Monday, November 7, 2011

Mike W. Schools His Mom

Mike W. wrote on Another Gun Blog about the influence he's had on his mother.

Mom W. is armed now and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, "Yay, good for her!" On the other hand, there's now an empty spot in my safe.

After I first brought her shooting a few years ago she asked "can the little gun be my gun?" There have been a few more outings with the FS22 since then and I suppose I finally caved. Sure, it's only a .22lr, but she likes it, shoots it well, and most importantly, she thinks it's "cute."

The whole thing is just too cute, isn't it?  That empty spot in his safe, her reaction to the gun. Mike is one of those gun guys who believes in preparing for the extremely unlikely possibility of needing to perform a DGU in order to save your life.  The consequences are so potentially damaging, that one must prepare, you see.

Too bad the stopping power of his mom's cute handgun won't be enough even if she does have the chance to use it in one of those unlikely but possible situations.  I wonder if Mike told her that.  Maybe he's instructed her to take two rapid head shots at her assailant.

Here's my comment.

I'm appalled by this story. It's bad enough that you yourself have made a stupid decision to own and carry a gun, a decision based on fear, insecurity and paranoia, but now in order to further justify your decision you've convinced your mom she's better off with a gun. She's not. The chances she'll use that gun to save herself are extremely slim. The chances that she has a negligent discharge or shoots the wrong person are much more likely. But, you, self-centered and biased in the extreme, don't even see that. Shame on you Mike. And I hope your mom is lucky and never gets hurt because of your bad influence.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. I applaud Mike W. Yes, a .22 Long Rifle handgun is low in power, but if that's the best weapon that his mother can control, it's better than the .44 Magnathumpenboomer that she can't manage.

    The key that gets left out here is training with the weapon. Anyone who can put shots where they need to go and who maintains an awareness of one's surroundings is better off than an unarmed person.

  2. Hmmm, it seems to me that in a discussion on the .22LR not too long ago, some folks were saying that it was a bad weapon to use because it was hard to kill someone with that caliber gun. I posted a link to an FBI report that characterized the .22 rimfire as being responsible for a lot of gunshot deaths. However, in the same document the presenter stated that while lethality was high, incapacitation was not, that caliber was not recommended for use by LEO's as it lacked sufficient "knock down".

    IF I was going to arm a female friend or relative I would probably want her to have a .32, .30 or 9mm on a compact frame. I would also insist that she fire a bunch of rounds to get used to the gun. There is nothing preventing a properly trained individual, regardless their size or sex, from safely using a larger caliber handgun.

    This "debate" always fails when you ask people if mandatory training and licennsing would be okay. It wouldn't for most of them that I've talked to.

  3. There's something far too Oedipal going on.

    "Can the little gun be my gun?"


  4. If I may expand a little on democommie's post a little.

    For those that dont know but democommie does a little.

    I am a CHL holder and a gun owner. But the part about training, the training you need to get a license is minimal.

    Training to effectivly use a gun for self defense is as on going as any military would need. I am only partially talking about handling the gun properly.

    Look, I pratice far more than most LEOs, mostly for fun nowdays, and know how to hit the target very effectivly. Damn good at, if I may pat myself on the back. BUT,,,,,,

    Here is the deal. Lets take every self defense situation that anyone can think of. How many are there? Well lets take that number and multiply that by at least 100 times. There is NO training that can fit for every situation, none. Basics help but mental capability at the heat of a split second moment of life and death for most people is going to fail miserably.

    Are you going to freeze with panic? Are you going to pull that trigger before it leaves the holster? Or before you aquire your target? What or who is behind your target? Even a .22 can get full penetration and hit someone else.

    These are but just a microscopic example that a TRAINED MIND has to deal with. Just shooting holes in paper can tell you that you can hit the target in a range where you have all the time in the world and with no real threat to you. That threat will change everything.

    Advanced training will help a lot if your going to arm for self defense and there are some parts of the country, or neighborhoods that may make it a good idea. But some, if not most, wont be able to retain or ever have the mind set to use that training. Ask the military or even the police dept.

    And that training MUST be ongoing, not just one time. Who in the major populace is going to devote the time needed for this kind of training. Who? Heck, even most police depts dont.

    Not me, I am much too busy earning a living. So I can SEE the next question coming! Why do I even have a CHL if not for self defense?

    To make sure that I am well within the laws to travel back home to visit and to the gun ranges just to punch holes in paper. Am I going to effectivly defend myself with a pistol. I hope to never find out! And the answer would be, I really dont know.

    I am not a young guy at all. and I know that I move slower, so all that training, if I had that when I was younger, would not be the type of training I would need now.

    Do you agree democommie?

  5. Jadegold,

    Oedipal? Doesn't that comment say more about your psyche than it does about the person in the article?

  6. I don't know Greg, Jade Gold has known Mike W. longer than any of us. I trust his observations.

    Incestuous jokes aside, I tried to point out another motive much more sinister. I think all you gun-rights guys are guilty of it too. That's the purposeful attempt to recruit people to your side for the reason of further justifying your own personal bad decision.

    Many of your recruits are going to fuck up with a gun in some way or other, some of them tragically. Few of your recruits will ever experience a true DGU.

    You do them a terrible disservice, to put it mildly.

  7. Center Lead:

    While I will disagree with most people carrying guns for most reasons, I absolutely agree that training is necessary and should be mandatory.

    I, like many others, had to take driver's training as a teen-ager in order to get any sort of decent insurance rates. I was taught how to do a number of things correctly and passed the test with flying colors. When I started driving in the real world, everything I had learned--that was burdensome, or seemed silly--was forgotten. I am afraid that superficial weapons training, never mind a complete lack of training in how to reduce confrontation and defuse tense situations, ill serves an armed and fearful populace.

    I'm old and slow too, but I can still swing a framing hammer or use a rake handle to poke someone--same thing with my cane (when my back is acting up). We are not defenseless without guns.

  8. Mikeb302000,

    Come to the range with me. I'll show you how to operate a handgun in a way that will keep you from having an accident. It might even keep you safe from attackers.

    I've spread the word to several people who never shot a gun before, and I do hope to win even more converts. You claim that I've made a bad decision with regard to carrying a handgun. What's your evidence? I know that some people screw up. I also know that their numbers aren't so large as to justify your characterization of my decision.

    Why can't you see that many of us learn how to use our weapons and how to operate them safely? You're not really worried about us doing something dangerous. You're worried that some of us have a power that you choose not to have.

  9. "Why can't you see that many of us learn how to use our weapons and how to operate them safely?"

    We can see, clearly, that many of DON'T know how to use or store your weapons safely. It's in the newspaper every single day. Like most things that are in the newspaper every day, we only hear about the idiots who do something so stupid that it draws the attention of the cops.

    You people want no restrictions, no registration and no requirement for training. You sound a bit like the WS bankers that nearly brought down the world economy three short years ago.

  10. And lets not forget that they want very limited responsibility for their dangerous weapons (in some cases, they are nothing more than big toys).

    If there is an ooops!......then they don't want the responsibility for what happens with that weapon. They just want to pass the buck.

  11. Greg, you seem blissfully ignorant of the respective training of my colleagues.

    I rather doubt there is much about firearms that YOU could teach THEM.

  12. Dog Gone,

    And there's not much that your colleagues or you can teach me. I keep hoping that you'll find enlightenment someday, but the good news is that the courts and the legislatures of most states are going my way.

  13. Greg Camp:

    Strangely enough, gunzloonz and people who really, Really, REALLY want to BAN guns are both pretty much convinced that they're winning the battle. The losers would be the thousands of people who die and the many thousands more who are wounded every year with easily obtained, easily "lost" firearms in the hands of career criminals, moron wannabe vigilantes and to-the-bone stupid gunnerz who lack training in the handling of the weapon and the handling of tense situations.

    You're proudly dismissive of logical, reasonable suggestions for ratcheting down the insanity, but as far as you're concerned it doesn't matter because the law is on your side. That's true, for now.

    I'm sure you would rush to turn in all of your gunz if the law was changed in your state or at the federal level and you were no longer allowed to have them. Well, actually, no; I think it would be more likely that you would go off the grid and live on twigs and berries with your fellow patriots while you worked at overthrowing a "bad government". You really should be spending time at mikeyw's blog, you guys are soulmates.

  14. Democommie,

    Your suggestions are only logical and reasonable if your goal is to eliminate private ownership of firearms.

  15. Greg Camp:

    You're an idiot or a liar. I'm leaning towards thinking you're a lying idiot.

  16. Greg, You seem to presume that I have no experience with guns and that one trip to the range with you would convert me. That's wrong.

    Also wrong is this.

    "You're not really worried about us doing something dangerous. You're worried that some of us have a power that you choose not to have."

  17. Mikeb302000:


    "You're not really worried about us doing something dangerous. You're worried that some of us have a power that you choose not to have."

    November 9, 2011 8:53 AM

    is a rather revealing comment.

    Greg Camp is admitting in his comment that he is empowered by the gunz.

    Gunz, they're not just for protection, they're empowering. Now, THAT, is scary. What were those losers at Columbine HS without their gunz--just another pair of picked-on, or, ignored teens. Now they're famous; they're dead, but, still, they're famous. And NOBODY will ever fuck with them again!!