Tuesday at around 12:45 in San Bruno California a middle aged woman, Nasim Najafi Aghdam, attacked and wounded 3 employees at YouTube headquarters. A fourth employee was injured while fleeing but not shot. Aghdam shot and killed herself, ending the attack.
Aghdam had a channel(s) on YouTube that was apparently being flagged and restricted in a manner similar to what firearms industry channels have been experiencing. She was a ‘Vegan Bodybuilder‘ of Iranian decent who appears to have a large social media footprint and used it extensively for business. Videos on other platforms, appearing to be Adhdam, level harsh criticism against the online video giant for the new policies silencing her voice and her platform for business.
“There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site, your channel will grow if they want to!!!!!” one post reads. “Youtube filtered my channels to keep them from getting views!” –CNN report
So the motives appear to be related to YouTube’s policies. No direct connection to any of the wounded appears to exist. Her family has stated they warned authorities of her vendetta against the company. A report of police making contact with Aghdam, sleeping in her car after being missing for 2 days, is also circulating.
If anyone believed only the firearms industry was experiencing the squeeze of YouTube’s new policies in some grand Anti-2A crusade… well…
Our support should be with the folks at YouTube HQ, no matter their corporate policy and changing platform. They were attacked. Aghdam shot three people who had never raised a hand against her in a building of 1,100 people who didn’t know her name and held her no ill will, they were just doing their jobs.
To anyone who believes that the employees in San Bruno in some way earned this fate because ‘YouTube had it coming’ as I’ve begun to see around the online space…
There are several different words used to describe ammunition: bullets, shells, projectiles, rounds, shot, slugs, cartridges, munitions, etc. In reality anything can be used as ammunition, whether it be a stone you are throwing or words you are using in an argument. In the world of firearms it is most commonly referred to in the informal context as “ammo.” Many people call them bullets, which to some is like nails on a chalkboard because the correct term for firearms ammunition is “cartridge.” Here is a quick reference for you:
The 4 components of an ammo cartridge are the case, primer, powder, and bullet.
Casing: The container that holds all the components together. The case can be made of brass, steel, or copper for pistols and rifles. Shotgun “shells” are a plastic case, with the base covered in a thin brass covering.
Primer: The primer is an explosive chemical compound that ignites the gunpowder when struck by a firing pin. Primer may be placed either in the rim of the case (rimfire) or in the center of the base of the case (centerfire).
Powder: The gunpowder is an explosive consisting of a powdered mixture of saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal.
Bullet: The projectile typically made of metal containing lead, cylindrical and pointed, that is expelled from the barrel.
The majority of Kydex holsters use a tension retention system. Manufacturers, using a variety of methods, provide an (usually) adjustable level of retention on the firearm to hold it inside the holster during carry and keep it from being lost unintentionally.
It is the most common method and it works well but like all systems it has limitations and draw backs.
Level I retention (tension) relies on pressure around the firearm from the holster and the wearer for proper use. I’ve seen several strange methods for ‘testing’ retention levels. Wildly shaking the holster up and down by hand so your gun flies somewhere into space or doesn’t but is impossible to remove from the holster without a pry bar and Crisco were impressively scientific.
Setting Level I retention is a ‘small adjustments’ process of gradually moving tension levels up and down. The firearm should not freely exit the holster while it is worn but also not be difficult to draw. If you trip and fall or your body moves in an unexpected way your pistol should not fly free however the grasp of the holster on the firearm should not be so drastic that you pull the holster, pants, bag, bra, etc. along for the draw stroke too.
Setting this involves putting the holster on correctly with belt and any/all other devices set for tension and practicing drawing the pistol. Note: You should do this anyway even if you are not setting tension as it is necessary dry fire practice. Followed by removing the holster and making incremental adjustments to the tension to set it in the sweet spot. Goldilocks testing “Just Right”. Time necessarily spent.
The drawback is if you change belts, pants, carry location, or anything else that changes the tension on the holster the draw pressure and retention capability are altered. This isn’t an issue if you double check and adjust accordingly if necessary.
It’s also not an issue if you are using Level II Retention (mechanical).
DeSantis’ SL Raptor has a conventional layout for close carry Kydex holsters. Two panels held together with a gentle contour to form around the hip. The outer panel is shaped to case the firearm while the inner is designed to hug nearly flush to the body.
It resembles every other quality Kydex holster I’ve seen.
Except…
It’s a thumb break.
The DeSantis SL Raptor utilizes Level II retention. The SL ‘Self Locking’ aspect of the Raptor retains the pistol at the trigger guard by a mechanical lever that moves out of the way when the thumb button is pressed. Tension on the holster is not a factor in pistol retention.
Having your belt a little more loose for comfort doesn’t risk loss of your sidearm.
The SL Raptor was the first level II holster I’ve gotten my hands on beyond the infamous SERPA. Personally, I experienced no issues with the SERPA design but the thumb break used by DeSantis has some distinct advantages.
The thumb break is quicker and utilizes muscles in your hand that aren’t nearly as involved in pressing the trigger. It is a smoother and safer draw design than from the SERPA.
In the outside the waist (OWB) configuration the SL Raptor can be set for a 1.5″ or 1.75″ belt. The ride height has about a .25″ adjustment up and down.
Set it for your belt size and on the hip it goes. Sitting with a very slight forward cant. Comfortable.
Even OWB under a T-Shirt the holster does well concealing, in the spring weather wearing jackets and sweatshirts carrying concealed OWB is no challenge.
The inside the waistband IWB configuration is not overly bulky. Utilizing the belt snaps the SL Raptor sits securely and still does not alter the draw pressure required to pull your sidearm.
Drawing my Glock 19 exhibited none of the drag characteristic of level I retention holsters. It felt far too loose and easy clearing the pistol in all actuality. But deliberately avoiding the thumb release resulted in a very (appreciably) stuck Glock. I was unable to get the pistol to release in any manner that doesn’t actuate the thumb break.
Both outside the waistband and inside the waistband required an easy but deliberate actuation of the thumb release. In the event you can’t reach the release with your thumb, pressing the grip of the pistol firmly into your body while drawing also actuates the release.
The included IWB mounting belt loops were less than ideal with my belts, I don’t like the loop mounts anyway and these were more of the same. However many users prefer this method and it makes perfect sense for DeSantis to include them. If your preferences are like mine however you and I are far from out of luck as most aftermarket mounting hardware can be added to the Raptor to customize to the fit to your exact preference. I modify everything anyway, the SL was not exempt.
The SL Raptor adds a capability rarely found in a concealable holster with positive mechanical retention. The added benefit of a very smooth draw stroke and the option to configure IWB or OWB gives this DeSantis offering a rare and welcome flexibility.
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote that free people consent to give up their individual rights in order to establish a political community, i.e., civil society, which establishes laws so that everyone can enjoy security. Although simplistic, this theory supports the following arguments for gun control:
Private citizens should give up the right to own military-style weapons, so that a violent person cannot get one to use on innocent people. In our First World society, we have police, sheriffs, constables, SWAT teams, reservists, military, Special Forces, and a variety of teams that can respond to an emergency at a moment’s notice. If military weapons are needed, a cadre of weapons can arrive with expertly trained professionals.
Citizens who want guns should give up the right of privacy so that they can be vetted to keep guns out of the wrong hands. If you don’t have anything to hide, you should submit to a background check. The government can keep a registry so that if a gun is passed to a new owner it can be tracked so that it is not used unlawfully.
Gun owners should give up the right to buy large quantities of ammunition, so that a violent person cannot obtain thousands of rounds of ammo. Similarly, gun owners should use smaller magazines to limit the round count so that if someone uses a gun unlawfully there may be fewer fatalities.
Lastly, it doesn’t support Hobbes’ theory, but this argument often accompanies the previous ones: The NRA should be universally recognized as a heartless political engine that is funded by firearm manufacturers for profit and it mocks the deaths of innocent people.
I spent many years making these arguments in support of gun control. I cried out, “Enough is enough!” when another senseless murder happened because of a gun. I reviled politicians who were in the NRA’s pockets. I didn’t let my kids play with toy guns. I wanted to end America’s obsession with destruction and start a new generation of we’re-all-in-this-together, rational human beings.
Then I bought a gun.
After a 10-year conversation weighing the pros and cons, my husband and I bought a handgun. I was suddenly on the other side of the mountain and what I discovered was very surprising:
Surprise #1: Gun owners are some of the most family-friendly, kind-hearted people I’d ever met. They welcome newcomers and are willing and happy to teach anyone who wants to learn. It is common to find veterans, active military, and law enforcement men and women at the range. This isn’t solely because of the enjoyment for shooting itself; rather it is the culture of people who enjoy shooting sports. Many shooters grew up in 4H or scouting programs that emphasize good citizenship and working together for the common good, and they’re raising their children in the same values. From a young age children are taught gun safety, responsibility, and accountability, and family times at the shooting range or deer lease create lasting memories and traditions.
Surprise #2: On my very first trip to the range the first thing I had to do was watch a video that reviewed NRA’s safety guidelines. I discovered that lobbying is only one facet of the NRA. A primary role has always been marksmanship education and safety, but you wouldn’t know that if you’ve never been to a shooting range. At a range you’ll see that most firearms instructors have taken NRA classes to become certified and many shooting ranges offer NRA classes to new and advanced shooters. The NRA also has the Eddie Eagle program to teach gun safety to young children, and it hosts a variety of shooting competitions that can lead a youth shooter to college scholarships and Olympic dreams.
Surprise #3: It is socially unacceptable in the shooting community to use a firearm irresponsibly. Post a picture on social media of you at the range without ear protection? Prepare for ridicule. Share a picture of your child holding a toy cap-gun with her finger off the trigger? People will comment just as much about her trigger discipline as her cute smile. They hold each other to a higher standard of safety, so when a senseless tragedy happens gun owners are the first to yell, “Enough is enough!” They want to know why it happened, how it could have been prevented, and solutions to complicated problems. They continue to model responsible behavior with firearms and value safety and accountability.
Surprise #4: A “military-style” rifle is actually the same as any other rifle. They can look scary because you see them in war movies and video games, but the body style makes them lightweight and easy to hold and customize so that it fits your body correctly. Having a rifle that is the right size for you makes it more comfortable to shoot and therefore more accurate and safer. The rails look tactical, but that allows you to safely attach flashlights or other accessories. Once you learn about them, they are really not scary at all and are fun to shoot! By the way, automatic weapons are already illegal for (most) private citizens to own (see comments, below). You can’t make them extra-illegal.
Surprise #5: Although it is a big responsibility to have a firearm that scared me at first, I feel safer with it. I’ve seen cities be hit by natural disasters that become opportunities for crime, and I know that if we lose power or communications I can keep outsiders from looting our home. I watched mothers in a Nairobi mall beg gunmen for their children’s lives, and I feel safer knowing that we can find shelter and have a fighting chance. I’m not anything close to the female-equivalent of Jason Bourne, but I continue to take training classes and practice so that I model responsible behavior and can protect my family if the need arises.
We can see Thomas Hobbes’ social theory at work in our society because we frequently give up rights in order to have order and security. Some examples are speed limits, drinking ages, and showing ID before you can buy Sudafed. However, the first thing you must know about Hobbes’ theory is that it only works if everyone is on board.
Remember when I said that shooters are often veterans and law enforcement? They sacrifice their lives to protect the common good, but also recognize that not everyone is good. Many gun owners believe that using a gun to protect their loved ones is not only a constitutionally protected right but a moral obligation. I championed for gun control for a long time, but I found that once I became self-reliant for my personal security, the arguments no longer made sense. Here are the reasons why:
There is a saying that regardless of species the most dangerous place is between a mother and her young. If my family is threatened and I have the training and tools to protect my children, it is my right and duty to do so. If I have nonlethal options I will use them — and part of good training is knowing if I do. If I can call 911 and wait for help I may do so. The problem with relying on law enforcement is that they respond after you call them. If someone is assaulting you or breaking into your home, you’ll be toast before the cadre of professionals arrive.
More than anybody, the good guys want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Many law-abiding gun owners understand the reasoning for background checks before buying a gun, and many have conceal/open carry licenses that require background checks plus fingerprinting. The problem is that 38 states submit less than 80% of their felony convictions to the database for background checks, so more than 7,000,000 felons aren’t in the system. This is another example of trying to make something extra-illegal: it is illegal for convicted felons to have guns, so we don’t need more laws about it. We need all of the names entered into the background check database, so that when they try to buy a gun they can be arrested for it.While the background check database holds names of those who should not have guns, it makes gun owners very nervous when you talk about “registries” of good guys. It sounds like paranoia to anti-gun people, but this is an era of intense religious and racial tensions, with polarizing, far-left and far-right politicians. Gun owners do not want a list that could be used to identify them for the simple fact that guns are expensive and they don’t want anyone knowing what they have, in addition to a “gun round up” or any other dramatic possibilities. They feel safer being anonymous knowing they can personally protect their families in case of a widespread information or communication outage, terrorist attack, or natural disaster.Also if the government intends to track every gun that passes hands it can only log the transactions of people who go to the office and file the paperwork. I’ve never seen a movie of a fugitive getting a duffle bag of passports and pistols that he takes to the state office to file. Similarly, I am carded to buy a box of Sudafed, but the bad guy doesn’t show ID when he steals a case of it for his meth lab. Laws like these are meaningless because only good guys adhere to them, and that creates a registry of good guys. That does nothing to keep guns (or large quantities of ammunition) away from criminals and crazy people.
Another example of going after the good guys is limiting magazine capacity. When I was anti-gun, this sounded pretty serious; however, now I know that it takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine. It doesn’t slow anybody down, and more importantly, it doesn’t solve the problem of bad guys getting guns in the first place. Focus on the stuff that matters.
As for the NRA, when I wasn’t a gun owner I hated “them” passionately. I began to appreciate the training programs, publications, and other services, but dragged my feet on joining. The acceptance of the NRA was my final step into the gun culture. Now I support the NRA because it fights for *me*. I like the security (and enjoyment) that my gun gives me and I want to keep it. If you aren’t a gun owner you just won’t understand that.
If we truly lived in a Hobbes society where everyone was on board and accountable, then there would be no need for gun control. It seems easier to control guns than human behavior, just like it is easier to take all the markers away when your toddler writes on the wall. As a long-term strategy, however, we need to address the root of the problems: the irresponsible parent that didn’t keep it locked in a safe away from a child, or the gang member skirting background checks, or the teenager struggling with mental instability, or the domestic or international terrorist with a plan to get on the evening news. These behavior problems are much harder to address, but allocating resources to our law enforcement, criminal justice, and mental health systems is a good place to start.
We don’t need more laws to monitor what good guys are doing, or gun control laws that make things extra-illegal. We need we’re-all-in-this-together leaders to get to the root of these complex problems and develop rational policies so that all law-abiding Americans can enjoy the security of a civil society.
I used to wish that the government would get rid of all the guns and then everyone would be safe, but I discovered that the utopia in my mind was actually a society with no bad guys. It was never about guns at all.
“Real men don’t need guns” is the mantra of many prohibitionists. They envision strong, fit men holding off armed foes like the characters of Hollywood superhero films. To them, the strength of the body and skill in (unarmed only) martial arts are worthy of admiration, but the same martial arts skill augmented by a weapon, be it a sword or a rice flail, is not. They give no thought to the dependence on men this requires of women, most of whom are not world-class kickboxers. Is it unethical to enable women to step into the world without a strong male to keep them safe?
The old men and women, or those who aren’t physically perfect need not apply. At 84, this man won’t be demonstrating any feats of empty hand martial prowess. The same man can be a credible defender of self or family with something as little as an 8-ounce .380 pocket pistol. What’s so unethical about giving the aged the independence of being able to live without bodyguards to shadow their every step?
Keep in mind that self-defense doesn’t just involve interactions with hostile humans. Feral dog, coyotes, pumas, bears and snakes are real threats to the outdoorsmen — and have been known to attack people and pets in suburbia. What’s so ethically superior about becoming puma poop instead of using a firearm to drive off or kill the predator.
The best feature of any tool is the ability to perform a task competently without devoting a lifetime to specialized training. A person can learn to turn screws by hand over years of practice and building calluses, but using a screwdriver is more efficient. Nobody claims moral superiority in doing daily tasks the hard way by choice. Why would anyone claim the ethical high ground for using bare hands for self-defense — spending uncounted hours of productive time in training — when better results may be achieved with less training and more appropriate tools? At issue is not just effectiveness but also efficiency: most criminals would flee if presented with a gun muzzle, but require the same victim to actually fight if resistance is offered empty-handed.
Nobody claims that drawing is the only real art due to the level of difficulty and that cameras should be banned. Few people would call moving heavy objects on the back morally superior to using a wheelbarrow or a truck. Why try to present armed self-defense as inappropriate, unless it is to claim a monopoly on defensive services through brute force? “You don’t need a weapon, I will protect you” is the creed of both individual and institutional domestic abusers. That’s a good warning sign and a conclusive litmus test for bad intentions.
This also explains the special hatred the prohibitionist have towards small, concealable handguns. To them, these low powered but eminently useful tools represent both the loss of control over the safety of others and the unpleasant, often fatal surprise should they themselves turn predator. Cui bono — the Latin inquiry meaning “who profits?” — has long been a basic step of identifying perpetrators of crimes. Making other people defenseless is a moral crime, and those most guilty of it are usually predators in disguise.
The ethical imperative in making effective small arms and training available stems from personal independence and self-determination being better than abject dependency and incapacity. As a car makes a person better able to make use of the freedom of movement than government-run trains, so do personal weapons give people the freedom to go places without fear of predation being the overarching limiting factor.
The author, in purple, attempting to fend off two attackers.
I’m a little late to the #WhyICarry party, but I’ve been busy, learning more about the realities of violent encounters. Having lived a safe, quiet, rural and suburban, upper-middle class, white collar life, the closest I’d physically been to an actual fist fight before last weekend may have been in some particularly brutal police body cam video. I’ve learned a lot about violence in theory, but I know my life is insulated. So why would I carry a gun, or any other weapon?
It seems obvious that being involved in a hands-on violent encounter would likely be a bad experience. This isn’t a mystery to most – it’s not pretty watching people getting fists and weapons driven into their faces and bodies even on grainy LiveLeak video. But like lots of people, I haven’t experienced it for real or even in a training or other not-for-realsies context.
I fixed that recently by taking Shivworks Edged Weapon Overview from Craig Douglas. I spent much of my time in class grappling with men of all sizes using fists and (trainer) knives. Coming from zero, it was hard and most of what I learned reinforced that while I can do a lot to avoid confrontations, once I’m in one, I cannot rely on just my body and skills to be enough to fend off my attacker.
The author, in purple, attempting to fend off two attackers.
Even with more training and practice time, I will have a very, very difficult time ever coming out ahead unless I have a force multiplier like a knife or gun available. It’s several days after class and not all of my bruises have finished showing up yet, even though my training partners all scaled appropriately so that I could learn and practice against reasonable, yet still difficult, opponents.
As we progressed to higher speed, higher intensity sparring sessions and training evolutions, it became abundantly clear to me how much even small men outweigh and outmuscle me. They were faster than my untrained self, hit harder, had longer reach, and were stronger overall. While the guys didn’t go easy on me, they did hold back. It was still an all-out battle for me to keep up and try to hold my own in the faster, harder evolutions.
The author, in purple, being stabbed while trapped in a knife fight with her only weapon tied up by her attacker.
One major outcome of the weekend for me was the ability to articulate more clearly why going hands-on with pretty much ANY adult-sized man is easily a potentially deadly event for me and one that justifies my use of lethal force in self-defense. Bare hands are, in fact, enough to kill me, and I can speak now to my reasonable and objective fear of immense physical harm even under controlled conditions.
And that means knives and guns, carried on me, are a necessity. A knife, because it’s more flexible to get to and use, and a gun because it’s more effective at physiologically stopping a threat.
A knife can do the job of discouraging an attacker and ending a violent encounter, but it still takes a certain physicality – strength, speed, the ability and willingness to hit hard. One can be used to keep an attacker from closing in, but it still generally requires being within arm’s reach. Not really where I want to be and stay if I don’t have to. Regardless, a blade is unlikely to get the attack to stop in the moment instead of after I am already injured or dead.
A gun, though. If I can get that gun out, I might be able to hold off an attacker from further away. I can stop him from hurting me more quickly and with more finality than a knife because a gun is more able to injure an attacker in a way where he physically can’t attack me anymore. I don’t have to just change his mind and make him decide that he didn’t want to hurt me after all.
That physical stop is easier with a gun, yes, and that’s not a bad thing. The faster a violent encounter ends, the less time I’m under attack, the more likely I’ll escape without major injury. It’s true that I may not be able to get to my gun, but that doesn’t make it a less effective equalizer when and if I can during a violent encounter.
The circumstances of my life are safe. Statistically, it is unlikely I will be the victim of violent crime. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen, however, or that my life won’t change. And besides, as John Hearne says, “It’s not the odds, it’s the stakes.” If I draw the unlucky short straw one day, I’d like to have the best and most effective tools available to fight on for another day.
The author, on the left, uses a training knife to escape an entangled fight.
Because in the end I consider owning the tools of self-defense, including guns, getting the training to use them effectively and having the willingness to employ them if necessary to be the most feminist statement I can make. That I and only I have the right to determine, by force if necessary, who can touch or affect my body.
Welcome to the We Like Shooting show, Episode 238 – tonight we’ll talk about Guy in a Garage, Vortex Optics, Faxon Firearms, Second Call Defense and more!
Have you ever wondered what the differences in calibers really looked like?
What does muzzle velocity actually mean in the real world. What does 3,000 feet per second look like verses 1,000? These theoretical numbers inside our heads plugged into formula to generate another number about what a bullet does is all good info. But it doesn’t really mean much to me until I see it in motion
In this case slow motion
The contrast between handguns and rifles is very impressive when born out on an objectively visible scale.
Welcome to We Like Shooting’s Double Tap, Episode 55, Where we answer your questions, talk about new tech in the gun world, and touch base on gun industry news.
You are sabotaging your message more effectively than any external group possibly could.
The display of ignorance, arrogance, and vehement disregard of dissent lends you no credence where you need it. You do not need the allies for gun control that you currently have. They were waiting for you or someone like you to advance a tired broken record of an agenda.
You don’t need the ‘Fudd’ folks either. Those people who have illegally converted personal rifles into SBR’s…
This is felony that can jail you for 10 years by the way.
Or those who display their ignoramus nature through lack of even a rudimentary understanding of technology.
You actually don’t need the loud masses at all.
“When your old-ass parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage,’ and you’re just like, ‘Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.’ Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to.” – David Hogg
The same could easily be said to you, young man. The message you’re spreading is, at it’s core, vague and inconsistent. The technological illiteracy here combined with a vague indefinable goal is the movement’s great deficiency and there appears to be little to no effort to bridge that gap, or any other.
I can easily say, ‘When a dumb-ass kid is like, ‘I don’t know how these guns work or the laws that are already in place.’ and you’re just like, ‘Shut up before for you hurt your argument further and let me explain the big picture’ Sadly, that’s what we have to do with these protesters; these children don’t know how to use a fucking Constitutional Republic, so we have to.’
David, the allies you need are the folks you have accused of having blood on their faces. The ones accused of not caring for, not thinking of, and completely disregarding the safety of kids in the pursuit of profits. The allies you need you have shut down, shut out, and attempted to eject from the discussion entirely.
The allies you need are firearms experts.
The echo chamber around you is immutable to both relevant and irrelevant criticism. Regardless of your personal feelings on all the various topics surrounding firearms you must recognize that you are not alone nor is your opinion the sole relevant opinion. This extends to the entire movement. The movement does not exist on a pedestal of moral superiority and by taking that perspective you immediately start a fight, not a discussion.
The now nauseatingly rhetorical question of “Why can’t we have a reasonable conversation on gun control?” is very simply answered. Nobody (or very very few) anti-gun people actually want a discussion, they want an agreement to their allegedly morally superior position which pushes immediate denigration of the dissenting positions. And when anti-gun individuals do not want to come to a discussion (no matter how they title it) it mirrors on the pro-gun side. No one has a reason to come to the table of reason because reason was never offered.
David, find the experts. Learn from them. Broaden the knowledge base you are attacking this problem with so that nobody of reason can find you unreasonable whether in agreement or not.
You are angry, on fire with momentum trying for a positive change, and this makes you your own worst enemy for the end goal. Logic and problem solving are a largely dispassionate pursuit.
When you, your allies, and followers are on international media across the platform spectrum claiming that, having been on the receiving end of gunfire, you are the experts yet disregarding the entire veteran, law enforcement, and citizen community who share that experience but differ in opinion the argument looses validity entirely.
Letting accusations of evil towards anyone but the perpetrators and direct accomplices lead the discussion to a grinding cataclysmic halt.
The accusations that you were not at the school or that you were ‘a crisis actor’ are asinine. Equally absurd are the accusations that pro-gun politicians, card carrying members of firearms organizations, and the owners and employees of firearms industry companies deal solely in the blood of the innocent. But an unreasonable ignorant visage using the shock value of profanity and waving the bloody shirt gives every shred of false credence to such stories. It’s easier to believe you’re a faker because so much of what you are using to make your points is utter bullshit.
Instead of saying ‘A deranged kid came into my school with an AR-15, killed 17 people, and then left blending into the crowd. That can’t happen again. How did it happen and how do we make it to difficult or impossible to repeat?’ your message was “they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action!” blaming a group of 6-100 million people who did not attack your school.
As you distance yourself from the extremist language on the anti-gun side so too will you find equal distance from the idiotic conspiracy nuts who happen to fall into the pro-gun camp.
David, you want real change.
Talk with real experts.
Agree or disagree on any or all points but you must grant validity to people with the data to shape real and positive change. If you can entertain a discussion to arm teachers we can entertain a discussion to ban firearms but it must be a discussion. It must problem solve and not proselytize.
Grant the position that everyone involved in this discussion wants to make the nation truly safer and you will experience a dramatic shift in how these conversations go. Grant that just because you do not like an answer does not invalidate the answer.
Grant that we are good people too and that we are actually here to help… and my being a 2nd Amendment absolutest does not change that fact in the slightest.
Welcome to the We Like Shooting show, Episode 237 – Tonight we will talk about M11 Merc, Off grid tools, We Like Shooting lowers, Southpaw Tactical and more!
Welcome to We Like Shooting’s Double Tap, Episode 54, Tonight we talk about gun tech, we’ll answer your questions on Dear WLS, we’ll talk about NOT GUNS, and the latest news.
If I mention the name Kim Rhode would you know who that was? How about Ginny Thrasher? Mckenna Dahl? Even if “you” know, the likelihood is that most of the rest of American society would give you a blank look. That’s because, though these women are Olympic medal winners, their sport isn’t a politically correct one. These American Olympic champions compete in the shooting sports. In case you haven’t heard of any of these outstanding women either allow me to enlighten you.
Kim Rhode is a six-time Olympic medal winner – three of which were Gold. She is the first woman to medal in six consecutive Olympics. She is the first summer Olympian of either gender to win an individual medal at six consecutive Summer games.
With such an outstanding Olympic record, why has no one in the general public ever heard of her? Why have feminists not embraced her and trumpeted her story? Because the primary equipment of Kim Rhode’s sport isn’t a balance beam or a soccer ball – it’s a shotgun. Kim Rhode is a skeet shooter, currently using a Beretta DT11 .
Ginny Thrasher’s events are the 10m Air Rifle, and Three Position Rifle.
Thrasher was a Gold Medalist in air rifle in the 2016 Summer Olympics, and the first American gold medalist of any type in that Olympic games. That was in addition to being an NCAA individual rifle champion and a standout on the multi-time NCAA champion West Virginia University Rifle Team.
Has anyone in the general public (let alone young girls) heard of her? Probably not – because even though Thrasher’s air rifle is nothing more than a high tech pellet gun, even the small amount of coverage she got from the Washington Post at the time of her medal win characterized her air rifle as a “high-powered, German-made weapon“.
Mckenna Dahl is a 2016 Paralympic Bronze medal winner in Air Rifle, in addition to being a previous medalist in the national championships. She won her Olympic medal with an Anschutz 9003 Precise.
So why isn’t Dahl’s picture pasted on the walls of young girls’ bedrooms? Because her sports equipment has a stock, a barrel, and a trigger.
There are strong upcoming female competitors in handgun as well. In addition to all of the above Olympic glory, just this past week a 13 year-old girl named Justine Williams achieved the rank of Grand Master in the Production Division of the United States Practical Shooting Association. This teenage phenomenon already holds Master Rankings in three other divisions. If this were any other sport but shooting, this girl would have news media crawling all over her. And Feminists. And talk show hosts.
But nope. Because even worse than shotguns and air rifles, Williams used a semi-automatic handgun for her achievement.
If ever there were strong female role models in sport, it is these female competitors. In fact, I would argue that these women are BETTER role models.
Other sports “heroes” can be arrested or be involved with drugs, alcohol, and violence yet are still eligible to play their sport. Pro football and pro basketball have especially egregious records in this regard. The shooting sports however involve owning and using firearms. Criminal behavior is, of necessity, disqualifying in the shooting sports. If you want to find a sports competition with sparkling athlete records – follow competitive shooters.
Female shooting champs provide young girls with excellent positive role models. Unlike dance or cheer or gymnastics, or other “traditional” women’s sports, the shooting sports do NOT promote an unhealthy body image, or subtly reinforce disordered eating. Unlike some other women’s sports, there is no advantage to be gained by the use of performance-enhancing substances, hormones, etc. (Does anyone else remember the East German Women’s swim team in the 1970’s and wondering how often they had to shave their mustaches?)
Also, unlike other sports where children are often pushed beyond their physical limitations to the point of injury, the shooting sports have a fantastic safety record.
In fact, because of their nature, the shooting sports stress concentration, safety, and personal responsibility far beyond what most other children are exposed to. There aren’t any consequences to misusing a soccer ball. But misuse of a competition shotgun, rifle or pistol, in addition to endangering one’s fellow competitors, can break any one of a myriad of local, national and (in the case of world stage competition) international laws. There is no screwing around with the equipment when you are on a shooting team.
In an era when feminists are clamoring for attention to be paid to positive female role models in sports and everywhere else, why aren’t these female Olympic medal winners getting the attention they deserve? And why aren’t the shooting sports promoted to young women as the wholesome, responsibility-filled, body-image-friendly competition sports that they are?
With the spending omnibus passed the Fix NICS language of Senator John Cornyn’s bill is now law and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is getting money for gun violence research. The effects of both of these additions to the budget extension could be catastrophic if other policy shifts along with them.
In short. Fix NICS is largely an internal accountability action within the Department of Justice and local LE Organizations and the CDC researching gun violence is like the CDC researching traffic fatalities. It’s the next legal actions that occur that will either benefit or harm firearm rights in a more drastic fashion.
Most notably keep an eye on action against the Dickie Amendment. While I’m supportive of any objective research on violence, removal or nullification of the Dickie Amendment is the only thing preventing the CDC from spending money on Gun Control Advocacy. Not research, advocacy.
The CDC was never prohibited from researching gun violence only spending the money on advocacy. Research would be available and cite-able by anyone with any reason to utilize it in support of their position but the CDC themselves couldn’t push gun control, a valid concern under the Clinton Administration.
We are starting to see the ground shift on these provisions. Be very aware of the directions they’re being pushed and be ready to push back by phone, email, and fax with the facts.
Image from CNN coverage of the speech
“Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period,” Trump wrote. “We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.” – Donald J. Trump, POTUS
Bump stocks and many other devices like binary triggers are at risk of becoming illegal. Despite their mechanical compliance with the law. Despite being able to bump fire without the aid of a device. Despite no actionable evidence that moving these devices under control of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment will result in reduced casualties.
The administration is making moves to “do something” that will do nothing by giving up the low hanging fruit of a gun gimmick. When these moves do nothing more rules and regulations will be demanded, more infringement will be demanded.
How far do we let things shift with demonstrably ineffective policy in order to placate groups, many that would gladly see firearms removed from civilian hands entirely? These same people who possess a working knowledge of the technology and current laws involved that can only be described as total ignorance. These same people who have no will to form an informed and structured opinion, but act emotively and blame those of differing opinion of approving of mass killings.
“When your old-ass parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage,’ and you’re just like, ‘Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.’ Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to.” – David Hogg
Let the 17 year old teen who cannot and has never voted educate you on how to use a democracy while not knowing he is in a Republic.
Let this clear and articulate individual, whose polite prose and entirely rational non-accusatory arguments are irrefutable, explain how stupid we are and how bought the politicians are by the gun lobby.
Let him additionally explain
“I think after we come back from spring break, they’re requiring all of us to have clear backpacks,” Hogg said. “I think one of the most important, one of the other important things to realize is, many students want their privacy.”
“There are many, for example, females at our school.” Hogg continued. “When they go through their menstrual cycle, they don’t want people to see their tampons and stuff. And it’s just unnecessary and it’s embarrassing for a lot of the students and it makes them feel isolated and separated from the rest of American school culture when they’re having essentially their First Amendment rights infringed upon because they can’t freely wear whatever backpack they want…”
“What we should have is just more policies that make sure that these students are feeling safe and secure in their schools,”
Yes. Infringement of civil rights now but don’t infringe my civil rights.
Would clear backpacks so officers can more easily check the contents not make students feel safer and more secure in school? Would making it harder to carry a weapon concealed in a bag not make the students and faculty feel safer that another incident will now be that much more difficult to accomplish?
But what about privacy?
What about it? This is about the safety of children so we can disregard civil rights… right?
Be certain we listen to him and disregard any physical security expert who advocates anything other than ‘Nobody needs an fully semi-automatic assault weapon because do you know the devastating wounds they cause?’.
Why would we listen to trained soldiers, law enforcement, or anyone who has a background in dealing with violence when we have David Hogg?
This week, Brian takes a look at Skallywag Tactical’s Privateer EDC Folder. If you are a fan of folding knives, keep reading and let us know what you think? Folder? Fixed? Both?
If you’re not familiar with Skallywag Tacticalthen you need to educate yourself. Admittedly I am a fan and have been for some years now. It is hard not to be a fan of a pirate themed company that makes no nonsense high quality defensive blades. The Privateer is the first folder in their line up and the first that did not have a combat focused design. The knife is decidedly an EDC focused folder. Which is just fine in my opinion because with very few exceptions I do not consider a folding knife a viable option for defensive purposes. That’s a job for fixed blades.
Getting the boring stats out of the way, The Privateer weights in at 6 ounces. The blade is 3.5 inches of D2 tool steel coated in a durable black titanium coating. Everything else but the bearings are gray titanium coated D2 steel, even the reversible pocket clip. The flipper style deployment is smooth as silk and the frame lock is solid. The blade is a drop point design with a mostly full flat grind.
Skallywag Tactical’s stated goal was to provide a high end folder experience at a mid-tier price. Value is always subjective but for the $165 MSRP you get a nicely styled display case and a well built folding knife. The big compromise to provide that lower price point seems to be the choice of D2 tool steel over something more exotic like S35vn or Elmax. The heat treatment given to the D2 I am told has it between 58 and 60 on the Rockwell scale. Personally I think it’s a smart choice. The drop point and full flat grind is my favorite choice for an EDC blade. The geometry provides great cutting ability for slicing rope, fruit, or opening boxes. In my testing it made it through a surprising amount of feed bags and cardboard boxes before the edge needed touching up. I was also pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to restore that edge. Through smart design and good heat treatment Skallywag Tactical was able to take the big compromise point and turn it into something of an advantage for an EDC focused blade.
The very ergonomically designed steel body gives the knife presence. That is a nice way of saying it is a bit on the heavy side. I know a few popular blade reviewers obsess about ounces when it comes to EDC blades but that is not me. Granted I love my SOG Aegis with the minimalist design and barely there 3 ounces. I keep it with my backpack where I am much more weight sensitive. In my pocket for daily activities, 6 ounces is completely doable but you do not forget it is there.
My one complaint comes is with the pocket clip. The D2 steel used was probably not the right choice for materials there. I get it as a cost savings measure. The stock is already being cut and there is probably enough spare material that would be discarded anyways to turn into a pocket clip. The problem is that particular steel is not exactly flexible. A trait, at least in a certain amount, that is desired in a pocket clip. The result is a clip that is a little too difficult to clip in and out of your pocket. It also accelerates wear on that part of the pocket.
That one relatively minor complaint aside the system for reversing the pocket clip and the placement of it is well executed. A counter argument a friend made while discussing this review was that it will not fall out. If that is a concern you have then you may appreciate the pocket clip as is.
In conclusion I think Skallywag Tactical should be proud of their first entry into folders. They achieved their goal of creating a premium knife experience for a mid market price. Those in the market for an EDC blade should give it some serious thought. Especially since at the time of this writing the Privateer is on sale for $100. No promises for the future though at the MSRP of $165, in my opinion it is still a solid value.
Skallywag Tactical Privateer Folder, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating
