Memphis TN), Andrew Branca published a follow-up article on the use of deadly force against unarmed assailants.
Once again, Mr. Branca reiterates the 5 elements of self-defense:
And he relates them to the facts of this case (as they are currently known).
My non-membership in the cult of Jeff Cooper is well-documented.
While I credit Cooper for his early contributions to training, his lack of real-world experience made me hesitant to take his endless advice at face value.
Also, aside from training, I knew Jeff Cooper was a blowhard, an attention whore, and had a poor track record of picking equipment (Bren Ten, CZ75, etc.). His tortured sentence structure made deciphering his ramblings a tedious chore. And he loved to take credit for things for which he was a mere spectator, rather than a pioneer.
After reading the new issue of Guns & Ammo, we can apparently add “Shit-Talker” and “Sore Loser” to his resume:
Connecticut held its Republican primary for the upcoming election for Governor, to see who would face the embattled Democrat Dannel Malloy in the fall.
It goes without saying that Dan Malloy, the anti-gun, tax-happy, stuttering father of a drug-dealer armed robber has to get booted. He ran Stamford into the ground as mayor, and then did his best to steer the entire state into a fiscal ditch.
But who to choose to oppose Malloy? Businessman (and former Ambassador to Ireland) Tom Foley narrowly lost to Malloy 4 years ago, and was running for the nomination again. His chances are said to be better this time, as Malloy’s reputation has fallen even lower.
If you are going to do any long-range hunting, or if you want to improve your marksmanship beyond 50 yards, you need a spotting scope. You can’t learn & grow your skills if you can’t see what your current performance is. Not knowing where your last bullet hit will hold back your development as a shooter. And running downrange to examine your target repeatedly is going to tire you out and piss off your fellow marksmen.
A binocular is fine out to 50 yards, but beyond that distance the lack of magnification is a problem.
And, no, the scope on your rifle is not “good enough”, even if it is a fancy German brand. It doesn’t have enough magnification, and you don’t want to get into the habit of aiming your gun at everything that you want a closer look at.
If you want to improve your skills with a long gun, and get your guns sighted in correctly, you need a spotting scope. In optics, you generally get the quality that you pay for. Below, I will address some of the considerations that you need to think about before choosing a spotting scope.
Kahr Arms has been pursuing a 2-tiered product strategy for a few years now. When they entered the market, they sold high-quality pistols at pricepoints higher than Glock. They now sell a high-end version of a gun, as well as a low-end version. The potential benefit is access to a category of customers that normally wouldn’t be considering your product. The risk in such strategies is that you might negatively impact the sales of the high-end gun more than you gain from the sales of the low-end gun; and that you might dilute your brand’s perception. The vendor must be careful in designing their product tiers to clearly differentiate the tiers for the customer.
Well, most of the ammo shortages that we have experienced over the last few years are not a problem at the moment.
We visited Hoffman’s in Newington, CT over the weekend and they had virtually every handgun & longarm ammo conceivable. Pallets, literally pallets, of .223, .380, 9mm, .40S&W and .45acp; both range ammo and defensive ammo, in multiple bullet weights for each caliber. Every hunting caliber was available. Even ammo for Tokarev and Nagant handguns was available.
No matter how many times the pouty Open Carry zealots lose a battle or make the gun-owning public look bad, they never seem to connect the dots between their stubborn attention-whoring behavior and the clear negative consequences that they cause.
Did they learn after they pushed Starbucks into the arms of the gun control lobby?
No, they did not:
“Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.”
Way to go, idiots.
Now, I cannot seem to locate my Magic 8-Ball, but I will go out on a limb and make a prediction anyway: this clear and uniformly negative result from their behavior will not stop Open Carry Zealots from being idiots yet again and playing into the hands of the Brady Bunch.
It’s almost like they are doing it on purpose. Maybe they need to be investigated to see if they are taking money from Bloomberg to act this way. It’s hard to believe that a rational human being could screw up so often and not realize that they are screwing up.
I have read a lot of articles about the ammo shortage. Some on the internet, some in glossy gun magazines. Lots of people claim to be able to explain the situation, but no one seems to be able to point to any proof that they are right.
2 weekends back I went to a major dealer in CT to see what ammo they had.
Pallets, literally, of .40S&W, .45acp, .223 and .380. Enough hunting ammo to keep people’s rifles sighted in. A little .38. A single countertop display of match .22 for $12.99/50 rounds. And no 9mm at all.
I personally bought a Ruger SR22 many months ago to address the lack of 9mm, but now there is no .22 to be had! My .40 and .45 guns are getting more frequent workouts because I can replace any ammo I use in them.
If all you have are 9mm and .22 caliber guns, you’re pretty much out of luck. At what point do you step up and buy a new gun in a caliber that you can feed?
After the latest shooting at Fort Hood, which was committed by a mentally-ill soldier with a spotty performance record, who was on numerous psychotropic medications, who never saw any combat (and thus the anti-military liberals cannot chalk up the crime to PTSD), the cry has once again gone out to leave law-abiding gun owners alone and go after crazy people to keep them from getting guns.
And as I said before, this is a dangerous position for a gun owner to take.
We have all seen how the justice system has twisted itself into a pretzel to ignore due process for gun owners when there is an unproven allegation of domestic violence. Gun owners used to be safe in their second amendment rights until they had been convicted of a violent felony. No longer. An unproven allegation of a misdemeanor is all that it takes to lose your second amendment rights.
And when gun owners mindless declare that the government should “take guns away from crazy people”, they forget that the people who would decide what constitutes “crazy” are the same people who have openly declared themselves to be irrationally anti-gun. Medicine is notorious for pursuing fads and junk science; to expect them to respect the second amendment is dangerously naive. And most of them cannot reach a scientifically-valid consensus on the definitions of most mental illnesses. They just publish laundry lists of symptoms to define an illness, many of which are redundant with the descriptions of other mental illnesses.
Blaming the psychotropic drugs is a risky path as well. I think that the drugs themselves are dangerous. And the conditions for which they are described can be hazardous as well. But can any of us guarantee that the AMA won’t advise the government to ban anyone who has ever taken an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety or mood stabilizer medication from gun ownership forever? How many troubled people would deny their problems and avoid treatment to preserve their rights?
What has not happened is any serious evaluation of the foolish prohibition on gun ownership in military facilities. The military gun-free zones have proven to be deadly to law-abiding service personnel, and the military has proven to be criminally inept in keeping illegal guns out as well as tardy and inadequate in their responses to violent acts on their property. The base commander at Fort Hood should be in the stockade for his failure to protect those people under his authority.
But be careful in calling for action against crazy people owning guns. You might just find yourself labeled “crazy”.