"What do you propose to keep the Adam Lanzas of the world from committing atrocities?"

Well, to PREVENT something like this from happening again, people with mental illnesses, who are dangerous, would need to be declared by a judge to be mentally incompetent. That would involve everyone around every person with any mental illness, keeping close tabs on them and their behavior. Then, assuming these people have correct knowledge to work off of, and can remove their own personal biases, then they would report any warning signs to a psychiatrist, who would evaluate this person. Then the psychiatrist would have to decide, again without letting their personal biases and values interfere, if the subject needs to be put in a hospital for treatment. If they don't want to go, then the psychiatrist would have to get a hearing with a judge to compel the person to be institutionalized. This of course also relies on the judge setting aside their personal biases and interpreting the information correctly. If the judge declares them mentally incompetent, then this person is prohibited from owning firearms.

But of course this system would only work perfectly if everyone involved is correct in their assessments and not acting out of vindictiveness or ulterior motives.

And it also relies on the individual who may be having problems to trust other people or authority figures enough to speak to them, show up to appointments, etc. . .

And it would only prevent LEGAL ownership of a gun. There is a black market of illegal guns that criminals and gangsters use. (And it's not Gun Shows) Or this mentally ill person might steal a gun, or they might go and legally buy a gun before they have committed a crime, or before one of their friends reports them to a psychiatrist.

So while that system is being perfected to the point where it doesn’t get abused or infringe on civil liberties, how do we keep school children safe?

The solution is effective, cheap, and could be implemented tomorrow. Allow people with concealed carry permits to be armed in schools.

This is not ‘arming teachers’. This is not hiring security guards, or paying for police officers to be assigned to a school. “But teachers don’t like guns!” Again, this isn’t mandatory, the teachers who don’t like guns shouldn’t carry a gun. But not all teachers or school staff are afraid of guns. There were at least two women at Sandy Hook who stood up to the attacker and lost their lives. If they had a Glock 26 handy, they probably would have shot at the attacker, (even if they aren’t gun people).

Almost universally, the people who commit these crimes end their attack at the first sign of resistance. The guy at Virginia Tech killed himself when he heard the police trying to get in. The guy at Trolley Square fired a couple of shots at Ken Hammond, but retreated into a store when Hammond didn’t back down. The guy in Clackamas Oregon (remember that there was a shooting at a Mall in Oregon recently?) killed himself when he saw Ryan Melis pointing a gun at him.

If it is known that a school, or a school district, or a state allows concealed carry in its schools, then any school shooter seeking fame and lasting notoriety will view that school, district or state as a place where they will likely fail in their demented quest.  Think about it, we can all name the Sandy Hook killer and picture his face. Who knows, off the top of their head, the name of the Clackamas Mall killer?

And if the potential killer ignores that possibility and attacks a school that allows concealed carry, then the attack would be cut short by the one or two people in the school who are legally carrying and have prepared for this unlikely event.

And if the attack never comes, then that concealed carrier’s gun will just sit quietly in its holster, minding its own business.

Review of the Sig 229, 9mm

-->

If you have ever looked at guns on the Internet, then you know that the best gun ever is either the Glock or the 1911. The Glock people rave about the smooth, long, safe trigger of the Glock and its reliability. 1911 people gush about the inherent accuracy of the 1911’s single action trigger, and the overall ergonomics of the 1911.

If you would like a gun that combines the good features of each platform, then a Sig 229 in 9mm is the gun for you.

Now let’s talk about why this is such an awesome gun.

The Trigger

Sig’s traditional DA/SA trigger allows you to have the best of both worlds. The long double action trigger negates the need for any on-off safety. It is also very smooth. Some people spend lots of dollars on their revolvers to get a smooth trigger, and it comes standard on the 229.

The other awesome half of the Sig’s trigger is the single action. It is very crisp, and allows for fast, precise shots. 1911 aficionados lavish praises on the crisp single action trigger. The Sig lets you have that nice trigger pull without having to hit a safety to use it.

Like this.

The DA/SA trigger also is a great training asset. After you’ve taken a shooting class then you should be doing dry fire practice. The most important sequence of motions that needs to become automatic is drawing the gun and firing the first aimed shot.

With striker-fired guns, and single action guns, the slide has to be racked or the hammer cocked back before the gun can be dry fired again. Firing one shot, then racking the slide is not a good habit to cultivate.

With the Sig, you can draw, aim, fire, re-holster and repeat. You don’t have to rack the slide to reset the trigger.

Some say is that a long trigger pull followed by short ones is inconsistent and a problem for training. However, good training will teach you to pay attention to the trigger reset, which is consistent with every trigger pull in the Sig, just like any other gun.

Operating the Gun

When shooting the 9mm 229, the heavier weight is a major plus. The extra ounces soak up a lot of the recoil from already-low-recoiling 9mm round, making it very comfortable to shoot lots and lots of rounds through.

Sig has a very unique approach to reloading. Many companies manufacture extended slide release levers as drop-in parts for 1911s, Glocks, etc... With Sigs, it’s standard. 

The slide release button sits far back on the grip, within easy reach of your thumb. When you’ve reinserted the new magazine, you can flick the release with your thumb while re-establishing your grip with your support hand. 

Some complain that this design is different from what they are used to, and that their thumb rides the release during shooting. 

However it is possible to grip this gun without resting your thumb on the slide release.

If you like the idea of being able to easily and quickly hit the slide release, and have the crisp single action trigger with no manual safety, it is possible to learn to adjust your grip to a Sig. Most humans can be taught how to drive standard or automatic transmission cars.  If you are considering buying one, don’t let this minor training concern dissuade you.

The sights are designed so that the bullet will land right in the middle of the front sight, making it simple to aim. Just put the sights right where you want the holes to appear, instead of trying to guess how far above the sights the bullet might land.

Reliability

The rails on the frame and slide come polished pretty smooth from the factory, which makes the slide cycle even with a minimum of oil. It will cycle dry, though it will eventually start malfunctioning. I’ve never tried to bury it or fill it with mud, and then shoot it, but it did function through an all day class that took place inside an Iraq-style dust storm.  Oiling this gun is no great chore.

Also, the Navy Seals use Sig 226s, 229’s bigger brother. That says something about reliability.

Maintenance

Taking the gun apart is as easy as locking the slide back and flipping a lever. The recoil spring and barrel easily come out, which increase the likelihood that the owner will clean and lube the gun more.  For routine maintenance, simply pull it apart, rub a drop of oil around the square locking surfaces on the barrel, a drop of oil at the front of the frame rails and at the back of the slide rails, then put it back together.

This process shouldn’t need to be repeated more than once a month.

A full day’s sweat day-in and day-out doesn't seem to bother the stainless slide and aluminum alloy frame at all.

Concealment

I can conceal this gun on my body, however I am a 6 foot 3 inch male, with a bit of a gut. With the right combination of belt and holster, I can tuck in a shirt over the top of it. If you’re a smaller frame, you may have fewer options. Using a Galco belly band, makes the gun disappear. Other holster and belt options are available that are more comfortable, but more bulky as well, and so you have to adjust your dress accordingly.

Conclusion

If you are new to gun ownership, or are looking for an enjoyable pistol to shoot, consider the 229 in 9mm. It’s good for a novice to develop good training habits  with, and is a great choice for a multi-purpose gun. It’s not a Glock and it’s not a 1911, but it is a good blend of the best features of each of those guns.

Keeping schools safe.

Once again, innocent people have been killed, and national attention is being brought to the issue. I've listened enough and watched enough video, that I feel the need to clarify some things.

The two large themes that have been brought up are: a. There needs to be a real conversation about mental illness. b. Gun control in general.

Mental illness is stigmatized in this country. Its nuances are very tricky, and the different types of illness are wide-ranging. Some illnesses are harmless to others, and have simple solutions. Some cause unpredictable, frightfully violent behavior.

One of the problems that is brought up in the debate about a mental health solution to public mass shootings, is that the mental health community would be required to readily provide medical records to the police. If someone who is depressed or has a legitimate problem is considering getting help, they will be less likely to go visit a psychiatrist if they think that it will result in a SWAT raid in the middle of the night.

The number of people who seek help will drop dramatically, and many legitimate problems will go untreated.

Now, that may not actually ever happen, but the possibility will definitely loom in the mind of a person suffering enormous stress. I know of one case where a Military Police officer was punished after seeking psychological help. Andy Brown was an MP at Fairchild Air Force Base when an unstable person entered the base hospital and started shooting people. Brown killed the man in the parking lot outside the hospital. After the shooting, Andy started having some psychological problems, which were normal reactions to such an event.

The day after he visited the psychiatrist, his duty weapon was taken away, and he was assigned to a desk job. He didn't visit the shrink again after that, though he continued to have problems.

For a full review of the incident, go here.

In addition, the mental health debate has been going on ever since Charles Whitman's shooting in Austin. There is an urge to try to understand these senseless acts, and a lot has been learned about the various shooters, and any warning signs or patterns that have been observed. However, many atrocities have been committed since the debate started, and so the mental health method of preventing mass shootings has not been perfected yet.

There are steps that can be taken right now that would make schools safer, I'll get to that in a bit.

The other topic that is being thrown around right now is gun control. Since the public can tell that mental illness is an extremely complex topic, the logically easier solution would be to pass some more gun laws. They can be passed, and take effect as early as next summer, after all.

I'll do another post about some of problems with passing more gun control laws, but right now I will just mention that AR-15 rifles have been the best selling rifles in America for the past few years, concealed carry is at an all-time high, and so any efforts to create more laws are going to have a much stronger resistance than in the 90's.


So keeping in mind that an acceptable mental health solution isn't perfected yet, and the new gun control laws aren't likely to pass, how can we make our schools safer?

In every state, there is a law that says it is illegal to have a gun on school property. There is included a list of people who are exempt from that law, typically police officers on duty, active duty military, federal law enforcement officers, etc. . .

To make our schools safer, go to that law and add "Any person with a valid concealed weapon permit".

That's it.

It would cost the state nothing, it would cost the schools nothing, because the cost of getting a permit is incurred by the individuals seeking the permit.

Now, every teacher isn't going to jump on this program, but a few will.

There arguments against this. "There are some teachers I wouldn't trust with a yardstick." "Teachers aren't trained with guns, a gun would just get taken away from them." "If teachers just start blasting away, then they will hit more people than the bad guy"

Remember, this proposal isn't for the government to hand out guns to every teacher, it is to allow anyone who wishes to get a permit, to legally have their weapon with them at school. These people would have virtually no criminal history and would have passed any state mandated training. Concealed weapon permits get revoked at a rate of less than 1%, and CCW permit holders pass through life in public every single day without problems.

But why can't we just rely on police to protect the kids?

If there were a police officer in every school, every day, it would have a deterrent effect and the officers would be able to stop a massacre. However, the police don't work for free.

Everyone of those officers cost $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 dollars per year. Would the district pay the cost, or the police department? It's not likely that we would be able to find the money to double or triple the police force in some areas, especially since some jurisdictions have cut back the police budget.

So the reality is that police will respond as fast as they can, as soon as a 911 operator is notified. But is one, two, or three minutes fast enough?

Let's look at some video of people getting attacked, and notice how quickly the situation unfolded.

Here is a shop owner in Turkey, if you don't want to hear the commentary then mute your computer.

Warning: People get stabbed, and the stabber gets shot. Footage starts at 30 seconds.



How could any honest person tell this shop owner that the only action he should have taken was to call the police.

Let's look at this video of a woman whose shop is about to get attacked by an armed robber.



Did this woman have time to call for police, and wait for them to arrive? If she had no weapon, who knows what that man would have done once he got inside the store?

Here is a home invasion in Arizona. 



What would have happened if he had to wait for police?



Allowing teachers to be armed, if they wish to be, is an issue of practicality.

 Allowing teachers to be armed, and then publicizing the policy change, may be the one thing that actually prevents future shootings. A killer looking to grab headlines by shooting many people, will not target a school if he knows he won't get very far. They want to kill, not get into a gun battle.

The debate will continue to rage, politicians and pundits will argue on television, mental health may get discussed, gun control laws will be proposed and fail, but in the meantime, let's take a step that will actually keep our children safe at school.

Summer Corporate Games

OC Tanner competed in rifle and pistol shooting events over the weekend.

On Thursday was the rifle shooting competition. Robert Dunn, Mike Atwood and David Sohm comprised the rifle team. The targets were 50 feet away, and there were rounds of fire. Ten shots from the prone position, (laying flat on your stomach) ten shots from the kneeling or sitting position, and then ten shots from the standing position.

OC Tanner scored 475 in the rifle event, which placed us in 7^th out of 13 teams in our division.

We did much better in the pistol competition. Robert Dunn and Dave Sohm comprised the pistol team, and we both shot Robert’s Browning Buckmark.

There were three rounds of shooting with the pistol, 2 rounds of ten shots at 15 yards, and then 10 shots at a 25 yard target. Robert and I both took photos of our targets, since the scoring staff keeps them after the competition. At first glance of the photos, we felt we had given a respectable performance.

Imagine our surprise when, during the medals ceremony, OC Tanner was named as the second place winner in our division. We scored better than one of the ATK Teams, who have been a dominating force in the past.

Personally, I felt very gratified to have won the silver medal, and look forward to more competitions in the future.

US refuses to sign Arms Trade Treaty. . . . until after the election.

The U.N. has been trying to hammer out a treaty that would restrict (allegedly) imports of weapons from other countries, among other things. According to proponents, this wouldn't affect the U.S. too much, as if pricing Benelli, Beretta, Sig, HK, Glock, Stoeger, FN, Springfield XDs, ATI, Metro Arms, Taurus, Rock Island Armory and probably a few other brands out of the market isn't a big deal.

So today I read that the U.S. had refused to sign the treaty and thought, YAY! I wasn't expecting this from Secretary of State Clinton and the President who once supported a bill that would essentially ban all gun stores in the U.S.

Then I saw an Edit to Add link. http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/27/us_backs_away_from_supporting_global_arms_trade_treaty

The United States told delegates that it did not have "core" objections to the draft treaty under consideration, but that it needed more time, saying that while the U.N. negotiations have been playing out since July 2, they only received the final text in the past 24 hours.

In other words, they like the treaty, but if they signed it now they for sure wouldn't get re-elected, so they want to wait until their position is secure.

In other words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE 

In other words http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story.html 

 Buried on the last page of this Pro-Obama article from a Pro-Obama paper, is this glimmer of hope for the Pro-Obama reader.

Regarding a meeting between the President and Jim and Sarah Brady;

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

“He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.


This article is, of course from 2011, when the President was still saying he had absolutely no knowledge of the ATF smuggling guns into the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels in order to "get records into the system" to paraphrase.

This was also before Obama admitted to the world that he and Eric Holder had been having personal discussions regarding Fast and Furious by claiming Executive Privilege in order to obstruct a lawful Congressional investigation.

But I very, very clearly remember Obama saying during his campaign that he supports the second amendment.


The man is a liar who has been caught in his lies several times, and if he is willing to go to such great lengths, and put so many lives in danger over one issue that he personally believes in, what's to stop him from screwing around with a different 'minor' issue that you might feel strongly about?

For example, deportations of mexicans has increased by quite a bit under the Obama administrations, and yet he is now trying to buy mexican votes by implementing elements of the Dream Act. I think it's racist, or at least disrespectful to Mexicans to use them like poker chips just so that Obama can keep his great job for four more years.

My two bits on the colorado shooting

Having been a communication major, I notice the way things are phrased in news reports.

In a CNN opinion piece,  this guy made the claim that "And in a crowded setting, such as the movie theater clouded with tear gas and smoke, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the bad guy with a gun from the good guys with their guns."

This claim is tossed out as an automatic reaction, to discourage people from carrying guns for personal protection. While it may be accurate sometimes, the 'virtually impossible' line is misleading. Every situation is different, but most of time it's pretty easy to tell who the murderer is.

When someone says that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between good and bad, the implication is that it would be virtually impossible for the POLICE to distinguish, because the police will surely be arriving any second, and therefore you really don't need to carry a gun.

Of course in this case, the police showed up in time to grab the guy as he was getting into his car in the parking lot.

But as even more striking evidence that the line is at best a knee jerk reaction, and at worst a deliberate deception, see this video.

It is a video of a crowded business, where there are two men with guns. Do you think these patrons were confused about who was good or bad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t5f5AwkkiY





 In this case it was pretty easy, in some cases it might not be so easy to distinguish, but it's wrong to lie in order to discourage people from taking responsibility for themselves.

Just a thought

When a hospital has a sign out front that says, This is a place of healing, no weapons allowed, what they are really saying is that they don't want any violence. After all, a gun or a knife isn't going to give someone asthma or cancer like a cigarette would.

They are also saying that they are uncomfortable with the idea that anyone entering has the capacity for violence. But to enforce this policy, and to help patients feel comfortable, they hire security guards, and even give them Tasers.

Granted, a Taser has a better chance of subduing a dangerous person than a flashlight, but let's think about this for a second.

The people who run the hospital have such a disdain for violence that they are willing to hire men as unarmed security guards (they also get an insurance discount.) A big purpose for these men is to protect the patients from dangerous people. And yet the hospital administrators know that the men they have hired are willing to use violence to solve certain problems. These type of people are scary to the higher-ups, and so they don't trust them with effective tools to actually stop a dangerous person.

That's why they are only given Tasers.

If they allowed these guys to have guns, the administrators would be handing weapons over to dangerous people. After all these men hired as guards are willing to engage in violence, that makes them dangerous, right?

So they send these guards out, to protect the patients from danger, but without the best tools to protect themselves. They are willing to put these guys in danger, and yet they are prevented them from being able to protect themselves. Maybe the guards lives aren't as valuable as the patients and staff of the hospital. These are dangerous people, willing to engage in violence, after all.

Just a thought.

Nevermind that the hospital itself is about a quarter mile long, and has multiple floors. There are no metal detectors or pat-downers at the entrances, and if you know the name of a patient, the nurse will buzz you in.

And at any one time there are maybe two guards on duty, that I've been able to observe.