The recent atrocity in Paris reminds us all of the continuing danger from homicidal fanatics.  The cowardly murderers ran rampant, unopposed; according to some reports, one or both of the police officers killed in the massacre were unarmed and helpless to fight back.

President Obama is taking a lot of heat for not flying to Paris to join a reported 40 other heads of state in a show of solidarity.  This is one thing I won’t criticize the man for. If I were head of Secret Service I would have stood in the Oval Office and screamed at him, “It’s nucking futs! Can you imagine a more irresistible target for Islamic terrorists than forty-one of you, including the head of the Great Satan itself?!?”  I’m frankly amazed that there wasn’t an attack on the gathering, though I’m glad there wasn’t…and if the free world’s security services are smart, they won’t tell us if there was such a conspiracy and they were able to successfully abort it behind the scenes.

Could it have helped if someone in the Charlie Hedbo offices had been able to shoot back? No guarantees, but it damn sure wouldn’t have hurt!  My take on the matter is mentioned here among others’  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/terrorist-attack-in-paris-newsroom-may-be-wake-up-call-for-u.s.-journalists-to-be-armed/article/2558337 .

I was able to discuss the concept earlier in more depth here, in this very Backwoods Home blog https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2014/11/16/in-the-news/ , and here in Backwoods Home Magazine http://backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob150.html .

The prohibitionists and anti-self-defense groups will scoff at the idea that one or more people with handguns among the crop of victims might have thwarted two men who wielded AK47s. They don’t want to hear about Charl van Wyk, who stopped twice that many in a South African attack, armed only with his five-shot snub-nose .38 revolver. You can read about his case and more – and about dozens of helpless victims murdered when there wasn’t “a good guy (or gal) with a gun” to stand up for them – in the current issue of American Handgunner magazine:   http://americanhandgunner.com/the-false-hope-of-gun-free-zones/ .

The authorities expect more such attacks throughout the free world and, yes, here.  My advice is load, holster, and be ready.

It’s not about the odds…it’s about the stakes.

That’s enough about what I think. I want to hear what YOU think about this.

57 COMMENTS

  1. You only have to stop the closest one in an attack like this.

    1) Cowards run away when confronted with armed resistance. Moreso, when they see their best friend get shot in the face, it REALLY puts a damper on their mood. Look no further than the Boston Bombing suspects. They were happy to throw small bombs at police and have a shootout with them until the older brother went down. Once that happened, the younger brother could think of nothing more than getting out of the area and hiding. He didn’t rush into the house and take hostages, he hid under a sheet on a boat. The image of his dead brother reminded him that he wanted to live.

    2) Battlefield pickups may not be common, but they happen. I laugh at TV shows where people shoot an armed thug and just throw that person’s gun away while there are still armed threats nearby. NO! If there are hostiles nearby, I don’t have enough firepower to start throwing guns that still have rounds in them away no matter how many I have already. In a situation like the one in France where ANY armed defense would have been the ONLY armed defense, that AK would have doubled the firepower able to be used to defend innocents.

  2. Could not agree more. I would hate to live in a country where I only have the right to be victim like the citizens of Paris or UK. let the government make the decisions on how to deal with the terrorists while the general population takes the bullets waiting on hem to act. I’m am thankful to live in Florida where I can carry my G19 everyday and if I happen to be in the middle of one of these cowardly attacks I at least have a chance to defend myself, family or others.

  3. There has been much said and written about the “professionalism/training” of these murderous scum, with many journalists and “experts” pointing to the calm, unhurried demeanor during the attack and escape. There is no doubt they had some training and preparation, but I submit that the main thing they knew from the git-go was they were highly unlikely to be confronted by any armed resistance, thus their methodical execution of their plan. One trained and armed by-stander would have changed their plan dramatically in my opinion. I’m just guessing here, but, in a similar vein, I expect those countries who piously tout their policy of unarmed law enforcement will be rethinking their stance.

    As for Obama being a no-show for the rally, as much as I’ve enjoyed the media’s uncharacteristic criticism of their deity, I agree with Mas, it would have been the height of stupidity for him to have gone. The media once again displayed an utterly clueless response because of their emotional attraction to the warm and fuzzy feel good of the rally. Once again, no common sense allowed.

  5. If my mind serves me, the President of France was the first foreign head of state to visit our country after 9/11. Since France is our oldest ally, it would have been proper for our President, or even our VP, to visit France and participate in the rally. It was a historic occasion, and would have bolstered the confidence of our allies if our leaders were there to lend their support. As I see it, their not going and joining the other leaders is a missed opportunity which embarrasses our country again. How can we lead if we are not in the front?

  6. I believe the Paris and other incidents illustrates the need for police officers, whenever possible, to have access to and training with a rifle.

    Perhaps some of the funding used to provide large forces with high tech equipment should instead be used to provide rifles to as many patrol officers as possible.

    We don’t know the location of the next attack, but it is a good bet the first on the scene will be a police officer on patrol. In all probability the officer will have to go into the situation with what is on his person or in his vehicle. The officers chances of success will be much higher, if he has a rifle in addition to his pistol.

  7. I am gonna have to disagree on the Obama not going. Benjamin Netanyahu is a much bigger and sought after target and he did go with possibly a much smaller security apparatus.

  8. I think you should make a list of every journalist/magazine/media that has had a constant ‘disarm the citizen’ stance on gun control…and then hammer them if they suggest they need more security, or armed journalists, or anything else the average citizen can’t have for themselves.

    I agree that pretty much everyone should be able to arm themselves and provide for their own defense, but the folks that have been spending time and money arguing AGAINST that should have to practice what they preach – go unarmed and afraid. Not one dime of my tax money for special security measures for some business (and every news media/magazine is a business) that supports policies to make ME unarmed and helpless.

  9. The attacks in France certainly seem to have resonated with the UK public, although to date I have not heard any call for armed citizenry. But in the main UK citizens have little contact with handguns, and gun control in the UK makes possession of nearly all weapons illegal. To quote a certain Colonial Marine in “Aliens” “What are we supposed to use, bad language?” – well the answer seems to be yes!

    The argument here will always circulate round the fear of giving the general public weapons and the potential for the “gun nut” to go mad and kill people in a public place. It doesn’t really matter whether myself or other agree or disagree since no administration is likely to slacken off gun possession laws any time soon, as I recall it’s been that way since the late 1980s when another nut with a number of guns killed 16 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre and then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane#Massacre hammered the final nail into the sport as I knew it.

    Interestingly, and unsurprisingly when we have had the “nutter with a gun” gun laws seem to have made no difference other than to offer the loon a free hand to kill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt

    I’m a former shooter, so probably can be accused of bias but on the whole if it “kicks off” with a man with a gun, I have a feeling that I would like to think that I have least have a chance that a good guy with a pistol might be about the place but for now at least I am not holding my breath!

    Final thought to any of my kinsmen who claim it’s a gun free country, just pop along to any major rail terminal and produce a replica firearm, you notice the sudden arrival of two or men gents in black carrying some kind of semi-automatic weapon – after that you may feel a slight stinging sensation followed by rapid unconsciousness.

  10. As for the Charlie Hedbo offices being able to shoot back, I recall to mind an article from years ago called “What can a handgun do against an army?” and it detailed tactics used by (ironically, given the current topic) the French Resistance against “Le Boche” (Nazis) in WW2.

    Even some plainclothes armed security in such buildings would be a good thing, so as to not attract unwanted attention but to also protect innocent lives.

    What with the high-profile shootings of late taking place in gun-free zones, I feel it’s high time to try it the other way and see what happens. Bets?

  11. In his diligence to avoid any non-politically correct term when referring to the black hostage taker/murderer in France, CNN’s Chris Cuomo described him as an African American. Indoctrination trumps common sense once again. Sigh……

    I guess “French African” has not yet been deemed a non- hate term, leaving American journalist at a loss for descriptive terminology for non-American blacks.

    Whatever, it would have been a “more better” outcome if the French- African- American- activist(can’t call ’em terrorist) had been taken out early on by a well placed shot by an armed citizen, or at least an armed law enforcement officer.

  12. Mas I agree with you that having a leader show leadership and courage is not what you want after a terrorist attack. When deGualle walked to Arlington after JFK was shot was stupid. When Bush showed up on the pile after 9/11 it was stupid. And those 40 other leaders were all stupid for showing leadership. What a dopey idea.

    Remember, when confronted with difficulty and threat, go play a round of golf !

  13. Just for sake of clarity, French police are not unarmed. In 2003 they agreed a contract for 250,000 SIG SIG Sauer Pro SP 2022s, a custom-tailored variant of the SIG Pro. I believe it’s a 9mm Para weapon but comes in .40 and .357 Sig variants. Perhaps the only comment I can make is that it’s a little light in the larger rounds (12) although I suppose this is only be expected. 19 in 9mm version.

  14. Sorry, although I have read and appreciated your info in your articles, here I feel you are wrong. First of all, there wasn’t any mention of security until the media hype. Although I agree that security for him would be a nightmare, so what? I for one am tired of these idiots that tell me I can’t protect myself, but hide behind the guns from others. He, to date is the largest attack on our 2nd amendment. I think he should just go and talk nice to all the Islamist pukes. After all he is our leader. 🙁 I respect the office he holds, but our leaders need to lead by example.
    I think he is a Islamist sympathizer at the least. His father was muslim (Not in caps on purpose) and he was raised in a muslim household.
    Everyone, please go to YouTube and type in why we are afraid, Dr. Bill Warner. Very educational seminar and tells you the differences of being a muslim and the political ideology of Islam and the 3 books they abide by, the history and so much more.
    It has been time long ago we wake up. Soon it will be too late. Very educational

  16. President Obama should train with the USMC, where leading is done from the front, by example, not “do as I say, but not as I do,” and not steering from the back seat. The POTUS probably regrets not going to Paris. He is actually still a young and hopefully brave guy who can and will do better. The Secret Service is infinitely capable. It would like terrorists to make its day. Charlie Hebdo may have been vulgar and sacrilegious every which way, but the evil terrorist attack was not morally justifiable, nor did it achieve its strategic objective. The Paris demonstration was a missed opportunity for us. No reason obtains for being overly cautious in the face of evil. Misunderstanding good and bad would be an even greater mistake, of course.

    As far as arming journalists, the pen might be mightier than the sword, but would be more decisive in combat in the form of at least a .38 caliber writing stick.

  17. Whether or not armed citizens would have made any difference, good or bad, in Paris can never be truly known.

    But I will admit my first thought was, “It wouldn’t have happened in Texas.”
    (Or perhaps Arizona, or . . . the list can go on.)

  20. Anyone denying themselves the right and the means to defend their wives and daughters is mentally ill.
    Anyone denying me the right and the means to defend my wife and daughters is evil.
    Besides, gun control fanatics are elitists. Wealthy hire security personnel for their protection, poor people are unable to. Anti gun is anti poor.

  21. Actually, the first one on the scene will be the intended victim……

    Hopefully they will have something on their person just a bit more viable than a wish….

    Then the paperwork may be completed.

  22. 0bama not going to Paris was never about security concerns, the Secret Service says it was never even asked about it. Does anyone really think 0bama would go and protest the killing of people he spoke about in a speech at the U.N. in 2012 when he said ” The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” ?

  23. B-HO should have gone despite that I, too, if I were the security adviser, would have advised against it. Some risks must be taken, and that’s the call of the principal. Sadly, I doubt that is the reason why he didn’t attend.

    Will the world learn? Will liberals learn? No, there seems to be a suicide pact amongst liberals that they would rather die than give up their beliefs in the face of reality. We can only pray to keep such thinking out of at least some of these United States.

  24. Don-Pa, you and I seldom, if ever, have different takes on discussions. For that reason, I feel compelled to explain my position on this one.

    I agree the optics on Obama’s decision to not attend the Paris rally really stink. I agree with most, if not all, of the criticism of his policies, especially his refusal to confront radical Islam to the point of his almost being a sympathizer/apologist. My dislike for the man causes me to have doubts whether security concerns had any influence on his own thought processes when he made his decision not to go. Having said that, my comment on his not going being the correct call was based strictly on the security aspect. As Mas said, we don’t know the intelligence that may have been known as to specific threats, but I do know the logistics, prior planning, pre-arrival prep, and manpower requirements to move the President of the U.S. under normal circumstances. Under these extraordinary circumstances there is no way the Secret Service could give any assurances of his safety. Presidents sometimes disregard the Secret Service’s strong objections in favor of political optics, but for the sake of those charged with his protection (both American and French), I’m glad he heeded their advice (if he even included those expressed concerns in his decision not to go).

    Please don’t see my comments as an endorsement of anything else this man has done, but he is the president and must be protected whether we agree with his policies or not.

  25. We need to ban the possession of all guns in the United States to prevent vicious terrorists worldwide from getting firearms to slaughter innocent people with.

    If we make guns illegal, domestic criminals will not longer have access to them and violent terrorists cannot buy their fully automatic AK-47s, plastic explosives, and RPGs at American gun shows, using loopholes to obtain the weapons of mass destruction and shipping them thousands of miles overseas to their minions. Our incredibly wise Dear Leader understands this and that is why he’s determined to enact “reasonable” gun control to save millions upon millions of innocent lives around the world.

    If any of those magazine employees in Paris had firearms, the terrorists would have simply taken them from their owners and used those evil guns to kill more people. Fortunately, none of the 12 dead folks were armed, so the death toll was much lower than it could have been. Viva Allah!

  26. In the editorial meeting, the editor had his Gendarmerie bodyguard with him. The bodyguard got off two shots prior to being cut down. Since the terrorists fired shots downstairs, it is hard to understand how they were not heard upstairs but we don’t know how the building and the meeting room are constructed.

    My opinion is that they needed to be stopped by a containment/inspection partition between the building’s outer entrance doors and a set of inner entrance doors. This is how many sensitive facilities are constructed in DOD. Inner security personnel need to have covered positions.

    Like almost everywhere, the threat is underestimated (in hindsight) and money is not spent.

  27. “Every Jew a .22” said Mayer Kahane, as I posted here once before. One of the young Jewish adults apparently grabbed a pistol he could not known was defective from the grocery counter and was immediately killed by the terrorist, who had placed it there after it jammed. He should have had his own pistol like all French Jews should, but not one CNN mainstream general, terrorism “expert”, commentator, or organization I saw on tv suggested Jews arm themselves. Rather, they bemoaned the fact that security services can not protect everybody. Let the French government, with it’s bad record of protecting Jews anyway, issue “permits” to any Jew that wants one. I’ll be happy to send some of my own American dollars to them to help them protect themselves. It won’t happen because almost every government fears an armed populace and European “democracies” are the worst.

  28. Why, after all the vile threats Charlie Hedbo did not have armed security is beyond my understanding. One person with a .25 or a .45 could have brought the slaughter to a halt MAYBE but maybe is better than not a chance.
    obama belonged in Paris risk or no risk. He has sat on his sorry ass too many times when he should have been up front leading. I’ll never forget one of the British news papers saying after obama’s first election “America Has Finally Done The Right Thing”. We have a leader who is afraid to lead? Chicken-in-Chief hid in the chicken coop when Netanyahu showed him up again. Too bad I don’t remember the paper or the reporter’s name, I’d like to ask if they still believe America did the right thing.

  29. I think Obama not going makes a statement that he is with the attackers. He is a muslim and is bringing thousands into this country in hope that it will happen here. Fort Hood shooting was not an act of terrorisium but work place violence,(his words) It is easy to see where he stands.

  30. The Charlie Hebdo attacks are much less pertinent from a training standpoint to those of us legally armed citizens here in the States than the recent death of the She’s a Pistol gun shop co-owner in Shawnee, Kan. That incident, in which four pistol-toting punks tried to rob the place, is a sober reminder that the good guys don’t always win. Thankfully, the deceased’s wife is still with us and here’s hoping she can keep the store open and running.

    I’m not Charlie, but I do believe many of us are John Bieker!

  31. I wonder why the other radical Muslims in Paris didn’t just go out in the streets and do more chaos and mayhem while these attacks were happening. I’m glad they didn’t do that, but since there are so many Muslims in Paris, I would expect some of them to join with the terrorists, and try to overwhelm the police. Maybe they just don’t want to die.

    Charles seems to be a popular name in France. There is Charlie Hedbo, and then there was Charles DeGaulle, and the best Charles of all……………………
    Charles Martel. The French really need another Charles Martel.

    Dennis,

    About the term “African American.” There are white people in South Africa. If them become American citizens, I guess we could call them, “African Americans.” Ha Ha

  33. We are armed and will defend. We are military trained. We don’t call 911. We respect others beliefs & rights. It has always been this way in the rural South.

  34. Agree with Bill.

    January 13th, 2015 “It’s not about the odds…it’s about the stakes.” Massad Ayoob

    Truer words never said.

  35. Old Fezziwig, you are correct on the “African American” designation so prominently and incorrectly applied in our society. One of the officers I worked with on my department was a white ex-patriot of Rhodesia. His family was third generation Rhodesian when he had fled the country with his family after Mugabe took over and the country became Zimbabwe. He was a member of the country’s military special forces at the time, and is actually still wanted as a deserter by the Mugabe government. I used to joke with him, especially when we had a mixed group of officers around us, that he was the only true “African American” on the department. I would get laughs from some of the black officers overhearing my comments, cold stares from others. Humor is in the eye of the beholder, but truth cannot be the basis of an internal complaint, either. No harm was intended, just pointing out that words have meaning, and can be both used and abused.

  36. Our not having the Prez or VP in France for the gathering is a slap in the face to all French citizens. Everyday people leave their home without a security detail and face God only knows what horrors. Just as those 17 killed in France that terrible day, with the government determining that they could not protect themselves.
    NOT having that simple level of self defense, means you are hopelessly at the risk of any deviate bent on causing you and others harm for whatever reason.
    With that in mind any citizen armed with no matter what training could have made a difference and more than one, wow the thought is just mind boggling.

  37. Ugghhh… I can’t watch the footage taken from the rooftop looking down at those turds.
    For what one man with a rifle in his hands up there could have done…

  38. Dennis – back at ya re: no disagreements. On this, I was of the same mind, at first. However, I have read piece after piece that examines the subject w/o emotion. President Obama would have had more than enough protection. For yet another and I submit – the very best – go to the National Review’s site, by Tom Rogan – I was unable to cut and paste it here, don’t know why.

  39. > About the term “African American.” There are white
    > people in South Africa. If them become American
    > citizens, I guess we could call them, “African
    > Americans.” Ha Ha

    Don’t laugh. I used to know a guy from Rhodesia, now a naturalized American citizen, whose papers say exactly that.

    He thought it was most amusing; most places he’s “white”, his Rhodesian papers said “Jewish.”

  40. Don-Pa, here’s the link you talked of.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396270/why-white-houses-security-excuse-paris-doesnt-add-tom-rogan

    Again, I’m not into the arguing of whether Obama should or should not have gone to Paris, who made the decision or why. If Secret Service was notified of the possibility of the trip, they would have scrambled an advance team immediately and got them in the air, at the same time giving a security assessment to Obama’s handlers. Whether the president or his staff chooses to follow their advice is up to them. I personally don’t think the Secret Service was ever consulted or notified of the possibility of the trip. I don’t think the trip was ever considered at all by Obama, but as is his style, in the aftermath of media criticism, he is passing the blame to the innocent.

    I do question Rogan’s knowledge of Secret Service’s security protocols. There are many levels of protection that the overwhelming majority of folks are not aware of, it’s not just the agents with the Ray-Bans surrounding him. Again, it’s not unusually for the president to ignore his advisers and give the Secret Service ulcers, but it is the exception, not the rule. Mandela’s funeral is a prime example of Obama going completely of the reservation, security wise, causing me to agree it was his decision, and his alone, not to go to Paris.

  41. I am not going to criticize anyone who actually believes the BS story of the Secret Service waving the Pres off the visit. Neither would I dare say that Mas is slightly out of his bailiwick in VIP protection engagements. LOL… But worth the read from ex SS man Dan Bongino’s take on it…

    https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/photos/a.517057181720381.1073741827.101043269988443/796557447103685/?type=1&permPage=1

    Daniel Bongino

    “As a former Secret Service agent I am apoplectic that the President is, again, blaming security and, by default, the Secret Service for skipping the historic rally in Paris. This President is absolutely incorrigible and appears to have no shame at this point.

    He is not telling the truth. Don’t you find it just a bit odd that the Nelson Mandela funeral, which was an organizational security threat given that it was scheduled to take place just five days after his death, was attended by the President despite the chaos, and the Paris rally wasn’t.

    The truth is that the President screwed up and made a bad call. The Secret Service doesn’t tell the President where to go, his staff makes that call. If he wanted to go to the rally the Secret Service would have made it happen. We have an office in Paris that does just this type of visit. What makes this President different is his compete inability to acknowledge mistakes and move on. He must blame others and find a scapegoat to cover for his inadequacies. He has done this before with the Secret Service when he placed the blame on them for the suspension of the White House tours, which was another tall-tale.

    The Secret Service doesn’t have the luxury of being able to publicly respond to this garbage so I’ll do it for them. Stop blaming the men and women who subordinate their lives, and their safety, to yours to fix your self-inflicted political problems. What you did was shameful and I hope Americans see through it.”

  42. Security of world leaders is certainly an important consideration and easily overlooked by the media against a background of outrage over the violent incident. Furthermore whether a few handguns would have changed much is only one aspect of this discussion. The other more important discussion is the war on terror and the public protestation and shared purpose demonstrated by this march and conference is perhaps more important.

    The view you have expressed about presidential security is certainly an important element here and one easily forgotten among the outrage from this terrorist act. So after consideration carefully of the two elements the expression of unity in opposition to terrorism and presidential security I was forced to reevaluation my position. Mass, I respectfully disagree the president should have gone.

    At the very least he should have sent the vice president or Eric Holder who I read was in Paris at that time doing five talk shows. But then sending the vp might have in another opinion have risked the presidents insurance against impeachment.

    This is a time for the world to express an overwhelming opposition to terrorism. For the US to not be there will only serve to diminish substantially the message that other world leaders risked to deliver.

  43. Dennis, as I come to expect, a simply great response. Thanks for helping me get beyond my usual expectations re: the POTUS. I, too, think the SS was never seriously approached about going – simply because of who they were protecting. I would bet if you took a poll of them, the overwhelming majority would have said there is no way Obama will WANT to go.
    Have a great day!

  44. Several things come to mind:

    1) CARRY A FULL-SIZE GUN, AND SPARE AMMO. 
    It’s not enough just to have a gun: when the chips are down— when (against all odds) you find yourself facing multiple jihadis armed with AKs and ready to fight to the death— you’re gonna wish you had more than that easy-to-carry, cute little .380. 
    Yeah, sure, “any gun is better than none.” In most instances, that little .380 may be all you need to stop the fight. But when you find yourself in a real gunfight with real gunfighters carrying long guns, you’re gonna need all the gun you can get to stop them. 
    At that point you’ll be glad you have that Glock 17 or Sig P226 and those extra mags. 

    2) BE READY TO ‘PAY THE PRICE’ FOR BEING FULLY ARMED. 
    Carrying a full-size gun on a daily basis is not easy. The temptation is always there to carry something less: something small and light and easily-concealable, that you can slip into a pocket on your way out the door and forget about for the rest of the day. 
    Carrying a full-size handgun is harder: it involves figuring out where on your body to carry it, finding the right holster and belt, and dressing around the gun: giving up the svelte fashionable look for the Michelin snowman look. 
    But WHEN YOU’RE FACING THOSE AK-TOTING JIHADIS, YOU’LL BE GLAD YOU’VE GOT YOUR FULL-SIZE PISTOL TO FIGHT WITH, AND NOT THAT CUTE LITTLE POCKET PISTOL.

    3) At times, you’re gonna feel foolish, packing everywhere you go. You’ll often find yourself toting that gun in situations where it’s obviously not needed.  People who know what you’re about will sometimes look at you funny. Some will even think you’re a bit crazy, like ‘not-in-a-good-way-crazy’ crazy. But it’s all part of the price you pay TO BE READY WHEN THE GUNFIRE STARTS.

    4) PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. As Jeff Cooper pointed out, carrying a gun doesn’t make you a gunfighter, any more than owning a piano makes you a musician. Practice with that gun until you know what you can do with it. 
    Practice under ‘gunfight conditions’: ‘moving off the X’ as soon as the fight starts, seeking cover (not concealment) where available, and shooting while moving. Be aware of the possibility of multiple opponents, including ‘sleepers’ who don’t appear to be with them; stay alert and don’t become overly-focused on one threat: keep your head on a swivel.
    Your adversaries are likely to be wearing body armor, so the classic ‘center-mass hit’ may not work: you may need to shoot for the head/neck, or the pelvis. KNOW WHERE YOUR PISTOL SHOOTS, SO WHEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT 25-YARD HEAD SHOT ON THE ARMOR-WEARING JIHADI, YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO IT: YOU’VE DONE IT MANY TIMES BEFORE. 

    5) THIS IS WAR. Realize that the game has changed, and the rules of engagement along with it: you’re not facing criminals who are motivated by rational self-interest (however twisted their version of it may be) and are likely to stop fighting or flee when you shoot them once or twice. You’re facing crazy jihadis whose goal is to die; and whose sole motivation is to kill as many innocent people as they can before that happens.  ‘Verbal warnings’ (“Drop the gun or I’ll shoot!”) will only get you killed: be prepared to walk up and shoot them in the face without warning. BE PREPARED TO FIGHT WITH TOTAL VICIOUS ABANDON, AND NOT STOP UNTIL YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ALL DEAD.

  45. Mas:

    Thanks for opening the ball on this subject and being the clear voice of calm reason.

    Bill Stell – you saved me a whole bunch of typing; you must have been sitting in my last CHL class. Thank you.

    This is a real war, whether we acknowledge it officially or not. It is different from the “be prepared for the meth-head who needs quick cash” fight. It is a fight that your opponent is not likely to run away from, and if he appears to run, he is merely engaged in tactical maneuvering. Friends- pay attention. While it is better than nothing ( and I am not knocking pocket guns) you don’t want to go to war with an LCP or a Kahr .380. That is not what those guns are for. Carry a real fighting gun and please, please, please carry spare ammunition. I hope you never need it, but if you do need it, you will need it badly.

    Last thought- as I have noted in the past- crowded shopping malls in states where the people are disarmed are likely targets. If someone tries this in Texas or Arizona or Indiana, there will be armed citizens who will fight back.
    Not so in California or New York or Maryland.

    Regards
    GKT

  46. “It’s not about the odds…it’s about the stakes.” Massad Ayoob

    Love it. Made me think up this one:

    “Before I call 911 I call on a 1911.”

    I’d think that would make a great bumper sticker.

  47. Folks, Mas seems to be catching some flack for saying he wouldn’t criticize Obama’s not going to the Paris rally. As usually happens on hot-button issues such as this, that stirs passions, people look for reasons to respond, sometimes missing the intent of the writer. I read Mas’s post to have come strictly from the security aspect of such an endeavor, and his reaction, based on that, was correct. Some have even questioned his expertise in VIP protection. I have no idea of his background in this area. My advice would have the same as his.

    Can the Secret Service provide absolute protection? No. Do circumstances arise that make their job exponentially more difficult? Yes. Can the President go against their advice, compounding the difficulties of protecting him? Yes. They would have done their job to the best of their abilities if he had decided to make the trip, but they would have been on record about their reservations.

    Not putting words in Mas’s mouth (or keyboard), I believe his thoughts were based on “if” Obama took the advice of those charged with his protection not to go, he would not criticize Obama.

  48. Dennis – right on…again. Even moreso (I say with much anguish, but even more understanding) are the posts above by Bill Stell & Greg Tag. It is no longer a question of IF “they” are coming here – it is most definitely just – when. I will never second guess my choice of carry gun – or – the extra ammo I pack. I pray I never have to use it – as we all do.
    Stay safe – make it a habit to watch each other’s 6. That – and “head on a swivel” are sound advice.

  49. Folks, I just wanted to remind anyone who came in late that disagreement with my opinions is welcome here. This ain’t one of those anti-gun sites where anyone who disagrees is deleted and banned. Nobody gets deleted or banned from here unless they lie to my readers, make threats, or become a-holes with others who post here. And so far in this discussion, no one has come remotely close to any of that.

    Heck, I was the one who asked what you all thought about this. Keep the opinions coming.

  50. Don-Pa, sound advice in the face of our disintegrating society. I believe those living in urban environs probably face more danger than I. Heck, I live close to an hours drive from the closest strip shopping center. Burglaries and thefts are on the increase in my remote area though, mostly of seasonal, unoccupied recreational retreats, probably due to the the deteriorating economy. Home invasions are nil, due to the fact that such action would be suicidal in this neck of the woods. I have seen one private drive with a sign greeting visitors saying ” CAUTION-MARKSMAN AT PLAY” followed by one saying ” IF YOU HEARD A GUNSHOT, IT WAS A RARE MISS”. I’ve never met the man.

Newer Comments »

Comments are closed.