Monday, October 5, 2009

Twice the Victim

A good friend of mine has been rightfully upset by a vicious gang attack on his brother this past week. His brother is only 16 and was walking through the park of a nearby town when a group of other teenage kids, headed by a 30-something man, jumped him and beat him bloody. Even once the brother was on the ground, they continued, the older man kicking him in the face.

After the attack, the police managed to get most of the attackers. Mr. 30something claims that the youth had pulled a blade on the large group and that they had acted out of 'fear' for their lives. This is typical and expected sort of lie, so it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how the authorities dealt with the victim.

The younger brother was to attended a required counseling session. During the course of the session he was asked how he felt about the attack and the people who attacked him. While he said he didn't wish anything particular bad on the younger participants, when asked about the 30 something year old man who lead the assault and kicked him in the face, the teen replied that he 'would like to kill him'.

Due to the threatening nature of his 'anger issues' my friend's brother has been sent to a juvenile facility for treatment. He refused the medication that would treat his 'unhealthy anger'. After repeated badgering for him to take the medication and kept there against his will, the teenager lost his temper and punched a wall in frustration. Two orderlies forced him down and sedated him. Sadly, the young man has seen that he cannot go home without compliance. He now takes the medication and goes along with their treatment for his 'anger problems'.

A youth is viciously assaulted in a public place, and he ends up imprisoned because he's angry towards his attackers? He's not the only one angry. His big brother is angry, his mother, his father, me, and most likely you! Lets seem them take the lot of us in.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Proof the Police Cannot Protect Us

One of the big core beliefs of the pro-2nd amendment crowd is that we cannot expect to be protected by the government 24/7 from threats inside our country. Our personal protection is our responsibility. With our privately held arms, we provide that basic physical protection of ourselves and families that, if able, all creatures have a divine right to.

However, many misguided folks believe in the Nanny State. The government's agents are singly responsible for our safety. Only the police and other government based agencies have the training, mentality, and oversight to keep arms and use them to protect the peasants from themselves. We naturally scoff at this idea and strive to prove them wrong. I have found a perfect example at Walmart.

Walmart is a massive corporation that can claim to be the biggest retailer in the world. There are thousands of stores, and millions of employees. I am one of them. It is also one of the biggest victims of crime in the world.

Everyday in my store, we lose hundreds of dollars to theft and vandalism. In fact, may days that number is up into the thousand plus range. The range of the items stolen is mind boggling and disturbing. Commonly stolen merchandise includes video games, electronics, condoms, medicines, diet pills, cosmetics, clothes, infant care equipment, knives, and ammunition( As if it isn't hard enough to find ammo. God damn them all to hell!) Teenage kids, old women, men in suits, skeezy looking black guys, it doesn't matter what you look like. Someone that looks like you steals from Walmart.

Even some of my co-workers steal. One often brought stacks of DVDs to his department and later threw the packaging away with his trash. Though he was finally caught, he was never charged for the full amount of his theft during a year of work there. Most likely over five thousand dollars.

Walmarts are open for 263.5 days of the year. Everyone one of those days each one of the thousands of stores experiences shrink. Consider how much is lost, to simple greed? How much is passed on to the consumer? Or how many folks could have been on full time with insurance rather than the palry part time hours?

Well, with such an epidimic of crime, naturally the government would be falling over itself trying to clean up the communities of these petty fucks? You know, the ones not paying sales tax on their purloned goods? Wrong. Investigation and prevention of shoplifting is taken care of Walmart's own private asset protection department. Walmart has to pay for its own private 'detective' force to trying to fight back. These folks install cameras, monitor them, and actually stalk the shoplifters until they exist the building with stolen merchandise. Then they can use what little power they have to detain thieves. Only then are the police called for.

If an all-powerful, evil company can't rely upon the state to protect their millions and millions of lost property, what chance does Sally SoccerMom, and Tiffany TofuGnasher have of some protection?

The Revolver vs the Semi-Automatic Handgun

I've had some good arguments about revolvers vs semi-autos. I usually carry a Smith 638 .38 special revolver. The plastic pistol patrol have made some serious derisive commits on that. I've had one fellow say that carrying a revolver for self-defense was like riding your skateboard to an office job. Doable, but no way a good idea. But is it that bad? Is a revolver such an abysmal defensive firearm? Is the semi-auto so leaps and bounds superior to the revolver?

I do concede that the double action revolver has some serious short comings. Capacity and reloading speed are the big one. Next, is the long heavy double action trigger of classic defensive revolver. The DA trigger can be difficult to master vs a lighter single action or DA-Only semi-auto trigger. However, this issue can be taken care of through proper practice and building good skills in training.

As for the question of how a revolver fares against a semi-auto? For the sake of argument lets say we have two guys. One has a S&W model 10 .38 special and the other has a Glock 17 9x19mm. Both guns are in excellent working condition, loaded, and both users know the guns well, and can shoot them well. What happens in the face off?

Semi-auto guys remember this: You have no advantage for six shots. The revolver is just as good as your Glock until it runs dry. There is no inherient disadvantage to revolver's design and no advantage to yours until that moment. It may be easy to say, "Well, he'll need to reload before I will, I win." However, a lot can happen in 6 shots. At the average distance of a self-defense situation, can you say for certain, you aren't hit and hurt before those 6 rounds have been spent?

Revolver guys remember this: You are on equal footing with the semi-auto for only 6 shots. Make them count before the Glock takes the advantage.

In the long run, the semi-auto will win. This is why they are the choice for military and police. However, in a defensive role, its no better than a revolver for the first 6 shots. Which are the shots in a magazine that count the most?