The Goal of a Defensive Shooting

The goal in a defensive shooting is to stop the threat. Once the threat is stopped, you stop shooting. Sometimes, and ideally, that happens when you warn the person that broke into your home (because you want to do that) or simply drawing your gun on an attacker outside if your home.

If it doesn't, however, you fire to incapacitate your target. By incapacitate, it means to remove your opponents ability to fight back. In a gunfight, that usually means when they are dead or unconscious. If one surrenders prior to that point, you stop firing, but the basic rule of a gunfight is to shoot until your target is no longer a threat. If your target is on drugs, that will probably mean their death and a lot of bullets from you.

The major differences between defensive ammo, target practice, or hunting ammo, defense ammo is designed to impart as much damage per shot is possible without over-penetrating the target. The most efficient way to do that is with hollow-point bullets. When they enter the body, they mushroom out, causing more damage to the target, but slowing down significantly faster than full metal jacket ammo would.

You don't generally use defense rounds for hunting because you ideally want to damage the meat less, and have time in most cases for perfect shot placement to cripple major organ functionality in one shot. Interestingly enough, most defensive shootings or shootings in war are NOT one-shot kills. The human body is incredibly resilient, and if your attacker surrenders, modern medicine has an excellent chance of saving their life.

Hopefully, this will put you into the mind and logic of one of us American gun nuts

Kaepernick and the National Anthem, a Vet's perspective

This post inspired by From a seat to a knee: How Colin Kaepernick and Nate Boyer are trying to effect change. If you haven't read it, please do so.

Nate Boyer is the man. If he's convinced by his chat with Kaepernick, then I'm encouraged.

Kap's protest filled me with rage in the disrespect for our military and country. Once I cooled off a bit, I could see reason. I still don't like how he did it. I don't agree with him for the most part.

What we DO need is to stop this division of us vs them. It's not cops vs blacks, left vs right. WE'RE ALL AMERICANS, GODDAMMIT. Fucking act like it. I'm guilty of being a dick too. Sometimes I mean to be. Sometimes I shouldn't be.

I think certain movements in this country need to focus on ACTUAL injustice instead of upholding criminals who died as heroes. That's my problem with that movement.

There ARE bad cops. There aren't as many of them as you say there are. But there are a few, and there are also some that have made mistakes. Know the difference.

There's ALSO cops whose lives have been ruined simply for defending themselves (Darren Wilson, for example). Unarmed doesn't mean not a threat.

John Crawford III is name name you ALL need to know, if you want to fight injustice... But I haven't heard one peep about him from certain organisations.

Refine your message and stop fucking rioting and looting. Pick your battles, and MAYBE you'll convince people that you actually want to do good, instead of pissing them off.

Work together, not against each other.

On Regulation and the Second Amendment

Yet another post inspired on social media. The original question is:

"The language is pretty specific. The way I read it says that citizens can have firearms for the purpose of a regulated militia. What does that actually mean? If you've a license, does that automatically mean you're in a militia or required to be in one in the event of tyranny, or is it just a license so you can have guns? "Regulated militia" seems to be a key phrase, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it."

One thing to note about "regulated" in the 1700's, is it means "equipped, trained". Every military aged male at the time was expected to own and maintain his own guns and ammo for the purposes of common and self defense. The Militia Act of 1792 spells it out quite clearly. Regulated didn't refer to rules, it meant a state of readiness.

As the rights of people in this country have evolved, I would surmise that the law of common defense is everyone's responsibility, not just military aged males.

The reading of the Amendment is: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first part is a predicate: "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the REASON, not a limitation.

"The right of the people" is important here. Everywhere else in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, The People refers to the individual.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" keep is own, bear is carry/use.

"Shall not be infringed" I think this part is pretty clear, but I'll explain.
DC vs Heller contends that this applies to the individual and arms that are "in common use". While I disagree with the "in common use" clause to a point, it does specifically protect semi-automatic rifles due to that clause. I disagree, as in the days following the revolution, most military equipment (cannons, ships, guns) was privately owned. The founders wanted to keep it that way, and generally opposed the creating and maintaining of a standing army.

While we have that standing army now, it is not omnipresent, and in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) The People would be required to take up arms and defend themselves and their neighbors. The other use is revolution against the government, and while no one (including my gun loving self) wants to see that, it's always possible if the government forgets who's actually in charge (The People).

This is a very important point, and one that's been lost in all the political rhetoric following mass shootings and unrest.