Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, July 13 2008 Volume 11 : Number 709 In this issue: Carts before horses - Political Parties Editor's Notebook: The Tactical Wire Re: Carts before horses - Political Parties Baird/Harper refused to arm wardens Re: -a Glorious day if the RFC pulled together [Clarification] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:06:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Carts before horses - Political Parties This just came to me late last night: I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves with talk of taking over riding associations or entire parties (not that we shouldn't be trying to do this at all). First and foremost, we need to build our base numbers. To do this, we need to refine our "target acquisition". Target Acquisition: gun owners friends and families of gun owners anyone you think can see the light. In order to win people over, we will need a basic message; I put forward my previous message of "Gun ownership is an inherent human right"; others that have been proposed, like "Repeal 91/92" could also be used, depending on the audience. This is winning the war for Hearts and Minds. The antis and statists have excelled at this for years. With that in mind, I think we need to reidrect our focus from political parties to gun clubs and shooting ranges. Instead of trying to take over political parties, where most people probably don't give a crap about the rights of gun owners, why not start with those organizations who might already have a vested interest in our position? There must be some sort of argument that can be used on even the most liberal of gun owner - the Libs want to ban handguns; the NDippers want to ban all semi-auto guns. There is a ton more stuff we can use. I think that this is a much more "do-able" project than trying to take over a political party. This, of course, should not be interpreted as preventing anyone from doing that, if they so desire. We can always benefit from a "Diversity of Tactics". I have some ideas of how to go about doing this, but I'd like to get the discussion going. Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce "It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." - From The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:13:58 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Editor's Notebook: The Tactical Wire I've posted this article as an FYI feature to coincide with the news item; Re: CALGARY: Body armour blocks Taser- (Canwest)The Windsor Star http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=7a7a451e-4af5-4a29-9aff-c34ce1d2d5ca I felt the this might just be relevant for discussion. After reading both, any Thoughts & Comments? - -DRGJ ~~~~~~~~~~ The Tactical Wire : Thursday : July 10 Home: http://www.thetacticalwire.com/ Contact: info@thetacticalwire.com info@thetacticalwire.com Subscribe: http://www.thetacticalwire.com/subscription.html http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3627 July 10 : 2008 Editor's Notebook I was accosted by a young police officer of some experience who is currently facing a crossroads in his career. He asked about holsters, specifically about a particular make and model. Made by a company which has been a pioneer in officer safety, it was a model of great popularity. A component, made by the company, to add to the safety and security aspects of the holster, was mandated by the agency when the rigs were bought. While it makes the holster safer from gun grab attempts, it makes the holster no quicker for most to draw from. Many officers simply don't use the additional safety device. This leads us to the problem: We fight to prevent a tragedy of one sort while we fail to prepare for another dread result that is more likely to occur than the first. Over the many years of my career, I've seen the officers killed statistics from FBI/UCR vary. For the longest time, around 20% or so of officers feloniously killed were killed with their own gun or a partner's gun. That is far too high. One intervention that sought to minimize that number was the advent of the security holster. It worked . . . to a degree. But it's one component to an overall safety plan first articulated by legendary police trainer Massad Ayoob. It's not the whole enchilada. It misses one major category of gun-grabs: the assault on the drawn handgun. Lindell gun retention instructors have found that fully one-half of gun-grab attempts are launched on a gun already drawn. The holster is of no import in that event. Besides, the risk of seizure of a holstered handgun is dwarfed by the likelihood of someone bringing his own firearm - or edged weapon - to the fight. In that event, quick access to the handgun, being able to fight in confined space engagements, and being quick-witted enough to move-draw-move-fire-cover-fire (if needed) are vastly more important than a security holster. To bring everyone up to speed, Ayoob's layered gun retention safety net is made up of: Awareness (think Cooper Color Code) Concealable body armor Security holster Backup gun Weapon retention and disarming skills Awareness is the cornerstone of "the deal." You have to think "gun" on contacts or whenever you're around people who are of uncertain morality. This means you will turn the holstered gun away from people you escort or interview. It means that you rest your forearm on the gripping area of the holstered handgun so you can feel the touch of inquisitive fingers. Body armor is helpful in shootouts even if you are being shot with your own gun. Make sure your duty load won't perforate your armor. A backup gun? It's there in case the gun-grab attempt is successful. Remember the first rule in a gunfight? According to Mark Moritz, it's have a gun. For us, two is one. One can get lost, break, be taken from us, etc. The security holster is an asset. I like them. It's absolutely essential that you be able to draw from them quickly, confidently and surely. Don't mess this up. If the holster is complicated, you have to spend more time with it. Do so. You have a family to return to, a duty to do when you come back to work. Gun retention and disarming skills are very helpful. My favorite, because I have the most experience with it, is the Lindell system. Instructor training is available at the National Law Enforcement Training Center, Kansas City MO. To really learn the skills, learn to teach them. It makes you a better practitioner. Why disarming skills? Well, if the offender gets your gun away from you, the quickest course of action is to snatch it back. - -- Rich (For more information on gun retention and disarming, check: http://www.nletc.com/ ) © Copyright 2008 The Tactical Wire. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:46:13 +0900 From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: Carts before horses - Political Parties Probably the most powerful argument is to take people to the range. It's just plain fun. Let folks shoot prohibited, restricted, and autoloader rifles/shotguns. It's what convinced me 10 (15?) years ago as a non-owner. (gun nuts = good) I fellow I knew took me to the local "shack on the grass" range and let me shoot a few of his guns. By far the most accurate @25 yards was his little (prohibited now) snub nose .38. This was mainly due the weight difference I think. IJ On 14-Jul-08, at 6:06 AM, Bruce Mills wrote: > Instead of trying to take over political parties, where most people > probably don't give a crap about the rights of gun owners, why not > start > with those organizations who might already have a vested interest in > our > position? There must be some sort of argument that can be used on > even > the most liberal of gun owner - the Libs want to ban handguns; the > NDippers want to ban all semi-auto guns. There is a ton more stuff > we can > use. > Most gun owners will come around pretty quickly. > I think that this is a much more "do-able" project than trying to take > over a political party. This, of course, should not be interpreted as > preventing anyone from doing that, if they so desire. We can always > benefit from a "Diversity of Tactics". Getting involved in the political process is also important. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:22:00 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Baird/Harper refused to arm wardens > Time to arm park wardens > > Calgary Herald > 2008.07.13 > Instead, Environment Minister John Baird will now create a brand new -- > armed -- 100-member national park police force, at an initial cost of $12 > million, to do work previously done by 425 police-trained park wardens. > Minister Baird, summer is here and our national parks are not being > protected. Those responsible have your ear. Those who could fix it are not > free to speak out. Sounds like other bone headed moves made by Baird when he was an Ontario PC cabinet minister. In all fairness to Baird who I understand is a long-time Bud of Laureen Harper, any such decision is made by Harper himself. So why after deciding to arm border guards does he choose to not arm Park Wardens? I really don't know and understand the Party I supported over the past years. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:31:47 -0600 From: "Med Crotteau" Subject: Re: -a Glorious day if the RFC pulled together [Clarification] THANK YOU Mr. MODERATOR. It's about time! There are people, who are willing to work against the Gov't. Verbally, and Physically! I appreciate all that you are doing. INCREASE CRIME VOTE LIEBERAL Med Crotteau ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Med, I'm just trying to make it fair and keep this forum conveniently accessible and even for all of our susbcribers to feel comfortable discussing all of our relevant topics. Everyone has an equal voice to contribute as long as people maintain their civility. That's all. But thanks anyways. CFD Moderator- DRGJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: "RFOCBC" To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 2:16 PM Subject: RE: -a Glorious day if the RFC pulled together [Clarification] ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #709 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:drg.jordan@sasktel.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)