I started shooting shotguns in my early teens but it wasn't until I turned twenty or so and started hanging out with, and reporting on, cops that I got into handguns. I stayed with it through my my cop years, even teaching a bit, but gave it all up (along with a seventy-plus handgun collection) when I moved to the Chicago area because of the rigorous gun laws in Illinois. I've been back banging away for about two years now and enjoy it as much as I did when I was younger. Here are a few of the things I've learned:
If you know nothing about guns, don't buy one and hope you'll learn the right way to shoot it someday. Handling a gun is not like you see on TV or in the movies. They are deadly weapons that are far more likely to kill you, or someone you love, than they are to protect you from a bad guy. LEARN before you acquire one. Part of the value in taking a beginner's gun class is in the safety training you'll receive.
No matter how you feel about the gun laws of your city or state, abide by them. In Illinois, you're required to have a state-issued Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card to own any type of firearm. You are not allowed to carry a firearm concealed unless you're a law enforcement officer or qualify for very limited exemptions. In some communities, ownership of a handgun is prohibited, again unless you qualify for certain exemptions. Familiarize yourself with the law before you attempt to buy, or even before you accept a weapon as a gift.
Some Very Basic Information About Handguns:
A revolver is a handgun with a rotating cylinder (where bullets are inserted) in the middle of it. Revolvers come in a variety of calibers (expressed as .22; .32; .38; .357 Magnum and so forth)and barrel lengths (commonly from 1 1/2 all the way to 8 inches) and in various colors (blue steel, black, nickle, stainless steel, among others). Revolvers can hold from five to twelve rounds in the cylinder, depending on their caliber. Common police-issue calibers are .38 and .357 Magnum, though most police agencies have transitioned to semi-automatic pistols for heavier firepower.
A semi-automatic handgun is one with a magazine, or clip, in the handle where the bullets are inserted. Semi-automatics (generally referred to as "automatics") are popular with police agencies because of their capacities (usually from 8 to 15 rounds and sometimes more) and stopping power (the ability of the bullet to incapacitate a human target). Automatics come in a variety of shapes, sizes and calibers. The most popular calibers with law enforcement are the 9mm, the .40, the .45 and, in some very unusual circumstances, the .50 caliber.
Handy factoids:
(1) A silencer (more accurately referred to as a "supressor") will not work on a revolver. It will only work on an automatic and then only on an automatic with a barrel threaded to accept it. I have three automatic pistols. I would have to change the barrels on them (easy to do) if I wanted to add a supressor. But, since simple possession of a supressor is a violation of federal and most state laws, I won't be doing so.
(2) Automatics have "safeties" which are engaged to prevent the weapon from being fired.
Revolvers (except in very rare instances on certain limited models) do not have "safeties."
For a writer to say his hero "flipped off the safety on his revolver before he fired" is inaccurate.
Coming up next:
Why not to use a handgun for home self-defense.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Amber Alert Texts to Your Phone
I've just signed up for something cool. I've long been a supporter of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Now, in conjunction with wireless phone providers, they've set up a way to have a broader reach with Amber Alerts. It takes five minutes to sign up to get the Alerts in any given area code sent to your phone. The link to sign up is at the bottom of the page.
In some states, Amber Alerts are randomly assigned to any missing child case and they often turn out to be the result of a domestic dispute where the child wasn't seriously in harms way. But even if only one child who is really in danger is saved because of an Amber Alert, that's a great thing.
Sign up. Try it. You can always make a change later.
In some states, Amber Alerts are randomly assigned to any missing child case and they often turn out to be the result of a domestic dispute where the child wasn't seriously in harms way. But even if only one child who is really in danger is saved because of an Amber Alert, that's a great thing.
Sign up. Try it. You can always make a change later.
Confessions of a Blog Searcher
One of the more delightful things about posting blogs to this site is that I get to see what others are writing and, especially, the pictures they're posting.
Many of the blogs I've browsed are in foreign languages but the photography is often wonderful and very rich. Mostly they've been family pages, often with pictures of their kids. Some are special needs children. One blogger's account was most inspiring: they have twins with Autism. Another family posted pictures of their son Sam, including one that just made me grin: his first encounter with a chocolate easter egg!
If you have the opportunity after reading my rants, click on Next Blog at the top of the page and take a swing through a few of the other sites here on blogspot.com. I suspect you'll find your tour just as fascinating as I found mine.
Many of the blogs I've browsed are in foreign languages but the photography is often wonderful and very rich. Mostly they've been family pages, often with pictures of their kids. Some are special needs children. One blogger's account was most inspiring: they have twins with Autism. Another family posted pictures of their son Sam, including one that just made me grin: his first encounter with a chocolate easter egg!
If you have the opportunity after reading my rants, click on Next Blog at the top of the page and take a swing through a few of the other sites here on blogspot.com. I suspect you'll find your tour just as fascinating as I found mine.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Bye Bye to the Barbie Bandits
The criminal justice system has had its say. According to CNN, one of the 19-year-old girls convicted of being the "Barbie Bandits" after a bank robbery in Georgia last year has been ordered to prison for two years, eight years of probation to follow. The other lucked out and (perhaps because she agreed to plead guilty) merely gets probation. They were recorded on tape as laughing during the heist, were the subject of immediate national publicity, and police caught them within days after a short chase. From what I can tell from the stories about them, they're still laughing . . . and may in fact giggle all the way to another bank . . . if plans to turn their adventure into a movie come through.
The parents of one of the girls seem horrified by what happened but...neither of the girls has expressed more than what appears to be passing, or witness stand, remorse about the incident. In fact, one of the young women grinned through most of an interview on ABC, saying she only did what "alot of people have talked about doing" and didn't think for a moment about the fear they might have caused other customers in the bank at the time.
It was supposed to be a prank. It turned into a lark. No one was hurt and the women, both former "exotic dancers," got their fifteen minutes of fame. Of course the teller, who was in on the caper, will go to prison for five years. Another man is to be sentenced this week. Neither of them is a cute, young blonde. One has already done time for another crime.
The one girl got off easy. The other, also convicted of drug distribution, gets a slightly more painful slap on the wrist.
In the view of this old cynic, both girls should spend time in prison, and for longer than two years apiece. Especially in view of the levity with which they still seem to view their actions.
However, both girls now are convicted felons. Finding work may be difficult. Movie deals notwithstanding, if they're like many young people who pass through the criminal justice system at an early age, both may discover it's far easier to return to their lowlife friends and easy money schemes rather than to work on improving their lives. I doubt either one truly grasps the seriousness of their deeds.
My guess is that we will read about one, or both of them, again. And not as stars of a movie. Not even as stars in their own lives. More likely they'll get popped again, probably for drugs, possibly for prostitution or other crimes. If they are as foolishly fearless as they have appeared so far, they may hurt someone else someday. And laugh about that, too.
What really concerns me are all the other young people who see this case not as two girls doing something stupid and getting caught and punished, but as a wild adventure that they, too, would like to experience. National media attention? Wow! Go for it, dude!
By giving the Barbie Bandits a break, the courts may have caused more problems than they solved.
The parents of one of the girls seem horrified by what happened but...neither of the girls has expressed more than what appears to be passing, or witness stand, remorse about the incident. In fact, one of the young women grinned through most of an interview on ABC, saying she only did what "alot of people have talked about doing" and didn't think for a moment about the fear they might have caused other customers in the bank at the time.
It was supposed to be a prank. It turned into a lark. No one was hurt and the women, both former "exotic dancers," got their fifteen minutes of fame. Of course the teller, who was in on the caper, will go to prison for five years. Another man is to be sentenced this week. Neither of them is a cute, young blonde. One has already done time for another crime.
The one girl got off easy. The other, also convicted of drug distribution, gets a slightly more painful slap on the wrist.
In the view of this old cynic, both girls should spend time in prison, and for longer than two years apiece. Especially in view of the levity with which they still seem to view their actions.
However, both girls now are convicted felons. Finding work may be difficult. Movie deals notwithstanding, if they're like many young people who pass through the criminal justice system at an early age, both may discover it's far easier to return to their lowlife friends and easy money schemes rather than to work on improving their lives. I doubt either one truly grasps the seriousness of their deeds.
My guess is that we will read about one, or both of them, again. And not as stars of a movie. Not even as stars in their own lives. More likely they'll get popped again, probably for drugs, possibly for prostitution or other crimes. If they are as foolishly fearless as they have appeared so far, they may hurt someone else someday. And laugh about that, too.
What really concerns me are all the other young people who see this case not as two girls doing something stupid and getting caught and punished, but as a wild adventure that they, too, would like to experience. National media attention? Wow! Go for it, dude!
By giving the Barbie Bandits a break, the courts may have caused more problems than they solved.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Shameless Self-Promotion
I enjoy promoting my books almost as much as I enjoy writing them. C'mon, who doesn't get a kick out of talking about what they do? Okay, I'll re-state that. Other than secret agents and government employees with TS or above clearance level, curently employed undercover cops, crooks planning a major heist, serial killers and some just plain shy and/or grumpy individuals, who doesn't like to talk about what they do? Even some of them might like to talk but someone else would probably have to kill them for doing so.
For example, I'll share that I'm very excited to discover that my new book Every Secret Crime is available for pre-order on Amazon.com. With a five-percent discount, too. As of the last time I looked the image of the cover wasn't up there yet (you can see it if you scroll down here on the blog) but you can still order it just the same. Please feel free to go and do so now, then you can come back and finish reading. http://www.amazon.com/Every-Secret-Crime-First-Mystery/dp/1594146659/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205946244&sr=8-1
Self-promotion is an art. Some other authors I know, Joe Konrath being the most notable, will go to any lengths to sell books. A couple of years ago, Joe embarked on a cross-country driving tour of hundreds of bookstores. I don't know how he did it. Most of us either hire publicists or just pass out as many catchy bookmarks as we can at book signings, conferences, writers workshops and in return mail with our bills. Actually, I thought I was the only one who did that until I saw an article in a newsletter about it. I like to think of the guy at the gas company opening the envelope and getting one of my cool, crime-scene-tape bookmarks to put on his desk or cubicle. Or the billing person at the hospital holding up the distinctive yellow card and exclaiming, "Now ain't that cool!" Basically, with all the junk mail companies send along with their bills, it just feels good to give back a little, you know?
One area I know very little about is online marketing and promotion. While my friend, Anne Broksecker, crafted a wonderful video trailer to promote Every Secret Crime (watch it below), we need to make it more available. If you have a blog or a website with room for a YouTube video, please let me know. You gimme space, I'll give you a copy of the book. How's that?
Similarly if you know of any other venue where a crime novelist might be able to shamelessly promote his work, pass it along and gitabook for your efforts on my behalf.
And check out Amazon.
For example, I'll share that I'm very excited to discover that my new book Every Secret Crime is available for pre-order on Amazon.com. With a five-percent discount, too. As of the last time I looked the image of the cover wasn't up there yet (you can see it if you scroll down here on the blog) but you can still order it just the same. Please feel free to go and do so now, then you can come back and finish reading. http://www.amazon.com/Every-Secret-Crime-First-Mystery/dp/1594146659/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205946244&sr=8-1
Self-promotion is an art. Some other authors I know, Joe Konrath being the most notable, will go to any lengths to sell books. A couple of years ago, Joe embarked on a cross-country driving tour of hundreds of bookstores. I don't know how he did it. Most of us either hire publicists or just pass out as many catchy bookmarks as we can at book signings, conferences, writers workshops and in return mail with our bills. Actually, I thought I was the only one who did that until I saw an article in a newsletter about it. I like to think of the guy at the gas company opening the envelope and getting one of my cool, crime-scene-tape bookmarks to put on his desk or cubicle. Or the billing person at the hospital holding up the distinctive yellow card and exclaiming, "Now ain't that cool!" Basically, with all the junk mail companies send along with their bills, it just feels good to give back a little, you know?
One area I know very little about is online marketing and promotion. While my friend, Anne Broksecker, crafted a wonderful video trailer to promote Every Secret Crime (watch it below), we need to make it more available. If you have a blog or a website with room for a YouTube video, please let me know. You gimme space, I'll give you a copy of the book. How's that?
Similarly if you know of any other venue where a crime novelist might be able to shamelessly promote his work, pass it along and gitabook for your efforts on my behalf.
And check out Amazon.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
As Fictional as Non-Fiction Can Be
I confess. I haven't talked to Margaret Seltzer, the latest American author to fabricate a book about her life. I found a number for her and tried to call a couple of times yesterday and this morning but she didn't answer and her voice mailbox is full.
I'm going to write about her anyway.
If you haven't followed the story, Seltzer claimed to be "Margaret B. Jones," a half white/half Native American girl who documented her background as a foster child/gang-bangerhanger-on/and drug runner in the book "Love and Consequences." As the New York Times revealed however, the entire memoir is phony. Not true. Never happened. A lie. Her publisher halted publication, cancelled her book tour, and reacted to reporters with a bunch of words like "stunned" and "outraged" and disappointed" and probably a few more colorful ones that, like Seltzer's, never made it to print.
I can only guess why someone would fake their life story and try to sell it to a national audience. The Times describes Seltzer as tearfully claiming she thought the book was, "my opportunity to put a voice to people who people don't listen to." Is that the reaction of a conscientious woman whose motives are misguided or of a pathological liar trying to spin her way out of trouble? Doesn't much matter. The fact is, like most who try the big con, she was outed by arrogance.
Just as the Unabomber was unmasked by his brother, Seltzer got caught when her sister read an article about her in the Times and came forward with the adult version of "Liar liar pants on fire," no doubt guaranteeing a tad bit of tension around the 'ol Thanksgiving table in that house this year.
Seltzer isn't the only one to blame for this train wreck. Why did her publisher allow the cho-choo to chug so far down the track? In the wake of James Frey's spectacular flameout with "A Million Little Pieces" a couple of years ago, and other documented cases of memoir fraud since, where was the fact-checking? To protect their investment, wouldn't you think a publisher would invest a few bucks to do a simple background investigation of their author, especially with so much at stake? Why isn't that routine?
And I'm not even talking about hiring a private eye, although having an in-house troubleshooter for matters like this might not be a bad idea. For crying out loud folks, the internet offers dozens of ways to verify someone is who they claim to be. Any halfway bright journalism student with a computer and a phone could have backtracked Jones/Seltzer in a matter of hours. Even closer questioning of the author herself, instead of blind acceptance of the story, might have turned up an inconsistency or two.
Which all leads a cynical old reporter/crime novelist like me to raise two thumb-in-the-eye questions.
Was her publisher really that naive?
Or do they just think we are?
I'm going to write about her anyway.
If you haven't followed the story, Seltzer claimed to be "Margaret B. Jones," a half white/half Native American girl who documented her background as a foster child/gang-bangerhanger-on/and drug runner in the book "Love and Consequences." As the New York Times revealed however, the entire memoir is phony. Not true. Never happened. A lie. Her publisher halted publication, cancelled her book tour, and reacted to reporters with a bunch of words like "stunned" and "outraged" and disappointed" and probably a few more colorful ones that, like Seltzer's, never made it to print.
I can only guess why someone would fake their life story and try to sell it to a national audience. The Times describes Seltzer as tearfully claiming she thought the book was, "my opportunity to put a voice to people who people don't listen to." Is that the reaction of a conscientious woman whose motives are misguided or of a pathological liar trying to spin her way out of trouble? Doesn't much matter. The fact is, like most who try the big con, she was outed by arrogance.
Just as the Unabomber was unmasked by his brother, Seltzer got caught when her sister read an article about her in the Times and came forward with the adult version of "Liar liar pants on fire," no doubt guaranteeing a tad bit of tension around the 'ol Thanksgiving table in that house this year.
Seltzer isn't the only one to blame for this train wreck. Why did her publisher allow the cho-choo to chug so far down the track? In the wake of James Frey's spectacular flameout with "A Million Little Pieces" a couple of years ago, and other documented cases of memoir fraud since, where was the fact-checking? To protect their investment, wouldn't you think a publisher would invest a few bucks to do a simple background investigation of their author, especially with so much at stake? Why isn't that routine?
And I'm not even talking about hiring a private eye, although having an in-house troubleshooter for matters like this might not be a bad idea. For crying out loud folks, the internet offers dozens of ways to verify someone is who they claim to be. Any halfway bright journalism student with a computer and a phone could have backtracked Jones/Seltzer in a matter of hours. Even closer questioning of the author herself, instead of blind acceptance of the story, might have turned up an inconsistency or two.
Which all leads a cynical old reporter/crime novelist like me to raise two thumb-in-the-eye questions.
Was her publisher really that naive?
Or do they just think we are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)