Deadeye Rick

[ziggy29]

I'm not saying the incident was fictional, or staged, but it just smells like a play toward the demographic that Perry is always chasing. It might be totally legit - who knows. Certainly Perry doesn't mind the publicity it gets him.

But again -- I would think he already has most of that demographic locked up, and the time to play "gun-totin' cowboy" for campaigning would have been in the primary, when that demographic was much more up for grabs. I don't see this swaying many people who are leaning toward Bill White.

 

[Bestwifeever]

If I was walking my wife's dog around the neighborhood and a coyote started stalking the little PITA, I would send him off to Coyote Heaven. Mostly because there is no way in hell I could ever go back home without that freaking Yorkie in the same condition she left in.

There is a special place in heaven for men who walk their wives' girlie dogs.

 

[dex]

A Texan afraid of snakes? Um, they give me the willys too, but when I see one, I generally just step aside. And I can't imagine any snake not slithering away well in advance of the pounding footsteps of a jogger.

Don't you think a well-aimed rock would have convinced the coyote (not known for their bravery) to run away?

Maybe I am out of touch now with the gun carrying crowd, but I have never heard of anyone (outside of Star Trek) "Charging his weapon".

Put me down as cynical, but I believe that this story is nothing more than Governor Perry polishing his macho image.

I'm OK with him shooting the coyote. But, using a 380 for snakes or any pistol round for a snake would require fast action and accurate shooting. A person could probably get out of the way in all that time. A round loaded with shot would be better.
I'm guessing he needed to say something about why he was carrying a gun.

Also, maybe by snakes; he meant the human kind. Does snakes = bad guy in Texas.

Charging the gun is sometimes called the 'Israeli carry' and some people do it. I do not see the need for it. I don't conceal carry but, if I did I wouldn't do it.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

I don't have any problem with Governor Perry releasing a story that is probably very popular with the NRA crowd in Texas. It is a large constituency, and part of his base.

I don't even have a problem with him blowing away a coyote.

I do have a problem with politicians packing heat. I really have a problem with a politician carrying such a weapon in a popular public space like the Barton Creek Greenbelt (where this most likely took place). On your own ranch, sure.

There are lots of hot-heads out there, and ugly confrontations and incidents are going to happen. I would much prefer that the risk assessment of any potential situation be done by trained professionals than the politician himself. (I don't know who handles the Texas governor's security, the Texas Rangers perhaps?)

As far going out without one's security detail, that is (or should be) a no-no. Yes, it is a PITA, but that bit of personal freedom is one of the things you give up when you become an important political figure.

 

[ziggy29]

I do have a problem with politicians packing heat. I really have a problem with a politician carrying such a weapon in a popular public space like the Barton Creek Greenbelt (where this most likely took place). On your own ranch, sure.

I guess my big question is this: Would an ordinary citizen be charged with a crime for discharging a firearm in that situation and in that location? If so, let the double standards begin because you know he wouldn't be.

 

[Leonidas]

But again -- I would think he already has most of that demographic locked up, and the time to play "gun-totin' cowboy" for campaigning would have been in the primary, when that demographic was much more up for grabs. I don't see this swaying many people who are leaning toward Bill White.

The first week he was Mayor I dared to suggest that one of his honor's ideas needed some tweaking, and got my head chopped off. Not by Bill directly, but it tainted my feelings toward the man just by association. But I do think that I have to be honest and say that he kind of grew on me, just a little - I think he really believes much of what he says and does is the right thing for his constituents. A refreshing behavior for a politician. That said, I probably could never vote for him because he has been a complete weasel on the issue of illegal immigration.

There are probably some other issues we differ on, but his waffling on that one topic was cowardly and solely based on getting votes.

Everybody else may not feel the same way though. So, I think there are some voters out there who might walk across the party line and vote for White, and maybe Perry is just shoring up his base. Which is a smart move considering the voting Demographics in this state - there are a lot of people (like my BiL) who make their decision on elections based on a single issue - the 2nd Amendment. And, as I said, it's the kind of thing Perry does.

There is a special place in heaven for men who walk their wives' girlie dogs.

I am pretty darn sweet!

Of course I never had much of a choice on the girlie pets. The woman has a way of turning any animal into a girl's pet. Here are before and after pics of my dog that I had before I ever started dating my future wife. From man-eating guard-dog to a child's plaything in less than a year. She had my ferocious manly beast convinced that she was a 60-pound lapdog.

I could buy a man-eating tiger and she would have it trained to roll over to get a belly rub.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

I guess my big question is this: Would an ordinary citizen be charged with a crime for discharging a firearm in that situation and in that location? If so, let the double standards begin because you know he wouldn't be.

Eeek!
I principle I agree with you, but the last thing we need right now is an investigation into the legality of that little non-incident. Let's just let it recede into yesterday's news (while maybe having a little fun with it on the way.)

 

[dex]

I do have a problem with politicians packing heat. I really have a problem with a politician carrying such a weapon in a popular public space like the Barton Creek Greenbelt (where this most likely took place). On your own ranch, sure.

So to be a politician now you have to give up the rights that all citizens have?

Maybe you are against gay marriage also because a politician might go out in popular public spaces with their partner and that might hurt someone.

 

[IndependentlyPoor]

So to be a politician now you have to give up the rights that all citizens have?

Maybe you are against gay marriage also because a politician might go out in popular public spaces with their partner and that might hurt someone.

Wow. I didn't expect to need my asbestos underwear for that post!
I suppose that I am not as good a writer as I imagine myself. My intended tone was nothing at all like what Dex is perceiving.

And despite the fact that my partner and I have been together for 20 years, I am against gay marriage, although that is an entirely different thread.

 

[Leonidas]

I guess it's just part of the territory of being a politician or celebrity, but they do give up a lot of their freedom of movement and action by being protected.

I did the security planning for a couple of semi-public events (invited guests, not general public) that involved former-presidents and other less luminaries who were national office holders. When I planned for, and actually conducted, their physical movement from one place to the other, I found that I treated them as an object. The first one I did we made it all the way through the visit and I found myself watching the dude get in his limo and suddenly realizing that I had watched 40-50 people shake his hand or get their picture snapped with him and I had missed out. He wasn't my favorite ex-prez, but I had voted for him once and while I didn't have hero worship going I did respect the guy. On an impulse I turned to the guy in charge of his SS detail and ask if it was allright to shake his hand.

As he was just starting to get in the limo I managed to get a handshake and a smile in exchange for something I mumbled. It was the first time during the months of planning and the hours conducting the operation that I actually saw the man as a person. Up to that point he had just been part of a package who I was responsible for protecting.

And that's not at all unusual. I've been close to enough of these guys backstage so to speak, usually during a movement phase, to say that most of them have sort of a blank expression on their face during the ordeal as if it's something they have to endure as part of the job. I think they know that they're being treated as an object at that moment and it's something they put up with. I popped open a door once and came face to face with an ex who was just sitting there in a golf cart, waiting to be driven to the stage area (it was a stadium). He just looked at me for a second and then turned his head, I reversed course and found a different route, but I remember thinking he looked like he was very disinterested in anything other than his own thoughts. A man who was at peace with being treated like a package that gets moved around.

When it comes to presidents, even former-presidents, I don't think any of them are crazy enough to go too far against what their security handlers advise. They have to realize that the impact on the country would be devastating if something happened to them.

But what about the lesser important office holders like a governor? I'm not sure that Perry is sufficiently important that he has to give up all freedom of choice about his movements. Certainly he should listen to this security detail, but he should get to make choices.

That doesn't necessarily relieve his security detail from still protecting him - or at trying to while at least appearing to respect his wishes.

I do remember once having to provide surreptitious security for the chief executive of a federal law enforcement agency. He flew in commercial with his aide who I guess doubled as his body guard. But the man was adamant that he could travel in this country without a security detail - after all, he carried a gun and badge himself. In fact, he expressly ordered the local office of his agency from having anyone meet him at the airport. I guess he would have been pissed if he had noticed the guys in the Suburban following him.

 

[Orchidflower]

When I read this I figured Perry would win more than a few votes--and maybe stave off those gay rumors about him (the man is just too purty)--by having his gun with him and shooting the coyote. Isn't that basic Texas 101?
But hollowpoint bullets....dang...he plans to do damage if he hits something doesn't he?
To me, Texas has some great laws but then I believe in right-to-carry. What can I say?

 

[dex]

But hollowpoint bullets....dang...he plans to do damage if he hits something doesn't he?

It is doubtful that the hollowpoints even expanded out of a short barreled 380.

Although hollowpoints get a lot of attention the key ballistic issue is penetration - FBI studies show 12" penetration is the minimum to be effective.

 

[Orchidflower]

It is doubtful that the hollowpoints even expanded out of a short barreled 380.

Although hollowpoints get a lot of attention the key ballistic issue is penetration - FBI studies show 12" penetration is the minimum to be effective.

You are saying that you have to be at least a foot away for the hollowpoints to be effective? I can't imagine too many situations where a coyote or a man would be that close when they were shot...not that it couldn't happen...so I assume then that the hollowpoints would shatter whatever they hit? Am I on the right track here about hollowpoints?

 

[dex]

You are saying that you have to be at least a foot away for the hollowpoints to be effective? I can't imagine too many situations where a coyote or a man would be that close when they were shot...not that it couldn't happen...so I assume then that the hollowpoints would shatter whatever they hit? Am I on the right track here about hollowpoints?

Two different things

The reason for hollowpoints is to expand from the original caliber size, not shatter - it is doubtful that the hollowpoints even expanded out of a short barreled 380.


Read the FBI report about penetration - not distance:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

 

[Orchidflower]

Interesting link, thanks, Dex.

 

[dex]

Interesting link, thanks, Dex.

You're welcome - there is 380 ammo that has good penetration. I will probably get a 380 when 380 ammo is available - take a look at the Ruger LCP or Diamondback 380 - look like a small Glock.

 

[Leonidas]

You're welcome - there is 380 ammo that has good penetration. I will probably get a 380 when 380 ammo is available - take a look at the Ruger LCP or Diamondback 380 - look like a small Glock.

Is that for defending against Coyotes, or larger varmints that walk on two-legs?

 

[eridanus]

and maybe stave off those gay rumors about him

His wife knows and, briefly, some divorce lawyers did. I wonder how much she was offered?

In any case, this was pure machismo. Coyotes don't step to a grown man, especially one that acts hostile. Unless the puppy was off by itself (breaking the leash law!), I seriously doubt a coyote would try to snatch a puppy attached to an adult. As others noted, a rock would have been plenty sufficient.

Defending your livestock is one thing. Shooting a coyote in the distance because it looks at you "wrong" is another.

Now that I think about it, this story sounds completely fictional.

 

[dex]

Is that for defending against Coyotes, or larger varmints that walk on two-legs?

2 ...

 

[Leonidas]

2 ...

While I agree with much of what the author said, I have to partially agree and disagree with what he says about larger caliber weapons being preferred. The part I agree with is that bigger holes do more damage and bleed them out faster, the part I disagree with is that he goes too far in debunking the concept of "stopping power".

If you read page 3 (Tactical Realities) you will see that in a real-life situation you will be lucky to actually hit the person you're shooting at. If you do hit the person, you will be blessed with even more luck if you hit him some place where the wound will do enough damage to bleed him out - and a CNS shot will be a miracle. Which means you will have some rounds striking extremities or body shots in places where it's not going to do the kind of damage you want under the big holes-big damage theory.

But in going too far in debunking the myth, I think he ignores the reality. A larger caliber round traveling at a lower velocity will expend a great deal of energy on its target. It's what the author would call "stopping power" in a derogatory way, but it's what I call "I want to lay down and stop trying to hurt you" power.

The FBI paper relies on Fackler's work extensively, but there are many among his peers who say Fackler was exaggerating, wrong, and a poor scientist. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.3053

Simply put, if I know that the odds are against me getting a hit on the CNS core or vital organs, and if I actually hit the target it will likely be on an extremity or a non-deadly torso hit, I still want to accomplish my primary goal - to make the bad guy stop trying to hurt me. A large caliber round at a lower velocity is much more likely to do that. The paper I linked says it much more eloquently, but the way I've thought of it is that a large caliber round to a sold piece of meat is liking hitting someone with a baseball bat. It screws with their nervous system enough that it's like the shock turns all those muscle controlling nerves to "off" or "reset".

The effect is that they lay down and stop trying to hurt me - at least for a moment or two.

All of which means that if I'm holding a 380 in my hand and confronted with a target that I more than likely won't get a kill shot on, I may seriously wonder how hard I can throw that pistol at him.

 

[dex]

Simply put, if I know that the odds are against me getting a hit on the CNS core or vital organs, and if I actually hit the target it will likely be on an extremity or a non-deadly torso hit, I still want to accomplish my primary goal - to make the bad guy stop trying to hurt me. A large caliber round at a lower velocity is much more likely to do that. The paper I linked says it much more eloquently, but the way I've thought of it is that a large caliber round to a sold piece of meat is liking hitting someone with a baseball bat. It screws with their nervous system enough that it's like the shock turns all those muscle controlling nerves to "off" or "reset".

The effect is that they lay down and stop trying to hurt me - at least for a moment or two.

All of which means that if I'm holding a 380 in my hand and confronted with a target that I more than likely won't get a kill shot on, I may seriously wonder how hard I can throw that pistol at him.

On page 15 - I think the FBI agrees with you - "Given adequate penetration..."

Selection of a carry gun is a compromise - add up the weight of a 45 1911, fully loaded and the holster (or even a Glock 26) and compare that to a fully loaded LCP and holster. I would be more likely to carry the LCP on a daily basis (or the Diamonback 380)

First rule when in a gun fight - have a gun

 

[harley]

I used to have a neighbor who was a retired SS agent. He used to tell a story about a time that Lyndon Johnson was returning to TX and there was a rattlesnake on the path wherever they were walking. According to the ex-SS guy, one of the protective detail tried to shoot the rattler, fired 4 times, and missed each time. President Johnson took one of his aide's umbrella and beat the snake to death himself. No guarantee it's true, but it sounds a lot like Johnson.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Gov. Zoolander (I like that! ). But as far as carrying a gun, it's legal (open carry) without a permit, and legal (concealed) with a permit. So what's the big deal? If you don't like guns, don't carry one. I personally would probably have tried scaring off the coyote (Rock or whatever) first, but I definitely would have protected the dog.

 

[HsiaoChu]

Thank God he wasn't running with Cheyney.

I agree that in a tight situation even if you're a cop you may not be able to shoot straight. So when I was in my paranoid period(I bought 4 guns in this period-- Mossberg Pump 12 ga, S&W Stainless 6 inch barrel 367mag, S&W Stainless 6 inch 22ca, and 22 ca rifle Remington with scope), I went into my gun store looking for a laser sight. I figured that with the sight all I would have to do was get that red dot on the target. But I didn't tell them what I wanted it for. Most people go there for hunting. The owner's wife was there and she looked at me and said with a straight face, "You know, you can hunt animals in PA with that." And both of them burst out laughing.

They knew what I was planning on hunting.

Z

 

[Leonidas]

Selection of a carry gun is a compromise - add up the weight of a 45 1911, fully loaded and the holster (or even a Glock 26) and compare that to a fully loaded LCP and holster. I would be more likely to carry the LCP on a daily basis (or the Diamonback 380)

First rule when in a gun fight - have a gun

I agree on the compromise part - that's why I reluctantly stopped carrying a Colt Gold Cup and went with a Glock 27. I guess I just came toward the compromise from the opposite direction.

Having been there when a couple of different people have been shot with a 380 and witnessing the results, I think I've compromised more than enough by going from a 45 to a 40. When you have to fight a guy whose been shot 4 times (1 in the teeth, 2 in the torso and 1 in the arm), I'm thinking that somebody didn't bring enough gun to the gunfight.

As for the "given sufficient penetration", it's still not in agreement with what I'm referring to. Prime example from real life is a guy who had been in three gunfights with the police in one night and in the third one he finally caught a round (38 special +p) that, according to the docs, caused 40% paralysis in his left leg. He still was running and gunning until he caught a 45 round in the upper right thigh - hit nothing but meat - that rendered him completely combat ineffective. Other than some subcutaneous bleeding, and of course the holes, it wasn't much of a bleeder either - I don't think it hit much in the way of blood vessels. But it was like somebody hit him with a baseball bat and he just stopped running and fell. Dude was on five different drugs with adrenaline pumping and that big round took all the fight out of him.

I'm not criticizing you're choice of firearm...well, not in a personal way. It's just that frankly I don't know why anyone would carry a .380 for self-defense purposes. Not that I'm a gun expert or aficionado, I look at the darn things like a carpenter looks at his hammer - it's just a tool made to do a job. Everybody has their preferences.

 

[dex]

I'm not criticizing you're choice of firearm...well, not in a personal way. It's just that frankly I don't know why anyone would carry a .380 for self-defense purposes. Not that I'm a gun expert or aficionado, I look at the darn things like a carpenter looks at his hammer - it's just a tool made to do a job. Everybody has their preferences.

I have a Kimber Ultra Carry II - 45 and Glock 26. I just think I would more likely to carry the 380. Now if I was going to carry a BoB I would go with the 26