By Dave Kopel [From America’s First Freedom, July 2003]

Banning handguns, the gun prohibition lobbies accurately recognize, is not politically feasible to accomplish all at once. Accordingly, the lobbies often focus on measures which set the stage for moving towards near-prohibition in incremental steps. In pushing for pre-prohibition measures, the lobbies work hard to select measures which superficially seem to affect only a small minority of gun owners-so as to keep the tens of millions of gun owning American families on the political sidelines. Yet the pre-prohibition bills often have enormous implications for all gun owners. Among the most clever anti-gun proposals, expertly created to exploit the divide-and-conquer strategy, is the campaign for “one handgun a month laws.”

These gun rationing laws help lay the foundation for broader restrictions in two important ways. First, the laws set the precedent that the government can quantitatively limit the exercise of firearms rights, based on the government’s determination that an individual does not “need” to exercise the right so much.

Once the gun rationing principle is established, the time period can be changed to limit gun purchases to two per year, or two per lifetime, or none per lifetime, based on the government’s determination that people do not need any more guns.

In Great Britain, for example, the police enforce the rifle licensing laws so that a hunter who has a rifle in a particular caliber may never acquire a second rifle in that caliber, since he does not “need” the second gun.

In the U.S. Congress, the first formal efforts to impose gun rationing came in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Peter Rodino (D-N.J.)(then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) proposed a handgun licensing law which would, among other things, allow the purchase of no more than two handguns per year. As evidence of the anti-gun lobbies’ increasing sophistication in taking incremental steps, the lobbies apparently recognized that the Kennedy “two per year” proposal was too restrictive to be politically realistic as a first step. Accordingly, in 1993, then-Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.) introduced “The Multiple Handgun Transfer Prohibition Act of 1993.” The bill would have made it a federal crime to buy more than one handgun in a thirty day period. Currently, the leading “one per month” advocate in Congress is Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The second way in which gun rationing sets the stage for more controls stems from the fact that gun rationing is difficult to implement without gun registration. Only if the state maintains a computerized list of gun buyers for at least 30 days after each purchase can the state tell if a person purchased more than one gun at retail. Only if private gun sales (e.g., buying a gun from a relative or a friend who is not a licensed gun dealer) are prohibited can the state be sure that the individual is not exceeding the rationing limit. Thus, for advocates of gun registration, gun rationing is a good first step, because it helps to create a “need” for registration and for prohibiting private transfers.

Gun registration, in turn, makes gun confiscation much easier to accomplish-as residents of California, New York City, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia have already discovered, with registration lists in those jurisdictions being used for confiscations of a variety of handguns and long guns.

In the United States, the first regulations on multiple handgun purchases appeared after enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Although the Act itself said nothing about multiple purchases, the new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) created regulations for “Multiple Purchase Reporting Forms.” Whenever a federally-licensed firearms dealer sold more than one handgun to an individual in a thirty-day period, the dealer had to send the Multiple Purchase Reporting form to BATF.

BATF did nothing with most of the forms that it received. Thus, when John Hinckley legally bought two handguns from a Texas firearms dealer one day in early 1980, the dealer sent a Multiple Purchase Form to BATF.

Neither a BATF investigation based on the Multiple Purchase Form, nor the future “Brady Act” would have prevented Hinckley’s purchases. His only criminal conviction was for a misdemeanor; his mental health records were private; and although the address on his Texas drivers license was no longer correct, he was a Texas resident, and legally allowed to buy guns anywhere in Texas.

The BATF regulation for the Multiple Purchase Form was codified in the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. (Volume 18 of the U.S. Code, section 923(g)(3).) The 1994 the Clinton crime bill mandated that the Multiple Purchase Form also be sent to the local chief of police or sheriff. In recent years, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has been attempting to use the federal Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain every Multiple Purchase Form in BATF’s custody. This would be a gross violation of the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners. Commendably, the BATF fought Daley all the way to the Supreme Court, and just before the Court was scheduled to hear the case in March 2003, Congress enacted an appropriations rider specifically forbidding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (its new name as a result from the Homeland Security government reorganization) from spending any money to divulge the private information in the Multiple Purchase Forms.

The first state to impose explicit gun rationing was South Carolina. (New York State’s 1911 Sullivan Law requires police permission for handgun purchases, and in some jurisdictions, such as New York City, handgun purchase authorizations are frequently forbidden under the theory that the applicant does not “need” another handgun.)

South Carolina’s legislature acted after a 1975 a television network news report claimed that South Carolina was the main source of handguns for New York City street crime. In response, the South Carolina legislature passed a law allowing only one handgun purchase in a thirty day period.

Next came Virginia. Efforts to pass a one-handgun-a-month law in Virginia had floundered for years, until Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder made gun rationing his top priority for 1993. Wilder said that “The surest way to stop the number of guns available for illegal sale is to place limits on the numbers that can be purchased legally.”

In support of the proposal, Governor Wilder sent every legislator a copy of a recent issue of “Batman” comics, which apparently had been written in order to assist the anti-gun cause in Virginia. In the Batman episode, Virginia was portrayed as the main gun-running state in the east. One character complained that tough gun laws had not been enacted “because some fat white bastard wants to play with his guns on a weekend.”

The writers made Batman himself endorse total gun prohibition, claiming that violence “will end when we decide that we don’t want guns in our houses, in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in our hands. It will end when we decide to get rid of the guns we have and not get more.” Like many advocates of gun rationing, the Batman writers saw gun rationing as merely a step along the path towards eliminating all guns.

According to Batman, non-Virginians traveled to Virginia, purchased multiple handguns, and then took them back to Gotham City to sell on the black market. Ever since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which banned handgun purchases outside one’s state of residence), such purchases were federal felonies, with especially strict penalties for trafficking of multiple handguns. (The statutes are found in volume 18 of the U.S. Code, sections 922(a)(1) & (5), 924(b).)

Besides the comic book, the other major evidence used to portray Virginia as the main source of New York City crime guns was Project Lead, a BATF firearms tracing operation. According to anti-gun advocates, Project Lead showed that 41% of New York crime guns came from Virginia.

Project Lead had traced 6% of the firearms recovered by New York City police in 1991 and 1992 (1,231 of the 13,382 recovered firearms). Of firearms found at the scenes of violent crimes in New York City, 32 (17% of traced violent crime guns) had been originally sold at retail in Virginia. Of these 32 guns, three guns originally sold in Virginia were found at homicide scenes.

Project Lead was unable to determine whether traced firearms had been stolen from the original buyer, or how they had entered New York City. Most of the Virginia guns appeared to have been associated with non-violent crimes, including violations of New York City’s near-prohibitory handgun licensing ordinances.

After an intense legislative struggle, the normally pro-gun Virginia legislature enacted a law making it a misdemeanor of persons (other than licensed firearms dealers) to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period. The law contained provisions for persons to obtain waivers if the multiple purchase was part of a collection (e.g., the purchase of a pair of matched pistols), for bulk purchases from estates sales, if a person’s guns had been lost or stolen, or for similar reasons.

Perhaps the decisive factor in Governor Wilder’s success was convincing the Virginia business community, especially in Richmond, that the absence of a gun rationing law was nationally embarrassing to Virginia.

In that same legislative session, the Virginia legislature required proof of residence for driver’s license applicants, thus making it harder for out-of-staters to unlawfully buy guns in Virginia.

After the victory in Virginia, Handgun Control, Inc. (originally known as the National Council to Control Handguns, and later renamed the Brady Campaign), pushed very hard for gun rationing in other states. Intense lobbying in Delaware has come close, but has not yet succeeded. Maryland enacted gun rationing in 1996 after extensive legislative arm-twisting by Governor Parris Glendenning and Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

California followed suit in 1999, as a direct result of the Columbine school murders. A key legislator who had opposed gun rationing announced that he was switching his vote because of Columbine. The logical connection between the California one-handgun-a-month law and Columbine was tenuous, since the Columbine killers had used only a single handgun (plus three long guns), in a murder spree that had been planned for over a year.

But in the post-Columbine atmosphere, the logic of particular anti-gun laws was less relevant than the atmosphere of hatred and panic incited by prohibitionists such as Rosie O’Donnell and President Clinton. Congress appeared to be ready to pass a national gun rationing bill, although NRA lobbying managed to turn the tide sufficiently so that the bill was never brought to a formal vote.

What has been accomplished by gun rationing laws? In 1995, Captain R. Lewis Vass, of Department of State Police, testified to a Virginia crime commission that the gun rationing law had “not significantly affected … the number of multiple handgun purchases within the Commonwealth.” According to Captain Vass, 95% of applications for multiple handgun purchases are approved.

The laws’ main benefit is supposed to be reducing interstate gun trafficking, rather than as controlling local crime. Certainly South Carolina achieved no crime reduction for itself with the 1975 law, as the state’s already high crime rate violent crime rate more than doubled over the next two decades.

A 1996 gun trace study conducted by Handgun Control, Inc., researcher Douglas Weil, found that after the Virginia law was enacted, the number of guns traced to a group of four southeastern states including Virginia declined. (D.S. Weil & R.C. Knox, “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate Transfer of Firearms,” 275 JAMA 1759-1761.)

But study that same year by the office of Rep. Charles Schumer (simply reporting the results of BATF gun traces) found that Virginia and South Carolina were two of the three states which supplied the most guns to New York. (Office of Rep. Charles Schumer, “War Between the States: How Gunrunners Weapons Across America.”)

If the Schumer study is correct, then the South Carolina and Virginia laws were miserable failures, since gun rationing failed to change the status of either state as a prime source of illegal guns for New York. A pair of journal articles which I have authored (and which are cited at the end of this article) argue that neither the Weil study nor the Schumer study are reliable, since they both depend on BATF trace statistics, but BATF firearms traces involve only a small and unrepresentative sample of crime guns.

The conventional wisdom in Virginia was summed up by a pair of newspaper headlines. In 1992, the Richmond Times-Dispatch announced: “Virginia gun-running is ’embarrassment’.” In 1998, an article by the same author was headlined, “Virginia Gun Limit has Enthusiastic Following: But State Still Ranks High as Weapon Source.”

It should not be surprising that there is so little evidence for the effectiveness of gun rationing laws, since there are several better programs in place which help prevent the purchase of guns for illegal interstate trafficking. The BATFE’s Multiple Purchase Reporting Forms already alert BATFE about every multiple handgun sale, and BATFE can use these forms to focus on genuinely suspicious transactions (such as repeated large quantity purchases of firearms by an individual). The National Shooting Sports Foundation runs a firearms dealer education program which helps dealers detect “straw purchasers” who may be acting as a surrogate of for someone who is legally barred from gun ownership. And of course every single retail purchase of any kind of firearm requires prior authorization from the FBI or its state equivalent, under the National Instant Check System.

As soon as the 1993 Virginia gun rationing law was enacted, anti-gun lobbyists began to push for similar legislation in West Virginia. They did not succeed statewide, but did win an ordinance in Charleston. Charleston law, however, was erased when the legislature passed a law making the existing statewide firearms preemption statute (banning local anti-gun laws) even more explicit and comprehensive.

Now, the original gun rationing law, the South Carolina statute, may also be headed for the ash heap of failed restrictions on civil liberty. As this article is written in early April, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to repeal the state’s gun rationing law, and Governor Mark Sanford has voiced his support for repeal.

This would not be the first time that South Carolina’s legislature has acted to undo civil liberties restrictions from the past. Following the assassination of President William McKinley by an anarchist, South Carolina in 1902 banned pistol sales to anyone except sheriffs and “special deputies” (e.g., Klansmen, company goons, and similar insiders). In 1966, the South Carolina legislature forthrightly acknowledged that the law restricting civil rights was wrong, and the pistol ban was repealed.

While the debate about gun rationing often focus on empirical issues, civil rights attorney Stephen Halbrook believes that empirical data are irrelevant when constitutional rights are at stake. In a 1993 article for West Virginia Law Review (www.saf.org/LawReviews/Halbrook2.htm ), Halbrook asked:

“May a constitutional right be limited by a legislature’s determination of whether, to what extent, or how many times within a given time period a person has a ‘need’ to exercise that right? Would it be consistent with the freedom of the press, for instance, to make it a crime to purchase more than one Bible. . .each month? Who, other than dealers in books, really ‘needs’ more than one such book per month?… it could hardly be argued that the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel in criminal cases would not be violated if crime decreased as a result of not allowing an accused person to consult with counsel more than once each month. A bill of rights guarantee cannot be disregarded under the guise that its existence contributes to increases in crime or that its absence would make it harder to extract confessions.. . .The essence of a bill of rights is that the issue of whether a person ‘needs’ to do a protected act is removed from legislative proscription.”

This is why the gun rationing issue is so important to every gun owner-including the woman who owns just one rifle and has no plans to ever buy a second gun. Gun rationing is one of the tools being used to eliminate firearms ownership as a human right which belongs to all law-abiding American citizens, and to replace that right with a government-granted privilege which can be exercised no more frequently than the government decides there is a need.

 

---

 

This article is based in part on Kopel’s entry on One-Gun-per-Month Laws for Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History Politics and Law (ABC-Clio, 2002), for which Kopel served on the Editorial Board. For more on gun tracing and its relation to gun rationing, see David B. Kopel & Paul H. Blackman (NRA Research Coordinator), “Firearms Tracing Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: An Occasionally Useful Law Enforcement Tool, but a Poor Research Tool,” 11 Criminal Justice Policy Review 44 (Mar. 2000); David B. Kopel, “Clueless: The Misuse of BATF Firearms Tracing Data,” 1999 Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law Review 171, www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/CluelessBATFtracing.htm

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.

Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) [email protected]

Dr Alan Keyes

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is still in the Constitution of the United States, contrary to what some elites would like us to believe.

And the 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts’ content. This is not to say that hunting rabbits and turkeys for the family dinner, or defending against dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier–this is true.

But above all, the Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don’t like to be reminded of all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word “people” in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn’t mean in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in “states” they put in “people.” And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of legitimate historical research. For example, at one point in Jefferson’s letters he is talking about the militia, and he writes “militia, every able-bodied man in the state . . . (every man capable of carrying arms).” That was the militia. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words “well-regulated” had something to do with organizing that militia and drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but ‘militia’ itself referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth – not to the state government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should be banned because ‘they have no purpose except to kill people.’ This debate is not about certain kinds of weapons that kill people; all kinds of weapons can kill. It is people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, if killing is in their hearts.

So let’s get down to the real issue: are we grownups, or are we children? If we are grownups, then we have the capacity to control our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But this ‘solution’ implies that we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not a ‘solution’ I trust.

Advocates of banning guns substitute things for people, but this approach won’t wash. It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That’s why I don’t understand those who say ‘save us from guns,’ even while they cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they ‘choose’ to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of this people with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral responsibility, and self-restraint. Purify the heart and we will not have to worry about the misuse of weapons.

It is the business of the citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. If we want to hold on to our heritage of liberty, we must first and foremost strengthen our confidence in our own moral capacity, and encourage such confidence in our fellow citizens. Only a people confident that it can behave like grown-ups will be justified in asserting its right to keep and bear arms, because it will be a people responsible to use them only in defense of ourselves and our liberty.

But if we want that to be true, then we shall have to return, as a people, to that same humble subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that God has decreed must govern our lives – hence why I like wearing pro-2nd Amendment apparel.  And just as we have no right to shirk our duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty to preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, if necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of a free people.

Dr Alan Keyes
Republican candidate for the President of the US election 2000 

John Lott Jr.
The concern about violence in public schools has quickly turned into hysteria. Fanned by politicians, notably President Clinton, and the media, what may have begun as misguided but reasonable concerns over safety has ignited into an implacable and unreasoned hatred of guns, or indeed anything that looks like a weapon. Across the nation, those entrusted with the care of children have transformed firearms into a symbol of menace and evil, attempting to purge guns from the consciousness of kids, even when all admit doing so would in no way improve safety.

I had a firsthand glimpse of the hysteria last fall, when I took my four boys to the Yale University Health Service for their annual medical checkups. Prominently displayed posters on the walls warned about having handguns in the home. Along with the normal questions about medical histories, the nurse practitioner asked us whether we owned guns and whether they were locked up or loaded. Her tone made it clear she disapproved of our answers, and she was unmoved by the fact that the Centers for Disease Control could only identify 21 children under age 15 dying from accidental handgun deaths in 1996. But the hospital had no signs warning parents about 5-gallon water buckets, in which 40 children under the age of 5 drown every year, or about bathtubs, which claim 80 lives. No questions were asked about whether we kept our buckets stored away or our bathroom doors locked.

Yet the hysteria Americans may face when they walk into their pediatrician’s offices pales when compared to what is going on in our schools. Under a “zero tolerance” policy, students face suspension or expulsion for even carrying around pictures of guns or other weapons. Students ranging from elementary school to college have even been expelled for even bringing water pistols to school, though no one believes brightly colored plastic water gun can be confused with a firearm.

On Tuesday, Jesse Jackson entered the fray again by asking the Illinois state legislature to limit the zero tolerance penalties imposed by local school boards. He believes these rules have primarily impacted black students, though he claims this is not a racial issue: “Eventually, whites who are victims of this will join in great numbers, too.”

Take some examples that have all occurred during just the last few months:

• A Minnesota high school refused to accept a yearbook picture of a graduating senior sitting on a 155 mm howitzer. Senior Samantha Jones had chosen the picture because she was proud of her plans to join the Army this coming June. Like many seniors she had picked a picture that showed her future plans. Even though the school board chairman failed to overturn the decision, he noted how proud he was of the young woman “honoring the flag and service.”
• Ponder, Texas, school officials had a 13-year-old boy arrested and jailed for six days because of a class Halloween writing assignment. The boy wrote a story involving the deaths of two fellow students and the accidental shooting death of the class’ teacher. The county district attorney did not plan to prosecute the youngster, noting that “It looks to me the child was doing what the teacher told him to do, which was write a scary story.” Nor did the teacher appear offended or threatened, giving the boy a grade of 100, plus extra credit for reading it aloud to the class.
• Three San Diego students found a gun while walking to school. After briefly picking it up to see if it was a real gun, they threw it away and went on to school. When one of the students informed a teacher about the gun, all three students were suspended and currently face the threat of expulsion. The student’s offense? The California state code requires the suspension of any student who possesses a firearm on the way to school, and the school principal sees no leeway in interpreting the rules.

One city councilman was so worried that the punishment would discourage students from reporting any weapons to the proper authorities that he raised a $500 reward for the suspended student who reported the gun.

• After 13 award-winning years as the Reading, Ohio, school district superintendent, John Varis stepped down prematurely. News reports claim that he was forced out for advocating that teachers be allowed to carry guns for protection. In reality, all Mr. Varis did was launch a broad inquiry into ways of making school safer, and along the way he mentioned the possibility of allowing guards or teachers to have guns.

What Mr. Varis found most disconcerting is that people’s minds simply “shut down” when he came to talking about safety measures for school attacks. Mr. Varis is puzzled by the hostile reaction to even asking about what policies might save the most lives. He is also worried that signs in front of schools proclaiming the area a gun-free zone are a “sheer idiocy. When you translate the sign it says that risk-free zone for a perpetrator.”

Mr. Varis’ resignation has not stemmed the hysteria. Some parents are now trying to revoke his pension.

• In December, the federal government launched psychological profile tests that will be used to identify students in kindergarten through 12th grade that may be prone to violence. Among the reported questions that will be kept on file is whether or not the family owns a gun. Given the recent hysteria over guns, it is hard to believe federal law has prohibited guns within 1,000 feet of a school since 1995. Yet even supporters of this law will be hard-pressed to claim it has produced the desired results. Indeed, that may be what started the hysteria. By demonizing a broad class of objects, anti-gun activists are swinging the debate away from facts and that guns on net save lives. Rooting out guns has become an end unto itself.

John R. Lott Jr. is a senior research scholar at the Yale University Law School. He is author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” (University of Chicago Press, 1998).

This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com).

For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washtimes.com

by Carlo Stagnaro

August 30, 2002

“Shoot, shoot, shoot,” Father Giorgio Giorgi said from the pulpit of his church in Retorbido, near Pavia, Italy, during a sermon about a year ago. These words stirred up trouble, because a Roman Catholic priest has hardly dared to speak in such a way in the last few decades. Yet Father Giorgi merely said that every man, being created in the image of God, has the right to life and thus the right to defend life. “[Confronted by a criminal] I might let him kill me – he added. Indeed, if I killed a bandit, I should presume to send him to Hell, because he’s not in the Grace of God. So it would be better for me to die, because, theoretically, I should always be in the Grace of God, given my job. But the father of a family is not a priest. He has the right, and before it the duty, to defend his wife, his children, and his property.”

Perhaps, rather than turning the other cheek, one should close an eye and aim well?

Most ecclesiastical authorities have declined to point out this line of argument; for whatever reason, they have been reading the Holy Bible from a pacifist’s, coward’s, weakling’s point of view. Yet, it should be clear that embracing gun control implies the denial of the basic principle of individual responsibility.

“The problem is not six-shooters; the problem is sinners. Eliminating guns won’t solve that problem.… The proximate (civil) solution to gun-related violence is stiffer (biblical) penalties for harming humans and property – whether by guns, knives, axes, spray paint, or computers. The ultimate solution to gun-related violence is the transformation of individuals by the Gospel of Jesus Christ…. The ironic solution of liberals is to lock up the guns and liberate the criminals after a mere wrist slap,” wrote Andrew Sandlin in The Christian Statesman, Vol. 140, No. 1.

In reality, while inviting people to love and mercy, Jesus never said that individuals have no right to defend themselves. Even less did he say they should not defend their feebler brothers when such are in danger. A person might decide to offer no resistance to aggression if he risks only his own life, but he can’t shirk the moral duty to help others. As Jeff Snyder has written, “Although difficult for modern men to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community.” (Nation of Cowards, Accurate Press, 2001, page 16.)

The belief is deeply shared that a Christian should always stand and be ready to sacrifice, and that guns are evil means that should never be used nor owned. However, a gun is merely an object. It has no soul, no brain, and no wishes. It does nothing, but its owner does. An evil person will use his guns to do evil, and a good person will use his guns to defend himself and others. It is people who are good or evil, not guns. Of course, those who deny this implicitly affirm that guns are magical things with the power to change people’s mind. That is obviously an absurdity.

In any case, many Christians like to cite Jesus’ words: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:38-39.) According to many researchers and theologians, Jesus intends to condemn useless or exaggerated violence, not the use of lethal force against aggression. Thus, rather than contradicting the words of the Holy Scriptures, Jesus is cautioning his disciples not to misunderstand the Bible. In fact, a few lines before this statement, Christ says, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19.)

Jesus says love is better than hatred, and that vengeance can never be the solution. On the other hand, He doesn’t say self-defence is bad. This would lead to the rule of the stronger over the weaker, of the bully over the gentle person. And, while inviting us to turn the other cheek, He doesn’t invite us to turn the other’s cheek, which precisely is the effect of gun-control laws.

Christ suggests to his followers that they arm themselves: “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22: 36.) Later, as he is taken away, Jesus rebukes Peter, who has just cut the ear of an aggressor: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew 26: 52-54) – from which we can see that some of the Apostles (two of them) were armed.

As Larry Pratt [of Gun Owners of America] notes, “While Christ told Peter to ‘put your sword in its place,’ He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings” (“What Does The Bible Say About Gun Control?”, in Chalcedon Report).

Years after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Paul writes to Timothy: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). “This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property,” Mr. Pratt wrote.

This also recalls another quote from the Bible: “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Exodus 22: 2-3.) He who steals into another’s home bears the responsibility of his criminal action. Self-defence is not a crime.

Under the heading “Unjust aggressor,” the Dizionario ecclesiastico (“Ecclesiastic dictionary”, UTET, 1959) derives the following statement from Thomas Aquinas: “Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death… In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim.” There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defence must lie: “That he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust aggressor… That the object of the defence is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods… [and] That defensive violence is proportionate to aggression.” Under these conditions, “One is also allowed (not required) to kill other people’s unjust aggressor.”

On these grounds, even a great Catholic author, J.R.R. Tolkien agrees: “The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arose. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth” (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 243.) In his well-known novel, The Lord of the Rings, the evil Sauron requires of free peoples that “men shall bear no weapons,” otherwise he will assault them (The Lord of the Rings, 2001, p. 872.)

According to George Crocker “The Word of God does allow and encourage self-defence. In the Scriptures we do not find God encouraging His people to be either “hawks” or “doves” when dealing with self-defence. They are just to be reasonable.” (“Self Defence Or Turn The Other Cheek?“). Mr. Crocker concludes his article quoting Dr. A. T. Robertson: “Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (John 18:22). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matt 23) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture…. Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder.” (A.T. Robertson. Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 48).

Of course, the religion would not be moral, in a deep sense, which required its followers to passively suffer aggressive violence. Actually, rather than Christian, this approach is typical of post-Christian thought, which avoids weighty concepts, including those of individual responsibility or sin. “The far most important principle that was pulled away from Christian policy is the theory of sin. This is not an uninteresting topic of moral theology; rather, it is the precious premise of a realistic and keen understanding of human nature and of its free, everlasting moving to and from Good and Evil,” the late political scientist Gianfranco Miglio said in 1946.

Many years later, Prof. Miglio added: “I can’t suffer, or understand, the ‘social Catholics’. They seem to teach God how He should have made humans. They don’t admit men’s evilness: to them, the culprit is ‘the society’.… They hate America, the free-market, the whole West, that has been created by Christianity.”

Indeed, among Christians’ greatest virtues there is realism; they well understand that men may freely choose to do evil, and even find it sweet. Gun-control laws disarm all men, but only an ingenuous person fools himself into believing that criminals will be law-abiding! Such measures may make crime more difficult to perpetrate, but they make self-defence nearly impossible.

“Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house,” suggests David B. Kopel. “The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police arrive. Is the woman’s moral obligation to murmur “violence engenders violence,” and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother’s moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?” (“Does God Believe In Gun Control?”)

Further, gun-control is the key to tyranny, because a dictator would find virtually no resistance if the people are unarmed. With regard to the motto “Obey God, Serve Mankind, Oppose Tyranny,” Daniel New noted that “A motto can, on occasion, capture a whole philosophy of life, and it can stick with a young person throughout his or her life. The phrase ‘Obey God’ is undoubtedly the most profound part of that motto. No one can serve two masters” (Michael New: Mercenary… Or American Soldier?, p. 34.)

One could hardly make an argument that God gave some people the authority to assault, and some others the duty to be assaulted. Indeed, He gave men the gifts of conscience and intelligence, so that they may decide if an action is good or worthy. So it is very hard to justify, from a Christian point of view, a law whose prime effect is to disarm honest people.

One may believe banning guns is a good thing, and campaign for gun control; nobody has the right to do it in the name of God.

Carlo Stagnaro [send him mail] co-edits the libertarian magazine “Enclave” and edited the book “Waco. Una strage di stato americana.” Here’s his website.

By Syd

It seems that most new firearms are coming equipped with an accessory rail for lights and/or laser sights. Tactical lights appeal to the gear-head in us all. They have a really high coolness factor. But what are the issues, benefits and drawbacks of these systems?

Is the light on the gun an asset or is it just a bad guy target acquisition indicator? The light helps you to identify your target, but it also shows the target where you are. Is it more important to be able to positively ID your target or to keep your position concealed? Or, is a separate flashlight not mounted on the gun a better arrangement? Of equal importance are the legal implications of using a weapon-mounted light. Once the light is mounted on a firearm, it becomes part of the firearm, and pointing it at another human being can be a crime.

Have you ever been in the kind of situation where some illumination could prevent a tragedy, like the kid next door coming home after the prom dead drunk and going to your house instead of his own and trying to get in, or a beloved family pet getting something caught on his collar, dragging it around in the basement and making sounds like a home invasion? In these types of situations, the time allowed for the shoot or no-shoot decision can be very short. Make the wrong decision and a tragedy or legal disaster can occur. Can the tactical light help here? Or put another way, what are the rights and wrongs of using a weapon-mounted light?

Parallel Beams
One factor that quickly emerges in this discussion is the distinction between law enforcement and armed citizens. Law enforcement loves tactical lights. For the armed citizen, they can be a bit more problematic. The difference is in the mission. There are times when law enforcement (and military) must go on the offensive: they have to go into places and clear buildings. The role of the weapon system for the armed citizen is purely defensive. As a lone, armed citizen, you should never attempt a building clearing alone except in the most extraordinary circumstances. If you notice, when the professionals do that, they always do it in teams. Doing it alone can be characterized as, “hunting for someone to shoot me.” Consequently, we have to put on the bifocals when dealing with tactical lights. They perform different roles depending on the mission and the person behind the gun.

The Light Side of Law Enforcement
Police officers face two kinds of situations in which the tactical weapon-mounted light can literally be a life saver: dynamic entries and building clearing. During a dynamic entry, the ability to instantaneously identify threats and non-threats saves lives. In a building clearing situation, having the light mounted on the weapon allows for a free hand to open doors and move things while still maintaining the readiness of the weapon.

“When under-barrel lights (aka: muzzle lights, tactical lights) first came into vogue I got one for my SWAT pistol and I loved it. It was big, it stuck out several inches from the muzzle, it added some weight to the pistol, but I loved it. I no longer needed a third hand to search a building or room. It was great, my pistol and my light were searching where a threat might be and I had a free hand to open doors and move objects.” – Sgt. Mike Burg, “Under-barrel Lights: They’re not just for SWAT anymore!” Police Marksman Magazine

Even in this context, law enforcement officers cannot put a weapon-mounted light on someone unless it is a situation which would justify pointing a gun at them. Actually, the same legal rules apply to LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) as apply to the armed citizen, but LEO’s do have a bit more latitude in this matter due to the nature of their job. But a LEO cannot threaten a person with a gun for no reason.

Enlightening the Armed Citizen
(You notice I don’t use the term “civilian” when talking about citizens and law enforcement officers. The reason for that is that law enforcement officers are civilians also, although they don’t act like it sometimes. The only way to quit being a civilian is to join the armed forces. Once you are a soldier, seaman, airman or marine, you cease to be a civilian, but not before.) For the armed citizen, the issues are different. When polling my friends and correspondents, the consensus was, “It’s great for a ‘house gun’ but useless for concealed carry.” The problem of weapon-mounted lights for armed citizens is that they can encourage us to break the basic rules of gun handling: “Never cover with the muzzle anything you don’t intend to destroy,” and “Know your target.” Also, in some circumstances, pointing a gun at another human being can be a felony in itself unless it is justified by the circumstances. You can’t use the weapon light as a simple flashlight. You have to remember that it is part of the sighting system of the firearm.

With those caveats said, there can be a role for the weapon-mounted light in the context of home defense. Everyone can imagine situations in which one might have to move through the dark and quickly identify targets and no-shoots.

Let There Be Light
One thing that’s very clear is that the weapon-mounted light does not substitute for or replace a flashlight. If you had to choose one or the other, the flashlight would be the choice. It’s more flexible, less complicated legally, and can perform most of the functions of a weapon-mounted light. Don’t think for a minute that a weapon-mounted light will allow you to dispense with a flashlight because it won’t.

When you get into the matter of low-light combatives, you will find a lot of voodoo, strong and conflicting opinions, and hand-gun-light positions that would give a Kung-fu master a charlie horse. Some say that the light only shows the bad guy where to shoot; others point out that bad buys don’t automatically think “gun” just because they see a flashlight. Most believe that it is more important to identify a target than to maintain concealment, but the weapon mounted light may not be the best way to identify targets in many situations. For the armed citizen whose primary role for the weapon-mounted light is home defense, most do not want to wander around their own homes pointing guns at whomever just because they heard a bump in the night. In most of these kinds of situations, a handheld flashlight is a safer option. Walt Rausch summed it up well when he said:

“In reality, gun-mounted lights are simply shooting aids, which have only very limited application as search and identification tools. Yes, we are all treated to watching endless repeats of law enforcement officers performing light shows worthy of Las Vegas or Disneyland on TV and in movies, but they are not exposed to being charged criminally or civilly for assault or reckless endangerment. Use the light judiciously for what it is: one more limited but good addition to your self-defense package.” – Walt Rausch, Guns & Ammo Handguns

Better to Light a Candle than Curse the Darkness
The weapon-mounted light is most useful when you already know some information about the situation, particularly, that there is something very wrong happening and you will have to quickly determine shoots and no-shoots. A possum in the garage knocking over gas cans probably doesn’t qualify, but may get you a visit from local law enforcement inquiring as to why you’re running around the yard in your underwear with a gun at 3 A.M. When you are suffering a home invasion, and know there’s bad guys in your house, and also know that you don’t know the location of all of your family members, the weapon-mounted light could be a big help. As Walt pointed out, the range of applications for the tactical light is very limited, but within that narrow range, it could be extremely important.

For LEO’s the value of the weapon-mounted light is clear and unambiguous. For the armed citizen, the use of the tactical light is more problematic, but the value is still there. I think some professional training in low-light combatives (by a responsible trainer with some real-world experience with an emphasis on the legal issues) would benefit any armed citizen who chooses to deploy a tactical light, just because there are some mistakes which can be made, and walking through the scenario with a professional critic can show you where the trapdoors are.

A Story from My Own Experience
Once I was awakened by noises in my basement at approximately 3 A.M. My house is a two story with a full basement. All of the family’s bedrooms are on the second floor and no one should have been in the basement at this time of night. I grabbed my 1911 and a Streamlight Scorpion flashlight and went downstairs as quietly as I could. As I reached the foot of the basement stairs, I could still hear movement in the far end of the basement. My heart was pounding, and I’m sure I was suffering an “adrenaline dump.” I didn’t do any fancy ninja gun/light hand positions. I just leaned around the corner, Streamlight high in my left hand, pistol with safety off at low-ready in my right. Surprise, surprise: it was my eldest son, then about 15, sleep-walking in the basement. He was disoriented and bumping into things. The learning that came out of this for me was that a good flashlight is essential for home defense, and is, in some ways, more important than the gun. Had I been using a gun-mounted light, I would have had no choice but to point the gun at or near my own child. The tactical gun-mounted light does not replace the flashlight.

Summary
The gun-mounted tactical light has its role to play, especially in low-light situations in which the shoot/no-shoot decision must be made almost instantaneously, but the gun-mounted light also introduces its own set of safety and legal problems. It tempts us to break two of the cardinal rules of gun safety: “Know your target” and “Never cover anything with the muzzle that you do not intend to destroy.” And remember, boys and girls, that pointing a firearm at another human being without justifying circumstances is a felony in most jurisdictions. The gun mounted light may be a helpful addition to your personal defense system, but it does not replace the flashlight, and in many circumstances, the flashlight is far more useful and flexible.

 

Ofc. Glenn Arnett

Let me say that I and a police officer here in New Mexico with a medium sized department of public safety. I am a firearms instructor, defensive tactics instructor, rifle instructor and trained sniper. I live outside the city in a rural community that has no significant crime history. However, due to property values being much cheaper in the past, than in the city, a certain element has moved into the area.
Well yesterday, 01-11-02, I woke up early to see my wife off to work – I made her breakfast and she went out to warm up the van and clean the snow off of it from the night before. She came back in and ate and we said goodbye. I sat down on the couch to watch the news. I heard what I thought was a yell. But dismissed it as one of our birds making their usual noises – then I heard it again and then a pounding on the window coming from the kids room. I thought my wife was trying to get my attention to let her back into the house. I looked out the window and did not see her, but looked up towards the van and at that moment I saw a male subject in the driver’s seat with the interior light on and heard my wife screaming.

I immediately ran to the back door of the house searching for my Glock 27 which I usually keep in a fanny pack on top of the refrigerator – it is equipped with a laser devises BA-1 laser aiming module – it wasn’t there. I have never really suggested the use of lasers on any type of firearm. However, I got this one really cheap on the internet and thought it may be a good thing for my wife to have around since she doesn’t shoot often. By the time I reached the door leading from the house to the garage, my wife was frantically beating on it and screaming. I got her inside and relocked the door. I gave her the phone and advised her to call 911 and took her into the master bedroom where I retrieved the Glock 27 off the shelf. Not wasting any more time to open my gun safe, I told my wife to do it while she was calling the police and get my Bushmaster M4 and hang onto it until I called her.

By this time the subject was in the garage and was beating very hard on the back door and yelling to let him in. I yelled at the guy through the door that I was a police officer, armed and to back away from the door. It didn’t seem to make any difference to him. I decided to sneak out the patio door and go around behind him and to see if there were any more people with him. I was in my socks and a sweat shirt in 5″ of snow. I made my way to the back of the garage and peeked through a window and saw the subject standing there facing the door with our snow shovel lying on the floor next to him. I also saw that he had a large wrench sticking out of his back pants pocket and he was still yelling at the door. I looked around and did not see any other people with him.

So I made verbal contact and yelled at him to get back away from the door and told him to put his hands up and get on the ground. He seemed intoxicated and laughed. I repeated my commands and told him I had a gun again. He told me to fuck off and that he had been shot at and wanted into the house. He didn’t know where I was and looked around. I repeated my command again but he still stood there not wanting to obey. At that point I flipped on the laser. I placed the red dot on his chest but he did not see it so I brought it up to his nose and danced it around his face and eyes. I gave my commands again and told him to look at his chest where I brought the dot down. His hands went immediately into the air and he dropped to his knees. I then gave him commands, proned him out spread eagle and reaffirmed my point of aim by dancing the dot on the floor in front of his eyes and then moving to the bridge of his nose. He did not move. I ran around and opened the garage door to the garage and contacted my wife who had the sheriff’s dept on the phone. I advised them I had the guy proned out in my garage at gun point and told them that I was a PO. My wife also had my bushy which I transitioned to for extra firepower in case he had any buddies that decided to come to help him.

A state trooper arrived in about 20 minutes and took him into custody. It turned out the guy had been having a party with some local dirt bags and had been using crank all night and had tried to rape his buddy and his buddy’s girl friend. They threw him out of their house and he broke into their vehicles and broke the windows out of their house before his buddy got out a pistol and fired 3 rounds at him through the wall. He got scared and high-tailed it to our place.

He was on probation for minor alcohol related offenses. However, he was driving a stolen van out of Arkansas and was also charged with aggravated assault and battery, criminal trespass and auto burglary – not to mention the case of hypothermia that he was getting laying on my cold concrete floor.

The point here is not that I got this dirt bag before he could do any more harm, but I was totally impressed with the intimidation factor the laser had on the belligerent wasted individual. He was about 6’ 3’’ and 200 lbs. The state trooper had a hard time cuffing this guy. The laser really made the point. I’m a firm believer in them for this purpose now. I still feel that the sights should be the primary instrument to aim a weapon. However, the laser will now have a place on duty with me. I’m going to buy one for my duty weapon as an alternative force option.

 

By Syd

I have an abiding mistrust of battery-operated gee-gaws that are supposed to make my guns work better. My basement is a veritable graveyard of electronic gadgets that suddenly and mysteriously quit working, never to come to life again. Being a dedicated adherent to Murphy’s Law, I have observed that the tool with the fewest parts tends to be the one still functional at the end of the day. I have sent any number of mowers to lawnmower heaven, but Granny’s garden hoe still works. So, is there any room in my Luddite self-defense universe for a 21st Century laser aiming device?

Maybe so, and besides, they’re really cool.

The Crimson Trace Lasergrip is a creative concept which integrates a laser aiming device into the right grip panel of the gun. The grips are sculpted to nearly the same shape as the original grips so that all of your holsters still work. There is only a small hump at the top of the right panel under which the laser is mounted and the activation switch midway down the grip panel. The grips are made of a sturdy black polymer plastic material (or “combat rubber” depending on which model you buy) that is tough and feels good in your hand. Lasergrips are installed by simply replacing the factory grips. In the case of the 1911, this mean four screws and you’re done. No other modifications need to be done to the gun. It is adjusted for windage and elevation with two of the tiniest Allen wrenches I have ever seen. It is powered by two wafer-style 2032 lithium batteries.

So, what can Lasergrips do for you?

1. Aid in training.
2. Enable target acquisition in low light situations
3. Provide rapid and positive sight indexing on the target
4. Make possible easier target acquisition from weird positions and from behind cover
5. Facilitate visual communication and muzzle awareness
6. “Threat de-escalation”

Training Aid

The first thing that got my attention with the Lasergrips was their capacity to give instant visual feedback for what I was doing with the gun. The little red dot will quickly show you if you are milking the trigger, flinching, or pulling your shots to one side or the other. People with “mixed dominance” vision (right-handers with left-dominant eyes and vice-versa) can get a clear sense of the tricks their eyes may be playing with their sight picture. While it’s a controversial technique, point shooting can be dramatically improved by watching the dot when you draw. At twenty five yards, I found it easy to keep all the shot in the A-zone while holding the gun at approximately chest level and putting the red dot on the target without ever looking through the sights. I have pretty good eyes, so I’m speculating, but I have a hunch that people with impaired vision would be helped in getting onto the target by the laser, and I think they would find it much easer to get good hits with the laser than by trying to use iron sights. Instructors could be assisted in diagnosing problems by watching the student and observing the behavior of the laser on the target.

 

Target Acquisition in Low Light Situations

I never have been overwhelmed with Tritium night sights. They’re better than no illumination at all, but not by a whole lot. The laser sight is much quicker and more positive in low light conditions. It’s not a flashlight, although it does splash a little bit of light around. If you’re going into a pitch-black darkness, you still need a flashlight, but if there is any ambient light at all, the laser will get you on target quickly and in a very positive way without having to force your vision through those dim Tritium notches and posts. The advantage that the Tritium does have over the laser is that they don’t give away your position like a laser beam can.

Rapid and Positive Target Acquisition:

Crimson Trace Lasergrips are no replacement for iron sights, and if I had to make a very precise shot, I would still rely on the iron sights as long as I could see them. At the same time, getting the red dot on the target is very quick and bypasses the need to align the rear notch, the front post and the target. It is a medical fact that as we age, the eyeballs become less flexible. The eyes adjust their focal point by flexing, becoming slightly longer or shorter to focus at different points in the distance. Older eyes, being less flexible, do not adjust as quickly or at all to different focal points. Some people have difficulty getting a sight picture even under optimum conditions. For those with less than perfect vision, getting a sight picture can be slow, and they may not even be able to get just the front sight in focus well enough to make the shot. In these situations, Lasergrips can be a real help in getting on the target quickly. With relatively good vision, corrected with glasses, I found that getting the dot on target quickly in a match setting was easy. I have always had a tendency to drop my shots just a bit, and when you’re shooting Pepper poppers at a distance, dropping the shot can cause the popper not to drop by hitting it too low. Using the laser sight, my percentage of quality hits definitely improved on the poppers at longer distance. At closer distance, I think the laser may have actually slowed me down just a bit because I was looking for the red dot rather than just shooting the target with “front sight… press.” One situation did completely defeat the Lasergrips. A popper had been painted fluorescent orange and the red dot simply disappeared in the orange paint. I had to revert to iron sights on that one.

 

Easier Target Acquisition from Weird Positions and From Behind Cover:

When using iron sights, you must place at least part of your head behind the gun, and expose the gun and some of your face and head to hostile fire. With the Lasergrips, if you can see the target you can aim the pistol without exposing as much of your head. Under certain circumstances, this could be a distinct tactical advantage. Additionally, an officer who was down and wounded could still aim his pistol even if his wounds prevented him from aiming the pistol in the normal way.

Visual Communication and Muzzle Awareness

In a team context, the laser sight could be used as a pointer to indicate the position of a hostile or to signal potential paths of movement without making any sound. In a team training setting, the laser can be used to increase muzzle awareness and allow instructors to see clearly who is covering who.

“Threat De-escalation”

I love euphemism like this. “Threat de-escalation” simply means making the little red dot dance on the chest of a potential evil-doer and producing a rapid change of heart in said evil doer by giving him a clear visualization of where the hole is going to go if he decides to pursue his current course of action. Of all the benefits of the Lasergrips, this one is the most problematic for me. Why? Well, there’s no assurance that the aggressor is going to see the dot and make the right decision about it in the desired time frame. Second, this capability could tempt a person to draw and point their gun at a person in order to control them, but this could leave the user open to a charge of brandishing or even assault with a deadly weapon. Put another way, pointing a gun at another person has serious legal ramifications, and should only be done in circumstances that justify the use of deadly force. Nevertheless, a goodly number of police officers and soldiers have reported successful “de-escalations” in violent aggressive subjects with the use of the laser, and if the laser – legally applied – prevents a shooting, that’s a plus.

A Few Things That Lasergrips Aren’t:

They aren’t a replacement for your iron sights. They aren’t a shortcut to practice and good marksmanship. They aren’t a flash light, and most of all, they aren’t a cool toy with which to intimidate and mess with people’s heads. A couple of years ago a cadet in our local police department got into a verbal confrontation with a patron at a bar. The cadet was in uniform and, while tempers apparently got heated, the mouthy bar patron finally backed down and left. But as he walked away, the cadet drew her service pistol which was equipped with a laser sight and put the dot between the patron’s shoulder blades. This moment of indiscretion resulted in the cadet losing her job and the possibility of ever working as a police officer. Had she been a civilian, she probably would have been charged with a felony. The moral of that story is, don’t put the little red dot anywhere that it wouldn’t be appropriate to put a bullet.

Testimonial on Toughness and Water Resistance:

A SWAT Team Captain and Instructor writes:

“I teach basic to advanced building search classes and SWAT tactics. I have been using the Crimson Trace laser on my Glock 17 for almost five years now. [We will forgive the captain for his poor taste in guns for now…] I use my weapon each time I instruct to demonstrate the use of white light as well as the tactical advantage a laser sight has in a CQB/building search environment.

I carry my weapon on a daily basis while on and off duty, subjecting it to the daily ‘wear and tear’ of being jostled about and bumped around while getting in and out of a unit, etc. It has never failed to function properly when I needed it.

More importantly, I also work the major holidays on the Colorado River for our Department’s “Boating under the Influence” (BUI) Program. This duty requires being on the water in a patrol boat 10 to 12 hours a day. It is not uncommon to respond to emergencies that require entering the water to assist someone.

When this occurs there is no time to remove your weapon or other gear. The first time I went in the water with my weapon on I didn’t give a thought to the fact that I subjected the laser system and its electrical components to complete emersion in water.

Later, after I got off duty, I was in the process of getting ready to clean my weapon when it dawned on me that I had probably destroyed the laser system by going in the water with it. I hit the pressure switch, and quite honestly, to my amazement… IT WORKED!

I can’t tell you the amount of times I have been in and out of the water with my weapon on, but each time I go in so does Crimson Trace’s Laser System. It has never failed to work when I need it, even after being completely immersed in water on numerous occasions. This is quite a testament to the reliability and durability of your product.

I thought it important for you to know this and be able to tell other users of the reliability of your system and the type of abuse it can be subject to and still operate.

Although I can’t state the agency I am employed by, you may use my personal experiences, confidence and endorsement of Crimson Trace and your Laser System.”

— Captain James D. Stalnaker

Testimonial on Toughness and “Threat De-escalation”

My name is SSG Sieler. I am currently deployed in Tikrit Northern Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with B Company 2-4 Aviation Regiment 4th Infantry Division.

I purchased one of your outstanding sighting systems to go with my Aviation Life Support Equipment. I use it everyday and must say that it is one of the best combat multipliers I have in this combat theater. I must honestly say it has saved lives over here. Not only those of U.S. services members but also the lives of Iraqis.

Often we are faced with tense situations where the “little red dot” makes the difference between the use of deadly force or the power of intimidation. Even with the language barrier the little red dot speaks volumes for us.

I’m sure you have had soldiers here try to contact you to purchase ones for themselves, as everyone I run into loves mine. The environment here is extremely inhospitable and my M-9 takes a beating on a daily basis. The OPTEMPO in Army Aviation here is staggering and all the aircrews carry the Berretta 9mm. Many soldiers here have bolt-on personal sighting devices but none are as transparent in use, (your grips fit just like the original equipment and never hinder operations as others do) or nearly as durable. Mine has outlasted all the others.

Once again I would like to thank you for an outstanding product. It has made my job that much easier. I have no idea how I ever got along without it.

— SSG SIELER

Nits to pick:

The grips appear to be built fairly solidly. They can withstand complete submersion in water and rough duty. There is a design feature on this particular model of the grips (LG-201) that I don’t like too much. The batteries are held in place by a metal plate which is positioned on the grip panel by four little feet that fit in shallow notches in the back of the panel. The positioning is not very positive and it can be kind of fumbly getting the grips back onto the gun after they have been removed. I usually remove my grips when I clean a 1911 so I don’t get pools of oil or cleaner sitting under the grips. This is even more important with the Lasergrips because I can’t imagine that oil or solvents soaking into the mechanism and batteries could do them any good. Hence, a cleaning results in several attempts to get the grips back on the gun before everything lines up and goes back on right. I think the plate could have been designed to position itself on the grip panel more positively.

Summary:

Crimson Trace Lasergrips are an innovative concept that can provide a number of training and tactical advantages. I wouldn’t consider them something I couldn’t live without, but many tactical situations and circumstances come to mind in which the Lasegrips could be a significant asset.

Specs:

Dot Size: Approximately 0.5″ diameter at 50 feet.

Beam Intensity: 5mw peak, 633nm, class IIIa laser. Maximum output that federal law and technology allow. Also available in infrared for law enforcement and military only.

Power Source: Two #2032 lithium batteries (included). Provide over four hours on on-time use and have a five-year shelf life.

Activation: Integrated momentary pressure switch(s) (all models) and a master on/off switch (most models).

Adjustment: Fully adjustable for windage and elevation with Crimson Trace’s precise sight-lock calibration screws.

Warranty: Full three-year no hassle warranty on all parts and labor.

By Mark H Parsons From “Guns & Survival” Magazine, 1991

The American Pistol Institute, near Paulden, Arizona, is probably the most famous small arms training facility in the world. Founded and directed by Jeff Cooper, it’s the philosophical seat for what has come to be called the Modern Technique of the pistol.

Although most of us under forty probably grew up taking these things for granted (the use of the two-handed Weaver stance, the rapid acquisition of the front sight prior to firing, the superiority of a major caliber handgun, etc.) such was not always the case. For the most part these things were either discovered, or observed, refined, and reported by Cooper, and it would be safe to say that without his teachings we would probably still be shooting one handed from a “combat crouch,” using point shooting as the aiming method.

This would be reason enough for me to want to take a trip to Gunsite Ranch (the home of API) but I also had a practical reason – I wanted a thorough grounding in the practical use of the 1911- type pistol.

Although I’ve been an advocate of Cooper and his teachings for years, I’ve tended more toward the use of revolvers than autos. While a bad experience in the late ’70s with a 1911 clone and similar troubles with a friend’s hacked-up Colt, I still knew that I could potentially achieve better results with an autopistol – I decided it was time to bite the bullet (as it were) and make an effort to master the gun; and what better place to start than at Gunsite?

With this goal in mind, my buddy John and I got our equipment together (see sidebar: Gear for Gunsite) and headed out to Arizona for a week of some of the most relevant firearms instruction one could hope to acquire. (Relevant to what? To the real world, of course…)

What follows is an account of our week at the American Pistol Institute.

DAY 1 – THE FRONT SIGHT

Our group of 19 sat in the classroom at 0800. We were introduced by operations manager Bill Jeans to the staff members who would assist with our training. Our rangemaster was Ed Stock, and our shooting coaches were Lloyd Pond, Mike Norris, and Nigel Milner.

Colonel Copper’s wife, Janelle, gave a very hospitable welcoming speech which made us feel at home, and Cooper gave an opening lecture on safety. His thought on this is that no mechanical device h as a will of its own, and guns don’t fire unless someone causes them to do so. In light of this, firearms safety boils down to four simple but absolute principles:

1. All guns are always loaded. No exceptions.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. You can’t negate this rule by claiming the gun isn’t loaded… refer to Rule 1.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. At Gunsite they call this the Golden Rule, because they’ve determined that the majority of negligent discharges could be prevented by strict adherence to this rule.

4. Be sure of your target. Identify your target, identify what’s between you and your target, and identify what’s behind your target.

Along with the safety lecture he also covered the Gunsite Code of Offenses, which includes such interesting infractions as (401) asking if “make ready” means “load,” (403) whimpering, and my favorite (601) conspicuous stupidity in a public place.

After this he explained the Combat Triad (Mindset, Gun handling, and Marksmanship) which comprises the fundamentals of practical shooting.

Today he focused on Marksmanship, which is divided into two sections. The principles of practical marksmanship, which are accuracy, power and speed (in Latin, Diligentia, Vis, and Celeritas, commonly abbreviated as DVC) and the five elements of the modern technique of the pistol: the Weaver stance, the flash sight-picture, the compressed surprise break, the presentation, and the heavy-duty pistol.

After lunch, we headed to the range, where Cooper and the coaches inspected our weapons and gear and made practical suggestions. (Example: A woman with extremely small hands was having problems reaching the trigger on her .45 due to an after market “long” trigger. They suggested she swap back to a short trigger, which she did at the on site gun smith, and her problem was solved.) They also observed our firing grip and stance and made suggestions.

On the first day all shooting was done starting from the “guard,” or Weaver ready position. The drill was simply to raise the pistol, get a quick sight picture, and press the trigger. We started with single shots from three meters, then back to seven, ten, and fifteen meters, taking only enough time to insure a center mass hit at that particular distance. Then we went to shooting doubles (controlled pairs-reacquiring the front sight for each shot) at the same distances.

We also practiced tactical reloading (inserting a full magazine into the weapon while retaining the partially empty one for possible future use) during these drills.

At Gunsite they place high value on dry practice, and every night after class we were told to work on certain things in our rooms. The homework for the first day was to start from the guard position and as quickly as possible lift the weapon, obtain a flash sight picture, and press the trigger, checking after each time to see if the sights were indeed lined up on the target when the hammer fell. Extreme emphasis was placed upon looking at the front sight, rather than the target, at the moment of firing.

Quote of the day: “You will make a god of your front sight, and worship it faithfully.” – Cooper

DAY 2-LIFE IS TOUGH

Cooper started the day with a lecture on the presentation of the pistol from a holster. He teaches this in five distinct steps, each step having a key memory word that reminds you of the correct action (ie. grip, clear, click, smack, look).

You learn it “by the numbers” to program the correct sequence into your mind, but once you’ve learned it, it becomes one motion. Cooper says that trying to make it fast will make it jerky, while trying for smoothness will give you true speed.

We went to the range and practiced our presentations (dry, at first) under the watchful eye of Ed Stock and the coaches. I have a slight tendency to hunch when I draw, which they quickly caught and corrected. This helped smooth things out for me a bit when we went on to the next drill, which was to draw and place a hit in the X-ring of an Option target in a couple of seconds.

We worked at this for quite a while. My partner, John, is left handed, and while the ambidextrous safety on his pistol had a rather large shelf on the left (unused) side, the lever on the right side was narrow, and the whole thing had plenty of sharp edges. They taught us to ride the thumb safety (it felt awkward to me at first, but now it’s second nature and by noon John’s left thumb was pretty cut up, so at lunch we wandered over to the gunsmith.

The ‘smithy at Gunsite is a full service shop: they can do everything from while-you-wait parts swapping to building a finished gun from a block of steel. John explained his problem to Sam Trevino, one of the smiths on duty at the time, and went to lunch. Within an hour his gun was ready.

Sam had understood the problem well. He installed an Ed Brown ambidextrous safety (with a wide ledge on the right side), but before he installed it he removed most of the left side lever and smoothed all the sharp edges off of both sides. John was a happy shooter once again. Appropriately enough, after lunch Cooper lectured on weapon modifications and one of the first things he mentioned was the need for a pistol to be dehorned. He covered everything from “necessary” mods (dehorning, high visibility sights, good trigger, solid bushing) through “useful,” “ok” and “questionable” (the last included ducktail grip safeties, recoil buffers, and ambi safeties for right handers) on through “objectionable” after market modifications (extended slide stops, squared trigger guards, compensators, recoil spring guide rods, etc.)

It’s important to realize that these aren’t merely opinions based on personal likes or dislikes, but conclusions resulting from the training of thousands of shooters, firing millions of rounds through almost every permutation of handgun available today. If there’s a way a gun can malfunction, it’s probably happened at Gunsite, one time or another. As an example of this, during the shoot-off a student had his pistol (a big-buck gun built by a big name smith) choke on a recently changed (under 500 rounds) recoil buffer that came unglued. It cost a good shooter crucial seconds in a match (which I expected him to win), and on the street it could cost him his life.

We went back to the range and worked on the Mozambique drill, or “failure to stop” drill, as it is sometimes called. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the head shot must be made with precision, and must not be missed.

Our dry fire homework was to practice our presentation and first shot such that we could draw and hit the X-ring of an Option target at seven meters within 1.5 seconds.

That night in the motel room practicing this, I realized that my draw had improved more in that one day than in years of doing it on my own. (For a good description of the pistol presentation as taught at Gunsite, get a copy of “To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth” and check out the chapter on “The Firing Stroke.”)

Quote of the Day: “Life is tough. It’s even tougher when you’re stupid.” -Ed Stock

DAY 3 – NO APPOINTMENT FOR EMERGENCY

This morning Cooper lectured on the use of the tactical load and the speed load, then we went, to the range to practice our speed loading.

Like most techniques they taught us, first we learned it by the numbers, in order to learn the correct sequence, then continuous but slow, to achieve smoothness and form, and then at full speed. They made a point of teaching us not to release the magazine in the gun until the spare is in the left hand. Failure to heed this can result in what Cooper calls “speed unloading.”

Once everyone was up to speed on this we ran 1+1 drills (shoot one round-reload-shoot one round) and then 2+2s. As you may have noticed, most of the drills run during this course consist of one or two shots. There aren’t any of those “twelve rounds in 24 seconds” stages, because that’s counter to what this class is all about: surviving a sudden, violent encounter.

After lunch we received copies of Cooper’s classic booklet “The Principles of Personal Defense” and Cooper talked about the combat mindset, sprinkling the lecture with relevant anecdotes to illustrate its different aspects. These aspects include the color code, which describes the various stages of alertness, (ie., white=unaware, yellow=unspecific alert, orange=specific alert, red=fight) and he explained at what stage one should be at any given point, and what actions should trigger an escalation of stages. Different incidents were given as examples.

The key lessons to be derived from all this are that one should be aware of his surroundings and any potential threats therein at all times, and that aggressors aren’t usually expecting violent resistance, so that one who retaliates quickly and with force stands a very good chance of winning. In other words… be alert and fight back! Learning firsthand from Cooper about the combat mindset was really the fundamental reason I came to Gunsite, and I wasn’t disappointed; it was worth the price of admission.

After this we went back to the range where we worked on the assumption of the kneeling position. One of the key points here was that not only should you be able to assume the kneeling position quickly, but you should be able to get up and out of it quickly. The goal was, at the whistle, drop into kneeling and place two shots into the X-Ring in 3.5 seconds.

We finished the day by working on pairs to the center of mass, and head shots. Our homework was to continue work on the presentation, from both standing and kneeling positions.

Quote of the day: “You cannot make an appointment for an emergency.” – Cooper.

DAY 4 – ISOSCELES PERVERSION

This was a busy day. Cooper’s opening lecture was on tactics. He covered movement around corners, the proper way to conduct a search, scanning hostile territory, and of course, watching your front sight. We’d get the opportunity to put these ideas into practice before the day was out.

We went to the range, and while the rest of the class worked on short range speed drills, squads of four or so would leave to run simulator drills. Two simulators were run on this day.

The first of these was the North Draw, an outdoor gully walk with hostile “pepper poppers” strategically placed in various locations such that if you don’t apply good tactics they’ll get you before you can get them.

Next we went to an indoor simulator called the Playhouse, which had several hallways, doors, and windows. You had to clear every corner using good tactics, and there were plenty of decision-making targets (hostiles, hostages, and bystanders) to keep things interesting.

This was an educational experience. In some of the “close and quick” simulations I tended to focus on the target and point- shoot, rather than acquire a flash sight picture prior to firing. I hit quickly, but upon examination of the targets afterward I realized that the hits weren’t always in the optimum place. I was warned that this could happen, and it did. Well, I was here to learn, and I’d get a chance to profit from my mistakes the next day.

After lunch we worked on the roll-over prone position, shooting from 25 meters. The goal was to drop into prone and place a pair of shots into the center of mass within seven seconds. This wasn’t a speed drill as much as a “form” drill, because once the process is learned correctly it’s possible to assume the position and get shots off in much less time. The key is to do it smoothly, keeping your eyes on the target while you’re getting into position. It may be somewhat quicker to look down as you hit the deck, but it’s tactically incorrect, for obvious reasons. Another example of the difference between the match mentality and the street mentality.

After this, Cooper discussed extremely close and fast shots. He had us start from three meters in the guard position facing 45 degrees to the right of the target, not looking at the target. At the whistle we had half a second to look at the target, line up in a quick Weaver, and fire. We did this three times, then repeated the drill starting 45 degrees to the left of the target. The purpose of this is to demonstrate that hits can be made rapidly, providing you use the correct technique. It worked as advertised, and most of us were pleasantly surprised to find six hits in the center of mass after the drill.

We proceeded to the “eyes-off” drill, which was also done at close range. The shooter looks at the target and commences his firing stroke, closing his eyes when his hand grips his weapon, he continues the “stroke” until the shot is fired. This is done three times. Examination of the target will indicate whether your complete presentation is in alignment. My hits were in a group to the right of center. Ed Stock said that the size of the group indicated that my firing stroke was correct but the placement meant that my stance was slanted too far to the right. I ran the drill again using his suggested foot placement and all my hits were in the center. Another minor revelation…

After a break for dinner our group met in the classroom and the coaches lectured on the various mistakes made during the day’s simulator runs (and yes, ignoring the front sight was a prominent no-no.) After each coach’s report, Cooper would lecture about the appropriate tactic.

After a brief discussion of night shooting we went back to the range to get some practical experience in this matter. At first, before it was completely blacked out, they had us shoot without flashlights to show that you can make close range hits without them as long as there’s enough light to identify your target. After this we shot in pitch black with flashlights, using the Harries technique. This involves holding the light in Your support hand under your shooting arm, with arms crossed at the back of the wrist. More important than how you hold the light is how you utilize it – bad use is worse than no light at all. Taking care not to illuminate yourself, the light should be used for a very short period of time, then switched off, at which time you should move to a new location.

Quote of the Day (possibly inspired by one of the coaches commenting on John’s tendency to revert to isosceles under stress during the simulators): “The isosceles stance is not an acceptable alternative, but a perversion.” -Cooper

DAY 5 – CLEAN YOUR GUNS

The first thing we did was go to the range and shoot the “basic drill” for Cooper. This is a 10 round drill which includes a little bit of everything we’d learned, from pairs in a second and a half at seven meters to shots from kneeling and prone at longer distances.

After this we went to run more simulators. The outdoor one, the Donga, was a gully walk similar to the North Draw, only the hostiles were “sneakier.” (l don’t know what Donga means, but it probably translates as “valley of death for unaware students.”) The only instructions I received prior to running this drill were “Two hits per gook” and a big grin from Lloyd, the coach.

The indoor simulator, the Funhouse, was like yesterday’s Playhouse, except, again, perhaps a bit more difficult. This time I made sure I was fixed on my front sight as I let fly and I made better hits than yesterday, and just as quickly, too. (Live and learn, right?)

Following the lunch break Cooper gave his lecture on power. This is a chalk-talk on the subject of which calibers are more effective than others, and why. He presents the information in a scientific, objective manner, covering both the kinetic energy and momentum schools of thought, along with lots of empirical data. Cooper speaks on handgun cartridge effectiveness with the air of a university professor lecturing on a subject he is both deeply interested in and intimately familiar with. After being exposed to this, one would give considerable pause before voluntarily giving up the inherent advantages of a major caliber.

When we went back to the range I witnessed an interesting diagnostic technique. One of the students was having trouble keeping his hits in the X-ring from prone at 25 meters. I n order to determine if the problem was due to inattention to the front sight or jerking of the trigger, Ed Stock had the student assume the firing position with his finger off the trigger, then Ed carefully reached over and pressed the trigger, three times. When they went forward to examine the target they found a nice group in the center, indicating that the student’s sight alignment was fine, and that the culprit was indeed the student’s failure to achieve a surprise break. Armed with this information, he quickly rectified the situation.

That afternoon we were taught the “hammer.” (At Gunsite they don’t use the term “double tap” due to its ambiguity, and Cooper is one of the most unambiguous people you could ever hope to meet.) The term “pair” denotes two shots, each having a distinct sight picture, while “hammer” is the act of lining up the sights and firing two shots in succession, as rapidly as possible, without realigning the sights between shots. If done correctly both hits will end up in close proximity to each other when fired from close range, which is where this technique is designed to be used.

The last drill we worked on was the El Presidente. They look on this not as a shooting test so much as a gun handling test, as it combines a number of different skills in one drill (combat turns, multiple targets, pairs, reloading, etc.)

Quote of the Day: (Which was also our homework… ) “Go back to your rooms… clean your guns… put them away… go out… beer.” -Ed Stock

DAY 6 – LESSONS LEARNED

The first thing we did was to shoot the basic drill for score, followed by an El Presidente. This led up to a Saturday morning tradition at Gunsite, the shoot-off.

The match was called the Middle Race, with two contestants standing side by side, each facing half of a bilaterally symmetrical course of fire consisting of a plate at approximately 10 meters, another plate at 15 meters, and a third one at close range. On the whistle each shooter draws and engages their first two plates, reloads, and attempts to beat their opponent to the last plate, which is in the middle, hence the name.

A shooter must beat his opponent two out of three times to advance to the next level of the J-ladder, a double elimination type of chart invented by Janelle Cooper. The shoot-off was won by a gentleman who works S.W.A.T. in the greater Chicago area.

Even here, at the end of the class, there was a lesson for me. Namely, that 1 rarely shoot as well in a match as I do in practice. For this reason, I’m trying to shoot as many matches as I have time for. Additionally, I can take solace in two things: First is the fact that, according to Cooper, most gunfights happen too rapidly to allow one to develop a case of “match nerves,” and second is the knowledge that even if I’m keyed up with anticipation I can usually manage to hit the target, although not always with extreme precision. At least now I know what I need to work on, and that’s part of the Gunsite plan.

In the General Pistol course they give you everything you need in order to be in control of your immediate surroundings, but that doesn’t mean that you can go back home, put your gun away for a year, and expect to perform at your potential. You have to practice, and to this end they give you a student notebook containing descriptions of all the pertinent techniques they’ve taught you, along with a chapter describing recommended practice drills. If these are followed the edge should stay sharp.

After the shoot-off we went to the office to settle up our accounts and buy the obligatory T-shirts, then headed over to the classroom for the graduation ceremony where we were given our certificates. After a brief closing speech the Coopers invited those of us whose schedules allowed to visit with them at their house. As I hope I’ve already made clear, the Coopers and the entire staff at APL were friendly and helpful to a fault, and this opinion seemed to be shared by everyone who attended the class.

On the first day of class when I saw that some of the students were very experienced with .45 autos I started thinking “boy, do I have some catching up to do!” Wrong…. As Cooper and his staff made clear, we weren’t at Gunsite to see how well we could do against each other, but to learn as much as possible. Once I got in this frame of mind things went smoothly and I did learn a lot. I went from being basically a “revolver” man to someone who felt like the 1911 was an old friend that he could use in an emergency situation with complete confidence. In fact, John and I though it was so worthwhile that we’re talking about going back next year for the API 499 Special Pistol Course…. I’ll let you know how it goes!

 

By Syd

You have made the decision to legally carry a self defense firearm. You have selected a pistol, acquired a CCW license and hopefully learned the basics of using all of this exciting new firepower. You have spent a lot of energy learning about pistols, cartridges, holsters, and the laws and rules concerning the carry of deadly weapons. That is all good and necessary, but it is woefully incomplete. Hopefully, a moment will come when you will step back from it all for a minute to consider what you are doing.

“If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail,” said Abraham Maslow and it was brilliant. Nowhere is this more true than in the real world use of defensive firearms. The point I’m going to make and make again, is that we need to insure that the gun isn’t our only tool.

The use of a defensive firearm is not an appropriate response to the vast majority of threats, hurts and insults we receive. For normal people who don’t work in law enforcement or the military, situations in which armed self defense is justified are actually quite rare. The odds are good that you may live your whole life without ever needing to draw a gun and fire it at another human being. I hope you do.

When you strap on a gun, you are introducing into your life the possibility that you may shoot and kill another person. This is extremely serious business. No right thinking person wants to shoot someone. It is a tragic and horrible thing. It is expensive in every way and creates a profound legal liability. It may create an emotional and spiritual trauma. People respond to this in different ways, some having a great deal of “post traumatic stress” while others seem able to shrug it off pretty easily. One way or the other, it leaves a mark on your soul. You don’t want to shoot someone if you don’t have to.

While the presence of the gun may resolve the problem without it ever being fired or even drawn, it may not, and you need to be mentally prepared to use it. By the same token, you must be perfectly clear about the correct and legal use of deadly force, and you must be emotionally capable of controlling yourself so as not to use the gun when its use is inappropriate. Your mind is the true weapon. Everything else is just a tool. If your mind is not prepared, the hardware will be useless. If the mind is not prepared, the hardware is more likely to get you into trouble than out of it. If your mind and body are prepared, you will not need to use the gun except in the gravest extreme.

The Spiritual Dimension

All of the world’s great religions contain prohibitions against the wanton destruction of fellow human beings. This is good. We don’t want to be killing each other over parking spaces. My own tradition is Judeo-Christian, so I will tend to speak from that background. One of my own struggles revolved around the fact that on the surface, arming myself seemed to run contrary to the religious tradition with which I was raised: “Thou shall not kill,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” How do you resolve this with a .45 auto strapped to your hip?

First of all, we recognize that these ancient rules are still good ones. They still make sense. They are the rules I want to live by. I don’t want to kill anybody. I don’t want to get into fights just because someone says something obnoxious to me. I want to see peace in the world. I would love to see a world so peaceful and good that the assertion of my right to keep and bear arms would be nothing more than an exercise in constitutional law. Choosing to take responsibility for the safety and security of yourself and your family is not a repudiation of the basic injunctions not to murder and to seek peace and human decency for all.

There are evils greater than death. History is full of examples which show that it is the moral choice to oppose evil. We don’t have to look very far: Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Khmer Rouge, the domestic terrorists who have attacked our schools and work places, the psychopathic predators who have roamed our streets. Soldiers, law enforcement, and citizens who have opposed this sort of evil with deadly force are making a moral choice, and if they kill in the course of fighting this sort of evil, they have committed no “sin.” If you had Hitler or bin Laden in your sights, would you take the shot?

The demand by the radical pacifists and gun grabbers that we should accept brutalization and death at the hands of criminals and psychopaths for the sake of their notion of “safety” is irrational to the point of being demonic. If being raped and murdered by a crack head is someone’s idea of spiritual development, then count me out.

You have the right to live without the threat of abuse, torture and murder. You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to freedom and self-determination, and you have the right to defend these things with deadly force if necessary. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, simply remind them that the very right to discuss these things and pursue those religious and political beliefs freely was won by force of arms, not by rolling over and playing dead.

But “turn the other cheek”? Not only is it a good idea, it’s absolutely mandatory in the legal environment in which we operate. When you begin to carry a personal defense weapon, you will immediately notice an increased reticence to get involved in the macho matches in which you may have engaged previously. Generally, you can only use lethal force for self defense or the defense of another in response to an imminent threat of bodily harm, sexual assault or kidnap. If you initiate a pissing match with someone which escalates into a shooting, your self defense justification is negated. You will go to jail. Consequently, civility, forbearance, and patience are absolutely mandatory for the armed civilian (and that includes law enforcement personnel). So “Turn the other cheek,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Thou shall not murder” will serve you well. Avoidance of conflict is always the best policy. This is the paradox of the concealed personal defense weapon: we equip, train and prepare ourselves and then we must make every effort to avoid employing it.

If you think that your gun makes you ten feet tall and enables you to be rude, confrontational, and gives you god-like power over the people around you, think again because you’re on your way to jail. You just don’t know it yet.

Bushido

So how do we make sure that we have more tools than just a hammer? The short answer is to prepare mind and body so that the situations in which the gun would need to be deployed will be reduced to an absolute minimum. This means the development of “empty hand” and non-lethal techniques of self defense, and improved situational awareness.

With the disclaimers that I don’t read or speak Japanese and am not a samurai or any sort of combat god, I want to talk a bit about Bushido, the “way of the warrior” in traditional Japanese martial arts. Bushido got a bad rap during World War II when it was corrupted by the military leaders of Japan to become the kamikaze cult which led thousands of young men to senseless deaths. In reality, Bushido is an ancient philosophy and warrior ethic based in the non-attachment principles of Zen Buddhism. Bushido is not unlike the chivalric code of the European knights but it is not the same. It puts emphasis on loyalty, self sacrifice, justice, a sense of shame, refined manners, purity, modesty, frugality, martial spirit, honor and affection.

There are a lot of cool and nifty things about Bushido that are worth studying in their own right but which are totally irrelevant to the discussion of concealed carry and self defense. The points of connection are in the paradoxical nature of the Bushido ethic and the practice of armed self defense. The Bushido warrior practices detachment from life and death, and from wealth and personal ego. At the same time, the Bushido warrior has a fanatical devotion to the development of his craft, to duty, honor, family and country. The Bushido warrior strives to achieve a profound respect for justice, life, and fellow human beings. He is detached, free and fluid, adaptable and relaxed, while being totally focused, ready to die, and a master of his martial craft. The spiritual quest of the Bushido warrior is to resolve these paradoxes into a unified personal balance. He empties himself and becomes the weapon.

The armed civilian faces analogous paradoxes. He or she must exert a high level of self control. Petty offenses and insults cannot be allowed to goad one into an armed confrontation. A high level of skill must be attained in the use of the firearm. If one must shoot, the shots must be expertly placed. It would be better to endure a mugging than to shoot three innocent bystanders in the process of stopping a mugging. The armed civilian must imagine and rehearse endless possible scenarios in order to be adequately prepared. What if I am attacked in a crowd? What if I am injured? What if my gun jams? Part of this process is fantasy and imagination, and we must do some serious soul-searching to make sure that we aren’t seduced by the fantasies into desiring or seeking an armed confrontation. We must be detached and yet devoted to the craft. We must be free from macho and blood lust and yet ready to apply lethal force without hesitation if necessary.

The warrior is prepared for combat wherever he is. It is said that one samurai, who was so poor as to earn his living by working in a small field, always carried a sword and wore leggings even in the field. He therefore did not need to go home first if he was called up. A samurai is a warrior first, whenever and wherever he is. He doesn’t sleep with his left arm under his body. If he is attacked when he is in bed, he can prevent the first blow with his left arm, and can reach for his sword with his dominant arm. He remembers to find an emergency exit before he sleeps when he stays in an inn or hotel.

Like the samurai in the story, the best practice for the CCW holder is to be armed at all times. There are several reasons for this. If your gun is on you, it isn’t laying around unsupervised somewhere and it is available to you in case you need it. If you get into the practice of wearing your gun every day, you will wear it more naturally and adjust your wardrobe for adequate concealment. When you wear the gun at all times, the muscles and unconscious learn where the gun is, making for a faster and more certain draw. This practice of wearing the gun at all times reinforces the “warrior spirit” and is the safest mode of storage for a personal defense weapon.

But this article is about making sure that your don’t have only a hammer. Samurai military training (Bu) included at least the six martial arts of sword fighting, spear throwing, shooting bow and arrow, riding, Karate and also the use of firearms. The samurai didn’t think very highly of firearms, considering them a dishonorable way to fight, but that’s another story. Apart from the six martial arts listed above, others were taught, such as swimming, fighting with clubs (Jitte) and spikes, star-dagger throwing (Shuriken), fighting with halberd (Naginata), climbing ropes, and spying and concealment (Ninjitsu).

The samurai schooled in Bushido could employ a wide range of martial tools along the complete force continuum in order to deal with a problem. He was in no way limited to his sword. In the same way, the armed civilian is best served by equipping himself or herself with a range of tools, both weapons and “empty hand” techniques. (Karate means “empty hand”).

The Force Continuum

The legendary governor of Louisiana, Huey P. Long, when discussing the political risks inherent in communications, once said, “Never write what you can phone; never phone what you can say in person; never say what you can wink.” The governor was describing a continuum of risk and security in communications. For the armed civilian, we could come up with a parallel list: “Never shoot what you can baton; never baton what you can spray; never spray what you can punch; never punch what you can walk away from.” Less is best.

The advantage of having a range of self defense tools is obvious. If you can subdue an attacker without using a deadly weapon, you eliminate the possibility of being charged with assault with a deadly weapon or facing a lawsuit for shooting someone. You also eliminate the possibility of emotional repercussions in yourself that might result from a shooting. There are a number of situations, especially involving close-in surprise attacks, in which the assailant may already be too close to draw a gun. In these situations, your hand-to-hand capabilities will be life savers. It has been shown that an attacker armed with a knife who is within 21’ distance can wound or kill a person before they can draw a gun. Finally, there are some places in which you cannot carry a firearm such as an airplane. The World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001 demonstrates clearly the advantage of having empty hand techniques in settings where firearms are prohibited (whether they should be prohibited in these settings is another question, but for now, that is our situation).

Which items you add to your personal defense tool box is an individual decision based on your own appraisal of your capabilities. Some people add pepper spray, ASP collapsible batons, or kubotans. The kubotan is a miniature baton developed by Takayuki Kubota for use by the female officers of the Los Angeles Police Department as an aid in controlling unruly suspects. It was so successful that law enforcement agencies nationwide have adopted the kubotan for their officers. The kubotan can be used for stabilizing your fist, applying pressure to sensitive parts of an assailant’s body, or gaining leverage on an assailant’s wrist or fingers.

You will notice that I haven’t mentioned knives as a gun alternative. The reason for this is simple: knives are deadly weapons and the legal penalties for misapplying them are nearly as rough as with guns. Additionally, anyone who has ever been in a knife fight will tell you that they are nasty, brutal affairs and should be avoided whenever possible. Do I carry a fighting knife? Yes, I do. Do I want to use it? No, not at all.

The point is that if you can “air out” an opponent with a single well placed punch, immobilize him with a kubotan, or disarm him with your hands, you are that much ahead of the legal and emotional game.

 

Empty Hand

“Karate” literally means “empty hand.” I talk about Karate because of the symbolism of its name and it happens to be the martial art that I study. There is a bewildering array of martial arts schools and disciplines. In fact, probably the hardest part of it is in finding the right school and discipline. This part is harder than going to the store and buying a gun. It requires some research, talking to people, and perhaps trying out several schools before you hit on the right thing for you. I wish I could tell you it was easy to find the right trainer and school, but it isn’t. However, if you are able to find the right empty hand discipline, you will find it richly rewarding. My personal favorite discipline is Karate, but most of the other schools – Tae-Kwon-Do, Aikido, Kempo, Kung Fu, Ju-Jitsu, or the western military hand-to-hand disciplines – will serve you well if you develop them.

The obvious benefits of acquiring an empty hand technique include having an effective mode of self defense for those times and places in which you absolutely cannot carry a gun, and it provides you with an alternative to lethal force in situations where a lower level of force would be sufficient to handle the situation. Additionally, the regular practice of an empty hand technique significantly improves your physical condition – improving muscle tone and quickening reaction time, and thus improving your overall health and appearance.

There are also benefits which are less obvious. After a few months of Karate training, I began to notice that I was moving better and had better control of my pistol at IDPA matches. My upper body strength and footwork had improved. There is also a subtle psychological change which comes over you when you know that you are in good condition and are capable of handling a physical confrontation. This is largely unconscious, but you project an aura of self confidence and ability. Predators sense this and tend to move on to more vulnerable targets. They want any easy kill, not a fight.

Like IDPA in the world of defensive pistolcraft, an empty hand technique teaches you to perform under pressure. Nothing simulates real combat, but the testing for belts, sparring, and performing your moves in the presence of others creates stress and acclimates you to acting under pressure. The simple practice and repetition of moves programs them into your muscles and nerves so that when you need to employ these skills in a crisis, they are there, automatic and reflexive.

But aren’t guns “the great equalizer?” Of course they are. That’s why I work so hard as an advocate for concealed carry and RKBA. I’m not Bruce Lee and never will be, and if I get cornered by a gang of thugs, I probably won’t try to duke it out with them using Karate moves. Some people simply aren’t capable of practicing a martial art due to physical disabilities or other impediments. However, if you are in reasonably good health and martial arts training is available to you, I believe you will find it highly rewarding in a variety of ways, whether you ever use it in a fight or not. You’ll have another tool in the box and every problem won’t look like a nail.

Situational Awareness – Zanshin

At the top and bottom of the force continuum is situational awareness. The Karate term for this is zanshin. Literally, “zanshin” means something like “remaining mind,” or “continuing awareness.” Zanshin applies to your awareness of the world around you. You notice the people around you – how they stand, how they carry themselves, what is in their eyes – because you need to be prepared to interact with them. You are present in the moment. The greatest self defense tool you have is between your ears. When you are aware of the world around you, you can head off and avoid 99.44% of the situations which might force you to deploy a weapon. Even Gichin Funakoshi, the “father of modern Karate” said avoidance was the best strategy, and, if confronted by an armed [with a knife] opponent, run if you can. In the same way, if you are planning on going somewhere that you think you’ll need your battle rifle, two backup pistols and a kevlar vest, just don’t go there. If you find yourself somewhere that doesn’t “feel right,” leave. A little bit of common sense can spare you of a lot of grief and lawyer bills. If you can’t avoid the situation, your zanshin will prepare you to respond effectively and appropriately.

The Warrior’s Way

You have decided not to be a victim. You have embarked on the warrior’s way. It is my hope for you that this will all remain a fascinating but academic exercise, and that you will never have to face a mugging, attempted rape or home invasion. Yet, in arming yourself and making the decision not to be food, you have, in fact, adopted a way of life that makes particular spiritual, physical, philosophical and legal demands upon you. These rules and demands are non-negotiable. Misuse lethal force and you may win the battle but lose the war. By understanding and mastering the force continuum you can win the battle and win the war.

To summarize, the warrior

1. Learns the laws under which he or she operates,
2. Develops “fighting spirit,”
3. Acquires mastery of the weapons he or she chooses to employ,
4. Develops self control, good manners, and respect for others,
5. Acquires a range of tools along the force continuum,
6. Develops a continuing situational awareness.

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
[email protected]

“You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”

“If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”

“I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”

“I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

Defense Mechanisms

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn’t want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a “bad day”. (I don’t know that this person is a “he”, but I’m assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he’s statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn’t legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1

How does my correspondent “know” that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn’t. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one’s own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn’t have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don’t have to deal consciously with “forbidden” feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6

All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it’s common to hear people say “I’d like to kill my boss”, or “If you do that one more time I’m going to kill you.” They don’t actually mean that they’re going to, or even would, kill anyone; they’re simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.

Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such “unacceptable” emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that “good people” never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.

This is especially true now that education “experts” commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from “being bad”, they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)

Denial

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband’s infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It’s obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It’s equally obvious that law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “the police will protect you”, “this is a safe neighborhood” and “it can’t happen here”, where “it” is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that “the government will never confiscate my guns” are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person’s mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.

Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are “superior” to “less civilized” folks who engage in “violent behavior” such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to “animal welfare” organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.

This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.

Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to “save the animals” – or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said “that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence.”16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds “socially acceptable” ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to “violent gun owners”. At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.

Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses

Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are “mentally ill”.

Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, “if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user’s perception of external reality will be seriously distorted.”17

Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else’s life because his own is so horribly out of control.

Also, it’s important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they’ve been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called “educators,” and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term “hoplophobia” to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit.

Defense mechanisms distort reality

Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.

People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor – except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21

The Common Thread: Rage

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can’t handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these “oppressed people” are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many “professional victims” who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Identity as Victim

If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

(1) People who identify themselves as “victims” harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as “not victims.”

(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these “victims” utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as “victims.”

(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Thus the concept of “identity as victim” is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it’s true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the “eternal victim” mentality.

Why, for example, would a 6’10” NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a “victim”? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a “victim”? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?

I would argue it’s because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims – not because they have actually been victimized, but because they’re members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.

In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.”

Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders

Two reasons for these groups to insist on “victim” status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.

Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life’s misfortunes to “racism” or “sexism” or “hate crimes”, and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24

Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct “Reform” branch, preach that gun control is “a solemn religious obligation”,26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don’t resist rapists and robbers,28 while women’s organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.

Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless – and therefore dependent.

Anti-gun groups love victims!

From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are “victims” just as much as are inner-city minorities.

If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn’t have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.

The psychological price of being a victim

In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously – and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression.

But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as “victim.” For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.

So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as “the enemy”.

Say NO to being a victim!

But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it’s not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It’s nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.

Communicating with anti-gun people

How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind.

Anger and attacks do not work

Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don’t believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren’t banned from such places – but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive.

It’s not helpful to attack the person you’re trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions.

Be Gentle

You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won’t do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he’s using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day.

As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.

Reversing Irrational thoughts

The Mirror Technique

One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, “So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?” When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position.

Another example might be, “Why do you think that your children’s schoolteachers would shoot them?” You might follow this up with something like, “Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?” Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.

Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.

It’s important to ask “open-ended” questions that require a response other than “yes” or “no”. Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.

The “What Would You Do?” Technique

Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but “other people” would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these “other people” are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so.

Don’t try to “win” the argument. Don’t try to embarrass the person you’re trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear “I told you so!” Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people – who should not be trusted with guns!

Defusing Emotional reactions

The “You Are There” Technique

Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people “feel” rather than “think”. You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person’s emotional responses along with his thoughts.

One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, “Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven’t arrived?”

Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don’t argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.

The Power of Empathy

Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.

Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur.

Not very pleasant, is it?

This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt “different” and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, “It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) – and even then I didn’t think anyone was going to kill me.” It’s essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you’re glib or sarcastic, this won’t work.

Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an “evil, gun-toting, extremist”, you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your “opponent” is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent.

This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of “guns save lives” vs. “the only reason to have a gun is to murder children.” With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns “solely for the purpose of murdering children”.

You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won’t. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to “see the light,” thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person’s defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work!

Corrective Experiences

Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing.

For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated “rednecks,” or by treating you as if you are an uneducated “redneck.” If you get angry and respond by calling him a “stupid, liberal, socialist”, you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter’s ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions.

If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers.

As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably.

For example, if you’re dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship – a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. – you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like “I’m carrying a gun right now and you can’t even tell,” especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, “threatening” behavior. But you might consider saying something like, “I sometimes carry a firearm, and you’ve never seemed to be uncomfortable around me.” Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach.

First-hand experience

Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience.

First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety.

Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it’s overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk!

Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you’re going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he’s free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn’t have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman’s hand.

Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single “beer-swilling redneck” waving a firearm in people’s faces.

In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don’t feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you’re lucky, you’ll recruit a new firearms enthusiast.

But even if your guest decides that shooting is “not for him”, he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows – a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner.

Why these techniques do not always work

You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it’s not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say “makes sense,” but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.

You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31

Conclusion

By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.

Educating others about firearms is hard work. It’s not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it’s a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he’s ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.

© 2000, Sarah Thompson.

Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights.

Notes

1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999.

2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2.

3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20.

4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433.

5 Brenner 1973. P. 91.

6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432.

7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137.

8 “Kids Suspended for Playground Game.” Associated Press. April 6, 2000.

9 Lightfoot, Liz. “Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest.” The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.

10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.]

11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187.

12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.

14 Brenner 1973, p. 85.

15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [fascism exalts nature, animals and environment].

16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54.

17 Brenner 1973, p. 92.

18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219.

19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410.

20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12.

21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. “The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system.” Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.

22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14).

23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12).

24 Dworkin, Andrea. “Terror, Torture and Resistance“.

25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999.

26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000.

27 “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.

28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women’s Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5.

29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37.

30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217.

31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1

 

---

 

Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information and full contact information is given for JPFO.
Copyright © 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD

Published by
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745
www.jpfo.org