I do so love these AMVs for good songs.

This came up on the Concealed Carry podcast (I just recently added it to my feed). It’s an important question. Is the traditional wisdom still valid? So, what have I changed my mind about in terms of self-defense?

1. I no longer carry two spare magazines. This is probably the biggest switch-out. After listening to a multitude of experts who have examined hundreds to thousands of self-defense situations, the evidence clearly shows that the situation will mostly be resolved with whatever bullets you have in your gun. The only reason I carry a spare is in case of malfunction.

2. I don’t leave my gun in my truck. I don’t have a safe, and I’ve seen too many incidents where bad guys get guns because they were not properly secured in the vehicles (the guns, not the bad guys). Does this mean there are days I can’t carry? Unfortunately yes. Particularly since I can’t carry into the day job (not just breaking policy, but it’s a felony).

3. Anonymity is a wonderful thing. Part of the reason I switched from my Aztek (which I loved) to my Xterra (which I also love) is that the Xterra is far more anonymous. Moreover, I don’t put any stickers or decals on my vehicle other than those that are required. If I’m out in public, I generally don’t wear anything that would scream “he’s got a gun!” Other CCWer’s would most likely know the signs, but not the general public.

I’m still evaluating the “how much lumens is enough” debate. I recently upgraded my EDC light to a 750 lumen model, which is maybe more light than I actually need. It’s hard to shake the “need all teh lumenz!”

Many colleges claim that they develop “leaders.” Often, that means turning out graduates who cannot feel fulfilled unless they are telling other people what to do. There are already too may people like that, and they are a menace to everyone else’s freedom.

This is a metal cover to one of Avril’s better songs. Basically, they take her singing and put it to a metal version of the music. Lo and behold, improved!

In the wake of El Paso and Dayton, we’re seeing the push again for so-called “Red Flag Laws”. For those of you who are unaware, these law purport to allow someone to make a complaint that someone else is a danger and should have his/her guns removed. If a judge agrees, then the police go remove the guns, and the owner must then prove (s)he is not a danger to get them returned. I have several problems with this.

1. If a person is so dangerous, that it is in the community’s best interest that his/her guns are taken away, why is this person still allowed access to other dangerous implements – such as gasoline, lighters, knives, bats, automobiles? All of which have been used to kill more people than rifles? If a person is that dangerous, why are we not Baker Acting them and getting them held for 72 hours to determine if they are a danger to themselves or others? I would imagine because these red flag laws have much lower evidentiary requirements than an involuntary commitment. Which leads to my second point.

2. Such laws are ripe for abuse, whether by people who are in a dispute, who hate guns, don’t like someone’s politics, or who want an unarmed victim. Many of the laws either passed or proposed have very broad categories of people who can make a complaint. The accused often have no chance to defend themselves before the cops show up at the door and seize their property – which has already led to one death in Maryland. The last time I looked at Florida’s statistics, almost all of the orders were overturned -which means people were deprived of their property and means of defense for no good reason.

3. This also assumes that a person will receive his/her property back once the cops have seized it. Another part that’s ripe for abuse is what happens once the cops take the guns. There are all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles they can throw up to prevent them from returning a person’s property once the government has it – particularly if the government officials are anti-gun.

Proponents of this law are drawing out the Parkland shooter as an example, while ignoring the numerous times the government had ample evidence to take actions that would have made him a prohibited person, and unable to legally purchase a firearm. They will also point to people who are making “disturbing” comments. The problem with these laws, like most laws rushed after a dramatic and horrifying event, is that they are rarely applied to the kinds of people the laws purport to target. More often, the laws are used as broadly as possible (can anyone say PATRIOT Act?)

The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.

My commute home is normally about an hour. Monday it was three hours. I was grumbly about how long it took me to get home all Monday night and into Tuesday morning.

Then this came across my newsfeed. If the article isn’t updated, the toddler passed away last night.

I’m going to shut the fuck up now.

This is one of the songs that introduced me to Nightwish.

We’re getting into the two busiest months at the day job. Plus, I’m competing for Toastmasters.

Blogging will be light and sporadic.

You don’t get to pick the day you need your gun. Someone else gets to pick that day and they will only tell you at the last minute.