The Truth About Gun Control posts another great essay called The Problem of Collectivism:

Being told to rely on others (the police) to defend us, when that obviously does not work, is bad enough. Being told we MUST rely on others, though, is unconscionable. It is essentially telling us that we have a duty to die when a madman like Cho decides to commit murder, all in the name of a no-guns policy that is meant to make people "feel safe."

I find it very distressing that so many people don't get that pro-CCW people are suggesting that people must take responsibility for their own safety. When they talk of the odds that a CCW holder would be in the class to stop the crime, they illustrate very clearly that they are picturing themselves not as the person taking action to save himself (and thus everyone else as well), but as the helpless victim who expects others to protect him!

That would not be so bad if the people who cannot break out of the role of helpless victims only put their own lives in danger, but they're not content with that. They have to make ALL of us into helpless victims. In their simplistic logic, they think the only difference between themselves and people like Cho is that Cho had a gun-- and as such, they can't tell peaceable armed citizens from crazed murderers!

If this blog isn't on your list, it should be. Posting is infrequent, but always hits the mark.

Hammer's comment reminded me of an encounter I had once.  An encounter with an abject idiot.  The kind of idiot who knows everything.  You know the type.

It was in truck driving school, and the topic had wandered onto concealed carry.  Said idiot began to tell a tale of how he was stopped for a routine traffic violation and claimed to have nearly gotten into serious trouble because "concealed carry is banned in San Antonio."

I immediately attempted to correct him, telling him that under Texas law, no municipality has the authority for a blanket ban on concealed carry.

"San Antonio does," he replied.

"No.  No municipality has authority for a blanket ban on concealed carry under Texas law," I repeated.

"Yes, they do.  I grew up around guns," he answered dismissively, waved his hand at me and walked away.

"I grew up around guns"???  What does this even mean?  He most certainly did not grow up around Texas CHL law, because it hadn't been around for that long.  And this somehow made him a better authority on Texas CHL law than I, who also happened to grow up around guns, by the way, even though the fact is entirely irrelevant.

There was a young lady in this class also, and she remained sitting with me as he left.  Then she looked at me as if she expected me to say more.

I told her, "I sincerely hope he is not carrying when he finally pisses off the wrong person, because he desperately needs to get the shit beaten out of him."  (I would like to say that this is not the kind of language I use routinely, but in this case I felt I had to make a point).

Like I said, he was an idiot.  That was not the first time he had spewed utter garbage.  Every time he opened his mouth, it redlined my B.S. meter.

Since starting my new job back in June, I have been even more active than before, and my previous job was not sedentary by any means.  I have also (almost) entirely cut out soft drinks in place of Gatorade type beverages.  I was hoping this would help me lose a little weight.

I am not overweight.  However, I knew it would not hurt to lose a few around the belly, and I was hoping for it because I had an idea it would make IWB carry more comfortable.

For the past few weeks I've been cinching up the belt one more notch just before I start moving so my pants won't sag.  Even though it was a little uncomfortably tight, I can't abide pants that sag even a little.

However, this week I can safely say that I have officially dropped one belt size.  I was right.  IWB carry has become much more comfortable.

Today was the easiest day of work this whole week, but I was still ready for a nap after I got home and had something to eat.

Then my daughter woke me up from my nap.

She had been snooping, and she had found a something that looked like a big rolled-up poster.  At first I wondered if she had found my life-sized Jim Morrison poster (where did that thing go?), but it was the wrong color.  Then she unrolled it.

It was the standard silhouette target as used for the Texas CHL proficiency test.  One ragged fist-sized hole in the center of the 5-zone, with a few scattered shots around it, and two more holes, for some reason, down in the 4-zone.  My 248-score test from my original CHL class, several years ago.

Now if she could only find my life-sized Jim Morrison poster.

I don't usually participate in online discussion forums.  It's just sort of a "been there, done that" kind of thing and I'd rather use my online time doing the blogging bit.  However, this post is in reference to a thread at the USCCA Forum.  Don't bother clicking unless you're a member, because only paying members can read it.  I'm not going to quote the whole story, but I think I can get away with quoting the pertinent bits.  Fair Use, and all that.

The poster relates his first interaction with a law enforcement officer while carrying.  This interaction occurred because the poster was witness to a crime.

The poster begins, "First, I have to make it clear that I have nothing but respect and appreciation for LEOs and those who work in related fields."  This shouldn't even be important to the topic of the post, unless he intends to criticize a LEO or LEOs.  So why did he say it?  We'll see.

When exiting the store (7:38pm CST) and scanning the area, I noticed a man to my right, who immediately clicked in my mind as being a concern, just a gut feeling. I gave the guy a good stare to let him know I was a sheepdog. (Wanted to use that line since I first read it!)

Like one of the commenters said, "What does this even mean?"  He probably thought you were just some weird freak just giving him the eye.

As the story continues, it turns out that this man who was a "concern" was there to slash someone's tires--an employee of the store, it turned out.

I backed out of my parking spot to get into a position where I could observe his license plate number as he left; at this point he was slicing the back tire of the truck.

Good. That's where he should have stopped. A license number and a description of the perpetrator was all that was required. Sure, it was an act of crass vandalism, but it was targeted to a specific person and the welfare of not one person was endangered.

Here's where our strip-mall ninja hero screws up, big time.

I waited as he entered his vehicle and started to back out. Honestly, I made the mistake of assuming he would leave in the direction away from me, going around the back of the strip mall. But no this BG backs out and starts to come in my direction, before I knew what I was doing I'd turned my car to block the lanes so he couldn't get any closer to me. I then decided to exit my vehicle to have the option of either getting out of the way if he decided to ram me and/or have more cover options should this turn into a gun fight. I was carrying my XD in the small of my back and at this point I'm standing behind my car with my hand on my gun, ready but not drawn, there is about 15 feet between my passenger headlight and his bumper, he is stopped. I can now clearly see there is also a female occupant. I decide that if his engine revs my gun is going from holstered to drawn and on target. Lucky for both of us, he took the option of backing up down the lane. I re-entered my car and followed as he reversed. The portion of the parking lot behind him is completely empty, large ditch and empty parking spots to his right and strip mall to his left with a service drive at the rear of the building. I followed him at a good distance, hoping he would pull a 180 exposing his license plate, he did and I stopped, not turning down the service drive. I wrote down the license plate number turned to return to the front of the store and started to dial 911...

"Before I knew what I was doing"??? What's the matter, cowboy, your brain has a mind of its own?

So, it's true that an act of vandalism has been committed.  But who is initiating force here?  I think the answer to that is clear.  Our mall ninja first blocks the perp's initial path of escape, gets ready to start shooting if this person gets too close to his car--after he has blocked the guy's path--and then follows him when he leaves by another route.  There is another person, a woman, in the vandal's car who has not so far committed any transgression.  How does mall ninja guy know that she's even there willingly?

It seems to me that if Mr. Ninja had begun shooting, he would have had absolutely no defense against prosecution--nor would he have deserved any.

The rest of the post just goes on to recount his interaction with the LEO, which isn't completely relevant to my topic.

The majority of commenters at the USCCA Forum raked him over the coals for this.  His last reply to the comments gives me the impression that the advice he originally solicited had about as much effect as dirt clods thrown at a fence post.  A few grains might stick, but eventually it all blows away in the wind.  I wonder if he realizes that this post could even be used against him if he's forced to use lethal self defense in the future.  If his first-person report of this incident is accurate, he is obviously someone who is actually looking for trouble.

I would not go so far as to agree with some of the commenters who said he has no business carrying a gun, because even idiots have the right of self defense, but he definitely needs a trip to the woodshed.

I think when he at first said, "First, I have to make it clear that I have nothing but respect and appreciation for LEOs and those who work in related fields," he was thinking, "but I was there with a gun and they weren't so obviously I needed to do their job."

I would never have put myself into a situation like this.  I would have done my best to get the guy's license plate and a general description of him.  And then I would have probably driven to the far side of the parking lot before I called it in.  Why?  Because I want my children to grow up with their father.  I want to grow old with my wife.  I'm not going to put myself in danger.  Someone else is going to have to put me (or another innocent) in danger.  I don't ever want to use my gun against another person unless there is no other option.  This poster had plenty of other options, and intentionally putting himself into this dangerous position was wrong.  If I ever do anything so stupid, I hope one of my cherished loved ones gives me the severe butt-whomping I will so desperately deserve.

UPDATE:  Just to clarify my opinion (in case someone actually cares).  I personally would have had no gripe with Our Hero if he had threatened lethal force to prevent this crime from occurring.  Some people might.  He may or may not have gotten away with it, depending on where he was.  But I personally (I repeat) would have no problem with that.  However, that's not what he did.  He sat there and watched the crime to its completion and only then tried to put himself in a position to have an excuse to use lethal force.  This, to me, seems like someone who isn't interested in stopping an act of violence.  It seems more like someone who was just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Buckeye Firearms Association has been hammering the Sandusky Register into a greasy little pulp.  Check out their site for plenty of info and commentary on this newspaper that published a list of all of Ohio's concealed handgun licensees.  Here's the latest:

Mr. Westerhold openly concedes that Ohio law says that concealed carry lists are not public records. Think about that for a moment. The people, by and through their elected officials, have determined, as a matter of law, that these lists are not public records and the release of these lists is not in the public interest. Not some administrative agency trying to shield their meetings or who they meet with, not some bureaucrat trying to hide the fact he gave a no-bid contract to his brother-in-law, not a renegade school board member trying to change curriculum… The people, by and through their elected representatives, made a decision. Those who exercise a right, like praying, writing an idiotic editorial or obtaining an abortion, are not required to face public scrutiny. These are not public records, and their release is not in the public interest. So Sayeth The People.

But Westerhold got the information because of the journalist loophole.  The people of Ohio used their legislative process to say that these records are NOT public information, except to "authorized journalists" of course.  So he has taken it upon himself to publish this information, not because it's necessary, but because he can.

It's hard to believe, after the trouncing other newspapers have taken after doing the same, that he thinks he can get away with it.

And though I'm used to seeing hypocrisy, it stills boggles my mind that he can publish this information "with a straight face," and then call it "harassment" when the people of Ohio and elsewhere promise to boycott the advertisers of that newspaper.

I think it won't be long now before Ohio gets rid of the journalist loophole.

I first blogged about this here.  In that post, I said that I hoped the justice system nailed him to the wall, if the story happened as reported.  Apparently, it did not.

Mallot was found to have used justifiable lethal self defense.  New article at Click2Houston.com.  (Via Xavier).  Mallot did not testify himself, but several witnesses did.

I'm glad for Mr. Mallot, and glad my initial reaction turned out to be incorrect.

As others have already mentioned, Texas handgun license records are now sealed:

The names of people licensed to carry concealed handguns in Texas are no longer available to the public.

Gov. Rick Perry announced Thursday that he signed into law House Bill 991, which seals state records showing who is allowed to carry a gun in public. Only law enforcement agencies will have access to the information.

The law took effect immediately upon its signing Wednesday.

Nothing like a little personal motivation to get a law changed.

So...up yours, Express-News.

Say Uncle linked to this chart at Right Wing Nation.

As usual when one of these things come up, there was a comment like this:

I don’t understand Texas. I thought they prided themselves on independence and machismo and the like. You think maybe they’re like WV and just carry without permits?

Now, this is only my opinion, but I think there's a good explanation.  Or two.

1.  There are several high-density urban areas (Austin, Dallas, Houston) where there is a typical anti-self defense mentality and this drags the numbers down.  No offense to non-sheep who live in these cities.  Also Austin is where we stick all the hippies.

2.  Many people in rural areas still drive around with a rifle behind the seat of their truck and they don't feel that they need to carry a handgun.  I know I used to, before I started working in San Antonio.

I would have just left a comment there but I can't bring up the comment form for some reason.

We've all (I suppose) seen the color-coded maps of may issue, shall issue, and no way, José states.  But here's another one, and this one is annotated.

At GunMap.org -- The Death of Gun Control -- 2007.

Via Of Arms and the Law.