On an earlier post related to the Westgate Mall attacks, I used the term “appropriate and aggressive use of the gun.” I have been trying to come up with a nice and appealing way to say what I have to say, but sometimes you have to go full frontal and tell it like it is, no matter how some people may take it.

A wee bit of history first. On 17 December 1996, the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru took over the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru and held 72 hostages for 126 days. MRTA although less fanatical that the defunct by then Shinning Path Terrorist/Cult group, they had no qualms in being quite nasty if needed. At the end, Peruvian Special Forces attacked and retook the embassy with only one hostage dying and that was not at the hands of the terrorists but because the gentleman had a heart attack as he was being taken outside by the soldiers. All terrorists were killed and this was controversial for one reason: the teams that attacked the different concentrations of terrorist were closely followed by “mop-up” teams that made sure none of the terrorists were alive to continue making mischief even if they were wounded and apparently surrendered. After the rescue was over, the complains about excessive use of force and outright executions were made, but the response from the military was that their aim was to rescue the innocent whatever the cost and that included making sure the terrorists were no longer a threat. The same tactic was used in the Moscow’s Nord-Ost Theater hostage crisis against Chechen terrorists including women carrying explosive vests that were under the effects of a sleeping agent and out for the count: They all got a bullet to the brain.

How does this apply to us carrying a concealed weapon every day? Haven’t we talk and argued day in and out about using a gun to stop a threat and contained within what the law allows us to do? Yes and it still applies, but when it comes to a terrorist attack by multiple individuals with no regard for their lives and much less for our lives, the rules change drastically. A terrorist attack by fanatical islamists is simply warfare brought to your doorstep (or your table at the food court in the mall) and a new defensive strategy must be adapted to it.

Getting the hell out of the location is still priority number one. If that fails, finding a location which is away from the fracas and easily defensible is the alternative. But in trying to achieve any of the above goals, we may come face to face (or if we are lucky, our faces looking at their backs) with those trying to kill us. If the gods of warfare smile upon us, we may be able to either shoot first or accurate (hopefully both) stopping the terrorist. But it is then a tactical and moral imperative to make sure that the terrorist is not able to do any more damage  by properly placing a bullet inside his head assuring his death.

This new generation of terrorists are not only fueling their rampages with jihadist fanaticism but also by ingesting drugs that increase their aggressiveness and threshold of pain. These additions make them continue even when a normal body would be begging to shut down. Tactically it would be foolish to shoot one of these examples of the modern communion of religion and chemistry in the chest, watching go down and assume he is neutralized. The last thing you want as you are trying to evacuate the area is the surprise of the bastard getting back up and repaying your kindness with assorted shots to your rear. And even if you manage to leave before the Terrorists gets back up, he will get back into action and probably kill other innocent people before his internal system finally collapses.

I forget where I read ” A head shot is always honest.” or words to that effect. We should strive to make these misguided souls to be as honest and peaceful as we can make them if nothing else for our safety and the safety of others.

Be warned that these are my particular thoughts for this very narrow scenario. I do not know what kind of legal consequences a person might face by applying that extra shot to the brain pan of a terrorist. I know that there will be the usual amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacks wringing their hands and demanding that the DOJ and the ACLU launch an investigation on the possible abuses of human rights against the poor misunderstood bastards, but really you will be facing that onslaught of bullshit alive.

It is up to you to accept, mull or totally discard the above rant.

But they do double failure even better:

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I shall leave Mr. Monster Hunter himself with the explanation:
Apparently Ladd Everitt’s knowledge of Obamacare only rivals his knowledge of guns.

I took our daughter to school Tuesday as I do most mornings. I parked in the same place I usually do, alongside a long line of other vehicles, and got out to begin our walk into a school we’ve grown to love. But something felt different. I didn’t feel safer knowing the person parked on either side might now legally be concealing a weapon in his or her car. I didn’t have the sense that our young daughter was better off because all around us in that parking lot there could be handguns legally hidden away in the surrounding cars. I actually shuddered to think that the click of a lock opening the car next to us might now mean there was a gun close at hand.

via Handguns are now legal at my daughter’s elementary school | CharlotteObserver.com.

This is beautiful. Notice that his irrational fear is so profound that he failed to notice one very important thing while taking his daughter to school:

NOTHING HAPPENED.

It is hilarious that we are the ones accused of being paranoid but they are the ones constantly bemoaning and literally having to cork up their exit chutes lest they soil themselves at the thought of a 5 or 6 century old technology being out there in the real world.

They have been wrong in every aspect they predicted. Concealed Carry? “ZOMG people are gonna shoot each other in the streets for nothing!” Restaurant Carry? “ZOMG people are gonna get drunk and shoot each other for nothing!” Stand Your Ground “ZOMG people are gonna shoot each other waiting in line at the movies!” (I never understood how they came up with that one) Guns in Parking Lots? “ZOMG disgruntled workers are gonna shoot each other and massacre everybody at work!” Each and every prediction has miserably failed but still they go out and repeat the narrative every time a state gets rid of some restriction.

I am guessing that these are the same people who used to call the well-known fraud Miss Cleo. Then again she was probably more on the money than these idiots.

I guess by now you have seen the video of the family attacked by a gang of idiots riding motorcycles:

As stated in the news piece, we don’t know what was the original trigger of the situation, but the riders response was NOT the proper one.

It is unfortunate that SUVs nowadays are built with the consistency of aluminum foil bought at the Dollar Store, otherwise they could be properly used as battering ram to clear an attack like this. The latest and hottest SUV would probably seize after bumping the fifth biker and leave the owner at the mercy of the two-wheeled mob, but hey! It is good for the environment, right?

Anyway, this happened in New York where we have been assured by Mayor Bloomberg and our Betters that everybody is safe and the need for self-defense is just a crazy myth created by the NRA to sell more guns to kids in pre-school with the Eddie Eagle program. In the real world, this is an example for the need of Glock 18s and multiple 30 round magazines and a belt fed weapon in some sort of 30 caliber.

Or we can just cut to the chase and get the Dillon SUV:

I’ll never have a gun in my home. I’d rather not be armed if an intruder creeps into my room at night. Guns change the dynamics of a conflict instantly, increasing the likelihood of death: the intruder’s or mine. Yes, I also realize that a gun might come in handy should an intruder come creeping – but, as the scenario could play out either way I choose not to have a gun in my home.

via I Choose Life and That Means No Guns Under My Roof | Babble.

And I am fine with that. If you have chosen not to have guns in your house and be defenseless, God Bless you and good luck.

But I do want to point something out..a wee bit contradiction:

What do gun rights advocates care if we create safe storage laws or develop child proof technology? You can still arm yourself to the teeth if you want, you just can’t keep your loaded gun in your nightstand or under your pillow. Yeah, I know, you’re breathlessly waiting for the intruder to enter your home so you can blow him away and prove all of us gun control advocates wrong, but what about the curious children in your home?

and then farther down the article:

If you want weapons in your home that’s certainly your decision and your constitutional right and I absolutely support that.

So what is it? Can I have a gun the way I want it in my house or only the way you want it, if at all?

Is the concept of contradiction so deep, many people just cannot process it?

Today is the first day when the new IDPA rules go into effect. I am now officially a Regular Shooter & no more duties other than paste and make myself an annoyance to Safety Officers and fellow shooters.

Sweet!

From Kathy (Cornered Cat) Jackson:

Thought for the Day: Wipe down your carry gun regularly, even if you haven’t shot it in awhile. It’s embarrassing when you pull it out of the holster and there’s a dust bunny balanced on the front sight.

Don’t ask me how I know this. Trust me, I know this.

From the Firearm Blog

Why we stopped wearing armor (French cuirass struck by a cannonball at he Battle of Waterloo).

From all over Facebook:

And I am really hankering for a bolt action rifle in .308 and that means if I ever hit the lotto, that’ll be my next purchase. In the meantime enjoy this article on Field Expedient Shooting Techniques.

Serious blogging might return tomorrow.