My suggestion for undertaking this particular blog, written by Darrell Dawsey, is to read the title, scroll down to the very last sentence and read that morsel, and then scroll back up to the top to read the whole piece. Then read a story about the carjacking in question on ClickonDetroit.

The author of this interesting Time piece muses on the thought of killing a “child” who threatens to kill you by showing that he, at 5′ 10″ (hardly childlike), is carrying a gun and means business. Two kids – maybe eleven, maybe twelve, who knows – decided to carjack a woman and her mother in their driveway at the point of a gun, in Harper Woods, Michigan, a suburb of Wayne County that borders Detroit. The author notes that an acquaintance remarked, in response, “The first thing I thought is, I would’ve shot ‘em.”

First, let me clarify some details about Harper Woods. This suburb sits between Eight Mile Road (the line of demarcation) and Seven Mile Road to the south. It borders both the ritzy Grosse Pointes (to the east) and Detroit (to the south and west). For many years it was a quasi-Grosse Pointe for those uppity wannabees who could not afford the luxury of the Grosse Pointes but could manage to mortgage their future for an overpriced, brick ranch with a Harper Woods address. I grew up about eight blocks to the north and I still live and play in the same area.

Harper Woods was once remarkably expensive and semi-exclusive, back in the days prior to the credit bubble when most of us had no choice but to live within our means in terms of our housing. Now it’s a foreclosure-ridden rat drop, thanks to the mortgage-o-rama social engineering trap that created endless housing opportunities for folks with criminal records, no creditworthiness, and no sense of ownership or obligation. I have a family member who has lived there since the late 1980s – his house is now worth next to nothing, and he is stuck in that home until the cows come home.

The city has been riddled with car thefts, carjackings, home burglaries, and home invasions. The amount of foreclosed, empty homes in Harper Woods is mind-boggling – they are everywhere, littering what used to be, only 15-20 years ago, perfectly kept, brick neighborhoods. There is not a single suburb in the Detroit area where I have witnessed such an immediate and harsh ruination.

In getting back to the original theme of this story, you have a situation where some rather tall person – black or white, young or old – aggressively approaches you in your own driveway and reveals a gun. The Time author raises the questions:

How do you treat a child like an enemy combatant? How do you threaten violence, even in self-defense, against a little boy? How do you shoot a pistol-packing 12-year-old child so warped that he’s willing to blow you away just to steal a car whose dashboard he probably can’t even see over?

My response is clear-cut: in such a situation, you are looking at an immediate threat, an unfriendly, hostile foe, a gun-wielding wildman who is brazen enough to face off against you and dare you to lay down your cards. You are an individual who would not dare go on the offense against another person or their property. Yet here you are, facing a potential execution, and you cannot guess what form that action will take. If your mind starts flashing thoughts and images very quickly, you might think about the year before, when Matthew Landry was carjacked behind a Quiznos just two miles to the north and taken to an abandoned home in Detroit where he was beaten, tortured, and shot in the back of the head.

The looter who stands before you is a person with a gun. If he’s a man and you’re a woman, that’s even worse. You don’t want to guess his age, his game, his real intentions, what cards he holds, or his ability to follow through with his threats. So you do the only sane thing you can do – you shoot him. By definition, self-defense is a resistance to force, and using enough force to cause death is justified when such force is deemed necessary to prevent bodily harm or death. After all, speaking for myself, I don’t carry a .45 in my purse because my right shoulder rejoices over the added four pounds of gun-and-ammo weight.

Furthermore, I would think that no jury of my peers would convict me for defending myself from a menacing and armed potential killer who confronted me on my property. That’s another reason why I’d shoot a 5’10″ man (“kid”) with a gun who is threatening my life.

Mainly, I wanted to comment on this shooting incident that happened near my home just recently. It’s being called the Farmington Hills road rage incident. A brief description from the story:

Mintz was reportedly braking several times on northbound Orchard Lake near 13 Mile around 4:30 p.m. Monday when a 20-year-old Commerce Township man behind him apparently became irritated, exited his car and approached Mintz at his car window. Mintz then reportedly pulled out a 38 Revolver and shot the Commerce man once in the arm, according to police. The victim’s injuries were not life threatening.

It’s hard to really know how things occurred, but one thing is known for certain: when a person leaves his vehicle in the middle of a crowded road to angrily approach another individual, who is sitting peacefully in his car, the intent is to do harm, or, to make the other person think he means to do him harm. Wrong. And yes, sometimes that can be a dead wrong decision. Someone giving you the finger, screaming at you, etc., is not a reason to leave your car and go nuts. A middle finger or shouting is not the same as an intent to do harm.

First off, on a daily basis I face aggression on the road, time and time again. People who cannot contain their anger or miserable state certainly take it out on others on the road. I learned, long ago, while in my 20s, that it was not worth it to mix it up with these people. They are not worth your attention, and certainly, why put yourself at risk over some nutjob that you’ll never come in contact with again? When people aggressively tailgate me – and this happens a lot where I live – I don’t tap my brakes (like I used to when I was younger). I slow down until they go raging by me. Sometimes they’ll swerve over back in front of me and slam on the brakes, but again, I’ll slow or stop and let them realize that there’s going to be no conflict here. Eventually, they lose interest and move on.

That Mintz was tapping his brakes was not the smartest thing to do, but evidently, he was sending a message his way: stop the unprovoked aggression. The other driver, who appears to have been the aggressor from the start, decided to take the conflict to a different level. A person who will get out of his car, in the middle of rush hour, and approach a vehicle to rage on, is a dangerous (and unpredictable) person. People are carrying guns and other weapons nowadays, and such an action really shows the aggressor’s ignorance and carelessness.

As to Mintz, here’s my beef – he was completely untrained in the use of his concealed pistol (as are most concealed carry folks). When you carry a loaded weapon you have to think far bigger than the other guy. You have to train to prepare.  You have to train to react under pressure and in varied scenarios. Mintz should have been watching the guy from the moment he stepped out of that car behind him, and he would have been able to determine if the guy was armed, either with a gun or some other makeshift weapon. He should have watched his every step, his hand and arm movements, and his approach to his vehicle. If he did, he would have known a lot more about the road rager’s intent. He would have seen if the guy was drawing a weapon. When the rager approached his car, he should have been looking for a way out; if he had nowhere to go due to a red light and no way to go around others, then, as the guy continued to approach his window, he should have drawn and chambered the firearm. After all, a person who has got to the point where he is inches away from your car window can do major damage very quickly. Seeing a firearm would typically end the approach and the conflict. Yes, I know that brandishing a firearm can be tricky, and interpreted by law in various ways. But I’d rather end a road conflict peacefully than carry it out to the extreme.

If the sight of a firearm does not end the conflict, and if no weapon is presented by the rager, Mintz would have certainly bought enough time for the light to turn green and traffic to start moving. Thus, he could have escaped the conflict. After all, this was not a robbery attempt, where the intentions are clear from the start. This is a case of a person momentarily going nuts, and that should be handled knowing that it can likely be diffused without shots being fired. If the aggressor started punching his way through the window, that’s when it is time to take the ultimate defensive stance.

Mintz had no training, no awareness, and no ability to understand how he would react to various events. It’s a shame that most people never take a bit of training beyond the very lame CPL course they take to get their carry permit. Granted, they have a basic right to carry a weapon, period, but common sense and self-responsibility should lead people to understand more about the weapon they carry and become proficient enough to determine how and when they should use it. That will likely serve to alleviate a time and place where you are sitting your butt in front of an unpredictable jury. You don’t just go off and shoot people because you are pissed.

If I were on the jury in such a case, knowing only what I know now, what would I do? I would say, without a doubt, that Mintz was scared and acted in self-defense, in spite of not being well-trained and prepared. The ultimate mistake, in my mind, was committed by the individual who got out of his car and aggressively approached another person, showing intent to do harm. In today’s world, that’s a really, really bad thing to do.

Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.

“Arm themselves,” the judge said. ”Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.”

———————

I was asked to start what we hope will become a sequence of blog posts from LRC bloggers talking about what guns they prefer for purposes of self-preservation in a defensive mode (yep, The Boss had something to do with this). The question is – What do you prefer to own or carry? Before I answer my own question, that question brings me to this video interview with Ted Nugent (thanks to Richard Nikoley for the tip). Indeed, make fun of my linking to Ted if it amuses you, but there is virtually no one, especially of celebrity status, who so consistently gets it so right and so clear on guns and self-defense. I am so unforgiving of anyone – especially the allegedly pro-gun yet pro-permit Republican types – who thinks that we need, or should have, a series of licenses and permits (permissions from self-serving authorities) in order to stand prepared to defend ourselves. Anyone who thinks I should have to grovel at the feet of local establishment officials to be granted government licenses in order to exercise my natural rights to defend myself and my property is on par with Satan. Elected officials cannot and will not defend me, so I will do it myself, whether or not their authoritarian-tainted paper with my name on it gets their stamp of government approval. And how dare they, the citizen tyrants who lecture me on the necessity of official government licenses, operating with their minuscule knowledge of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, the traditions of our American roots, and natural rights. And these wretched people believe they are acting favorable to the self-defense view by telling the rest of us they support gun rights if and when our privileges are fully in line with all state permissions and enforced by the jack boots of arbitrary government laws.

As Nugent says, the Second Amendment, along with the understanding of natural rights, is so obvious that it is insane that this issue is an argument. My view: no one should ever declare statements, or issue passes, licenses, or whatnot, that tell another individual where, when, and how (or if!) they can defend themselves (obeying private property rules, of course). How politically incorrect has it become, even among the “pro-gun” Republican-conservative types, to insist, as I do, that there should never be any limitation whatsoever on the ownership and carry habits of firearms, and that anything else is undeniably totalitarian. The NRA has long been limp on this issue; thank goodness Nugent remains on its board. GOA (Gun Owners of America) is better, and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) is unyielding.

For me, asking me what I prefer to use for personal protection doesn’t get a clear-cut answer. In fact it’s complicated because of the many things I do, and each situation demands a unique approach. It’s like shoes, only I say, Gee, what gun do I carry today? Except that unlike most women, I like guns better than shoes. My choice of choices is the 1911 .45 ACP, with mine being the Taurus in the duotone model. When I told Mr. Rockwell why I like the .45, he asked that I please not spell it out. I like it because it stops s _ _ _. My Ruger LCP .380 makes a nice backup piece, but also, due to its size and weight, it is my choice of weapon when I am rollerblading or cycling (mountain biking and road), or when I am working outside on the property and wearing shorts and summer clothing. It’s a great pocket gun, even for someone as small as me. I’ll use a Speer Gold Dot Hollow Point or a Buffalo Bore +P. I also carry a Smith & Wesson .38 Model 642 Airweight. I am also adding a Springfield Armory sub-compact 3″ 9mm to the concealed carry closet.

One of my favorite rifles, as my friend Michael Gaddy knows, is the Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM. At home, my Remington 870 Express 20-gauge shotgun, an all-American workhorse, makes a fine home defense weapon, and the youth model is especially great for smaller shooters. This past weekend I shot a Barrett .50 BMG Model 99, and what a treat that was! At $6k for the gun, scope, mount, etc., and about $5-6 per round, I won’t be buying one of those soon.

LRC bloggers, please do reply to this post and chime in with your preferences. LRC writers who don’t/won’t blog: email me (click on my name above for my address) and I will blog yours for you if you’d like. Update: Dear gentlemen, PLEASE REFRAIN from writing me to “give a woman advice.”

———————

I hesitated starting this blog thread, and why? Because my past experiences allow me to be very good at predicting things. When I post on this issue, I immediately get tons of emails from macho, insecure men offering their definitive opinions on the matter to a total stranger who they know nothing about. But they are know-it-alls, and in spite of the fact that my post tends to show people I know a little bit about the topic at hand, those people never disappoint. One fella “corrected” all of my gun choices which are very individualized to me, my skills, my experience, my needs, my desired financial outlay, my likes and dislikes, etc. His email was completely arrogant and condescending (as always there’s some “dumb female” that needs his glorious advice), and when I replied – nicely – that I did not seek or need his very forceful advice, I received a nasty hate mail in return. Alas, that was to be expected. My fault for not ignoring a guy who I immediately determined was a jerk.

I received several emails that weren’t quite nasty like that, but very macho-opinionated on a subject that is extremely subjective to the individual. It’s very strange how a gal knowledgeable about guns – and I am just a light hobbyist – can make men insecure enough to reach out to a total stranger and  act like arrogant, know-it-all, rude fools. Now I know most of you guys aren’t like that, but I do receive an awful lot of ‘arrogant advice’ emails on this topic. And yes, it is rude and arrogant to boldly offer up advice to others, treating them as if they are idiots, without them first soliciting your advice.