NRA Life Membership

A lot of people who are proponents of defending the right to firearms ownership have been hesitant to get a lifetime membership with the NRA due to the high cost ($1000.00). I've been an NRA member for a few years now, and wanted to spring for a full life membership, but my finances have not allowed me to do this. There is a Easy-Pay-Life (EPL) installment plan, where you can pay by credit card over a default period of 10 years ($25.00 per quarter, per year), but that with that plan, that will take me well into my late 40s. I recently did sign up for EPL, but since then, I have found a couple of ways to get a life membership much more cheaply.

The first depends on someone else - once in a while, the NRA will offer to its existing life members the opportunity to sign up a family or friend (both of these are regarded loosely by the membership office, so essentially anyone can sign you up). This is THE best promotion out there, as life membership is reduced down to only $300.00 (but this depends on an existing NRA life member sponsoring you).

The other method, which I have used, is to sign up for EPL, and then call them a few weeks later and tell them that you'd like to take advantage of the offer to convert the EPL to a lifetime membership. This will require a one-time payment of $500.00 U.S. (which is still much better than having to cough up $1000, either one-time or via installment plan). Any EPL payments will be credited against the one-time fee of $500.00. For me, I got a statue with my name on a nameplate, as thanks for the life membership, as well as my usual subscription to American Rifleman (I really liked the America's First Freedom magazine, but it would cost extra and incur some additional postage charges since I am in Canada).

I should mention that this $500.00 offer is contingent on switching from existing EPL. For 1, 3, 5 year single memberships, there is no way (that I know of) to get the $500.00 life membership. Just get your membership switched to EPL and then in a few weeks, call them and get it switched to lifetime via the one-time payment. If you don't have the cash handy, you can always do EPL for however long you want and then call them and pay the difference between what you have paid and the $500.00.

$500.00 is still a lot of money, but much better than $1000.00. I have no idea if this is a limited offer or not, but if you ever wanted to spring for an NRA Life Membership, hopefully this will save you some money.

Stopping Power - Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, by J. Neil Schulman - Book Review

That may have been the longest article title yet for this blog. But anyhow...

Tonight I just finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns". What follows will be a very short review of the book with my perspectives and opinions on what I have read, in general (I don't want to get too specific, since that will just cause the length of this posting to spiral out of control, and I'm sure no one wants that). I read this book alongside another book (totally unrelated) titled "None of These Diseases - The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century" - more on this another time.

With a title like Stopping Power, my initial thought was that the book would talk at great length about defensive gun use, particularly in the type of firearm and ammunition that it would take to incapacitate an attacker. I was sure that at some point, there would be references to ballistic jelly and bullet expansion, wound channels, what calibre or shot size ammo to use, etc. I thought it would discuss some of the legal ramifications of defensive firearm use and provide real-life scenarios to buttress all the points.

I was wrong on all counts, and it stemmed from my faulty understanding of the title of the book and the subsequent assumptions that I made as a result. The book does not discuss the specifics of ballistic stopping power or anything like that; rather, the reference Stopping Power, refers instead to the curbing of government abuse of powers and limiting liberties and natural rights. It was a bit of a bummer, since I had thought that the book was something else. But I digress...

Schulman, a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist, spent a large portion of the book railing against perceived government interference in infringing the right for an individual to bear arms. He tackles a variety of topics related to this, and if nothing else, it kept the book fairly interesting, since it didn't get bogged down on legal or philosophical arguments (which I can take, but that's not why I bought the book). He does a good job in providing responses to many common arguments for gun control.

The highlight of the book for me was when he listed his correspondence with Gary Kleck, who many pro-gun writers seemingly quote regarding his assertion that there are an estimated 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year. Be that as it may, I have always wondered how that estimate was derived - many books quote the number without explaining how Kleck got to that number. To Schulman's credit, that is discussed in length. To date, it's the only book I've seen that has addressed the numbers behind the number. It's also helpful that Schulman pointed out that Kleck is a lifelong Democrat, is a member of many Democratic organizations, and is for gun control, so it's not like he was a puppet for the NRA or something. Kudos to Kleck for having some journalistic integrity by reporting on something as the facts, even if the conclusion flies against his personal view.

I also liked how Schulman had the second amendment broken down word for word and line by line by well known English professors and linguists. That chapter was helpful in shedding light on the wording of the second amendment, wording which has been used by both sides of the debate to try to buttress their own points.

But that is where the positives end, for me anyway. Since the early parts of the book, I simply could not get past the fact that most of the book is simply a collection of his previous writings, all meshed together in such a way that the flow of continuity is not there. You can really tell that he wrote the various articles at various times, since there is just not that singular sense of fluidity in the book. While it was a collection of topics presented, the cut and pasting of various articles and correspondence made for a very choppy read, which is probably why it took me so long to get through the book. I just find it a bit of a turn-off to see that he just cut and paste various writings he did previously (the audience for these were all different). It's like if I cut and paste an email I wrote to someone and put it here - you would have a hard time getting past the fact that while I wrote it, it wasn't expressly written for this purpose (and my blog entries are written different than an email at work to someone, etc.)

I also found that he included cuts and pastes of internet correspondence and in some cases, letters he wrote to others but could not paste their response. To read a set of letters where he is the only one writing is difficult, since you can't really see how his target responded (you an discern somewhat from his response, but it's not the same). I've always had a bit of an issue with quoting anything from the internet, in a "real book". In his case, he was quoting messages from chat sites and bulletin boards. I think I would have preferred seeing him collect up all this information and then disseminate it all at once in a way that is easier to follow.

Schulman, while pro-gun, reveals that he is left-wing on many other issues (ie. he is pro-choice and pro-gay). That is his opinion, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that, as if he considered it a badge of honour.

Overall, I'd give the book a B-. The content is OK, albeit a bit scatterbrained. I agree with most of what he is saying, but I think that the vehicle or delivery method/presentation could have been greatly improved. I bought his other book "Self-Control, Not Gun Control" and hope that it is structured a little bit better than this one.

The Gun Is the Great Equalizer

I am a bit of an anomaly when it comes to my family. It is not a secret, if you have read any part of this blog long enough, that I am a staunch proponent of firearms ownership. My wife, while passably tolerating my gun hobby, leans more towards the very common, yet erronenous notion that "guns are bad". Of course, if you get your information from the mass media, that's the impression you'll get, though you'll have a tough time defending it.

However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).

Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.

It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.

I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.

The Best Defence, by Robert Waters: A Book Review

If you are either a proponent of firearms for self-defence, you would have probably heard of the following three books, which are commonly referenced in discussions or articles: Chris Bird's "Thank God I Had a Gun", Dave Workman and Alan Gottlieb's "American Fights Back" and Robert Waters' "The Best Defense". I have all three and have read all three, and I can honestly say without hesitation that if you only have enough money to buy one of these books, THE book to get is Waters' "The Best Defense". I just finished reading it and it is a tremendously easily read, yet captivating and highly informative.

While the scope of this review is not a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the two other books I mentioned above, I do want to indicate, at least in my view, why I think Robert Waters' book is the book to get. First, it is very well written and edited, which you may think should be the case with all published books, but I've read many (even New York Times bestsellers) that have basic spelling mistakes (now, that being said, I don't use spell-check at all, so I'm sure my blog entries are full of errors too, but my stuff is not really in the professionally published and edited realm anyway - ie. I don't get paid to do any of this). The Workman/Gottlieb book is full of spelling, grammatical, and sentence structure errors, so much so that after a while, it started detracting from the positives in the book. The Bird book is well written, but the Waters' book is better. There was only one case where I noticed a clear sentence structure boo-boo (and it was probably a case of cutting and pasting issues).

Second, there is no visible racial bias. Look, I understand that Blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime and have stated that in my other articles, but the Bird book seems to really bend over backwards to highlight and reiterate that fact, almost as if it was written specifically to Whites to instill fear (sure, there was one chapter about a Black gun owner who defended himself, but the tone of the book does not appear to be racially neutral). Waters' book does not mention race per se in most cases, though you can figure some of this out by just reading the story. I think that by Waters' simply stating the facts without a racial agenda, he is lending credibility to his writing and reporting, instead of getting caught up in incessant obsessions with talking about Blacks and Black crime).

Third, there is no clear political bias. The stories are reported based on numerous accounts from different sources and Waters never injects his own two cents as far as either being pro-gun or pro-gun control. The Gottlieb/Workman book is notorious for this, in that the authors make wise-cracks and sarcastic jokes within the accounts or inject their own personal opinions into the story. While this may OK for some, I found it distracting and unprofessional. Waters, on the other hand, does not do any of this, and really seems to report the stories with a sincerity and humility that is very refreshing to see. In the end, it's hard to tell where he is on the gun issue; while he does support personal ownership of firearms for self-defence, he also states that he sees the other side of the argument, in terms of gun safety and accessibility to children, etc. I really also think that he goes out of his way to not embellish the accounts with machismo. It helps for the reader to take the issue more seriously and form conclusions on objective facts (and this is coming from me, as a gun owner and an NRA member).

I also enjoyed the fact that these stories were all "fresh" stories. I mean, how many gun books have you read which refer to the same old accounts - it makes you wonder whether the Gary Kleck estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun use scenarios a year is plausible (I personally think that number is way too high, unless someone can actually substantiate it, which I haven't seen yet). The Waters book retells stories that I have not read anywhere else.

Finally, I really liked the fact that the Robert Waters' stories were full-length and had sufficient detail. I never really "got into" any of the stories in the Workman/Gottlieb book, because they were so short, and also because they injected unnecessary details such as the name of a baby which is not really related to the story. Waters' re-telling of the stories and his descriptive prowess really helps the reader to immerse himself/herself into the shoes of the victim (and maybe to a lesser extent, the shoes of the perpetrator). The background information and level of detail is relevant and adds to moving the plot along. I think that in large measure, that's what made the book so easy to read - it was written so that the progressions of the plot and its transitions between scenes were logical and were at a decent pace.

Enough with the comparisons. Let's examine a couple of the highlights of the Waters' book.

I enjoyed Waters' discussion on how drugs, and in particular, crack-cocaine causes the perpetrator to act differently. We have all heard the arguments about what ammo to use for self-defence and home defence weapons, and one consideration I hear over and over again is, for instance, one should use buckshot with a shotgun, as it has X-amount of penetrating and stopping power for those who are on some sort of drug. I often wondered whether that was really true, but Waters' in a few of the stories, has really shown that low powered rounds, like .22s, may eventually cause the bad guy's death, but it may not stop him immediately (as a result, the perpetrator can still inflict damage while his vitals are slowly shutting down). This side-point did not need to be discussed explicitly, but in reading the chapters, any reasonable person can form that conclusion.

There were chapters such as "Death of a Serial Killer", that seemed so surreal, so unbelievable, that I had to double-check and verify the facts myself, since I found it so hard to believe that something like this could have happened. The strength with which Kristen and Doug Wells was able to defy certain death and their desire to keep living was inspiring - and thanks to them, they put a serial killer scumbag to pasture. This chapter itself is worth the price of the book.

The chapter on Robert Stella and Judy Davis, entitled, "The Stalker" was literally chilling to read - I had to curl up under a blanket to keep warm even though it is 27 celsius on my thermostat. That chapter was written so well that one could easily envision oneself in the victim's shoes, feeling all the rage and frustration that today's lenient criminal justice system would let her down, despite numerous threats and carrying on of violence against her. The fact that Stella, the stalker, was released so often, despite his crimes, and put on probation rather than behind bars, makes a strong argument for the keeping of firearms for personal defence.

Stories are only good if you can remember them, and one thing that I found as a real positive about Waters' book, is that the stories are really relevant and stay in your mind. I think partly, it's because Waters' looks at stories of everyday, normal people, from store owners, to families, to single people, and from young folks to old folks. He examines the stories from different geographies and time frames. Even reading a story from the 1970s does not seem any less relevant than a story from the 1990s. He also clearly describes the weapon of choice for the perpetrator and what the would-be victim ended up using to defend him/herself. He provides ample detail about the history of the bad guy (whether it be mental history, criminal history, etc.) and I think that it helps to understand, at least in part, the psychology of the assailant.

I am a discriminating book reader (I read a lot of books), and in general, I don't recommend a book, unless I wholeheartedly think that it has multi-faceted benefits. So it is for all these reasons already stated that I highly recommend Robert Waters' book, "The Best Defense" as a must-have in your self-defense and firearms library, but don't just put it on your shelf - read it, and heed its lessons that were gleaned from those brave men and women who considered life much more precious than to simply just give it away to those who demand it without good reason.

-Jeremy

5/26/2009 Update: I have had the pleasure to have been in correspondence with the author, Robert Waters, regarding his book, passing along my comments and compliments to him for such a fine book. He has since informed me that several of the would-be victims (heroes, I would call them) have since passed on. While I am saddened by this, I am deeply grateful that they were able to share their stories before their passing and inspire countless others to learn from them.

Media Bias Against Guns By The Toronto Star and CBC Marketplace

Over the years, I have developed a very dejected view towards the media's handling of anything firearms-related. A good day it would be if you can find a neutral reporting of guns. But alas, we live in a fairly socialistic country and as such, it should come as no surprise to see continued negative spin and even outright lies when it comes to reporting about guns. Recently, I saw two instances of this which gave me grave stomach upset.

First, the good ol' CBC, who, unfortunately, happened to give us two of our recent Governor-Generals, Michaelle Jean (current) and Andrienne Clarkson. No, I dislike them not because they are women, but because they are left-wing, tree-hugging nutjobs (and in Jean's case, she is a known sympathizer of Quebec separatism). Anyway, CBC, the station that tries to make itself "culturally relevant" by bringing you the not-very-funny and ridiculous-concepted Little Mosque on the Prairie, has shown again and again, its absolute willingness to all-out lie to advance its liberal agenda.

The latest attempt can be seen here in this CBC Marketplace report:

CBC Market Place "Report" on Replica Guns

The subject is replica guns.

Now, why does this matter to me? Well, due to this report, my local gunshop now no longer stocks air pistols (BB and pellet). Watch the report first and then keep reading here.

There are several issues with this documentary. One is that the CBC marketplace reporter and crew take several liberties to deliberately make guns look like they're some sort of evil, even though common sense will tell you a gun is just an inanimate piece of metal, an object. These are not in any chronological order, but my first and biggest issue is with the reporter. She has no clue that there are different classes of airguns. They just said that there are BB guns and airsoft guns. Obviously this is not true. So, based on what I know, I'll give you the facts.

Airguns are propelled in one of four ways: 1) by pumping air into the gun, compressing it. When the trigger is pulled, that air is released, pushing the projectile with it. 2) by compressing a spring, usually by breaking the barrel (most often on air rifles). When the trigger is pressed, the spring decompresses, pushing air out and the projectile with it. 3) CO2 gas cartridges, which is CO2 gas in a canister, either 12g or 88g. A pull of a trigger releases measured amounts of the gas which push the projectile out of the gun. 4) PCP, which I believe stands for pre-charged pneumatic (if it's different, contact me - it's late and I'm too lazy right now to look it up) which is pre-filled either with an airtank or manually pumping something like a bicycle pump to fill up the air tank. It's beyond the scope of this blog entry to discuss the pros and cons, but that's a general rule of the power plant options for airguns.

Airguns are broken down into many categories:

I don't consider airsoft a true airgun categorty, but airsoft shoots very light plastic projectiles and its velocity (how fast the projectile goes when leaving the barrel) is around 200 - 350FPS (feet per second). This is what people use for airsoft wars and airsoft guns are often marked by that ugly and tacky orange tip at the end of the gun. I am not into airsoft at all as you can probably tell by now.

BB guns shoot a small steel ball (BB) - they are ALWAYS under 500FPS. Their accuracy is not good because of the fact that they get shot out of smooth barrels. Mostly for plinking and backyard fun.

Pellet guns are lead pellets which have a front end and a skirted end, the front end can be any number of shapes including flat (wadcutter), round, pointed, and hollowpoint. Depending on the power of the gun, the use of the pellet can be anywhere from casual target shooting and plinking to competition target shooting to hunting. The CBC Marketplace report did not make this differentiation and also failed to mention that many pellet guns (a lot of rifles) require a firearms licence, as they shoot over 500FPS AND generate more than 4.2FPE (foot points energy).

By not making these distinctions, one who knows nothing about airguns can think of airsoft in the same vein as a pellet gun in the same vein as a BB gun. They are all different.

In the report they got this teenage guy to go into the store to buy a airgun (probably airsoft). He walks out with it and brandishes it in public. Law-abiding gun owners, whether firearms grade or not, do not do this. The CBC either does not realize, or does not care, that what that kid did is against the law. Yet the impression they want to leave is that anyone can go in and buy this and start shooting at people.

Also, that part about finding airsoft plastic BBs all over the street. Yeah, that was as much of a plant as I have ever seen. So all the sudden they are talking, look down and lo and behold, there are airsoft BBs strewn all over the street. Yeah right. Why would CBC lie about this? The same reason as another instance you saw and are about to read my assessment.

That lady reporter blatantly lied when she went to shoot that airsoft gun in Port Perry. First, it was an airsoft gun - I can tell by the report / sound of the gun not to mention by looking at it. Even if you argue it was a BB or pellet gun, what she did with it is impossible. Upon shooting it, she gave a recoil with her hands and said "Geez Louise!". Like, what-the-hell-ever, lady. Neither BB or pellet or airsoft guns recoil - they don't make air pistols shooting over 500FPS so whatever she shot can not and did not recoil. The only gun that I have felt recoil that was an airgun was a Gamo Hunter Extreme, which shoots...1400FPS. That is a firearms grade airgun, and even then, the recoil was so, so mild (it's really just the spring decompressing). Air pistols don't recoil, sorry.

Now, where this affects me. My favourite outdoors store, Le Baron - their gunshop immediately pulled all of their air pistols from their shelves because the CBC showed several pages of their catalog selling pages and pages of air pistols. What they neglected to show is that it is explictly stated that permits are required for certain models of airguns. Also, LeBaron's policy, not shown in CBC Marketplace is to visually inspect and record ID information for all airgun and ammo purchases (even if it is not firearms grade). I have been in the gunshop and seen them turn down people due to lack of ID. So that 14-year-old kid in the Marketplace story who went into some shady store in Vancouver to get an airsoft gun, he wouldn't have had that easy of a time at LeBaron.

Now, I'll focus on the Toronto Star. They recently had a series of reports about guns in Toronto (guess it was to capitalize on some of the hoopla surrounding last week's Toronto's Sportsmen Show, which also is a topic in and of itself for another time and another day). I'm not sure what their goal was, but if you look at the first article, it had this gunshop owner pointed out a side-by-side (SXS) shotgun in the direction of the camera. The average person who is not conversant with guns may look at that and not think good things. I think that was the star's point. But if you look carefully, you'll see that the gunshop owner has the action broken (hinge) and is obviously checking the gun - he's not deliberately pointing it at the cameraman. The gun is totally safe. Second, he has a plethora of other guns all under glass shelving behind him - I hope that that is a detail that is not lost on people - law abiding gun owners go above and beyond to ensure that their guns are locked up to meet and exceed legal standards.

I wonder about the Star's true intentions in publishing a map of which area / jurisdiction owns the most guns in the Toronto area, including exact numbers of guns owned, whether the gun owners are hunters or merely target shooters and whether the per capita ownership of guns in that area has been increasing or decreasing over time (trending). I fail to see what point of providing this information is, other than to give potential criminals a shopping list of where to find the most guns. I won't discuss the exact specifics, but I do want to make a very clear point, and I don't care how it sounds:

The two highest places with the highest gun ownership rates are heavily populated with people of European descent. I would bet my bottom dollar that these areas are very, very low crime areas (and this would be in line with John Lott's theory in More Guns, Less Crime).

Conversely, the two areas with the smallest percentage of legal gun ownership are...(drumroll) the Jane and Finch corridor area, and Rexdale, both heavily Black-populated areas and high crime areas. This again is consistent with U.S. statistics of big cities who have large urban African-American populations, greater crime, and the lowest rates of gun ownerships. If any demographic needs to have more law-abiding gun owners, it is in these areas. This also proves once again that gun control does not work - anywhere you look, places that have more guns by law abiding citizens have less crime and places where guns are either frowned upon or banned outright, crime is very high (and to no one's surprise, gun crime, with use of illegally obtained guns).

Of course, the Toronto Star would never produce any type of crime statistics based on race or culture. They would be afraid to make minorities look bad. Yet it's OK to give out the locations and the types of guns that law-abiding gun owners have. The Star recently offered my wife and I a free subscription and didn't even ask if we wanted it. That paper is not good enough for me to wipe me arse with, much less read.

First Baptist Church of Maryville, Illinois Tragedy

It absolutely broke my heart to read about the tragedy that struck Maryville, Illinois' First Baptist Church on Sunday morning. Accounts say that a gunman walked in and while details are sketchy, he did approach the front of the church, had some words with the pastor and then shot him, killing him. His handgun then jammed at which point he produced a knife and somehow stabbed himself before being tackled by two parishioners who also got stabbed.

I don't know Pastor Fred Winters, but his family is in my prayers for the forseeable future. I cannot imagine what they must be going through right now - he had two adolescent or teenage daughters. Been married for 22 years, and has pastored that church just as long. Such senseless violence, in a church of all places - a place that is supposed to be a shelter or refuge for both saved and unsaved alike. Thankfully, Pastor Winters knew the Lord.

I can't say where the gunman's head was at when he perpetrated this awful crime, but I will be praying for him as well, for his salvation, as hard as that may be for me and I'm sure, others, to do.

I read about this account once I got home from a new church that I started attending (in the past two weeks). This church is a rather large church, much like the Maryville congregation. It is situated in a fairly remote location. And I was sitting there thinking, in the past couple of years, there have been several reported church shootings. It's sad when people may feel apprehensive about going to church in the upcoming weeks. I remember after the Colorado and Tennessee church shootings, I went to my next church service wondering what my own plan would be should a gunman burst onto the scene during a service. But these shootings are so rare, but when it happens, people take notice.

And unfortunately, people tend to look at the whole gun control debate as a result. Lots of website comments have indicated that concealed carry laws or the ability to exercise the same, may have averted this tragedy. I'm not so sure of this - after all, the accused shot the pastor pretty quickly, by all accounts - even if someone in the congregation was armed, would they have been close enough to the perpetrator and pastor in order to safely fire a shot to stop the gunman? I'm not so sure. Maybe it would have subdued him after he took the shot and saved the two heroes from getting wounded in tackling him. But I think Pastor Winters would have been shot regardless.

I'm pro-firearms ownership, but I am on the fence when it comes to concealed carry. On some days, I'm a staunch supporter of it. On other days, I have to think long and hard. I am a firm believer that those who wish to perpetrate public shootings tend to pick the "gun free" zones like churches and schools. Illinois have fairly strict regulations for gun ownership (that is, compared to the rest of the U.S. I know this because the fellow I deal with at my local gun shop is from Chicago). I'm not sure if they are a concealed carry (CC) state or not, but regardless, I am not sure if it will help.

I worry about who gets CC licences, even though I agree with them in principle. Think about this - the gunman today is reported to not have a previous criminal record. In effect, he could have gotten a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) if he wanted, if Illinois is a CC state (which again, I'm not sure - I suspect probably not). Think of all the law abiding citizens that cut you off on the road. Have you been upset by that? I have. Have I wanted to crash my car into them to teach them a lesson? Sometimes. Have I uttered obscenities towards them? It's to my shame that I mention that once or twice, the answer is yes. Now, my wife will tell you, I'm a pretty genteel person overall. But just as with even the most calm people, something...eventually...can set them off. I am just not sure whether giving everyone a CC is the right thing to do - overall, I do know that more guns do equal less crime. Deterrence is a strong thing. Had the gunman known that parishoners at First Baptist Church can and are armed - would have have selected that church? I have a hard time believing he would. Again, notice that the public shootings for the past 15 years or so almost always seem to be in a place that is considered gun-free (schools, malls, churches, restaurants). You almost never see these tragedies happening at gun clubs or target shooting places, even though there is a high concentration of guns there.

Now, back to churches. I'm not sure what the answer is here. Perhaps armed guards are an answer, but has it gotten so bad that we have to resort to this? Maybe so - the Bible tells us that the depravity of man gets worse and worse over time. People should be able to go to a church or a school without fear of violence inflicted upon them. But it is becoming clear that such a notion may be idealistic at best. People can't just wish away violence. Unfortunately, it's everywhere.

A good starting place is prayer, and not just for victims, but perpetrators as well. People need the Lord more than ever, and there hasn't been as fertile of a ground for evangelism than ever before. Perhaps if more people knew the Lord, less of these things would happen. Even then, I realize that I too am projecting an idealism that may not mirror reality. But God is more powerful than the laws that we enact or not enact, and is more than powerful enough to change the hearts of man.

In the meantime, I'd encourage all my readers to keep First Baptist Church in Maryville, Illinois, in your prayers, and especially Pastor Winters' family as they mourn and try to make sense of this terrible tragedy. May God's enduring peace and His comfort blanket over them at this time.

Get Yer Ammo Now Before They're Gone, Boys and Girls...

Maybe it's me, but the last six months or so, I have noticed an general increase in anything firearm related. No more evident was this than when I went to my local gunshop recently (3 weeks ago) to buy a few rounds of .223 Remington and happened upon one of the two boxes that had a lower sticker price. The clerk swore under her breath, and said, "Fine, I'll give two boxes to you at the same price." I asked her why the price discrepancy, and she said, "price of ammo went up". Now, I sort of knew this for the .22 rounds that I bought in December, compared to the cheaper price that I got the same rounds for in August. At the time, I was told that the price shift was due to the Canadian dollar weakening. Makes sense. I asked if it had anything to do with Obama winning the U.S. election. Maybe, is the general answer received by many with whom I've spoken.

I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.

I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.

I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.

Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).

Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.

Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.

Stoeger X20 Wood .177 Break Barrel Air Rifle Review

It is not very often that I go and buy something that I haven't researched thoroughly, but sometimes, these things happen. A gal will go out window shopping and come back with bags and bags of new stuff, or a guy will go to the local Best Buy and come home with a GPS and a new PDA. Heck, my Dad pulled one on my Mom years ago, when he went out and bought a new vehicle and she was surprised to see this new butt-ugly gold minivan in the driveway.

I am not that bad, but I suppose I have inherited a bit of my Dad's occasional spontaneity in terms of shopping habits. Surprisingly, what I ended up buying was something that I would normally read a lot about. Good air rifles aren't exactly cheap and with Canadian firearm licensing laws, there's a bit of an administrative hassle in purchasing an air rifle, so you would think I would exhibit a bit of research when I bought my Stoeger X20 Wood .177 Break Barrel air rifle very, very recently.

I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed that the X20 looks very nice asthetically - frankly, this was the first drawing point for me - which is no surprise, since men tend to be visually-oriented; case in point: there is a Diana air rifle (50 or 60-something that is like, over $550.00), but it is the most butt-ugly thing you have ever seen - for that reason alone, I would not buy it. But the Steoger X20 that I bought has a hardwood montel-carlo style stock with checkering (also comes in camo as well as synthetic), has a modern look to it, has an onboard muzzle break, and the inclusion of a 3-9x40mm scope seems to make the price tag of $250.00 more palatable, especially during the cash-strapped Christmas period. Truth be told, my finances took a dive this year, as was the same with most people's pocketbooks, but with the cost of guns and ammo rising this Fall and the expectation that it will continue to rise with an Obama (yech!) administration come next year, it was a good time to buy it.

Having to break the news to my wife that I was planning on buying myself a Christmas present was, I assumed, the hard part. She is not big on guns, but tolerates them enough to respect my interests. To my surprise, she offered to come with me to the gun store to pick it up, our baby daughter in tow.

The fellow I deal with at the gun shop said that I came at the right time - there was only one wood one left. They had received about 15-20 the week before and they went like hotcakes. That, to me, was a good sign. Of course, he said, these are still relatively new offerings and Stoeger isn't really a known brand for airguns (unlike established brands like Gamo, Crosman, Daisy, Beeman, RWS/Diana, etc.) In fact, he hasn't even had a chance to check them out since they've gone so quickly. Since I had the day off work and had another hour before I had to pick my son up from school, I said to him, he can feel free to open the box and check out the look and feel of the gun if he wants - I'm in no rush.

OK, some specs on this gun. It is a .177 caliber break barrel, advertised velocity is 1000FPS with lead, 1200FPS with light alloy (ie. the Gamo PBA ammo). Obviously, due to its velocity, one would need a firearms licence to buy the X20 in Canada. The only Stoeger air rifle that shoots under 500FPS (no gun licence required) is the X5 series. Anyway, the X20 features fibre optic sights, a rear safety like my Hammerli 850 which I like (not a trigger-type safety), two-stage trigger, and the aforementioned muzzle break and wood. The weight is around 7lbs. I mentioned the scope already and the first thing I noticed about this scope is that it was not mounted like the Stoeger marketing material said. My buddy at the gun shop had to double check the marketing specs to confirm it came with a scope and then subsequently realized that the scope was included, but separately in a small box with the package (the scope was not padded in any way). The box itself was a standard air rifle box - flap opened and the packaging / insulation was nothing to write home about (unlike my Hammerli 850 which has perhaps the best packaging of any airgun/air rifle I have seen).

There obviously isn't much testing you can do in the store itself, and upon confirming that everything seemed to be in order, I bought the thing, with my wife standing beside me, looking at the mounted deer head in the gunshop as well as the the Remington marine magnum 12-gauge that I was racking when she walked in. My little daughter seemed mesmerized by all the rifles sitting in the racks, but even she had her fill of sitting in the gunshop with me, listening to my buddy and I talk all manner of firearms.

Took it home and mounted the scope, which did not take too much effort since it came with the rings and mounts and all. Also read through the manual, which is considerably thicker than it needed to be, since it has the same 10 or so pages in a number of other languages. With the scope mounted, I took the air rifle in my hands it was pretty heavy (remember, I'm only around 5' 5", 140lbs), and the rifle is about 7lbs without the scoope. Since I had some vacation days, I decided to use a half-day to run some errands, not the least of which was going to a local range to try out the X20.

Now, I can tell you a few things definitively. One is that I found it difficult to cock this rifle - probably my size and lack of upper body and arm strength no doubt, but as this was my first 1000FPS+ air rifle, maybe that had something to do with it. I also own a Gamo Viper Express air shotgun/.22 cal break barrel that shoots around 750FPS with .22 cal pellets, and that is nowhere near as hard to break as this one. The spring is either very strong, or I am not. Anyway, that surprised me a bit. Anyhow, I sort of sighted in the X20 and went to work testing it. I used standard Crosman .177 wadcutters as as Crosman .177 Premiers, and also Gamo Master Point .177 pellets.

I can also tell you that when I used the Crosman pellets, the X20 was considerably loud. Now, at the range, I am mandated to wear ear protection and I had on a pair of Browning ear protectors and slip over the head. Of course, being so near to Christmas, there wasn't anyone else at the range when I was there and so I thought I'd take off the muffs for a minute to see how loud the X20 was. Let's just say that I wish I hadn't have done that - it rung my ears and gave me a headache that didn't go away for a few hours. Now, it could have been my reduced hearing, but the Gamo pellets seem to be slightly less loud when fired. I know that for sure, since every Crosman pellet fired without the hearing protection gave me a sharp pain in the ears. This may have been due to the shape/manufacturing of the Crosmans, the fact that the X20 was dieseling (burning off excess oil/grease when shot), or just naturally loud. Probably should have cleaned it before shooting, but I didn't.

Accuracy. The range was around 50 yards or so. I won't get into measurements for my groupings, since I am hardly sniper-caliber, but let's just say I was overall somewhat pleased by the accuracy of the rifle, given the fact that I was giving my arms an extreme workout cocking this thing, I did OK. I did have to make some minor adjustments with the elevation, but other than that, it was a good experience.

I found that the trigger pull was a bit heavy - I am not sure and don't remember if the trigger is adjustable, but I did find that the trigger could be lighter.

I imagine that this rifle was designed for hunting rather than target shooting, given its power and weight. But for what I paid, I can't see anything that would have soured me on the rifle.

********
FEBRUARY 2009 UPDATE: Since my original review, I have read some more about the rifle and some other reviews as well. My original review stands as it is, even though I have since found out that while the rifle may have been designed by Italian Engineers (I believe Stoeger is owned by Benelli), the actual unit was made in China. Now, I know that Chinese airguns have a love 'em or hate 'em type of following, but I haven't really seen anything from a qualitative standpoint that would make me dislike this gun. Further, I have read others who have written about issues regarding mounting the scope but I did not have the same problems - perhaps Stoeger fixed the earlier problems their later releases. I have also heard that the X20 is pretty much a rebranded BAM (Chinese brand) XS-B19 since the parts diagram is almost identical, but without experiece with the B19, I can't comment further.

Airguns For Self-Defence? Don't Even Think About It

This past year, I worked with a new fella in my office, who I found out later, owned an airgun. This, I would consider unusual in the very liberal Toronto, and especially in a white-collar industry like IT, where opinions, just like the technology are considered and even expected, to be progressive. You can imagine how much I stick out like a sore thumb, and being an Asian gun enthusiast as well, which nowadays is pretty rare. There are less than a handful of people on my whole account (and customer site) who own any type of gun, much less holds a firearms licence. So it always intrigues me to meet people who have even a passing interest in guns.

This guy I worked with happened to own a similar airgun as one of the many that I own. He owned a Walther CP Sport. I have since sold mine, but I have a review on this blog, so check it out if you are interested in this gun. But anyway, it's a CO2-powered semi-automatic .177 caliber air pistol. It's also one of more weaker airguns out there, shooting at a maximum of 360FPS, which, I will concede, is not as weak as airsoft, but don't expect it to be a pest control gun.

My colleague, keeping his voice low, shared with me that he bought the airgun with the sole purpose of using it as a self-defence weapon. When I heard him say that I was shocked. I asked him how many guns he owns, and he said just that one. He said that he thought it was pretty powerful. I asked him if he had any idea what the impact of a .177 caliber pellet at 360FPS (maximum) would be? He didn't, so I gave him some perspective. The Canadian firearms classification starts with fired projectiles travelling at 500FPS or higher AND generating more than 4.2FPE (foot pounds energy). You cannot even humanely kill or even injure a squirrel with a 450FPS airgun (a small mouse, yes, but nothing larger). So don't expect to take down a home invader.

It has been said that part of the Canadian government's classification numbers may have to do with the penetrating effect of a projectile, given a certain velocity and transfer of energy. I have never heard this officially substantiated by the Canadian Firearms Centre, but it does make some sense, in terms of how to classify something as a firearm (ie. can it cause serious or lethal injury).

I gave him some more perspective - a CO2 semi-automatic may sound cool, with rapid fire and an eight-shot magazine, but as anyone who knows anything about airguns can attest, the faster you fire a CO2 gun, the more velocity you lose on subsequent shots - it's because of the cold gas that is released by the CO2 cartridge everytime you pull the trigger. A colder environment inside the gun makes a pellet go slower (another knock against CO2 guns being used in the wintertime). So that maximum 360FPS will turn out to be in the mid-200 to 250FPS, which will cause a slight bruise for someone running around naked, but will hardly penetrate thick clothing, much less skin. If nothing else, your home invader or bad guy will simply get irritated at the fact that you're trying to shoot him and now it gives him the licence to exact maximum injury on you, now that he knows you don't have a "real gun". My friend said that the replica nature of the CP Sport may be a deterrent enough. Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for a possibility.

Finally, I shared with him the fact that the most powerful airgun I own is the Gamo Viper Express .22 Caliber Air Shotgun / Rifle combo. This gun requires a firearms licence, and shoots either a very limited of #9 lead shot at around 1200FPS (maximum) or with an chamber adapter, shoots .22 caliber pellets at 850FPS (maximum). Remember, a heavier pellet like a .22 will impart much more energy on impact than its smaller counterpart, at the same velocity. All that being said, despite the fact that the Viper Express is a firearms-rated airgun, I would not recommend anyone to use it for self-defence. The power is just not there. Some self-defence experts would even contend that the lower-velocity rimfire type of firearms are inadquate for self-defence, despite the fact that they will shoot a .22 caliber bullet at generally over 1000FPS. In my view, where you can maybe come close is having something like a Ruger 10/22 with a Butler Creek 25-mag, full of CCI .22 LR Stingers. Those will shoot over 1600FPS, but their accuracy suffers. But problem with using anything rimfire is that likely you will need more than one shot, and that's going to be hard to explain to the cops why you shot the bad guy full of holes.

Some have said that having something is better than nothing, but I disagree. Having nothing at least poses no resistance to the perp, and unless he's hellbent on killing or raping you, it may be in your best interest to simply let him take whatever he wants. Now, I know home invasions don't always work that way, but imagine this - you are stumbling in the dark, reaching for your airgun, hoping that the CO2 still will carry at least 8 shots. Even if you get your shot off, you are looking at reduced stopping power for subsequent CO2 shots. That is the nature of a CO2 gun. You will need a lot more than one shot to stop the intruder, and so a CO2 airgun is a really poor choice, even a CO2 repeating air rifle that requires a firearms licence. In essence, with airguns you are stuck with several problems: 1) multiple shots are needed, but the effect of subsequent shots make it useless on a CO2 gun, 2) there is no no-CO2 repeating airgun, and 3) you definitely don't want to rely on something that is single-shot, spring-action or break-barrel.

Now, the one caveat here - an airgun can be used IF you are such a good shot that you can hit the bad guy in the eye every time. Most airguns will rupture an eyeball without much difficulty, but getting to the point where you can take out an eye is a pretty gruesome thought, and given the fact that the conditions in which you may actually have to do this are less than ideal (low light conditions, time of night and exhaustion issues, movement and space issues, not to mention the fact that you're likely crapping your pants at the time), it's probably more pie-in-the-sky thinking than anything else.

Have airguns ever been used successfully to ward off an attacker? Probably. In fact, I know of a case in South America where a guy was able to chase away a bad guy by shooting him with a relatively low-powered airgun. But remember, if you put all your eggs in one basket with exceptional-case scenarios such as this, you are not looking at the possibility that there are many criminals who aren't so easily chased away. Remember, the criminal mind does not think long-term. Some criminals will kill you for looking at them the wrong way. Don't assume that you'll be able to scare off or chase off most criminals. If they are indeed packing heat, then you pulling out an airgun has just authorized them to shoot you with a real gun in supposed self-defence. Do you want to take this chance?

I have heard of people who still believe airguns are worth using as self-defence and will alter their airguns so that they are multiple times more powerful. Personally, I think these people are playing with fire, since doing this is not only illegal, but can likely get your arrested, since if you alter an air pistol to shoot over 500FPS, you are now looking at a restricted or even a prohibited weapon, according to Canada's fiearms classifications. Very likely the gun will not even be classifiable, since it wasn't manufactured that way and registered with the Canadian government. But let's hypothesize that it was legal to do this (which it definitely is not, I want to emphasize). I still don't believe an airgun shooting a .22 CAL pellet at around 16.2 grains, at a velocity of 500-1000FPS is suitable. Remember, rimfire .22 bullets are around 32 or 40 grain, go at least 1000FPS in general, and I (and others) do not consider them to be viable for self-defence.

Then there are the obvious legal issues. Now, I have previously said that if you are planning to have anything for self-defence, that you had better be prepared to use it to STOP the bad guy, only in situations where you fear for your life or the life of a loved one. Never shoot to kill - your intention should not be pre-meditated killing. Shooting someone for stealing your TV is not excuseable. That being said, the ability to stop the bad guy is not so much determined by your skill level or shooting ability than by what you choose as your self-defence weapon. As I already mentioned, I do not believe airguns to be sufficient. In my humble opinion, the best home defence weapon (for reasons beyond the scope of this blog entry, though I write about this elsewhere on this blog) is a 12 or 20-gauge pump action shotgun, that you can quickly load with something like #3 buckshot, or lower. Be forewarned though - this is a very lethal combination and if you plan to use this, be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions.

In Canada, specifically, buying arms for self-defence is frowned upon, and discouraged. Reason is, unlike the U.S., there are stringent safe-storage laws in Canada. So a person who has any type of firearm in Canada is legally required to keep them unloaded, and locked up in a suitable gun cabinet or safe. The ammo also needs to be locked up separately. Now, think about this - given these legal requirements, how likely is it that you can have a fully functional ready-to-go self-defence arm? If you happen to be very fast and can get to all these individual components, unlocking / relocking and loading your arm all within the span of a couple of minutes, the Canadian government can charge you with unsafe storage, no matter what you say otherwise (their argument is that the laws make it virtually impossible to get to your gun for self-defence, so there's no way you should have been able to do it unless you weren't following safe storage laws). Moreover, if you end up shooting someone, even in a justified self-defence response, and they somehow manage to live, be prepared to be tried as a criminal and having your firearms confiscated as a result, even though you're the one who was violated. Sad, isn't it. Welcome to Canada.

Chris Reid...Speak It, Bro.

So I was dropping my car off at the dealership last night, and happened to glance over at the Toronto Star (which essentially is the liberal metro paper in Toronto). I don't necessarily agree with everything the Star says, but I have always enjoyed the layout and the amount of information packed in the Star. It is by and large a better read (from a reading perspective) than the more conservative Toronto Sun, which even though it may share more of my socially conservative views, is in a more tabloid format with only grade-six vocabulary and enough ads to shake a stick at (I hate ads), not to mention one of the main drawing points, the "Sunshine Girl". My Dad reads the Sun, but I don't care for it at all. Anyway, since I was waiting for my shuttle, I thought I'd check out the latest Star. Right on the front page was an article about a local Toronto Conservative Party candidate, who has stepped down amid what the Star deems as "controversial" comments regarding concealed handgun carry. Now, the context, as the Star states, is that candidate Chris Reid has indicated in his blog, that Canadians should be able to conceal carry handguns for personal self-defence. What is wrong with that? Well, I suppose expressing an opinion in Toronto is a God-given right...only when that opinion is in step with the general liberal and left-wing mindset. To express anything else is to be met with a fury of politically correct outage.

I wrote Chris an encouraging response on his blog, showing my support. But more than that, I think this year has really shown me the clear liberal bias in almost every media outlet available. Never before have I see such a blatant unwillingness to reign in personal opinion and separate it from objective journalistic reporting. I suppose those who have seen Campbell Brown's CNN interview with Tucker Bounds will no doubt see this at its worst (if she ain't in the tank for Obama, I'll be happy to endorse my next paycheque to anyone who can prove otherwise). It's fine to have your own personal preference, but as a journalist, I think it's necessary to keep it in check and simply regurgitate the facts, and leave the op-ed stuff to the...well, op-ed people, and the talk show hosts, whose jobs it is to dissect these issues from a particular political bent.

Anyway, as I was reading the reporting on Chris Reid's views (Chris is gay, and whatever you or I may think of that, that's beside the issue, in my opinion - but I only mention it to show that I don't discount views necessarily because of who the speaker is), I couldn't help but think to myself that these gun control types really have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Today, I see the sad news item about yet another school shooting, this time in Finland. Multiple casualities were reported. Now, I know the media will once again go on its rampage, insisting the all guns be banned. I have already written a bit about all this, and will try not to rehash it, but if you are reading this and believe that banning guns is the solution, think for a moment about these points:

One, why is it that these public shootings always seem to be at a school, or a public shopping mall or a church or whatever? Because these places are either legislated or generally accepted to be gun-free zones. If I was a potential mass killer, where would I go to inflict the most carnage - at a shooting range or a gun show, or at a school or shopping centre? I would think twice about the shooting range or gun show, since I know that most people there would be armed and would not hesitate to take me down if I start threatening lives. Whereas at a school, you know that many of these educational institutions have a zero tolerance policy for guns and anything else that is not the flowerly "make love not war" or "tolerance" mantras that you have come to envision associated with these places. My son's school forbids even water pistols or army fatigues for kids (no one says anything to me when I wear my army pants and my Remington hat there). You know that the teachers, as good people as some of them may be, take orders from the school board, who generally are controlled by a liberal-bias government. For them, guns are bad, and they won't even engage in a healthy debate on this.

Remember last year, there was a rash of shootings in the U.S. in churches? What ended up happening? The gunman was eventually subdued through the timely assistance of a woman parishoner who happened to have a concealed carry licence and her firearm on hand. Had she not had her gun, there would have been mass carnage at that church and the gunman would have simply moved on to the next church.

Second, as I said before and I'll say it more briefly this time, gun control laws target the wrong people. I find it hard to believe that anyone can successfully argue that criminals will obey gun control laws, since by definition, criminals do not obey laws. Legislating a handgun ban would only hurt the legitimate gun owners, who are law abiding and have taken courses, passed rigorous written and practical examinations, have passed extensive background checks, and have paid the appropriate fees to be licensed. These are not exactly the types of folks who will put their reputation at risk in using their firearms unwisely. Instead, it is the criminal who has no intention to follow any laws, who will undoubtedly procure a stolen firearm (from the U.S. most likely) and use it to commit a crime. Banning handguns or firearms in general will not do anything here. Case in point - look at places like the U.K., who have banned guns for oh...more than a decade now. Guess what? Their crime has not gone down - in fact, it has gone up, but more than that, the kicker is that their gun crime has gone up by over 100%. Yet, supposedly there are no guns there. Same trend has happened in Australia. Even in the U.S. there are supposed "gun free zones" like Washington D.C. Yet, the the gun crime rate in Washington D.C. is at epidemic levels. What does that say about the effectiveness of legislating gun control laws?

Now, Mr. Reid's comments were based, as reported in the Star, on the horrific beheading incident on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this summer. Now, here's where Reid and my opinions will differ. I don't believe that having concealed handguns on that bus would have made a difference. Based on the tight quarters and the amount of people packed into those same quarters, it would have been difficult at best, and dangerous at worst, to take down a crazed assailant at the back of a bus, wielding a machete, who likely killed his victim pretty quickly, while scores of people are trying to exit the bus from back to front.

Do I support full concealed carry? Generally, yes, I do, and this is despite the fact that I do not own a handgun (but I am a firearm owner). I do believe in using firearms for self-defence for the home. Do I think that that guns will deter crime? I definitely do, and regardless of what your own personal views are on this one, I'd encourage you to at least examine John Lott's book, "More Guns Less Crime", which as an academic, economist and statistician, he takes the reader on a very long, detailed and comprehensive journey on crime stats as it relates to concealed carry laws, utilizing countless variables regressions, timeframes and geographies. It is published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'd encourage you to get the second edition, which has more current stats (which only buttress the original findings) and in which Lott responds to his critics convincingly. If after reading that book, you still believe that having concealed handguns will not deter crime, please shoot me an email and tell me why.

David Miller and Dalton McGunity's Continuing Call for a Handgun Ban

Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.

On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.

Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.

If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.

And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.

You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.

This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?

For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.

I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.

Book Review: The Seven Myths of Gun Control, by Richard Poe

This is a very refreshing book that tackles a taboo issue in society nowadays, particularly given the fact that the culture has generally gravitated towards left-wing politics, and as such more or less embrace gun control. I found Poe's tackling of the issue to be refreshing and much of his supporting evidence to be compelling. The book is easy to read, and may make several people uncomfortable, by virtue of his candidness. This book is not for the politically correct. For pro-gun readers, it helps to buttress their already-held beliefs of responsible gun ownership as a right (well at least in the U.S., I'm in Canada). I really liked how he dissected the race issue - no one wants to discuss the race factor, but let's face it, we all know that some racial communities have more issues with gun crime than others (for what it's worth, this opinion is coming from a me as a minority - Asian).

All that being said, I found several weaknesses in Poe's book. One was his frequent citing of fictitious events and scenarios such as movies to try to buttress his point. Personally, I would have found his arguments even stronger had he injected more real life statistics, rather than cite something from the movies.

Structurally, he either spent way too much time on myth one (which was addressed very well), or not enough time on the others. He does recognize this, but even so, I found that the last two myths seemed to be given just a cursory glance without really delving much into debunking the myth - it was almost as if he had to get the completed book to the publishers by a certain time, and so he simply rushed the last two chapters.

Speaking of structural issues, what is with the countless paragraph headings within each chapter. I think the book would have flowed better had the paragraphs not been so explicitly separated like this. There was negligible effect, if any at all.

Further, I found that fairly frequently, Poe tended to start a discussion, and then move to a tangent and then proceed to spend the rest of the chapter dissecting the tangent (of which the connection to the chapter topic is a stretch at best). To this reader, I got lost trying to figure out whether he needed filler material to fatten up the pages, or whether he needed to get a better editor (or perhaps he simply needed to inject his own opinion and interpretation somewhere).

I found that his often citing websites as supporting documentation to stifle his credibility somewhat. Not sure how you would feel about it, but in my view, given the fact that the premise of the book is to dispel myths (and presumably use solid documented evidence in the process), citing actually published works would lend more of an academic seriousness to his writing, rather than citing websites that I have never heard of, and since anyone can put together a website with questionable data, I am not sure whether it was a wise decision for him to cite online sources by and large.

Finally, I found the epilogue completely unnecessary. Without giving away any of the material, even a casual reader can safely conclude that any questions about whether his biases are injected in the book are answered in the epilogue. While I agree in principle with what he is saying, the connection to gun control myths with the substance in the epilogue is sketchy at best.

However, I still am content to give this a solid four-out-of-five rating. It's just very refreshing to see this topic addressed, and not from a idealistic or psychological angle, but with practical examples and brutally honest arguments. The book is a very easy read, and I'd recommend it to both pro and anti-gun readers to digest. I certainly learned a number of new things from the book, and for me, it provoked much thought about this subject, even though I am on the pro-gun side of the fence.

Firearms For Home Defence Not Really An Option in Canada

I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.

Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.

What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.

What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:

In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.

I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?

Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.

My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.

I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.

Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.

Self-Defence / Home Defence - A Response

After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.

First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:

1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.

OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.

2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.

Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.

Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).

The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.

3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?

This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.

The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.

The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.

Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?


4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.

That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.

Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:

1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.

I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).

2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.

Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.

I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.

3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.

I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.