Defensive Shooting Instructors

Conceal and carry laws fuel surge in female gun ownership

2012-01-30T18:36:44Z

Although crime rates are down, retailers here and across country report greater numbers of women are buying firearms.

By MARÁ ROSE WILLIAMS The Kansas City Star

Six times, she tugged the revolver’s trigger, and six times the bullets went home, puncturing chest, throat and then the gut.On paper, of course.

Danielle Hunt smiled as she left her shooting stance, pleased at the holed human outline target about 20 feet away at the Crossfire Recreational Center gun range in Independence.

And the feel of the revolver was sweet, too.

The Kansas City Police Department employee is used to her semi-automatic, but the borrowed gun, a wood-grip .38 Taurus revolver, had its appeal.

“Easier to control your shot,” she said. “No recoil.”

A shooter for several years, Hunt was not surprised to hear that more women are buying handguns, honing accuracy and toting them in their purses in states like Missouri and Kansas that have conceal and carry weapon laws.

“I think a lot of women want that level of safety,” said Hunt, who recently got a conceal and carry permit.

This urge for personal arming against the unknown attacker, however, comes against a seemingly contrarian background:

Violent crime, including rapes and assaults, has been steadily declining across the nation.

Between 2001 and 2010, “the overall violent victimization rate decreased by 40.5 percent,” according to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report.

I’m here to report the increase in women gun buyers, but the male customers — only men were in the store — definitely looked at me oddly as I stepped into the show room.

Row after row of guns, in all shapes, colors and sizes, are enclosed in glass cases, just like the precious gems in a jewelry store. Only in the case of jewelry the lighting is set to bounce off the stones, sparkle and promote a good feeling. I didn’t get that in the gun store; it was dim, and people looked pretty serious. The men behind the counters wore guns in holsters hanging on their hips. — Mará Rose Williams.

When selling to women, Mike Malone, owner of The Gun Shop in Olathe, said, “The first thing I ask is what do you want to use it for.”

He usually gets one of two answers: a piece in the purse or on the night stand while they sleep.

Andy Pelosi, executive director of Gun Free Kids in New York, has heard that more women are buying guns than ever before, but he doesn’t understand why.

“Maybe there is a fear factor, that they don’t feel safe in their environment.”

While no gender specific gun sales statistics are available, 60 percent of firearm retailers responding to a National Shooting Sports Foundation survey reported an increase in female customers in 2011.

American women saying they personally own a firearm is nearly one in four, according to an October Gallup poll.

That survey indicated the highest gun ownership since the 1990s, with 43 percent of women reporting at least one in their home and 23 percent saying it’s theirs. (Half of American men own a firearm, the poll showed.)

These numbers are all significantly higher than found in just April by the Violence Policy Center, which said: “Female gun ownership peaked in 1982 at 14.3 percent. In 2010 (it) was 9.9 percent.” The National Opinion Research Center survey also indicated that household gun ownership had dropped from more than half of all American homes to just below one in three.

Gallup offered a caveat that its higher numbers “could reflect a change in Americans’ comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.”

Patricia Stoneking, owner of Target Master Shooting Academy and president of the Kansas affiliate of the National Rifle Association, said she has seen more women learning to shoot at the Bullet Hole range in Overland Park.

No hard numbers, she said, but “it’s not an exaggeration that in a beginner’s class of eight people we might have six women and two men.”

Five years ago, she said, the ratio would have been reversed.

Stoneking said the increase in women arming themselves “is in direct correlation to the existence of conceal and carry laws.” Only Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have some level of conceal and carry laws. It became law in Missouri in 2003 and three years later in Kansas.

Similarly, she attributes the lowered crime rates to the fact that more people are packing in public.

“The criminals know that. They know if they try to rob someone there is the likelihood they may be facing a firearm. They don’t want to get shot. They just want your wallet.

“And in the case of rape,” she said, “well, let’s just say they are not willing to die for it.”

Over the last decade, rapes reported to police have dropped by 50,000, to fewer than 190,000 nationally by 2010. The crime is under-reported, however, and involves sexual assault by acquaintances perhaps a third of the time. Date or acquaintance rape certainly complicates deterrence by a firearm.

Darren Pack, NRA rifle and pistol instructor, thinks the increase in guns in purses is connected to the decline in the economy.

“People have lost so much recently, they want to protect what they have. Police can’t be everywhere and people don’t feel safe any more,” Pack said.

At the same time, experts are surprised that in the face of such a sour economy, crime rates continue downward.

Pack said he finds it “gratifying” when a first-timer leaves his class qualified to carry a gun after firing at least 70 rounds and putting at least 30 of them through the target, a requirement for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Other reasons cited by women for blasting away is that for some it relieves stress or offers an opportunity to share something with a mate on “man turf.”

For Hunt: “Because it’s a challenging and interesting sport.”

Surrounded by all that steel and wood and fire power wasn’t as scary as I thought it would be.

But I hadn’t held a firearm yet. But by the time I visited the third gun shop, I really warmed to the idea and before I knew it I couldn’t take my eyes off of a small, pearly, pink-handled semi-automatic about the size of my hand.

In my palm, it was much lighter than I had expected, and although while it was cute, I figured if I were getting a gun it would have to weigh more than this little thing. The revolver was much heavier. It felt like a gun and not a toy. — MRW

Kelly Howe, working the counter at Blue Steel Guns and Ammo in Raytown, thinks the “gun of the year” for the ladies is the 9mm Ruger.

“Most women do like smaller handguns that fit better in their hand and that they can control. It is not the size of the gun that’s important, but whether you can control it.”

Corneredcat.com has advice for guys buying for their gals:

“Oddly enough, women are all individuals. Asking what caliber or gun is best for a woman is exactly the same thing as asking what caliber or gun is best for a man. And the answer is, ‘It depends…’

“I’ve seen tiny little women with great big grins on their faces as they hammered away with full-powered ‘manly’ guns. I’ve also seen sturdy-looking Amazon-woman types wincing from what I consider to be mild recoil…

“What I’m getting at here is that it doesn’t matter if she weighs 90 pounds soaking wet or if she’s taller than you are and twice as fluffy. Her hand size will matter when it is time to pick a platform, but the size of her body isn’t going to tell you much that is useful about her tolerance for recoil or the caliber she’ll prefer shooting.”

The Ruger is what I had guessed a traditional — by Hollywood standards — modern handgun would look like. Black, compact with a blued alloy steel slide and barrel and a wood-paneled grip loaded with a magazine to slap in just like the cops do on television.

Turns out the guys selling the guns actually recommend revolvers to women who are new to firearms. The revolver is easier to maintain, to check to see if it’s loaded ammo and to control. They said the heavier the weapon the less recoil there is. — MRW

Buying a pistol that matches your lipstick is closer than you think.

At Blue Steel, gunsmith Joe William Terry said he’s adhering a bake-on, pink coating to more handguns than ever.

“There are definitely more women coming in to buy a gun,” Terry said, and a lot of them “like having their gun personalized. They like pink or raspberry steel.”

Or you might replace the grip with a color a little sassier.

Back to Corneredcat.com:

“Looks matter,” the writer says. “Oh, one more thing: her fashion sense is better than yours. If she says a flashy gun is pretty, don’t argue. It’s not a pimp gun if a woman is wearing it.”

Stoneking said most of the women she trains avoid the candy-color-coated pieces.

“I don’t want my gun to look cute, I want it to be big and mean looking.”

Agreed, said Marge Kassel, who sat through Darren’s 10-hour conceal and carry classes and placed every bullet she fired through the range target.

Her family had been after the 72-year-old Lee’s Summit grandmother to get the permit so that she could carry a firearm “for protection.” Kassel said she’s not out and about much after the sun goes down, but when she is she wants that snub-barreled .38 Smith & Wesson Special at hand.

“If I ever need it,” she said, “I want to be able to stop whatever is coming at me.”

At the gun range, I was surprised that the strong smell of gun powder power hung in the air, like heavy smoke on a Fourth of July night. Loud, too.

This Long Island, N.Y., girl had never fired a gun of any kind before, but I wanted to try it. Lloyd Cook, owner at Crossfire gun range, was patient. He pulled out a Browning .22, popped out the empty magazine and slapped it on the counter. After a 15-minute lesson in how to hold it, load it and fire it, I headed back to the range with gun and ammo in hand and protective ear gear on my head.

In the lane facing the blue, paper target, nerves kicked in. My hands quivered loading the black steel firearm, and a bullet lodged upright in the magazine. Cook fixed it.

I extended my arms, gripped with both hands, held my breath and pulled the trigger. BANG. The gun, more powerful than expected, jumped up a tad. The bullet barely clipped the top of the target. A Murphy.

A tighter hold, more arm extension, a keener look down the sight, and …BANG … BANG … BANG… the next 9 rounds marched across the target from head to torso. — MRW

“The equation is simple,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Prevention Center. “More guns lead to more gun death. Limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.”

To the NRA, the equation is this: the 250 million privately owned guns in the United States correlates to the 50 percent drop in murders — of all kinds — since 1991.

More than 8,700 murders in 2010, however, were committed with a firearm. And for every time a gun draws blood in self-defense, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence contends, 11 guns are used for suicides and four are involved in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

No national statistics on such accidents are kept by the National Centers for Disease Control’s Injury Center in Atlanta, but it does offer a 16-state snapshot — not including Missouri or Kansas.

In those states, accidental at-home gun deaths declined from 32 in 2005 to 14 in 2009, the latest available year.

Fearing tragic accidents, many women frown on firearms in the house — especially handguns — which can seem more like toys than the larger, heavier long arms. The conceal and carry training they receive includes how to secure guns safely at home.

With gun ownership comes responsibility, Terry said.

“I ask them if they have the fortitude to shoot and maybe kill someone. If they don’t, then I tell them maybe they should re-think buying a gun, and that is the reality.

“If they pull it out and don’t use it, someone will definitely take it away from them. Then you have a criminal who maybe didn’t have a gun to start with, who now has one, and you’re the victim.”

The more I heard about women learning to shoot for protection, the more I started thinking there might be something to the idea.

In the end, though, I’m torn about whether it’s smarter to have a weapon and know how to use it, or to avoid them completely. I don’t think I would have had one in the home when the kids were young, but now, I don’t know. The thing that hangs in my mind most is a comment from a gun dealer, who asked that if I were threatened, “Could you fire until it’s empty?”

I’m pretty sure if it came down to protecting my children, I wouldn’t have a problem blasting away. But in a robbery or something like that, I don’t think so. — MRW

“Guns aren’t for everybody,” Hunt agreed.

Angelica Silvia Polluck of Independence visits Crossfire range “every once in a while,” to practice with her protection weapon “so I can be advanced enough with it and feel comfortable enough to carry it around all the time.”

“I’m not afraid of guns any more,” said Polluck, who got the gun at the insistence of her husband. While never feeling her life was threatened, she said, “I would encourage every woman to have a gun and know how to use it. It made me feel more comfortable.”

Other than a BB gun, Alison Blankenship had never fired a weapon before taking her concealed carry class.

She hasn’t made her mind up yet to purchase her own gun, but she enjoys plinking away with the range Browning.

“I was so excited out there that my glasses steamed up,” she said, searching for a shell casing that had flown up the sleeve of her pink sweater.

“I pray I never have to use a gun. But if ever I have to protect the life of a member of my family or my own life, I want to be able to do it and know how.”

Why Carry a Gun?

2012-01-03T05:12:09Z

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an butt whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

I carry a gun because God gave me the Right to do so; it is inalienable.

Unprovoked attacks at heart of ‘Knockout King’

2011-12-30T02:17:31Z

By JIM SALTER
Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Matthew Quain still struggles to piece together what happened after a trip to the grocery store nearly turned deadly. He remembers a group of loitering young people, a dimly lit street – then nothing. The next thing he knew he was waking up with blood pouring out of his head.

The 51-year-old pizza kitchen worker’s surreal experience happened just before midnight earlier this year, when he became another victim of what is generally known as “Knockout King” or simply “Knock Out,” a so-called game of unprovoked violence that targets random victims.

Scattered reports of the game have come from around the country including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Chicago. In St. Louis, the game has become almost contagious, with tragic consequences. An elderly immigrant from Vietnam died in an attack last spring.

The rules of the game are as simple as they are brutal. A group – usually young men or even boys as young as 12, and teenage girls in some cases – chooses a lead attacker, then seeks out a victim. Unlike typical gang violence or other street crime, the goal is not revenge, nor is it robbery. The victim is chosen at random, often a person unlikely to put up a fight. Many of the victims have been elderly. Most were alone.

The attacker charges at the victim and begins punching. If the victim goes down, the group usually scatters. If not, others join in, punching and kicking the person, often until he or she is unconscious or at least badly hurt. Sometimes the attacks are captured on cellphone video that is posted on websites.

“These individuals have absolutely no respect for human life,” St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay said.

Slay knows firsthand. He was on his way home from a theater around 11:30 p.m. on Oct. 21 when he saw perhaps a dozen young people casually crossing a street. He looked to the curb and saw Quain sprawled on the pavement.

Slay told his driver to pull over. They found Quain unconscious, blood pouring from his head and mouth.

Quain was hospitalized for two days with a broken jaw, a cracked skull and nasal cavity injuries. He still has headaches and memory problems but was finally able to return to work earlier this month. Hundreds gathered in November for a fundraiser at the restaurant where he works, Joanie’s Pizza, but he still doesn’t know how he’ll pay the medical bills.

“I don’t remember much of what happened,” Quain said. “I was hanging out with a friend, celebrating the Cardinals in the World Series. I went to the store and saw a group of kids who looked out of place, suspicious, but I shrugged it off. I got around to the library, and the next thing I remember is waking up on the corner with the mayor standing next to me. I tried to say `hi’ but my jaw was broken.”

It isn’t clear how long Knockout King has been around, nor is the exact number of attacks known. The FBI doesn’t track it separately, but Slay said he has heard from several mayors about similar attacks and criminologists agree versions of the game are going on in many places.

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom said the city has had about 10 Knockout King attacks over the past 15 months.

Experts say it is a grab for attention.

“We know that juveniles don’t think out consequences clearly,” said Beth Huebner, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “They see something on YouTube and say, `I want to get that sort of attention, too.’ They don’t think about the person they’re attacking maybe hitting their head.”

Scott Decker, a criminologist at Arizona State, said the attacks are a modern extension of gang-like behavior – instead of painting over another gang’s graffiti as a show of toughness, they beat someone up and post a video on social media sites. The postings spur copycat crimes.

“It’s adolescent and early adults, largely male, showing how tough they are. It’s done to show off,” Decker said.

Earlier this year in Chicago, a group of teens followed an elderly homeless man at a train station. One of the teens walked up to him and punched him in the face, knocking him out as the teen’s friends laughed and mocked the man. The exchange was captured on video and posted on a hip-hop site, where it got about a quarter of a million views within two days. The teen was not arrested because police couldn’t locate the homeless man to see if he wanted to press charges.

The crimes aren’t limited to big cities. In 2009, Adam Taylor had just entered a parking garage in Columbia, Mo. Surveillance footage from the garage showed a group of teens following him. One of the teens attacked, punching Taylor and sending him crashing into a brick wall. A few seconds later, the others joined in, punching and kicking him as he lay on the ground. Taylor suffered bruising on the brain, whiplash and internal bleeding but survived.

Hoang Nguyen wasn’t as fortunate.

The 72-year-old retired schoolteacher immigrated to St. Louis from Vietnam with his wife less than four years earlier to be near their daughter. The couple was returning to their apartment after walking to a grocery store on an April morning in broad daylight.

They took a shortcut through an alley, where they saw a group of young people approaching. Suddenly, one of them charged. Hoang was attacked as he stepped in front of his wife to protect her. The attack went on as he begged for mercy, she told police.

Hoang died of massive injuries. Elex Murphy, 18, was charged with first-degree murder and allegedly told police the attack was part of the Knockout King game. His attorney declined to comment.

St. Louis authorities are going to the source to combat further attacks. A special police squad has been assigned to focus on Knockout King, and a city prosecutor is designated for the attacks. But Isom said equally important is an outreach effort to talk to students.

“Certainly we take this very seriously and we’re making every effort to stop it,” Isom said.

Fight fire with fire, NGO tells women

2011-12-30T02:09:29Z

arming women is an effective way to combat violence

A Turkish non-governmental organization (NGO) is set to give free shooting courses at a gun range for women who were subjected to domestic violence.

Şefkat-Der has suggested arming women as an effective way to combat domestic violence. “The state should grant licensed, tax-free arms to women under vital threat to defend themselves in emergency situations and train them in close combat and weapons use,” said Hayrettin Bulan, the head of Şefkat-Der.

Purchasing guns in Turkey is easy, and it would serve to deter potential killers if women also possessed firearms, he said, adding they were also going to appeal to the Parliament, ministries and political parties to enact a motion that includes their suggestion to arm women.
The organization plans to appeal to Parliament, ministries and political parties to enact a motion that includes their suggestion to arm women, Bulan said.

“Shouldn’t women be able to protect themselves when there are no police or guards standing next to them? What is wrong with saying that women should learn how to operate arms to save their own lives by training on a range beforehand?” Bulan asked.

Şefkat-Der raised similar suggestions Nov. 25 on the Struggle against Violence toward Women Day and other occasions.

“You can engage in acts aimed at wounding your husband with a knife or a gun, such as hitting or cutting across his wrist, so as to make it difficult for him to abuse you again…If you believe you will not be able to deliver yourself from death by causing injury, then you can also opt to neutralize [killing or critically wounding] the potential killer before he kills you,” Şefkat-Der said.

Figures from the We Will Stop Women’s Murders platform show about 160 women in Turkey were murdered by relatives such as family members, lovers or spouses, in 2011.

A total of 179 women are known to have been raped in 2011 and another 70 allegedly committed suicide, although three of them were later found to have been murdered as well.

The rate of women murdered by their husbands had increased by nearly 200 percent between 2009 and 2010, according to reports.

December/28/2011

1 Dead In Royal Palm Beach Armed Home Invasion

2011-11-14T18:53:56Z

1 Dead In Royal Palm Beach Armed Home Invasion

Deputy Shoots 1 Of 3 Home Invaders

ROYAL PALM BEACH, Fla. — WPBF.com

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a deputy-involved shooting in Royal Palm Beach.

Sheriff’s Office spokesman Eric Davis said “three men dressed as police officers wearing ski masks and armed with shotguns knocked on the door of a home” on Finch Court at about 10:15 p.m. Saturday.

As “the masked and armed intruders forced their way into the home”, deputies said a girl living in the home escaped through a bedroom window and called 911. When they arrived at the scene, deputies said they heard the three men giving commands to the homeowners and concluded that the robbery was still in progress.

When the intruders left the home, they saw the deputies and ran back inside the house. Deputies said they went after the men and confronted one of them who made it back to their vehicle. That man was later identified as 24-year-old Jamar Anderson.

Deputies said they told Anderson to stop the vehicle and show his hands. They said Anderson raised his hands, but when they approached him, he dropped his hands quickly and drove towards the deputies.

One of the deputies fired a single shot, striking Anderson in the neck. He died at the scene.

South Carolina Sheriff says, ‘Women – You Need to Protect Yourself’

2011-11-02T17:28:07Z

By Joshua Rhett Miller; Published November 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com

A South Carolina sheriff is making the extraordinary suggestion that local women arm themselves following the attempted rape of a woman at a local park, saying, “you need to protect yourself.”

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright, the county’s top law enforcement officer since 2005, suggested local women apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon during a news conference Monday about the attack on Sunday at Milliken Park in Spartanburg.

“It just struck me wrong that we keep telling everyone ‘trust us, trust us, trust us,’ but in reality, you need to protect yourself,” Wright told FoxNews.com. “If you are not a convicted felon or someone who causes trouble or don’t have any mental issues, buy a weapon to protect yourself and get some good training.”

Walter Monroe Lance, 46, of Spartanburg, was charged Monday with kidnapping, first-degree criminal sexual conduct and grand larceny in connection with the attack. Lance was ordered held without bond, Wright said.

Wright suggested that had the unidentified victim been armed, perhaps with a .45-caliber handgun concealed in a fanny pack, she would have stood a better chance fighting off her attacker.

“If she didn’t shoot the guy, she could have at least stopped him and made him leave her alone,” Wright said. “You can defend yourself.”

Wright said he was “tired of looking at victims” of crimes whose perpetrators are arrested multiple times and are later released without significant jail time. Lance, for example, had been arrested more than 20 times, he said, including for offenses like rape, battery and resisting arrest. Wright characterized him as an “animal” during Monday’s news conference.

Since making the suggestion that women lawfully arm themselves, Wright said his office has received more than 200 phone calls supporting his stance. Only one didn’t “praise” the call to action, he said.

“We’re not trying to raise up a militia here, we’re sending a message to the bad guys that we’re tired of it,” he said. “I’m through getting bit.”

“There are tons of guns on the street now, I would just prefer to train the good people who have them so there’d be less accidents,” Wright said. “I am plainspoken in a lot of aspects and we cannot be everywhere. I think the people in this county understand how I go after these drug dealers and people who break into our homes … We’re just very relentless in our pursuit of justice.”

Asked if he believes his message resonated with Spartanburg County residents, Wright replied: “I would say that if you’re a concealed weapons permit instructor, you’re about to make a lot of Christmas money.”

Name one accessory that grandmothers, moms, girls, wealthy socialites, middle-class females and low-income women might be likely to own — and cherish — all across America.

2011-09-30T05:18:10Z

Pop quiz: Name one accessory that grandmothers, moms, girls, wealthy socialites, middle-class females and low-income women might be likely to own — and cherish — all across America.

If you answered “a gun,” you’d be correct.

Based on polling research and gun-sale statistics, an estimated 15 million to 20 million women in the United States own their own firearms. Dozens of those heat-packing women are documented in “Chicks with Guns,” a new book by photographer Lindsay McCrum that is sure to challenge almost anyone’s assumptions about gun ownership.

“Their numbers are really high but their profile is actually really low,” said McCrum, who spent three and a half years capturing artistic and arresting portraits of women with their weapons of choice.

“I was so surprised by the variety and breadth and diversity of these women,” McCrum said. “There are so many stereotypes about guns, mostly derived from popular culture, but the reality is so much more complex and varied than you can imagine.”

You Have To Be A Sheepdog On The Plane

2011-07-11T03:34:03Z

By Frank Borelli

This past week I enjoyed a conversation with a “Flight Deck Officer”. That would be, as I understand it, a pilot who is armed. Why they don’t just continue to call them “pilots” is beyond me. Why do they need a special name? Especially one that might point out the fact that they’re armed to any bad guys paying attention? We’ll leave that alone for now. The jist of our conversation was that – in his experience – contemporary Use of Force guidelines as well as defensive tactics are being taught to Flight Deck Officers. He felt that this was inappropriate since the risk is potentially so much greater in a plane, and because so much of the defensive tactics skills being taught today simply don’t work in the limited space of airplane aisles. His comments got me thinking and here we go…

Dave Grossman, a well known speaker / trainer in today’s warrior community, describes people as fitting into one of three categories:

Sheep: The average person. All they want to do is live their life and be left alone. They are peaceful and do no intended harm. If attacked, they will submit to demands and not fight back.

Wolves: The predators. These are the people who commit crimes against others. They prey on the sheep. Violence is their tool. Terrorizing is entertainment.

Sheepdogs: The protectors. The sheep don’t really like the sheepdogs all that much. They don’t trust the sheepdogs. After all, the sheepdog stays to himself on the outside fringes of the group. If he gets angry, the sheepdog snarls and bares his teeth, but if you leave him alone, he’ll leave you alone and all is peaceful. If he is, or those he is supposed to protect are, attacked, he will fight back and fight back hard. He refuses to be prey.

The large majority of today’s society – especially here in America I think – are sheep. They just want to live their lives in peace to pursue life, liberty, prosperity and happiness. Most of them don’t tend to trust the sheepdogs. If you doubt that, take a look at any newspaper or newscast, or do a Google search on “police use of force”. You’ll most likely find some news article about how some police officer is being sued or questioned because of an action he took to defend himself or to protect someone else. The sheep would be perfectly happy if we sheepdogs just weren’t around… until the wolf shows up.

As Dave Grossman says, “When the wolf shows up, the whole flock of sheep will try to hide behind that one sheepdog.”

On September 11, 2001, a group of passengers on Flight 93 decided that they would not be sheep. The terrorists were the wolves. On three other planes, because of what they didn’t know and what airline staff had been taught to do in response to hijackings, the passengers didn’t resist or fight back. They did what nearly everyone would have done in their situation. They sat still and let the flight crew and flight attendants deal with the problem. On Flight 93, when they found out what the hijackers were doing with the planes, they decided to fight back. That decision changed them from being sheep to being sheepdogs. In today’s post-911 world, I submit to you that every passenger on every plane needs to be a sheepdog.

Now we have to consider how to do that given the physical characteristics of a plane. I can’t afford to fly first class, so usually my seat is just wide enough for me to fit in, and if I have a gun on my hip it’s pressed into the armrest. The aisle is just wide enough to walk down, and not even do that without banging into every seat you’re going by unless you walk on an angle to your steps. I ask you, How are we supposed to fight in such an environment using the typical skills we’re taught?

Consider what defensive tactics training you’ve had. Think about it all: Kicks, punches, elbow strikes, knee blitzes, control holds, wrist locks, arm bars, brachial thumps / stuns, etc. How much of what you’ve been taught do you have time and space to perform in an airplane aisle? And then, once you have taken some positive action, what follow up action have you been taught to secure the subject after you’ve taken them down / incapacitated them?

Throughout our careers we’ve been taught specific Use of Force guidelines or Rules of Engagement (depending on what uniform you wear). If a person is making threatening statements but isn’t displaying any aggressive behaviors (on the ground) there is a limit to what you can do to them: verbal commands, and maybe OC Spray if the person continues to be non-compliant. Now put that same person on a plane – it’s a whole different story.

The risk presented by the person on the ground is limited. Unless he/she has a bomb strapped onto their body, they really can only do a limited amount of damage and harm. Even if they do have a bomb strapped on and ready to detonate, the amount of damage they can do is limited by the number of people within the necessary proximity of them and their explosive device. But what about on a plane? Can ONE person cause enough harm or damage on a plane to affect its safe operation? Since there are only two people on the plane who have to be killed to make the plane crash (the pilot and co-pilot) I submit to you that the person on the plane who presents any type of threatening posture should be viewed as a threat to EVERY person on the plane. How many lives is that? 200? 300? It depends on the model of airplane and how many tickets were sold – how many seats are filled.

That said, I view a threat to those 200+ people as far different from a threat to a handful of people. On a plane when a person gets belligerent and makes any kind of threat or causes any kind of disturbance, I believe that an accelerated use of force / rules of engagement protocol needs to be approved, and indeed mandated. Now, I have to say up front that I’m not familiar with much of the Air Marshall program. What rules they operate under are not known to me, but given that our country is governed by the Constitution, Federal Laws, State, County and Local laws, I’d be willing to bet that their rules aren’t much different from the cop on the ground’s.
But let’s even take cops out of the picture. What if there is no Air Marshall on board and a person is getting stupid? I would hope that the Flight Attendants have been sufficiently trained to intervene properly, but if they aren’t or don’t? Then it’s up to the passengers – any sheepdog on the plane – to step up and put the potential predator down. I don’t mean kill them necessarily. Depending on circumstances I believe that a warning should be given. At that point the Wolf knows a sheepdog is there and approaching. His choices are simple: stand down or be put down. No other option exists or should be discussed. No nice, “Please would you be so kind?” The warning should be simple and straight to the point: “Sir (or Ma’am), you represent a threat to the safety of this plane. Sit down and shut up or be put down and locked up.” Arrest powers don’t matter. If a Wolf gets put down on a plane by Joe Average Citizen, the pilot will let the other end know and Air Marshals or local police will be waiting when the plane lands.

Once the warning has been given, two options exist: the Wolf sits down and shuts up, or the Sheepdog puts him down – and down hard. Think about it: the Wolf has expressed his desire to do harm and then has ignored his only warning not to. To me, that indicates his intention to move forward with his stated goal of doing harm. We simply cannot allow that to happen. Too many lives are at risk. Time to act and act definitively.

Now, I ask you: If the threat you face is a potentially lethal threat, then what options are open to you? The answer is ANYTHING. Sure, a nice brachial stun might be effective if you can get positioned and have the room to do it. A wrist-lock take down and then roll him over into a nice arm bar for holding onto him would be great if room permitted. But that’s what cops might do – not the average citizen. What can the average citizen do?

Well, if Mr. Wolf can’t breath, he can’t fight (for long). If he can’t see, he can’t fight. If he can’t stand, he can’t fight (effectively). So, I submit that Mr. Wolf should immediately find himself under attack from Mr. Sheepdog, and Mr. Sheepdog should be attacking in such a fashion as to:

1) Remove Mr. Wolf’s ability to breath by attacking his throat (yeah, he might die, but he HAS presented lethal force)
2) Remove Mr. Wolf’s ability to see (accomplished in a number of ways and some of them won’t even permanently blind him)
3) Remove Mr. Wolf’s ability to stand (it doesn’t take a whole lot to break a knee and broken knees tend to be rather distracting to the person who owns the knee that is broken)
Does that sound rather harsh? Too bad. The Sheepdog doesn’t typically worry about limiting the amount of damage he does to the attacking Wolf. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the Sheepdog would be perfectly happy to have the Wolf lying dead at his feet, no longer a threat and a warning to all others of his kind: leave this flock alone. THIS Wolf thought he’d get an easy meal and all he got was dead. Care to join him?

I know. We’re human. We’re supposed to be compassionate and caring and not blood thirsty. Remember me, the Sheepdog: If you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. Let me and my flock live in peace to pursue prosperity and happiness. Mess with me or my sheep and I will show absolutely no mercy in defending myself or them. If you die in the process, that’s the price you pay for having been so stupid as to have attacked THIS Flock on my watch.

THIS is the attitude every citizen must strive to have on every flight. I know they can’t. I know some are simply unable to perform acts of violence. Then again, if 5% can, that’s 15 Sheepdogs on a flight of 300 people. 10 on a flight of 200. 5 on a flight of 100. Against one or two wolves? We should be able to stomp them into the deck and the sit on them until we land. Think about it…

“The Gun Is Civilization”

2011-06-06T04:36:18Z

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…
And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Kennesaw Georgia sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms

2011-05-29T02:59:53Z

By David A. Markiewicz
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/19/07

A visitor could drive the length of Kennesaw and think it a lot like other fast-growing metro Atlanta communities.

Except for the Confederate flags that fly atop Wildman’s Civil War Surplus Shop downtown and the presence of a certain famous train, not much sticks out among the modern housing developments and retail plazas.

But in one way, Kennesaw is different: Its residents are required to pack heat.

Next month, Kennesaw marks the 25th anniversary of what a local historian called the ordinance “that rocked the world.”

Every head of household, the 1982 law states, must own a firearm and appropriate ammunition. It was passed, at least in part, in response to the actions of Morton Grove, Ill., which had just adopted an anti-gun ordinance.

If only people in the north Cobb County city took the law seriously.

“They’ll say, ‘Oh, yeah, I’ve got a gun — a water pistol!’ ” resident Richard Bracken explains.

Some locals aren’t even aware of the ordinance.

“I hadn’t heard of it,” said Mary Kopins, a seven-year resident.

“I am the head of the household — I mean, it’s just me and my cat,” Kopins said. “I hope that doesn’t mean I have to go out and get a gun.”

Legally, yes. But practically speaking, no.

“We don’t have officers who go out and check your house to see if you have a gun,” said police Lt. Craig Graydon, who has fielded calls about the ordinance from reporters in France, Australia and Japan. “The law gives you enough loopholes that you can get out of owning a gun.”

Conscientious objectors to firearms, felons and persons with physical or mental disabilities are exempt. No one has ever been arrested for not having a gun, Graydon said, and there is no penalty for violating the ordinance.

He said there have been few accidental shootings in Kennesaw in his 20 years with the department, and none involving children.

Still, as Kennesaw continues to grow and cultivate a progressive, business-minded image, will there still be room for the “Wild West” image often associated with the ordinance?

Elected officials say they have no intention of getting rid of the gun law.

“We’ve come a long ways,” said Mayor Leonard Church, himself a gun owner. “We have a lot more to offer than when that law was put on the books.”

When the law was passed, Kennesaw was still a tiny outpost between U.S. 41 and I-75. It had come out of some hard economic times in the 1950s and was growing, boosted by the development of nearby Town Center Mall and, later, Kennesaw State University.

A local newspaper, recently writing about Kennesaw’s efforts to update its image and attract more businesses and residents, referred to the city as “an educational, cultural and business hub.”

Contrast that with a Penthouse magazine article from a couple decades back that showed five armed men standing in front of a Kennesaw city limits sign. The headline: “Gun Town.”

Church, the mayor, points to the city’s other assets.

He points to the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History, home of the General, the Confederate locomotive stolen by Yankee spies in 1862 and the subject of the motion picture “The Great Train Robbery.”

Church also mentions the Smith-Gilbert Arboretum and the potential of a downtown now made up of a few antique shops, cafes and Wildman’s.

The latter is packed with authentic and replica Civil War memorabilia and is owned by local eccentric Dent Myers.

Long-haired and bearded, Myers wears a pair of .45s openly on his belt. A sign on the front of his shop advises, “Guns Allowed.”

Church said neither the ordinance, nor some gun-totin’ image, conflicts with the city’s plans.

“We’re not looking to change [the law],” he said. “It’s not going anywhere. I think it helps deter crime.”

Police agree. “We look at it as part of our crime prevention program,” Graydon said.

Police cite Kennesaw’s crime statistics, which show a community largely untouched by the worst offenses like murder, rape, robbery and assault.

On a per capita basis, the city’s serious crime rate has plunged since the law was passed. The actual number of the most serious crimes has barely increased, even as the city’s population has exploded from about 5,000 in 1980 to more than 30,000 in 2005.

“We can’t say it works, but the population has [grown],” Graydon said, “and we’ve maintained a very low crime rate.”

That sits well with residents, whether they own a gun or not.

Bob Kotcher, 76, moved with his wife to Kennesaw from Hawaii in 2003 partly because of the crime rate.

“I’m not a gun kind of person, but we feel very secure here. I would guess that if the bad guys know there are guns and ammunition in the house, they would rather go someplace else.”

Kotcher read about Kennesaw on the Internet while seeking a mainland location where his wife could study nursing and he could be close to relatives. He didn’t hear about the ordinance until a local real estate agent mentioned it.

Kennesaw resident Lance Hamilton, himself a real estate agent, said he doesn’t mention the law unless home shoppers ask. “If I were to bring up that law, I’d have to bring up every law.”

That doesn’t mean he’s not in favor of the ordinance, though.

“Personally, I think it’s a good law,” Hamilton said. “I think it makes Kennesaw unique.”

Here is the Municipal Statute:

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed a Municipal ordinance Sec 34-21

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun right activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.