ricketyclick

No, not a rehash of number one on the list of gun-safety rules (”All Guns Are Always Loaded”).

“The pistol has bullets in it” refers to the firearms policemen carry, and is given as an afterthought to “Police officers lose their sense of humor when they have to wrestle with you,” which is number eleven on an outstanding list of good advice Dr. Edwin Leap culled from years of working in emergency rooms.

This is today’s life and sanity saving must-read.

I also like:

29) Every doctor believes that medicine is an art. But what they are really saying is that the art is acting. We all surround ourselves with what we think are the right props and scripts…. Medicine, dear friends, is performance art of the highest order.

31) There are stupid questions. They said in medical school that the only stupid question was the one you don’t ask. Wrong! That’s a dirty trick to make you ask stupid questions. Case in point. ‘I was in the ER on August 20 and they told me I was six weeks pregnant. How far along am I now?’ Bless her heart, that was a stupid question.

[update: Thanks to David Hardy of Arms and the Law for the link.]

Keep in mind, as you read what follows, that I am not a lawyer, just a citizen trying his best to understand the rules I’m expected to live under.

Mark Bennett, a criminal defense lawyer here in Houston, on his blog Defending People, forwards “notes from the portion of DEA training dealing with the use of deadly force. [My source] tells me that the students would be given certain fact patterns and told to stand up in class and respond with the exact phrases described in the notes to justify a shooting.”

This is life-and-death crucial, but very long, so I’m reproducing the whole thing, with my comments, below the fold: (more…)

The most important thing I’ve posted for the women and girls in my audience ever:

The National Firearms Association, the Canadian equivalent of the NRA, puts out this amazing pamphlet [PDF] on some very simple self-defense moves allowing you to disable and escape from a would-be rapist.

No gun needed.

The Lioness correctly notes that the most important element of self-defense is not any particular weapon or skill, but simply the spring-loaded decision to meet violence with violence:

When a rape begins, there is no one there but you and the rapist. When it ends, there is still no one there but you and the rapist. When it ends, you will be dead, or alive but physically and emotionally shattered, probably permanently. You may also be pregnant, or under sentence of death from the AIDS infection he just gave you. Rapists don’t use condoms.

The police don’t come during a rape; they come afterward. It is vanishingly rare to find an instance where a rape has been interrupted or prevented by anyone but the intended victim.

When that realization hits you, you have ten seconds. Within ten seconds, your attacker should be incapacitated, unconscious, or running for his life; or you’ve probably lost. A good fight is short, sharp, and decisive, not a movie-style brawl. Would you like to learn how to end your rapist’s career?

If you believe that you cannot injure another human being, this training is not for you.

If you believe that it is proper to stop a violent criminal to save yourself and others, it is.

None of what you have just learned will do you any good whatever, if you wait until the realization hits you to decide what to do. You’ll take too much time to make the decision.

The Lioness may be printed and distributed freely, as long as it unchanged from the original. There are high-quality PDFs of each page suitable for sending to your local printer.

Along the same lines, read Lawdog’s “Appropriate Countermeasures to the Front Chokehold”, which cannot be safely excerpted, and by that I don’t mean “Not Safe For Work”, I mean “might result in accidental injury or death”. You must read the whole thing.

---

For a very long time, official sources have promulgated the myth that if you are being raped, the best thing to do is to cooperate. Fighting back, it’s been alleged, just makes the guy mad, and results in greater injuries. Purse snatching, mugging, rape, home invasion, doesn’t matter: just give the guy what he wants.

That turns out not to be the case.

Fighting a potential rapist might anger him, but likely he’s acting out of rage anyway, says the psychologist.

Fighting an intended attacker might provoke him, but he’s already trying to force his body into yours, says the criminologist.

Fighting off a man who’s trying to have sex with you against your will might hurt you, but nothing matches the pain of a completed sexual assault, says the rape advocate. ["Rape advocate"? Was the editor on this article on coffee break? -- djm]

Fighting a man hand-to-hand transfers his hair or skin cells onto you, helping police track him down, says the self-defense coach.

And fighting back increases your odds of escaping unraped because most rapists are looking for an easy target, said a prominent criminal justice professor who studies how women avoid rape.

“The odds of getting away are increased when you fight back,” said Sarah E. Ullman, who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who tracks how women manage to escape sexual assault.

“(Rapists) don’t expect a forceful response. If they get that, they may be quickly deterred and that may be all it takes to stop the assault.”

…
Once a woman has decided to put up a fight, the strategy is clear: Be active, confident and forceful. Attack the rapist’s vulnerabilities: his groin, his eyes. [And ankles and knees and Adam's Apple -- djm] Playing victim won’t work, Ullman said. Neither will begging, pleading, crying or negotiating. Talking to stall when confronted in a public place or business may allow passersby or customers to interrupt the attack, but assertive commands can also buy time and give the woman a chance to run away. And a woman wielding a weapon to a stranger is less likely to have the rape completed.

…
“Women are socialized to not make a scene, to take care of other people’s feelings, to not assume the worst,” Ullman said. “Trust your instincts. If something doesn’t feel right, it isn’t right.

“Don’t worry about making a scene.”

So, I’m at my sister’s house, gorging on media after gorging on spaghetti with her, the kids, and the folks. I finally work through the bookmarks, and get ready to go home.

Hm, that curfew expired, like, Friday, right?

Well, no, in fact.

…Power outages across much of the city prompted Houston police to extend the citywide curfew until further notice.

Curfew hours are from midnight until 6 a.m.

“The purpose of the curfew is to protect the lives and property of all residents as law enforcement and other officials respond to emergencies and engage in recovery activities related to this disaster,” the news release states.

“Therefore, if you are commuting to and from work, operating a business, or eating at a restaurant, for example, you should not have a problem,” it says.

Residents should expect to be stopped and questioned by police.

[bold mine]

Excuse me, you assholes, but I count being stopped and questioned by the police when I am doing nothing more than driving home as a problem.

A curfew for a brief, limited period of time in the wake of the storm is one thing, but “until further notice” is something else entirely.

The lights may be out, but most neighborhoods I’ve seen are more or less back to normal, if a bit messy. People are no longer shocked. They want to get on with their lives.

I want to go home, dammit, whether I have power or not.

I want to go home, dammit, without being stopped by the police for no reason.

I want to go home, dammit, feed my cats, and sleep in my own bed, sweaty sheets and all, and I can’t, because the old nannies who think the city of Houston is their nursery are once again keeping me safe from myself.

Hm, more careful reporting: The Chron says the curfew is “indefinite”. However, I found this press release on the HPD website, and it says, “until Sunday, September 2″. Which is it, guys? Can I drive home or not?

Lawdog tells two colorful tales:

Chinese Guacamole

and

The Pink Gorilla Suit

North Charleston News Channel WDPE, via Pete Guither at Drug WarRant:

Police said there was so much marijuana they couldn’t let reporters see it because the smell would overpower them. They instead showed pictures of the haul.

Pete “noticed that they just left it sitting in a room with cops working (I guess they could handle the smell, unlike reporters).”

Exactly, Pete. After all, they’re The Only Ones that have superhuman resistance to violence-inducing pot fumes and gun radiation.

---

Monday bonus: Smoking Gun post with the video of Lee Paige, the Only Ones type specimen. If you haven’t watched this DEA idiot tell a classroom full of children that he’s “the only one professional enough…to carry a Glock 40″, right before literally shooting himself in the foot, you do not understand how profoundly evil the War on Drugs and Guns truly is.

Number two in what looks to be a continuing series.

They banned hats.

That didn’t make them safe.

Now they’ve banned laughing too hard.

In fact…

Wait for it!

In fact, they’ve banned laughing too hard at humor presented by the official state propaganda dispenser, the Beeb.

Via David Codrea at The War on Guns, who comments:

That’ll teach him to react to government programming with the response it was designed to elicit! Condition the rats to react to stimuli one way, and when it becomes automatic, switch reward to punishment–that’s so deviously ingenious it’s elegant!

OK, Codrea and I are engaging in a bit of hyperbole here. When you read the story, you’ll see that what the  victim is really being punished for is not obeying the police without question when they demand he show his identity papers in his own castle home cage.

Over at the Atlantic, Megan McArdle ponders:

So if Heller, as libertarians devoutly hope, legalizes gun ownership in DC, the question immediately arises for those of us who live here: buy one, or not? On the one hand, they are expensive, and shooting ranges far away. On the other hand, I live alone in an apartment that is something less than amply fortified. On the third hand, I’m pretty sure I shouldn’t handle a gun when I’m sleepy.

First of all, as one of her commenters noted, it’s not “the third hand”, it’s “the gripping hand“.

Beyond that, the short answer is, “Of course!”

And to answer Megan’s objections, perfectly acceptable home defense guns start at about $150; excellent choices can be had for around $500. That’s pretty cheap insurance.

And if you can’t deal with a firearm when sleepy, how will you deal with a rapist who will not accept “lemme go back to sleep” as an answer?

Click for the long answer: Show ▼

In a separate comment, I also responded to some of her commenters:

TW said: “Don’t buy a gun just because you can.”

In my mind, “Just because I can” is a fine reason to buy a gun. You do not need any reason or excuse to exercise a right, particularly one protected by the Constitution.

Oh, absolutely, as I’ve said in an earlier reply which appears to be still pending, take lessons and think hard about how you will use the thing.

However, do not let the training process daunt you. We’re talking about a couple of hours of classroom instruction and a couple of hours on the range, at most. You probably spent more time learning the far more complex task of driving.

And with no training or introspection at all, I trust you — Yes, YOU, Citizen! — with a gun far more than I trust the government with so much as a paperclip. A file cabinet is a far more dangerous weapon than any bomb.

Owning a gun is the only way to truly understand the rights and responsibilities appertaining thereto. Buying a gun is the best way of learning just how radically that right has been infringed.

Buy the gun, Megan. Join the free

Several folks recommended she get a dog. Well, yes, a dog is a fine companion and a pretty good goblin alarm. Do not, however, delegate your security to a critter who can be bribed with a piece of steak or a belly rub, or who can be repeatedly tricked into chasing after a ball that was, in fact, never thrown.

What is the deal with thinking that dogs can be trusted with life and death decisions but humans cannot?

Whatever you are doing, it’s probably not as important as watching this video, where Professor James Duane of Regent University in Virginia explains why you must never, ever, respond to police questioning. No matter how honest you are, no matter how innocent you are, no matter how smart or well trained you are, do not talk to the cops. Ever.

He is followed by Officer George Bruch, who explains how the police conduct interviews (”interviews”, mind, not “interrogations”) and why they so often result in convictions.

Yeah, it’s 48 minutes long. It’s worth it. How much is it worth? At the very least, whatever your lawyer would charge to talk to you for 48 minutes, likely hundreds of dollars. Possibly, it is worth many more hours of your lawyer’s time, time in court, your reputation, your freedom.

Nicked from The War on Guns, where I made the following comment:

The video is great, and a must see. I appreciated both the lawyer (who looks like Eric Idle and talks like an auctioneer) and the cop. They both reinforce the command: Do not talk to the police. Ever.

However, check out this comment from Martial Talk, listing Massad Ayoob’s advice on what to say when reporting a self defense incident:
==

When the cops arrive tell them the dynamics of the situation.
That is:
a. you are the victim
b. the ones on the ground (hopefully) are the suspects
c. point out any evidence (like clubs, knives, guns, etc.. before someone in the crowed walks off with them.) Same goes for any other evidence.
d. point out any bruise, cuts, tears, etc.. done to you or others.
e. tell the cops you will co-operate 100 percent, totally, but…. you are upset and would like to talk to your lawyer first!
Then shut up! If they try to ask even small-talk questions, be firm, be polite, but tell them you still want to talk to a lawyer first.

[Minor spelling and grammar corrections.]

Placing this in a self-defense context is very troubling, because I have often seen advice to the effect that if you must even display your weapon, you must be the one who reports the incident first. Ayoob’s advice still applies, I think, if you can keep from adding any details whatsoever. “That guy forced me to act in self defense. He cut me here. You can see the knife there. No, I’m sorry, I can come in and make a full statement tomorrow, but that’s all for now.”

== == ==

Best bit from Prof. Duane: showing how hard it is to remember exactly what you heard. I listened twice, and still got it wrong.

Best bit from Officer Bruch: if he follows you in your car long enough, you will eventually do something he can legitimately pull you over and ticket you for. The next time I’m followed, I’m pulling into the nearest store parking lot as soon as I can.

One more piece of IANAL advice: never consent to a search. Don’t resist, be respectful, but do not consent. You have no idea what the cops are looking for, or how they will interpret what they find. Most important, whatever errors the police may have made in stopping you, or in the warrant, or in the subsequent search are irrelevant if you consent.

Here’s a post by a guy who works in a morgue and sees a lot of bullet wounds. It’s long and disorganized (apparently strung together from a series of forum posts over a long period of time), but utterly fascinating and possibly life saving.

[Note: "BG" means "Bad Guy".]

I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year, and I can tell you that when the chips are down, there’s nothing that beats a 12-gauge. As for handguns, the name of the game is not only shot placement but how a properly-placed bullet acts once it gets there. I’ve seen folks killed by a bb to the eye and others survive after being hit by several well-placed rounds with a 9mm.

As for me, I’ll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)….

The .357 is gloriously effective. It’s just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357. Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I’ve seen, but it’s rare that we get them in anymore….

…A few thoughts on shot placement. First, as j2k22 suggests, there’s no shot that will end the fight faster than a head shot. The brain is the center of the neurological system, and a shot there will end things immediately. The problem is that the head is very mobile and can be darting from side to side while the thorax stays still. A shot to the spine is also a very good choice, but the spine is probably no more than two inches wide and can be very hard to hit.

When all is said and done, go for the chest. Unless it’s a child molester or rapist, however, in which case I plan to give him a .45 caliber vasectomy first so in the event I don’t kill him with subsequent shots, at least he’ll no longer be able to commit assault with a friendly weapon. The body remains relatively stable, while the legs, arms, and head can be moving from side to side.

…Whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn’t matter if you’re using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the ‘nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you’d be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren’t willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.

[My bold].

Oh, and I have to include this, for those of you think you don’t need a gun, because the cops will protect you with theirs. This confirms what many have noticed before, that many cops only shoot once every year or so in order to “qualify”, that is, to maintain their training certification to carry a duty weapon. Here’s where that attitude gets you:

…Allow me to vent one of my pet peeves, if you will. That pet peeve is having a cavalier attitude toward qualifying. Let me explain it this way: I go to an indoor range near my home almost every Friday, mostly to get ready for an IPSC match the following day or on Sunday. A few weeks ago I was at the range when a guy took the lane next to me and put up a 50-foot silhouette target . After some period of time he leaned over into my lane and asked, “How do I get this thing downrange?” “Try the switch on the side”, I replied. He ran the target down to 10 yards and began blazing away with his Beretta 92. The holes appeared all over the paper, and the closest thing I could find to a group was whatever was defined by the margins of the paper.

Feeling comfortable that he was now in the ballpark, Bubba ran the target to 25 yards and began blazing away again. Half a box of ammo later he still hadn’t poked a hole in the paper, much less the silhouette. He then left, purchased another box of ammo at the front counter, returned, and began firing away. About 20 or so shots later I began to see a few holes near the shirt cuff of the silhouette, and he never got closer to the x-ring than a foot or so. He packed up his gear and on his way out said to me, “I’ve got to qualify tomorrow and I can’t shoot for (doodly squat).” “You’re in deep doo doo, pal” I replied. Once he was gone I retrieved his target and counted 7 holes in the silhouette and 45 on the paper but not on the silhouette.

I have no idea what his occupation is. Maybe it’s a policeman, maybe a security guard, but it’s something that definitely requires him to carry a weapon frequently enough that he’s required to qualify with it at least once a year. And if he’s required to carry it it seems to me like he should take the time to become proficient with it. But Bubba’s attitude toward qualifying was that it was something he had to do, not something he needed to learn to do.

In retrospect, I guess I should have taken him aside and said “Look, quit treating this like it’s a test you have to pass in order to keep your job! Think of it as a skill that might keep you or me alive someday. Think of it as a skill that might keep your wife from becoming a widow or your kid from growing up without a father.” It was obvious that he hadn’t been to a range in a very long time, probably since the day before he had his last qualification, and he’s unlikely to return until a year from now when he has to qualify again.

And yet, in many jurisdictions, he’s one of the Only Ones allowed by law to exercise his right to keep and bear arms, in defense of himself and his neighbors. Shameful.

I’ll probably do some quote cherry-picking later, but seriously: if you have any interest at all in defensive firearm use, this is a must read. All of it, every messy word.