Here I am with one of my favorite concelaed weapon pieces, the Browning Automatic Rifle. Note that this machine gun requires a nomex glove for heat protection.
My last concealed weapon permit class was working on an ankle holster for it....
I walked liked Chester Goode in Gunsmoke with it on, but hey, concealed is concealed!
Now the more astute of you looking at this will notice that I am in a WWII era military uniform top and helmet.
1) I'm not that old.
2) I was not ever in the military, and don't want to suggest that I was. This was part of a rental program that used to exist at Desert Trail Training Facility in Tucson. The idea was to demonstrate experientially the uniform and weapons of the day.
The purpose of the CCW class is to allow you a means of living your life in a more safe and confident manner. It provides the training that most people will newer get, mostly about the use of force in self defense.
CCW permit training classes: I am the resident instructor at Second Amendment Sports. The classes there are generally the middle week of the month, and are usually on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 5 - 9 PM.
The class covers use of force in self defense, safety with the defense tool, (known in my class as a rescue device) carry methods, firearm selection, draw, dealing with law enforcement after the use of force, situational awareness, preparedness, range etiquette, and gun cleaning. It is everything the novice needs to go from basic knowledge to a safe street carry of a concealed defense tool, if they do their part.
At the end of the class there is a written and a shooting test. You do not need to own or bring a firearm to the class to participate. I only ask that you pay for whatever ammo you use.
Permit now takes 1 - 2 weeks to arrive from the state, and costs $60 from them.
Price for my class is $80. Gun shops & ranges usually charge about $7.50 for your fingerprints, also required. _______________________________________________________________
Fan mail from non-listeners:
I think poor Ian suffers from a lack of affection. Wouldn't we all be better for sending Ian some nice, conciliatory messages? Wouldn't it be soothing to this obviously tortured soul? Be nice everyone - he seems so, so... fragile. CH ____________________________________________________________
From: Ian Watson <watson4158@gmail.com> To: "libertywatch@juno.com" Re: you people are sick Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:10:34 -0800
go shoot somebody and give me peace - your an idiot
So good of you to offer a response, although somewhat disappointing for lack of substance. Leave you alone? Why Ian, I am simply providing the favor of a response to what you sent me. How could I, as a courteous and civil person, do less?
Go shoot somebody? Ian, you really might wish to seek out some anger management counseling. We never think about shooting people. We only think in terms of lawful defense.
Give you peace? I sincerely question whather there can be any peace for a person such as yourself who expresses such violent suggestions. Hatred is NOT A family value, Ian. Be well. The self defense civil rights community prays for your healing.
Respectfully, Charles Heller Secretary, AzCDL Host, America Armed & Free
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian -
Oh by the way, you asserted in an earlier post that, "Scotland banned guns."
And how hard is it for criminals to get guns there??? See the article copied below, with url:
When Guns Are Outlawed…: An American man is suspected of smuggling 80 weapons into the UK by hiding them in his suitcases. Former U.S. marine Steven Greenoe, who holds British citizenship, apparently strolled through airport security in both Britain and America with dozens of handguns stashed in his suitcases on ten flights last year. He is believed to have delivered them to criminal contacts in the North West of England. On one occasion, Greenoe was stopped after officials at Atlanta airport spotted the firearms. But incredibly he was allowed to board the flight after telling officials he worked as an international security consultant. The revelations are an embarrassment for transatlantic security and for the UK Border Agency. t makes a mockery of security regulations which mean innocent passengers have to carry cosmetics in clear plastic bags when in fact Greenoe apparently had no problems carrying weapons in a suitcase…
Nice to hear from you again. No, your research is deficient - I am not paid. I, and all the others at the Citizens Defense League tables and events, are volunteers. It's one of the reasons we are so effective - we are a grass roots movement. We are motivated by the principles of freedom, which we welcome you to someday become cognizant of, and embrace.
Speaking of which, I am rather disappointed in your lack of response to my last e-mail, posted below. In what country are there no guns? What has happened to the crime rate in countries where the honest citizen is hard ressed to obtain persoanl weapons?
Even after your vituperation, we will still welcome you some day if you ever wake up. Of course if you don't, we will continue to use your vitriol as a barometer of success and a compass of conduct. (: - )
---------- Original Message ---------- From: john watson watson4158@gmail.com To: info@azcdl.org Subject: you people are sick Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:16:29 -0800
you still think its cowboys and indians - why dont you all grow up - if there were no guns there would have been no gun to do the shooting and therefore no guns needed to protect anyone - you people are sick _______________________________________________________________
Hi Ian -
Thank you for taking the time to write and express your opinion.
Actually, there is a medical condition called hopolophobia, which is an irrational fear of weapons. I think you might wish to seek an opinion from a psychological professional for a determination as to where the sickness resides.
Beyond that, I must point out that if no guns existed, people would use other implements with which to hurt each other. That puts the elderly, the infirm, children, and the disabled, at the highest risk for criminal predation. It would also expose the most economically underprivileged in our society, to an increased risk of criminal attack. This is provable, if you will consult the book "Lethal Laws," published by www.jpfo.org . One must inquire, John, as to the racial undertones of your post to AzCDL . What do you have against minorities most greatly affected by what you propose?
As to growing up, we believe that it is infantile to conduct oneself as if criminal predation does not exist. It does, and it would be irresponsible as citizens, not to prepare ourselves for the civic responsibility of self defense and the defense of the innocent.
Your missive to us also seems to indicate a disconnection from reality - at what place on earth are there no guns? What place which has tried to ban them, has succeeded in so doing? What is the crime and murder rate in societies which have banned guns from their non-criminal citizens?
We look forward to your reasoned and considered answer to these questions. As always, any communications sent to is, and the responses, are in the public domain.
Respectfully, Charles Heller Secretary, AzCDL Host, America Armed & Free
---------- Original Message ---------- From: john watson watson4158@gmail.com Subject: you people are sick Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:16:29 -0800
you still think its cowboys and indians - why dont you all grow up - if there were no guns there would have been no gun to do the shooting and therefore no guns needed to protect anyone - you people are sick _______________________________________________________________
Hi John -
Thank you for taking the time to write and express your opinion.
Actually, there is a medical condition called hopolophobia, which is an irrational fear of weapons. I think you might wish to seek an opinion from a psychological professional for a determination as to where the sickness resides.
Beyond that, I must point out that if no guns existed, people would use other implements with which to hurt each other. That puts the elderly, the infirm, children, and the disabled, at the highest risk for criminal predation. It would also expose the most economically underprivileged in our society, to an increased risk of criminal attack. This is provable, if you will consult the book "Lethal Laws," published by http://www.jpfo.org/ . One must inquire, John, as to the racial undertones of your post to AzCDL . What do you have against minorities most greatly affected by what you propose?
As to growing up, we believe that it is infantile to conduct oneself as if criminal predation does not exist. It does, and it would be irresponsible as citizens, not to prepare ourselves for the civic responsibility of self defense and the defense of the innocent.
Your missive to us also seems to indicate a disconnection from reality - at what place on earth are there no guns? What place which has tried to ban them, has succeeded in so doing? What is the crime and murder rate in societies which have banned guns from their non-criminal citizens?
We look forward to your reasoned and considered answer to these questions. As always, any communications sent to is, and the responses, are in the public domain.
Respectfully, Charles Heller Secretary, AzCDL Host, America Armed & Free ____________________________________________________________________________________________ :---------- Original Message ---------- From: andrewpg@aol.com To: info@azcdl.org Subject: Read about you in the L.A. Times. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:59:30 -0500 (EST)
So Charles, you don't believe in mental health background checks as a condition to own a gun? I guess it's because you're just as mentally unhinged as that guy who went shooting in Tucson Saturday morning. I personally don't feel safe that someone like you owns so many guns. It's just a matter of time before you go blowing people away like that guy. I believe a majority of gun owners like yourself will eventually commit a crime with them in your lifetime. It could be something small like showing your gun to a potential victim in a threatening manner to doing what that guy did. You're the reason so many people around the world hate Americans and that Americans are the laughing stock of the world. Freedom to do what? Commit a crime? Stupid white trash redneck Americans is the reason the USA is going down the toilet.
Hi Andrew -
Good to hear from you again, although since you didn't respond to my last post to you, I wonder if you are getting my responses.. Your current post seems somewhat echolalic of your first two, without any support, statistics, or documentation. My concern is that you may not be basing your suppositions on fact, but emotion.
Your tone in them seems either angry, or, my guess, injured, so I must ask, are you the victim of a crime or abuse that would cause you to have such harsh opinions? Is it possible that you might be projecting some illness of yours, upon me? If so, that is a serious psychological condition, and I hope you seek help for it.
There is a medical term called, "hopolophobia," which is an irrationally based fear of weapons. There is treatment available for it. As with many people who have been vitriolic towards me, I wish you healing and peace.
I think it only fair that I respond to your stated concerns. No, I do not believe in federal government background checks for people to get guns. We have them now, and as a legitimate gun owner, I can live with that, but I know of no rational human being who believes that they will keep nuts from getting and misusing guns. Do you believe that mentally ill people will still get guns if we have background checks, Andrew?
Look at the countries where it is very hard for private citizens to get guns, like the U.K. That did not stop a crazy man from committing the Dunblane Massacre. It did not stop Chung Hui So from committing the Virginia Tech massacre, either. Both he and Loughner share something in common - they passed a background check.
Now Andrew, you assert that I am, "mentally unhinged." Upon what do you base that, may I ask? I host several programs on talk radio, which I have done for 13 years, operated my own business, co-founded a civil rights organization, serve on the boards of several charity organizations, and hold down a responsible, full time job.
I am certified by the State of Arizona to teach the use of deadly force and the tools thereof to students. Over the last 17 years, I have certified over 2000 to carry concealed weapons. Their permits are recognized in 31 other states to go armed among the populace. To date, I do not know of any that have been convicted of misconduct with those weapons, so I must ask, what is your factual basis for your accusation that I am "unhinged," other than an emotional dislike of weapons?
Have you ever fired a gun? Are you trained with them? Have you read as to their history, use, and development? What is your background on which you base your opinions of the topic?
As to your "feelings of safety," your feelings are none of my business. Part of the decline of our country is that we are too concerned with people's feelings, and not concerned enough with rational thoughts and obeyance of moral principles. There is no right to "good feelings." There is a right in the Constitution to the tools of personal protection, within ordered liberty. That does not mean that there are no restrictions, but only those necessary to ordered liberty.
On my radio program Swap Shop, where people buy, sell and trade guns freely, I suggest that they do a "private background check," which involves doing receipts in both directions with driver's license numbers on them. In this way, if a prohibited possessor buys a gun, he leaves a prosecutable paper trail on himself. I'm all for punishing people who misbehave with a firearm.
You assert that I might engage in behavior that, "could be something small like showing your gun to a potential victim in a threatening manner..."
Well Andrew, if you had some knowledge of law here, you would know that that is NOT something "small." It is called in Arizona, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon," and it subjects anyone convicted of it to 4.2 years in state prison.
Again, on what fact or evidence do you base your claim? Might I point out that only .0017 of 1 percent of people with a CCW permit get arrested for a serious crime, according to the combined reports of the states that issue permits? (See "Gun Facts, 5.2) Are you aware that we are more law abiding than police officers, statistically speaking?
By the way, we, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, requested a bill 2 years ago that made "defensive display" of a weapon, if justified by threat, LEGAL. As a result, less people will now go to jail for doing so, so in essence it reduces the chance of your assertion becoming true. It just does so in the opposite of the way you intended.
Lastly, you assert that, You're the reason so many people around the world hate Americans and that Americans are the laughing stock of the world." Really? I sort of had the impression that all those American cemeteries where our heroes have fallen defending the liberty of others, made us the envy of other nations, not the laughing stock of them.
Of course, your view of history may differ somewhat from mine, but that's ok, it's a free country, and I support your right to believe whatever warped ideology you may hold, as long as you do not attempt to convert me to it by force. If so, that's one of the reasons that I am armed. I strongly suspect that that is one of the reasons you fear weapons - that you cannot make others think what you think they should....
As to, "freedom to do what?" - anything I want that is not a damage to someone else's property or person, nor coercion to do same. I suspect that is a concept that you might find very frightening. If so, I invite you to get counseling for your problem with my freedom, or, if you wish, enjoy learning to live in fear. I support your choice for either, and would defend that right with force, if necessary.
You assert "stupid, redneck, white trash." Do you know, by the way, if I have a degree? The favor of a civil response is requested.
Remember that all communications with me are in the public domain.
Respectfully, Charles Heller Host, Liberty Watch Radio Secretary, AzCDL charles@libertywatchradio.com ____________________________________________________________________________
From
:
andrewpg@aol.com |
To
:
charles@libertywatchradio.com, info@azcdl.org
Subject
:
You're a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.
Date
:
Mon, Jan 10, 2011 02:12 AM
I'm against allowing people like you to even own one gun and I'm more of a patriotic American than you will ever be.
_____________reply seperator_____________________
Hi Andrew -
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
The fact that you, and some others might not "allow" us to have guns, points out a valuable lesson: that's why we do not live in a democracy, per Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. In a republic, you don't get to vote on my rights. You DO however, get to have the right to say that you do not respect my rights. That is a right of your that I would defend.
As to being a, "better American," I would be curious to know by what objective standard you measure that? Bin Laden has engineered the death of many people. I have not. How does that make me the bigger terrorist? You expansion on that topic might be illuminating.
Anything you send me is in the public domain.
Respectfully, Chalres Heller Host, Liberty Watch Secretary, Arizona Citizens Defense League
On 4/29/07, these guns were stollen from my car. Any of you seeing these at at gunshow, please summon local law enforcement and give them the case # below. Thanks, Charles
4 29 07 GunLoss List Pima County Sheriff Case # 070429 200
_________________________________________
Professional Ordinance Carbon 15S/N 824413 with assault bag, 6 20 shot mags and 180 rounds soft point
__________________________________
Springfield Armory M1-AS/N 130558 Mil dot scope, brown cheek rest. 5 - 20 & 1 10 shot mag, 100 rounds .308 Cleaning kit with bore snake. Assault systems bag. This rifle had a large aperature mil dot scope and a cheek rest mounted on it at time of theft.
Hi standard 4" blue Sentinel with Tyler grip adapterS/N 197 8442
Charles Heller 870 2700 charles@libertywatchradio.com
WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION 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 gay 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.
From John Farnum:
On personal excellence, from a friend with a large, metro PD on the East Coast:
"... all patrol officers here are told, once deadly force is justified, we should seek cover and just shoot in the direction of the threat, keeping the bad guys' heads down and preventing them from getting close, as we wait for help. This unwritten philosophy is in no way confined to this department. They don't want us to get hurt, but they don't want us to hurt of kill VCAs either, even when they are representing a deadly threat. There is little ever said about individual marksmanship, how to effectively/lethally engage human targets, individual tactics, or 'winning the fight.'
We are required to assume help will always be just minutes away, that our radios will always work, and that we can always count on the department's 'backing.' We are not trained as the individual operators we will need to be in the next terrorist attack."
Comment: When politicians actively court the votes of criminals and their families, it is not surprising that they don't want any of their potential voting constituency shot by police. Thus, both police and good citizens become expendable, as violent criminals are coddled and protected as the valuable resource big-city politicians believe them to be.
/John
14 Nov 06
Grasping at guns Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, October 16, 2006
Almost a week after last month's tragic shooting at Montreal's Dawson College, the National Post ran a guest column by the mother of a Dawson student.
Beverly Akerman suggested a "simple" response to the crime: "no more guns. Because no one can accurately predict who among us will become unhinged enough to commit bloody slaughter, I believe guns shouldn't be available to the public." We dubbed this a "mother's radical solution for gun crime."
But suggesting a ban on guns is hardly radical. Every time there is a Dawson-like tragedy, a chorus calls for a ban on guns.
Allan Rock, the former Liberal justice minister who was the legislative father of our current gun registry, admitted he came to office in Ottawa believing "only the police and the military should have firearms."
Since Ms. Akerman's commentary, this paper has run half a dozen letters (and received perhaps a dozen more) from professors, psychologists, health care workers and gun control advocates all calling for a gun ban, or at least wondering aloud why ordinary people should be permitted to own such destructive objects.
Banning guns is one of the most common solutions offered by urban professionals, bureaucrats and special interests in the face of each new high-profile shooting. But consider this: A week after the Dawson shootings, Britain was transfixed by its own similar shooting. Two 17-year-olds were shot in a South London McDonald's for disrespecting their attacker during a conversation. The shooter used a semi- automatic handgun.
Yet, there were no calls for a ban on civilian ownership of handguns. Why? Because Britain had already banned civilian handguns nearly a decade ago. In response to the horrific Dunblane, Scotland, school shootings in 1996, in which 16 five- and six-year-
old children and one teacher were killed, the U.K. eliminated all civilian handgun ownership.
It's hard to call for a ban in response to a new newsworthy shooting when you already have a ban thanks to an old one. Since 1997, it has not been legal for ordinary Britons to own a handgun. Yet since the ban, handgun homicides have gone up, not down. In the six years prior to the ban, there was an average of 33 handgun murders a year in Britain. Since then, there had been an average of nearly 43, an increase of 30% despite the ban.
In the years since the handgun ban, violent crime in Britain has spiked and the streets of the major cities are awash in illegal guns smuggled in from abroad. By Scotland Yard's estimate, as many as 4 million illegal handguns have entered the U.K. in the past nine years.
In Manchester, for example, police report an average of two firearms offences each day by 15 - to 20 -year-olds, alone. In most categories of firearms crimes other than murder, Britain is now more violent than the United States.
Australia has had a similar experience. Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which a crazed gunman killed 35 people at a Tasmanian resort, the Australian national government banned most semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Nearly a million civilian guns were confiscated (with compensation) in the months after the shooting.
Yet, while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting incidents actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years after the government- imposed gun "surrender."
The Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BCSR) credits the dramatic gun crime decline since 2001 not to the gun ban, but to increased police efforts to interdict illegal gun shipments and prosecute owners of illegal weapons, notably drug dealers. Don Weatherburn, the head of the BCSR, sees no evidence "to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect."
Indeed, lawful civilian gun ownership has jumped dramatically again in Australia since 2002, at precisely the same time as gun crime has been falling.
Once a disturbed individual has made up his mind to enter a school or hotel or other public building and commit mass murder, no civilian gun control -- neither a registry, nor a ban -- can stop him. Grabbing guns is grasping at straws. Outlawing civilian possession of firearms might give worried people the sense something is being done to make them safer. But that would just be a false sense of security.
Smith & Wesson is committed to producing firearms of the highest quality. To accomplish this goal, we are constantly evaluating and monitoring the safety, reliability and performance of our products. As part of this ongoing evaluation process, we have received reports, in an extremely small number of cases, that the firing pin safety plunger of the SW1911 pistol can become disabled, creating a situation where the slide may jam and render the firearm inoperable. This only pertains to certain Smith & Wesson Model SW1911 pistols bearing serial numbers JRD0000 to JRD4750.
To date, none of these cases have resulted in any injury, and Smith & Wesson has not received any reports of any accidental discharge associated with the functioning of the firing pin safety plunger. While the company has not received any reports of injury, a failure of the firing pin safety plunger may affect the reliability and safety of your firearm. Therefore, given our commitment to quality and safety, we are initiating this recall campaign, and we are offering to repair, free of charge, any affected SW1911 pistol.
For more information please view the "SW1911 Safety Recall Notice" PDF file at the top of this page. If after viewing the document you believe your SW1911 requires service, click the "Enter SW1911 Return Information" link at the top of this page and enter all the required information. A special FedEx return label and shipping instructions to facilitate the return of your Model SW1911 Pistol will be mailed to you promptly. If you have any questions you may call 1-800-331-0852 for more information.
CERTAIN SMITH & WESSON MODEL SW1911 PISTOLS BEARING SERIAL NOS. JRD0000 TO
JRD4750 CONTAIN A FIRING PIN SAFETY PLUNGER THAT MAY BECOME DISABLED
DURING OPERATION COMPROMISING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FIREARM AND ITS
SAFETY SYSTEM. YOU SHOULD STOP USING THE PISTOL AND RETURN IT TO SMITH &
WESSON SO THAT AN IMPROVED FIRING PIN SAFETY PLUNGER CAN BE INCORPORATED
INTO YOUR HANDGUN.
WE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS ON SW1911 MODELS.
TO DETERMINE IF YOUR SW1911 HAS BEEN CORRECTED, PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. REMOVE THE MAGAZINE AND BE SURE YOUR FIREARM IS UNLOADED. 2. LOCK THE
SLIDE TO THE REAR AND LOOK ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE FOR A .PUNCH DOT.
MARK NEXT TO THE LETTER S (FIG. 1). 3. CHECK THE FIREARM BOX END LABEL FOR A
RED .SP. STAMP. (FIG. 2). IF THESE TWO INDICATORS ARE PRESENT, YOUR SW1911
PISTOL HAS ALREADY BEEN MODIFIED AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL 1-800-331-0852 FOR MORE INFORMATION
SERIAL NUMBER
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
5 13 06 Today I had a new experience....
For years I have been teaching about gun safety, and one of the things one teaches about is a "squib." The English call it a "firecracker," and the Aussies, a "coward." It is a case where a cartridge is not loaded with enough powder to make the bullet leave the barrel when it is fired.
My student was firing my Scandium .357 with light .38 loads, BANG, BANG, pop.... and I told her to cease fire and set the gun on the bench. Lo and behold...
I then took this view, while standing behind it and the camera at an oblique angle:
Lessons?
1) Pay attention to everything when you are shooting. The next round fired from that gun would have been dangerous and expensive.
2) Carry a multi tool and full cleaning kit when you go to the range.
3) ALWAYS carry a primary and a back up gun.
From a letter to John Farnum:
Oops!
"I was practicing drawing and deploying my Cold Steel Vaquero Grande yesterday.
Like you, I consider a good blade vital, but useless if you don't practice. On completion, I folded the blade, but did not visually check that it was indexed completely inside the handle. Of course, the inevitable happened. I stabbed myself in the meaty part of my left palm just below the thumb, sinking the point to the bone. Man, those Cold Steel knifes are sharp!
This injury has emphasized important points:
When handling weapons, don't disengage your brain while your body is still in motion! In other words, don't relax too soon. This not only counts for tactical encounters, but for every time you handle weapons. When you say to yourself, 'Whew; glad that's over,' watch out! It ain't.
A robust and seriously sharp blade is a must. That's why my first choice is Cold Steel. This blade entered my skin with just the barest pressure. Had I been fighting in a weakened state, or with a poor attack angle, my razor-sharp blade would have made the difference between a glancing blow and a ruinous, fight-winning cut.
Sharp blades cause copious bleeding! This wound bled and bled, and then bled some more. Causing your attacker to bleed profusely, even from a minor wound, can grievously impair his will to continue fighting, which is one of the 'four Ds.'
When working with blades, expect to be cut, sooner or later! Be prepared for that stinging feeling and the rush of blood. If you're not unconscious, it means that you can still fight."
Comment: My friend is absolutely right! As with guns, blades will bite you when you're careless. However, for warriors, they are an inexorable part of our lives and very being. The risks associated with having serious weapons around must be balanced against the risks associated with not having weapons around. Life is meant to be exciting, not relaxing!
/John
19 Aug 06
No Charges in Shooting of Unarmed Man
Mother of Optometrist Killed by Police Calls Prosecutor's Decision 'Pathetic'
Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 24, 2006; Page B05
The Fairfax County police officer who shot an unarmed man to death in January will not be charged with a crime, the county's chief prosecutor announced yesterday, and the man's family angrily responded by claiming that a civilian in the same situation would have been arrested.
From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J. Culosi, 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."
"I feel for the family of the victim in this case," Horan said. "You have to. But I also feel for the police officer. This is a good police officer. Fine record, almost 17 years. He's as shattered by this as any good police officer should be."
The officer is Deval V. Bullock, 40, a longtime member of Fairfax's SWAT team, numerous sources familiar with the case said. Bullock declined to comment when contacted earlier this week.
"My son is lying in a cemetery," said Anita Culosi, the victim's mother. "His whole life was ahead of him. That man pulled a trigger and shot my son dead. I can't handle that. It's just pathetic that they don't find something wrong with what they did to my boy."
Bernard DiMuro, the Culosi family's attorney, said: "A pointed gun with a finger on the trigger is not an accident. There is no doubt that had the shooter not been a police officer, he would have been charged criminally, and a jury would have decided the issue." He said Horan could have charged the officer with second-degree murder or manslaughter.
The Culosis also questioned whether the police could fairly investigate themselves and whether Horan had received a complete investigation. The family sent a letter to the Fairfax Board of Supervisors asking it to review the case, and to review police policies on the use of force and the use of SWAT teams as well.
Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said police are continuing to review their policies on the use of force and also on the use of SWAT teams in serving search warrants. Horan said he thought the use of SWAT teams by Fairfax police was appropriate.
Police had been investigating whether Culosi, an optometrist with offices in Manassas and Warrenton, was a sports bookmaker. An undercover officer had been placing bets with Culosi for nearly four months and arrived outside Culosi's townhouse in the Fair Lakes area on Jan. 24 to collect $1,500 in winnings, Horan said.
Culosi was standing next to the officer's car, on the passenger side, when the officer gave the sign for two SWAT officers to move in. They headed toward the car, one to arrest Culosi and one to protect the undercover officer, Horan said.
One officer pulled up in a car behind the undercover officer's. "As the officer came out, he was bringing his weapon up," Horan said. "In the course of bringing his weapon up, it discharged. He has no real explanation how."
Horan said the officer shouted the word "police" at Culosi. "Right after "police,' " Horan said, "it went pow."
Horan said the officer was aware that he should not have had a finger on the trigger and that he should not have had his .45-caliber H&K handgun pointed at anyone. "As he says, you keep your finger straight," Horan said. "He felt his finger was straight . . . but obviously his finger is not straight up. His finger has to be on the trigger."
Horan said the officer's gun was tested and was not at fault. He said the gun had a standard trigger pull and was modified only to add a flashlight on the barrel, but the flashlight was not in use.
Horan's decision not to pursue criminal charges does not affect any civil lawsuit the family might file, and DiMuro said one is likely.
The officer, originally placed on leave with pay, returned to work in an administrative job a couple of days after the shooting, Jennings said. Police said they will resume an internal investigation of the officer; they were prevented from interviewing him while the criminal probe was pending.
Horan said the accident "could have been based on the number of hours the officer was awake that day." He said the officer had started working at 5 a.m., overseeing a managed deer hunt in the Great Falls area aimed at thinning the deer population. Horan said the officer went home at noon that day, then returned to work at 8 p.m. Culosi was shot at 9:35 p.m.
Culosi's family members said they were launching a Web site, http://www.justiceforsal.com , to provide friends and the public with information about the case. "We are not going to sit by and allow this to happen to another citizen of Fairfax County," said Salvatore J. Culosi, the victim's father. "Our family will never understand this. And we will never be the same."
Comments on military readiness, from a student currently assigned overseas:
"Ain't it the truth! In an hour my shift starts. My unit guards this base's entire ammunition supply, and we're located in a not-especially-friendly, foreign country.
I have no guns with me now, nor do any of us where we're not technically on duty. Shortly, I will be issued a dirty M9 pistol, with two magazines and twenty rounds of dirty, 9mm hardball. Our orders are to carry the pistol in a flap holster, with all flaps fully secured, so drawing with one hand, or quickly even with both hands, is not possible. The weapon is to be carried with a magazine inserted, an empty chamber, and the safety 'on' (decocking lever down). As you might say, we're little more than cannon fodder here!
Clearing barrels litter this facility like horse crap. Those few weapons that are carried, even by active-duty soldiers, are always unloaded and universally treated with the utmost cavalierly. I have never seen firearms so casually thrown about with such contemptuous disregard to unsafe directions in which they are incessantly pointed.
I so much miss the comradery of your class where real gunmen bear arms proudly, with true safety, honor, respect, and professionalism. It has yet to filter down here!"
Comment: I'm disheartened when I receive notes like this. The True Way has yet to shine forth at this remote outpost, and many like it. The thing I regret most is that, with all our effort, we have (obviously) accomplished so little.
/John
26 Nov 05
Counterpoint, from a young lad in Country:
"Mr Farnam, I witnessed a negligent discharge in a mess hall over here. The culprit was, of course, the mishandling of weapons. It is not uncommon. Thus, here is the other side of the argument:
My unit deployed to Iraq on short notice, with little additional arms training. We have eighteen-year-olds walking around with 9mm pistols, who have only touched them on one previous occasion, and that was a paltry ten rounds of familiarization firing just prior to departure from CONUS, and under the tutelage of instructors who knew precious little more about the weapon than did their students!
Lack of muzzle consciousness is, by far, the biggest problem over here, and the l amentable affliction makes no distinction with regard to rank or age! Accordingly, unit commanders will not allow the carrying of loaded weapons inside camps. The rational is that there is little reason to carry loaded inside a guarded area."
My reply: Thanks for your note, son, and I understand the hesitancy of you and your colleagues to be "hot" all the time, even if it were permitted.
"Guarded area," huh? The fact that you're drawing"combat pay" should be a hint to both you and your hesitant and naive commanders. When in Vietnam thirty- seven years ago, OUR "CAMPS," SURROUNDED BY WIRE, JUST LIKE YOURS, GOT OVERRUN ALL THE TIME! With any luck, that phenomenon will not become a big part of your life over there, but it only has to happen once for a lot of hapless and unarmed men to be wretchedly massacred, because they cannot shoot.
YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE TRAINED TO SAFELY CARRY LOADED PISTOLS ON A REGULAR BASIS. In our Marine Programs, we teach them to do it in two days! We've never had an ND, and our students come away as competent gun handlers, as well as fast and deadly-accurate shooters. They think of themselves as professional gunmen, and they carry hot, proudly and confidently.
The problem with the "no-gun" policy, common in CONUS, is that it creeps into our daily routine, even in areas of active fighting, where you now find yourself. Shifting gears becomes more and more indecisive and incomplete. Some are even hesitant about carrying hot OUTSIDE the wire! When will we stop being afraid of ourselves?
You better understand something about warfare, lad: Active war is going to be a continuous part of world landscape for the remainder of your lifetime. On behalf of my generation, I apologize to you and your colleagues for the hash you've inherited from us. With that said, you better get used to a pitilessly indifferent world, and YOU BETTER DECIDE RIGHT NOW TO BE A SERIOUS, DANGEROUS, HARMFUL HEAVY-HITTER, and that you're going to be in a high state of readiness, all the time, no matter were you are, regardless of "rules." I pray you make that decision while you still can!
/John
21 Nov 05
ACOG into the sun:
"I tested a DPMS AR-15 yesterday. Rifle ran fine, but I was shooting almost directly into the setting sun. Iron sights worked fine. However, when I mounted an ACOG and attempted to continue, I discovered light spalling was sufficient to wash out the target. I could see the sighting pyramid just fine, but nothing else!"
Comment: It's not just the ACOG. All rifle optics have an issue when shooting at a target with a strong light source close to it. Many have assured me that iron sights are obsolete. Not yet!
/John
21 Nov 05
Info on rifle optics, from a student and operator:
"Like you, I love Aimpoints, ACOGs, and scout scopes, but there is a critical weaknesses that is shared by everything with glass, and it must be acknowledged and dealt with during realistic training. Many of us carry rifles (car guns) in vehicles. When the outside temperature drops, these rifles, and their attached optics, get cold. When one must subsequently retrieve the rifle and then enter a heated building, the optics will fog instantly, rendering them temporarily useless. Moving back into the cold will cause the fog to turn to frost.
Training under all foreseeable the environmental conditions will help eliminate painful, operational surprises!"
Comment: Once again, none of these issues are shared by iron sights.
/John
24 Nov 05
A Thanksgiving Day Story, from a friend and student in Country:
"For the second time since I've been in Country, a first sergeant approached me today in the Thanksgiving-dinner chow line, put his arm around my shoulder, and stated, 'I notice there is a magazine in your pistol, soldier. It's not actually loaded, is it?' I calmly informed him I'm a CID agent, that my pistol was 'actually' loaded, and 'that's just the way we do things.'
He backed off, put his palms up, and replied with the customary loser's self- justification, 'I don't make the rules,' to which I retorted, 'You're part of the problem, top. We're standing in an active combat zone, and I'm the only one in this entire room with a gun that will actually shoot!' My reply flew over his head, of course, but it was a sad reminder of how shamefully emasculated our armed forces have become, even in an area of active fighting.
I wasn't issued ammunition until eight days after I arrived in theater. Fortunately, per your advice, I brought my own. There is no excuse for such casual disregard for the personal safety of troops. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath that our commanders, or our politicians, will do anything that will push this floundering system in the right direction."
Comment: We are fighting decades of gun-phobia, which has made its way into every corner of our civilization, even our "armed" forces, and even when they are deployed to a combat zone and actively engaged in a war!
/John
A Recent "Kaboom":
While recently performing some sound testing with various loads, I had some .38 spcl wadcutter loads made by a friend. Because they are so light, I did not notice the difference between a light load and one that evidently was not powdered and lodged in the barrel. Next shot, "kaboom ."
No injuries, and a $28 used part solved the problem.
Here you can see the one lodged in the tube that caused the problem.
