When I heard a brief bit on the radio this morning about the City of Ft. Worth asking residents to take up their shotguns against the yearly invasion of the grackles I was surprised.  Given the usual GFW’s who run the damn place it was definitely out of character for them.

However, I now find that the real story is actually in keeping with their nature.  It seems they’re only going to allow people to use bird bombs and the people participating have to get special training (some sort of pyrotechnic permit to use “cracker shells”).  Oh well…  I should have known it was too good to be true.

Those shells just send the birds elsewhere, so they’ll be somebody else’s problem.  A dead grackle will crap and swoop no more.

It was an efficient morning…  I walked the dog, mowed the yard, and got ticked off, all by 9:00am.

After my early morning activities I turned on Fox 4’s Saturday morning news, where I found myself shouting at the TV because of a story they were running.  Fox 4 isn’t good about putting their stories online, so here’s the rundown from the Dallas Morning News.

A convicted child molester who was wanted on a new charge was fatally shot Friday after fleeing from police into a Duncanville park and pointing a gun at a Dallas detective, authorities said.

Douglas H. Blackstone, 24, died about noon Friday at a Dallas hospital from gunshot wounds. He was convicted of the aggravated sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl in 2004 and ordered to serve 10 years’ probation.

Friday morning, two detectives from the sex offender apprehension unit were trying to arrest Mr. Blackstone on a warrant alleging aggravated sexual assault of a child. They were also seeking him because he had moved without registering his whereabouts as required by state law.

The fact that this guy was shot (provided that the facts were reported correctly) didn’t bother me.  It was the way the Fox 4 reporter treated the incident.  He interviewed a relative of Blackstone, who thought that the police were wrong to shoot him.  She thinks they should have shot him in the shoulder to make him drop the gun and that they should have brought his mother in to talk to him.  I can almost forgive a relative for thinking that, but the uncritical way that the Fox 4 reporter treated her claims is what bothers me.  He didn’t appear to make any effort to ask the police about this sort of situation, nor did he appear to have done any research on tactics for dealing with an armed person. 

All of us who have ever considered the issue of confronting an armed person know that shooting to wound is impractical at best, and deadly stupid at worst.  But, let’s consider a few of the issues and myths surrounding the concept of shooting to wound:

• Myth: shooting someone in the shoulder will make them drop the gun.

  While this might work in some cases, not all bullet wounds are equal.  Depending on entry angle, distance from the shooter, clothing, and the phase of the moon, the bullet might do serious damage to the shoulder, just go through, or ricochet off a bone and hit the heart.  It’s unpredictable.

• Myth:  shooting to wound is better legally, since it shows you weren’t trying to kill the other person. 

  Not true.  Commonly, the law only allows the use of deadly force when confronted with someone else using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.  The use of less than deadly force could be construed by a DA as a sign that the shooter wasn’t really in fear of his life (it would also open up a huge liability issue in civil court in the hands of a plantiff’s attorney).

• Myth: it’s better to shoot the gun out of someone’s hand.

  Unfortunately, there was one case where a police sniper did just this, and it’s been seen a lot.  That was a special case, where the guy in question was sitting in a chair and not pointing his gun at other people and the sniper had plenty of time to line up the shot.  In the heat of the moment, and with handguns, this sort of policy would end up getting officers killed, and possibly cause injury to innocent bystanders.  Most cases of police shootings where the gun was shot out of the offender’s hand seem to be the result of the officer focusing on the gun, rather than the offender, causing him to shoot the gun.  This is an accident, and not part of any official policy.

But the ultimate myth is the very concept of shooting to wound.  While popular in movies, it’s stupid, deadly, and legally risky in real life.  When adrenalin is flowing and people have to make split-second decisions, the best that anyone can do is shooting to stop the threat, which may or may not end up in the death of the threat.  Further, shooting to wound often involves shooting at extremities, rather than center mass, which carries increased risk of missing the target, which could result in innocent bystanders being hit.

Contrary to popular conception, neither the police nor private citizens who carry guns set out with the intent to kill people.  However, if that is the side effect of stopping someone from using unlawful deadly force against yourself or another innocent party, then so be it.

This seems to be a common thread with reporters.  They have no idea about tactics for armed defense and credulously accept whatever the “poor victim’s” family has to say.  Police departments probably need to look into giving an intro to tactical shooting for reporters, so that they can have a better understanding of why officers react the way they do.  It seems simple enough to me that if you point a gun at a cop you’re going to get shot.  Why more people don’t understand this has always been perplexing.

A disturbed man fired shots at Ft. Worth City Development Director Bob Riley yesterday morning.  He was apparently well known to city employees, as he’d been there frequently to complain about various imagined issues.  Because of this, the city is now considering ways to increase security, like installing metal detectors.

I suppose they may need to do something, although I think metal detectors might be a bit overboard.  Anyhow, what really set me off was this gem from Ft. Worth City Council member Wendy Davis:

City leaders say they know state laws prohibit guns from being taken into government meetings, courts and court offices. But concealed handguns—if the owner has a permit—are allowed in other areas of government buildings.

Councilwoman Davis said that’s something that should change.

“We need to lobby back at the state Legislature and see what in the world happened to make this law happen and how we can get it repealed,” she said.

I cannot find words sufficient to convey just how sick and tired I am of being treated like a criminal by these blissninny idiots any time some fool with a gun shoots at a city employee.  I consider it an insult to law-abiding gun owners everywhere, and especially to CHL holders, who have been proven to be among the most law-abiding members of society in the state.  To lump CHL-holders into the same ilk as these criminals just shows that Ms. Davis has no clue as to what she’s talking about.  Perhaps it’s time that we went on the offensive and started suing people who slander CHL holders.  We need to start doing something to let idiots like Davis know that we’re sick and tired of this. 

There’s also an interesting bit of omission and phrasing later in this same article:

On Wednesday, officials said they didn’t know if Ray Redding—who is accused of firing a gun at City Development Director Bob Riley—held a concealed handgun license.

This seems disingenuous at best, since the local TV station knew that this guy has a felony conviction in his past (he pled guilty to a 3rd Degree Felony prohibited weapons charge in 1994).  He also has a long history of drug arrests, all of which would prohibit him from having a CHL.  It seems like the city should be aware of this, given that he was arrested at the scene and they should have looked this up.  And even if the city “officials” couldn’t be arsed to check into this before insinuating that he did have a CHL, the reporter could have fact checked it by looking up his criminal record on the DPS public criminal records site or with Public Data.  But the omission and phrasing allows for the continuation of the subtle linkage between violent scum and law-abiding gun owners. 

And reporters and politicans wonder why gun owners don’t trust them?  Obtuse pricks…

I received notification that Gov. Perry has signed HB823.  This means that as of 9/1/2005 it will be legal in Texas to carry a handgun in your private vehicle, with a few restrictions (see bill text for details).

At 8:50am this morning the Texas House reported HB823 as enrolled after concurring with the Senate amendments.  HB823 clarifies the definition of “traveling” in Texas law with regards to carrying a handgun in a vehicle. 

According to the final text of the bill, a person is presumed to be traveling if the following conditions are met:

• The person is in a private motor vehicle
• The person is not otherwise engaged in criminal activity (with an exception for the case of Class C traffic offenses, so overzealous prosecutors can’t try to charge people with unlawful carrying just for speeding)
• Not otherwise prohibited from posessing a firearm.
• The person is not a member of a criminal street gang
• The person is not carrying a handgun in plain view

While this seems like an odd way to go about it (i.e. defining traveling instead of just coming out and saying people can carry in vehicles, like Colorado does), it seems like a step in the right direction.  I think a lot of people in Texas carry handguns in their cars, regardless of the law.  I’ve also been surprised by the number of people who didn’t know it was illegal.

Anyhow, we now have to make sure the Gov. Perry signs it.  Provided he does, it will take effect on September 1, 2005.

Kim du Toit recently created his “Nation of Riflemen” shirt, which is available through Those Shirts.  Mine arrived today.

I thought Kim might approve of my choice of weaponry to celebrate the arrival of the shirt:

Although I will spare my neighbors the happy dance…

Last night I learned that it is possible to chamber and fire a .40S&W cartridge in a .45ACP handgun.  I certainly didn’t set out to do this on purpose, though.

Last night was range night for the Keller Citizen’s Police Academy.  The PD supplied the ammo for those of us using .45, .40 or 9mm handguns.  They also supplied a Glock to one member who didn’t own her own gun (as an aside, of the 10 people in the class all but one own at least one gun, and several of us own multiple guns; if we’re anything like the rest of the community, then I’d say Keller is well armed).

I was the only one shooting .45 last night and the Sgt. handed me a box of .45ACP.  I loaded up several mags from this box and had gone through two of them and was halfway through a third when I heard a “pop” instead of the usual “BANG.”  I also then noticed that the gun hadn’t extracted the previous round.  In fact, it was stuck pretty hard under the extractor.  The other Sgt. managed to extract the round using a knife and that’s when we discovered it was a .40S&W round.  While the cartridge case was blown to hell, it didn’t seem to do any damage to the gun (and fortunately the round exited the barrel).

It turns out that somehow a .40S&W round had gotten into the .45ACP box.  I’d never encountered this before, so it never occurred to me to check.  But from now on I’ll be doubly careful that the ammo that comes out of the box is really what it’s supposed to be.

Here’s a comparison image, for those who are not ballistically inclined…

In our most recent Citizen’s Police Academy session we met the tactical operations leader, who is also one of their firearms instructors.  I was pleased to learn that the Keller PD has a pretty stringent shooting qualification program.

The Texas minimum standards only require a peace officer to qualify once a year on a static course of fifty rounds of fire with only one timed reload.  The maximum distance is 15 yards and only 70% is required to pass.  This is only slightly more stringent than the CHL qualification (CHL doesn’t require a timed reload).

Keller PD has instituted a program that is one of the strictest in the state:

• Officers must qualify four times per year.
• A minimum of 80% is required on the test.
• The test is not static.  It requires shooting on the move and from cover.
• The test requires shooting at longer distances (25 yards).
• Officers come in “cold” to the test (no warm-up allowed).
• Both a timed and tactical reload are included.
• An officer who fails to meet 80% has 3 days to take a retest and meet the minimum.
• Failure to meet the minimum on a retest results in an immediate suspension (on the spot, and the suspension goes on the officer’s record).
• After suspension, the officer has to attend an approved handgun course of at least 40 hours at his own expense and pass the class.
• An officer who is suspended a third time on qualification will be fired.

I suppose this is an outgrowth of the fact that the chief is a former firearms instructor and sharpshooter.  A lot of police departments don’t spend much time on firearms training and qualification, which has given police in general a poor reputation with regards to marksmanship.  It’s good to know that our officers are better trained than the standards require.

I’m going to pass on an email from TSRA with regards to donations for Mark Wilson.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have had numerous requests about funds or memorials in support of Mark Wilson, the CHL holder who was killed in Tyler during the recent courthouse shooting.  Mark’s family has requested that any donations be made to the following charity:

Children’s Village
P.O. Box 6564
Tyler, Texas
75711
903-592-3421

Jim Dark
Executive Director
TSRA

Updated 3/15/2005: Change zip code from 75701 to 75711.

I was wondering why a year-old post I did on the Ft. Worth Zoo had suddenly started attracting attention from anti-gun trolls, and now I know why.  It seems I’m the number one search result on Google for the terms Ft Worth Zoo Address.

I suppose it’s time to turn off comments on that post, as I have little use for being called a “moron” by people who can’t spell or punctuate.