Duh!

You have got to be one of the dumbest people on the face of the Earth.

This was a Darwin award waiting to happen!

When I'm at Red Ghost, there's always a pistol within easy reach (and by that I mean on my belt!) and the owner is the same way.

Really, attempting to rob a gun shop. Read Jay G's post as well!

February 15, 2009

Op-Ed Contributor

The Coming Swarm

By JOHN ARQUILLA

Monterey, Calif.

WITH three Afghan government ministries in Kabul hit by simultaneous suicide attacks this week, by a total of just eight terrorists, it seems that a new “Mumbai model” of swarming, smaller-scale terrorist violence is emerging.

The basic concept is that hitting several targets at once, even with just a few fighters at each site, can cause fits for elite counterterrorist forces that are often manpower-heavy, far away and organized to deal with only one crisis at a time. This approach
certainly worked in Mumbai, India, last November, where five two-man teams of Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives held the city hostage for two days, killing 179 people. The Indian security forces, many of which had to be flown in from New Delhi, simply had little ability to strike back at more than one site at a time.

While it’s true that the assaults in Kabul seem to be echoes of Mumbai, the fact is that Al Qaeda and its affiliates have been using these sorts of swarm tactics for several years. Jemaah Islamiyah — the group responsible for the Bali nightclub attack that killed 202 people in 2002 — mounted simultaneous attacks on 16 Christian churches in Indonesia on Christmas Eve in 2000, befuddling security forces.

Even 9/11 itself had swarm-like characteristics, as four small teams of Qaeda operatives simultaneously seized commercial aircraft and turned them into missiles, flummoxing all our defensive responses. In the years since, Al Qaeda has coordinated swarm attacks in Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen and elsewhere. And at the height of the insurgency in Iraq, terrorists repeatedly used swarms on targets as small as truck convoys and as large as whole cities.

This pattern suggests that Americans should brace for a coming swarm. Right now, most of our cities would be as hard-pressed as Mumbai was to deal with several simultaneous attacks. Our elite federal and military counterterrorist units would most likely find their responses slowed, to varying degrees, by distance and the need to clarify jurisdiction.

While the specifics of the federal counterterrorism strategy are classified, what is in the public record indicates that the plan contemplates having to deal with as many as three sites being simultaneously hit and using “overwhelming force” against the terrorists, which probably means mustering as many as 3,000 ground troops to the site. If that’s an accurate picture, it doesn’t bode well. We would most likely have far too few such elite units for dealing with a large number of small terrorist teams carrying out simultaneous attacks across a region or even a single city.

Nightmare possibilities include synchronized assaults on several shopping malls, high-rise office buildings or other places that have lots of people and relatively few exits. Another option would be to set loose half a dozen two-man sniper teams in some metropolitan area — you only have to recall the havoc caused by the Washington sniper in 2002 to imagine how huge a panic a slightly larger version of that form of terrorism would cause.

So how are swarms to be countered? The simplest way is to create many more units able to respond to simultaneous, small-scale attacks and spread them around the country. This means jettisoning the idea of overwhelming force in favor of small units that are not “elite” but rather “good enough” to tangle with terrorist teams. In dealing with swarms, economizing on force is essential.

We’ve actually had a good test case in Iraq over the past two years. Instead of responding to insurgent attacks by sending out large numbers of troops from distant operating bases, the military strategy is now based on hundreds of smaller outposts in which 40 or 50 American troops are permanently stationed and prepared to act swiftly against attackers. Indeed, their very presence in Iraqi communities is a big
deterrent. It’s small surprise that overall violence across Iraq has dropped by about 80 percent in that period.

For the defense of American cities against terrorist swarms, the key would be to use local police officers as the first line of defense instead of relying on the military. The first step would be to create lots of small counterterrorism posts throughout urban areas instead of keeping police officers in large, centralized precinct houses. This is
consistent with existing notions of community-based policing, and could even include an element of outreach to residents similar to that undertaken in the Sunni areas of Iraq — even if it were to mean taking the paradoxical turn of negotiating with gangs about security.

At the federal level, we should stop thinking in terms of moving thousands of troops across the country and instead distribute small response units far more widely. Cities, states and Washington should work out clear rules in advance for using military forces in a counterterrorist role, to avoid any bickering or delay during a crisis. Reserve and National Guard units should train and field many more units able to take on small teams of terrorist gunmen and bombers. Think of them as latter-day Minutemen.

Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen all responded to Qaeda attacks with similar “packetizing” initiatives involving the police and armed forces; and while that hasn’t eliminated swarm attacks, the terrorists have been far less effective and many lives have been saved.

As for Afghanistan, where the swarm has just arrived, there is still time to realize the merits of forming lots of small units and sprinkling them about in a countrywide network of outposts. As President Obama looks to send more troops to that war, let’s make sure the Pentagon does it the right way.

Yes, the swarm will be heading our way, too. We need to get smaller, closer and quicker. The sooner the better.

To quote Tam: Carry your damned guns people!"

Article seen here.

30 Days - Gun Nation

Xavier led me in the direction of this episode of 30 days, where a citizen disarmament advocate spends 30 days living in the home of a gun nut.

I remember hearing about this show when it first aired, but didn't get a chance to watch it on TV originally. I'm glad Xavier pointed the show out to me, and led me to where it could be viewed online.

The show is about 40 minutes long, and it's amazing to see the changes in Pia's attitude as it goes on.

I didn't grow up in a house with firearms, and my mother was extremely opposed to me having any in the house. As a matter of fact, when I purchased my first two pistols, I had to store them at a good friend's house, who had firearms of his own.

I started reading about the gun rights movement, and attempting to make an informed decision long before I bought my first two guns. I became interested in firearms and shooting while I was still in high school, and practiced with a mentor at work whenever he had the time and inclination. I knew long before I got to college that I would purchase my first pistols as soon after passing 21 I would.

I don't know that I've changed the minds of anyone, but I have definitely taken a bunch of people to the range who have never been before. Much of it happened when I was in college, had a nice range close by, and a huge pool of people to draw from. I've continued the tradition of introducing new people to the range and gun ownership whenever possible.

I even bought my girlfriend her first pistol for Christmas, and have taken her shooting several times since then. More on that at a later day.

To me, the single greatest thing that we can do to help ensure the future of Second Amendment rights to to introduce new people to the shooting sports, and get them to enjoy it.

I'll share my personal opinions on how to introduce someone to the shooting sports for the first time later :)

Why I Carry A Gun

This particular comment has been discussed around the blogsphere many times. The answer always varies slightly from blogger to blogger, and I'm hoping to share my opinion on the matter.

Simply put, I carry a firearm for the defense of myself ands my loved ones. I don't want to take the place of the police, but I think that part of a citizens responsibilities is to have the ability to protect him/herself from a violent offender until the police arrive.

As far as how I carry, I usually carry on my right hip either IWB or OWB. Usually it's a leather holster, although I do occasionally use a kydex holster. I always carry at least one backup mag, due to the fact the something like 90% of semi-auto pistol failures are due to a magazine failure. The backup mag is carried on my left side behind my cell phone holder.

Other stuff I have with me whenever I leave the house includes a cell phone (obviously). I also carry two knives, a tactical folder and a Leatherman multitool. Finally, I have a minimum of at least one Surefire flashlight. There is usually a second Surefire not very far away. I use all of this stuff almost every single day in my day to day working.

Now, for the good stuff: meaning what firearms do I carry. When I first started carrying in IN, I was carrying an HK USPc in .40, carried in a CTAC holster. I've moved on to an XD45 carried in a Brommeland Max-Con V or a Glock 19 carried in a Brommeland Max-Con V or Def-Con V. I also have a Ruger LCP for times when I simply can't conceal a larger pistol.

Later, I'll talk about the mentality that goes with carrying a firearm on a day to day basis.

Another Good Gun Read - Shamelessy Stolen from www.defensivecarry.com!

"Gun-Free Zones" Mean: No Guns--Except for Criminals

by William Atwell
of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com

The latest violent offenses on college campuses leave many people wondering what could have been done beforehand to stop these massacres. There has been extensive legislation enacted in the US with prescribed declarations of intent to stop easy access to weapons. Have these laws created a safer society? Considering the murder rate was much lower in the 1950's with virtually no school shootings, and when there were few if any restrictions on the purchasing of guns, we can see that these laws do not deter violent criminals. Some gun legislation is appropriate and necessary, but the very nature of being a criminal designates that they will not obey the law in purchasing a firearm, or using a firearm; that's why they're criminals. The law confines law-abiding citizens. It's the criminal that will purchase guns illegally, carry them illegally, and use them illegally. There is no way to enforce gun laws until after a crime has been committed and people are dead.

With this problem in mind, what has our vast amount of legislation done to deter criminals from committing bloody massacres on college and university campuses? Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, Omaha mall, Kirkwood City Council, and other places have been designated as "gun-free zones," and yet did nothing to stop dozens of murders. Why is that, you ask? Maybe it's because law-abiding citizens with state-issued Concealed Carry Permits (CCW) weren't allowed to bring their handguns on campus. Instead they obeyed the law while the shooters clearly weren't concerned with the law. Is it a surprise that a sign saying "Gun-Free Zone" didn't change the course of action of a deranged, psychopathic criminal?

People who want a CCW must be 21 years of age and lack mental or physical infirmity which would prevent the safe handling of a firearm. They must also take the necessary firearm and legal training course, and must allow the Sheriff's department to run a background check which requires verifying valid US and state citizenship, clean felony and domestic violence record, and other restrictions. After meeting all of these requirements, they are issued a CCW and may carry a firearm in virtually all places in society, but these qualified individuals have their right to bear arms suspended once they step on campus.

Regardless of your opinion on guns, it should not settle very comfortably in your stomach for any right of a US citizen to be suspended for virtually no reason. The government doesn't suspend our right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, or freedom to petition the government in any particular location on a permanent basis. Federal law exempts citizens who carry a CCW in school gun-free zones, so why does North Carolina state law exhibit this prohibition? How is a college or university campus different than the mall, street, parking lot, office building, or church? If a student is qualified enough to carry a concealed weapon for self-protection in virtually all other places, they should be granted the same freedom on campus.

If just one student from Virginia Tech possessed a firearm on the day of the massacre other than the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, many lives could have been saved. Is the state really concerned that licensed CCW holders are going to commit the heinous crime of mass murder? CCW holders have been statistically proven to be five-times less likely to commit a violent crime than a non-CCW holder. Law makers know that all the measures taken to unarm people like Cho have obviously failed, and yet CCW carriers are still being restricted from protecting themselves. I do not stand against the felony restriction, the mental and physical incapacity restriction, or other similar restrictions, but good, honest, law abiding citizens are being put in harms way, without just cause.

As a state, we need to stand up for our rights, and ensure the protection of our students. The administration and police department could not act fast enough to save 32 lives at Virginia Tech, or 5 lives at Northern Illinois University. The victim is the first line of defense in the event of a tragedy. The Second Amendment ensures that people can effectively defend themselves, rather than rely solely on things like prayer and cell phones. Both are good backups, but not good supplements. Qualified citizens deserve the right to self-defense. This is especially the case when the government is unable to ensure reasonable levels of protection against criminals, who care nothing about "gun-free zones."


--
William G. Atwell
East Carolina University
Student of Political Science and Philosophy
WGAtwell@gmail.com

While Mr. Atwell deserves full credit for writing this piece, I stole it from the DefensiveCarry forums, which are an excellent resource for anyone who carries a concealed firearm, or is interested in self defense, or 2A rights. I'll also repost this picture!