Tag Archives: guns

Shotgun Breakup

I was reading a post over at guns.com about a girl having trouble with an ex-boyfriend who wasn’t quite convinced that it was over.  It turned violent on the part of the ex and he took actions that could be considered kidnapping.  Police were called.  Then Dad was called. 

Now, reading it, a question is asked – at what point does an altercation like this cross the point where you feel that deadly force is authorized?  Was it when the ex tried to prevent the daughter from leaving?  Was it when he followed the daughter to her house while threatening her?  Was it when, confronted by dad with a firearm, he knocked dad to the ground and proceeded to physically assault him?  Each of us has a different point where someone’s crossed that line.

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and it’s not something I’ve hidden from my daughter or her older brothers (I’d do the same for them, but it’s more obvious and out in the open with her).  It’s been so obvious that my daughter instantly dubbed Cleaning This Gun by Rodney Atkins as my theme song the first time she heard it.  So, this isn’t a topic that I take lightly. 

For me, the point where I would start considering the use of deadly force would start at the beginning of the encounter when he tried to prevent her from retreating from the confrontation.  These actions are a clear threat to the health and safety of the girl, and should be treated as such.  When he stalked her back to the house and then threatened her dad … well, for me, let’s just say that the police wouldn’t have had to worry about chasing him and his buddy (the getaway driver) wouldn’t have had the police find his hefty stash of pot.  He would not have made it that far.  Would I have killed him?  If necessary to stop the threat.  It’s not something that I take great pleasure in contemplating, but it is on the table if it’s necessary to take it that far.  

As is covered all over the place (one of these days, I’ll actually pull the research together and put a post together about it … just toss it on the growing pile of things to get to, around here.  :), folks who attack someone unprovoked or threaten to attack someone unprovoked  break the agreed upon social contract between members of society.  Breaking the contract removes any and all requirements by me to show undue restraint.  I will act to remove the threat, using any means necessary.  Sometimes, this is as simple as a display of force.  Sometimes, this has to go farther to a limited use of deadly force (initial short prompts the aggressor to back off, etc.).  Sadly, other times, the threat cannot be removed prior to repeated and effective use of deadly force. 

Now, know what actions I might take in a given situation doesn’t mean that I am ignorant of the consequences of the necessary actions.  I’m aware of (and moderately prepared for) the legal repercussions of deadly force in a defensive situation.  I am aware of the possible mental/physical/emotional issues that might arise from the defensive situation.  I’ve studied them, to an extant.  I’ve tried to prepare myself for them.  However, never having been in this kind of situation, or other combat related situations, I have no idea about how my mind/body will react, afterwards.  But, I do know that I am going to deal with the consequences.  No matter the hell that the legal community will try to put me through, or the devestation that my mind and conscience might subject me to, I know that there is one thing make sure I will do the same thing in that situation – my safety, and the safety of my family, mean so much to me that I will act to defend them, using deadly force as necessary. 

So, to answer the question the author at Guns.com asked, in that scenario, the young man was in danger as soon as he started threatening the daughter.  When he made threatening moves against the dad at the house, well, if that was me, I’d be getting the bleach, rags, and paint and brushes to clean up the bloodstains that would mar my wife’s nice porch.

Advertisements

Stupid People are Stupid

I really don’t know which part of this story gets my goat more – the fact that the local NBC station is going into PSH over it or the guy thought he could bring a loaded weapon (even if the weapon itself was not loaded, his magazines were, ergo…) in his carry-on luggage. Note – I wanted to include the TSA in that little rant, but it appears that the TSA found it during screening, before the passenger could board a plane.

To summarize – a passenger attempted to bring a Ruger .45 and ammunition past security at Richmond International Airport earlier this morning. Why this qualifies as BREAKING NEWS 5 hours after the fact … I’ll leave that for y’all to figure out.

Now, the guy could’ve very easily forgotten it was there if he routinely carries in the bag he had on the plane. I know I’ve had items in my laptop bag that would’ve made airport security rather … excited … if they’d found them. 😛 While explanatory, it’s not exculpatory. It was a stupid move. If you’re transporting your weapons (and yourself) by plane, follow the rules and procedures. Yes, it’s a pain in the butt. Yes, it’s an intrusion into privacy, etc. etc. But (and it’s a big but), it prevents you from violating any number of federal laws. Which means, you’ll be able to keep that nice, shiny CHP (oh, and the firearms, too) that the Commonwealth of Virginia was nice enough to issue to you.

The local station is starting to get on my nerves with the hysterical rants about guns, lately. Now, I know this isn’t a change for them, it’s just that I’ve started paying more attention to articles/stories about gun usage. We’ve had several stories over the past couple weeks that the hysteria became in-your-face-obvious. The first was a local deputy that used a personal weapon (not even his duty sidearm) to defend himself and his home from a burglar. The local papers and TV news tried to play the story off as a vigilante mission by the deputy and were making calls for something to be done to the deputy. Now, VA is NOT a Castle Doctrine state (yet, that is). The legal precedents in the local courts strongly lean that direction, however. The deputy was doing what any homeowner should be allowed to do – protect himself. Almost two weeks later, the state police are still investigating, but likely won’t do anything to the deputy. However, the article makes it sound like the homeowner was in the wrong for shooting someone WHO BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE and THREATENED HIS FAMILY.

The second story happened just this past weekend and is making the rounds of the gun blogs. Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned is just one example of the reaction. Now, the guy was carrying a loaded Glock in his waistband without a holster. Definitely falls into the category of Less Than Intelligent Moves. Guy did something stupid and paid the price. His wife is quoted as seeing him move it around when it went off. GAAAAH! Modern firearms (yes, even Glocks) don’t just “go off”. On a bad day, surrounded by idiots, *I* am more likely to “just go off” than your standard firearm. Holsters, in this case, are good for two things – making sure that the weapon doesn’t randomly drop out and keeping outside objects from interacting with the bang switch. Especially your finger. The local coverage of this story played up the “evil gun decided to take the guy’s life” angle instead of using it as a reinforcement of the importance of safety. Yes, the man was less than bright for carrying that way. A $10 piece of cheap plastic would’ve done him better. Playing to peoples’ fear, instead of using it as a means to instruct, is just sad.

I better stop this here, because the more I think on this, the angrier I get, and my co-workers would rather I keep the angry mumbling to a minimum.