UPDATE:  I'm bumping this old post back to the top because some other folks have made similar posts lately, and I am adding links to them all from this post.  Scroll to the bottom for the links.  If you have a similar post, let me know and I'll add it, too.

---

I've been thinking about this some lately. It has lurking in the back of my mind for a while, and some thoughts were more recently crystallized because of this post at South Park Pundit.

I didn't always carry a gun. I actually only carried a concealed weapon one time previous to having a CHL, and then it was in my vehicle, not on my person. As if that makes any difference to the "authorities." Even after then-Governor Bush signed the law that established legal concealed carry in Texas, I didn't take advantage of it for several years.

I suppose many other people who carry have been asked the same question I have a few times: Why do you want to carry a gun?

My honest answer is: I don't want to carry a gun.

I don't want to do a lot of things. I don't want to hold down a regular job that drains me of all my energy so that by the end of the day, most of the time, all I can do is come home, eat, shower, and go to sleep. I don't want to rely so heavily on gasoline for my well-being. Having grown up in the country where there aren't many decent jobs, I have come to rely heavily on gasoline for commuting to the city where there are better opportunities. Having a family with two small children I have to do whatever I can to provide for them, which means I take the best jobs I can get, even if I hate them, which I usually do. Sure, I could move to the city and use less gas. But then I would also have to pay more for less land, be crowded into higher population densities, and my children would be exposed to a higher rate of drugs, crime and danger than they are now. I prefer to stay where I am.

Which brings me to the gun. I carry it for them. As a father, and as a more or less decent human being with a fairly well-honed conscience, I would be failing them if I didn't do what I had to to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, and protection.

I have heard people say that they are big enough and strong enough to handle anyone who threatens them or their family. Anyone who thinks he or she is big enough and strong enough to use their bare hands against a criminal armed with a gun is a fool. I am neither big nor strong, but I have dedicated myself to their protection, and I will do what I can and what I must, if I am forced to.

It means I must examine a number of guns to find the one that works best for me. It means I must weigh the destructive potential of a caliber against the number of times a given gun is capable of delivering that potential before reloading. It means I must carry different guns to discover which is easiest for me to carry, draw and wield. It means I must learn about different types of ammunition so that I can decide which ones are best able to deliver that potential.

My children already know this. I know they know it because they have both asked me something along the lines of, "If a bad person tried to get me, would you shoot them?" I answer them honestly, "Yes, if I had to, to keep you safe." This has not had the effect of making them paranoid, to my knowledge. On the contrary, it seems to be working for them. My very young son has even gone so far as to say that when he grows up, he will help keep me safe, too.

If something were to happen that abolished the Texas CHL law, I don't think I could go back. I know that their protection is my responsibility, and it's a responsibility that I can't rely on anyone else to provide.

If I lived in my ideal world, I would spend all my time puttering around a large ranch with nothing but a .22 hanging from a gun rack behind the seat of my truck. I would probably not own a handgun at all. Well, maybe a .22 handgun, just because they are so universally useful. But I don't live in my ideal world and I doubt that very many people do.

So when someone asks me why I want to carry a gun, this is my answer. I don't carry because I want to. I carry because it's the right thing to do.

SEE ALSO:
Confessions of a Deathbeast at Hell in a Handbasket.
Why I Carry at What Would John Wayne Do?
Last words on why I carry at When Your Only Tool Is A Hammer.
Why Carry? at Random Ramblings of a Republitarian.
Become Just. One. Person at Joe's Crabby Shack.

The Blogonomicon first rule of blogging:  Never throw away an idea, no matter how stupid.

Thanks to Cowboy Blob.

Some cryptozoo news, via Cryptomundo, of course:

Its discoverers named it a new species. But a later publication suggested that the creature's strangeness wasn't because it was new, but rather because it might be old: it was proposed that the Laotian rock rat (Laonastes aenigmamus) was the last surviving member of a once-large group of rodents that was known only by fossils. Although the group had vanished from the fossil record 11 million years ago, the morphological similarities were striking. The rock rat, it was proposed, is a living fossil.

DNA sequence analysis has now joined the argument and comes down strongly in favor of the living fossil contention. Not only is the rock rat like nothing we've ever seen before, it's not much like anything we've ever sequenced before.

An odd, ancient rat with a hairy tail, and taken straight from the "wild," they are apparently as comfortable playing around with humans as your average pet hamster.

And as long as I'm on the topic, check out this picture of a new species of anglerfish that was recently discovered off the coast of Sydney, Australia.  The warthog might have to step down as the standard "as ugly as a" cliche.

As my dad likes to say.  The cold in my throat that I had last weekend apparently went into hiding for a few days and reappeared in my sinuses.  I'm so stopped up that I can't hardly walk straight, and my nose feels like it's on fire.  So it looks like my day off will be spent at home, taking cold medicine and maybe sleeping a little.

Last night we had another school function, this time for kindergarten (my son's grade), which I suffered through for him even though the room was spinning around me the whole time.  They demonstrated some Texas history and stuff they had been learning, and sang a few songs like "Ol' Tex" and "Deep in the Heart of Texas."  Some of the kids held up pictures of various Texan places and things and spoke about them, like the bluebonnet, the mockingbird, the armadillo, and the Alamo.  For the Alamo, they said something like, "At the Alamo, Texan forces fought for independence.  The Alamo is a symbol of our freedom."  Simplistic, yes, but there was an uproar of applause.  It was very heart-warming.

I got a search hit for "hi-cap revolver."  I assume this meant "high capacity revolver."  Well, there are a few 38/357 revolvers out there that hold 7 rounds instead of six.  And of course, there are 9-shot .22 revolvers.

But if you want a real "high-capacity revolver," here you go:


This is a French pepperbox revolver from about 1850.  Keep in mind that each one of those 24 barrels must be loaded from the muzzle, so reloading this thing would probably take about 45 minutes.

UPDATE:  Lots more "high capacity revolvers" at Hell In A Handbasket.

If you don't subscribe to The Shooting Wire, you need to go sign up now.  Today's email is full of good information.

First, this:

Here's a fact that is guaranteed to drive anti-gun groups absolutely insane: there is no corollary between the rate of firearms ownership and homicide and violent crime rates.

This might come as a total shock to many reporters, editorial writers and elected officials, but it is the result of a lengthy - and scientific look - at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada. In fact, their summation is one that will more than likely rock the misconceptions of many: "nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

Wow.

The Kates/Mauser report appears in no less than the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it, in fact, bears no relation to the incidence of murder and violence.

And in other news, I have mentioned before how some district attorneys have turned vigilante and decided to ignore Texas law.  Shooting Wire has more news on this:

In a report called "Above the Law: How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land" the American Civil Liberties Union has collaborated with the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and the Texas State Rifle Association to unveil the actions of some Texas prosecutors who don't care for the clarifications made to Texas' concealed-carry laws. The clarification states, simply, that citizens have the right to carry a legal handgun in a private vehicle.

Some Texas prosecutors didn't like that new law — to the point several directed local police to ignore the statute.

In the joint report, it appears that in at least 13 jurisdictions in Texas, that is, indeed the case. 13 county/district attorneys, including district attorneys for counties in large metropolitan areas like Houston and Fort Worth, have instructed police officers to interrogate Texans unnecessarily, arrest Texans, or take their guns even if they are legally carrying the gun in a car under HB 823 standards.

According to the report, one County Attorney One "advised police officers that it's simply too complicated to try and determine whether a Texan is legally carrying a stowed gun in the car, so officers should arrest for "unlawful carrying" as before and let the prosecutor's office 'sort out the legal niceties.'"

Those are fighting words to the authors of "Above the Law" and they have countered by naming those County Attorneys, citing examples of their having instructed officers to either circumvent or ignore the law, and publishing a guideline of "what to do if you're stopped".

In fact, the law is very simple and clear.  It states that if you are in your car and not otherwise involved in unlawful activity, not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, and not a member of a street gang, you can have a gun concealed in your car.  Period.  I'm sure eventually someone will try to define those of us who believe in self defense as gang members before it's over with.

Finally, this news from Illinois:

As was reported in yesterday's edition of The Outdoor Wire, Pike County, Illinois has fired back at Illinois legislators who seem intent on passing progressively restrictive gun laws. With an economy that's heavily dependent on the hunting industry, Pike County's Commission passed a resolution which has told state legislators Pike will not recognize legislation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms as is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Word of that action is spreading across the United States and other small counties are beginning to discuss their own measures to prevent the usurpation of their rights by legislators they feel are either disconnected or indifferent to their jurisdiction's needs.

Now that's some amazing activism.  Some might go so far as to call it rebellion.