So Democrats keep pursuing "Universal Background Checks" for "common sense gun control." Their primary "Fact" (which happens to be wrong, color me stunned) is that "40% of gun purchases happen without a background check."
Before I point out why background checks are a bad idea, let's go ahead and dispense with this argument.
First, as I pointed out, it's wrong. Roughly 60% of guns are purchased directly from stores or dealers and require full background checks. Roughly 30% of guns are obtained via gift or inheritance. There's already laws against knowingly giving a gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one, so any additional "background check" rules are not going to do squat about that.
That leaves roughly 10% of gun purchases which do not require a background check. Heck, let's be generous and remove the gift/inheritance demographic completely. That means (back of napkin math) that our pool goes down to 70% of it's original. If we assume 100 guns as the original number(this math should scale up, since we're talking real percentages), now we're down to 70 that were purchased at all. Of those, 60 have background checks, and 10 do not. Ten is approximately 14.29% of 70, which is far short of 40%.
But 40% sounds scarier, so that's what they're running with.
Now, lets take a look at what this argument is really saying. It has two false premises.
False premise number one: A new law can stop people from breaking the law.
As already mentioned, it's already illegal to give a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one. If I give a gun to a known felon, I've broken the law. Are you suggesting I'm going to be more concerned about breaking the law after your super-double-serious law about background checks passes?
False premise number two: The American people are not trustworthy.
The only reason background checks make sense for purchases at all is that we don't want "crazy people or felons" to have weapons. That's fine as far as it goes. However- as proven with the Newton, CT shooting, crazy people can still get guns (see point one about criminals not obeying the law). The same is true of felons. So the only reason that 40% number is scary at all is if you believe that a) the only reason someone would purchase in a way that didn't require a background check was to obtain an illegal weapon and b) that if that purchase now required a background check they wouldn't find some other way to obtain a weapon.
If you don't believe both of those things, then it shouldn't matter if that number is 10%, 14%, 40%, or 90%.
Now that we've shown the Liberals don't really have a case for universal background checks, let's consider the case against them.
It comes down to one thing: background checks are de facto gun registration. Even if I don't mention the specific model of the handgun being sold, the background check alerts the government that Citizen Y has purchased a handgun. Now the government knows that Citizen Y has a handgun.
Registration is the necessary first step in confiscation. Not that confiscation will necessarily result (though we know that's their end-game), but that without registration confiscation is completely impossible.
Now, since we know their end-game is complete confiscation- they've said as much in hundreds of ways- then it stands to reason they also know that 100% registration is the only way to get to confiscation. Since I don't particularly want my guns confiscated, you'll excuse me if I reject the idea of Universal Background Checks.
I trust the majority of my fellow citizens. In fact, until a specific individual gives me a reason they cannot be trusted, I trust all of them. It does not bother me one whit if you get a gun without a background check. Why should my doing the same bother you?
Showing posts with label Self Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self Defense. Show all posts
Monday, March 25, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
I Heart Texas
In these days of Federal Tyranny and general gloominess for Conservatives, sometimes you read a story that just makes you smile. Oddly, this one comes from the New York Times.
I really don't have anything to say about it except that I'm really proud of my State. A well armed populace is a safer populace, and even our most liberal city has figured that out.
I really don't have anything to say about it except that I'm really proud of my State. A well armed populace is a safer populace, and even our most liberal city has figured that out.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Democrats to Gun Owners: You're Insane
That's the underlying assumption behind this proposed "gun control" bill from Florida. The short version is that they believe anyone who wants to buy ammunition has anger management problems, and should have to undergo anger management courses.
Now, I've alluded to this kind of thinking before, but I cannot explain how powerful this type of thing is. The new push for gun control is that people who want guns are crazy, and should therefore be disqualified from ever owning a weapon.
This is a very powerful argument for those who are uninformed. "Well, of course, anyone who wants a gun must be considering violence, why else would they want a gun?" Responsible gun owners, of course, know that is not the case. Responsible gun owners are much more likely to walk away from a conflict than non-gun owners. We understand the heavy burden that goes with gun ownership.
Now, this law is especially insidious for two reasons. First, it enacts a de facto gun-ban unless you get psychological help every 10 years. Of course, the National Democrats' next step is to make anyone who has ever sought psychological help ineligible to own a gun. Funny how those would work together. Second, it reinforces the idea in the minds of the populace at large that people who own guns are exceptionally violent and should be feared. It's the same drive behind all the kids getting suspended for doing things like pointing their fingers at someone like a gun, or biting their sandwiches into the shape of a gun (yes, those are both real stories).
Conservative Legislators cannot content themselves with merely defeating this kind of legislation. They must make it a laughing-stock. They must so thoroughly debunk it that no one dares bring it up again. Why? Because that is the only way to fight the cultural indoctrination that is Democrats' real objective. Democrats are smart enough to know that if they moved to take our guns they would be opposed. So they hope to make people give up their guns willingly- both by making it especially onerous to own a gun in the first place, and to make you appear "weird," "unbalanced," or "violent" by society if you are known to be a gun owner.
Once they have made that image stick in the minds of the public, they believe they can then move openly to confiscate guns. And, yes, I know they'll deny that. They'd be stupid not to. I ask you not to look at their words, but their actions and the logical consequences thereof.
Now, I've alluded to this kind of thinking before, but I cannot explain how powerful this type of thing is. The new push for gun control is that people who want guns are crazy, and should therefore be disqualified from ever owning a weapon.
This is a very powerful argument for those who are uninformed. "Well, of course, anyone who wants a gun must be considering violence, why else would they want a gun?" Responsible gun owners, of course, know that is not the case. Responsible gun owners are much more likely to walk away from a conflict than non-gun owners. We understand the heavy burden that goes with gun ownership.
Now, this law is especially insidious for two reasons. First, it enacts a de facto gun-ban unless you get psychological help every 10 years. Of course, the National Democrats' next step is to make anyone who has ever sought psychological help ineligible to own a gun. Funny how those would work together. Second, it reinforces the idea in the minds of the populace at large that people who own guns are exceptionally violent and should be feared. It's the same drive behind all the kids getting suspended for doing things like pointing their fingers at someone like a gun, or biting their sandwiches into the shape of a gun (yes, those are both real stories).
Conservative Legislators cannot content themselves with merely defeating this kind of legislation. They must make it a laughing-stock. They must so thoroughly debunk it that no one dares bring it up again. Why? Because that is the only way to fight the cultural indoctrination that is Democrats' real objective. Democrats are smart enough to know that if they moved to take our guns they would be opposed. So they hope to make people give up their guns willingly- both by making it especially onerous to own a gun in the first place, and to make you appear "weird," "unbalanced," or "violent" by society if you are known to be a gun owner.
Once they have made that image stick in the minds of the public, they believe they can then move openly to confiscate guns. And, yes, I know they'll deny that. They'd be stupid not to. I ask you not to look at their words, but their actions and the logical consequences thereof.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Heretics Must Be Silenced
BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns." That perfectly sums up the article. But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out. The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.
You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up." Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation. See, ABC said so, so it must be true.
But maybe we should make our own determination. When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do. So let's look at those proposals.
Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks." Essentially this would do nothing. Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole." Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist. If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check. Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL. Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway. And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."
In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult. They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally.
Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size. First, as the memo points out, this is just silly. Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining. That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare. Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.
Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away. What then? Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it. It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines. If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.
Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons." We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger. "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary." It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle. Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15. Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.
And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.
At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer. Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves. None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets. None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used. None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals.
If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry. That is the only option.
Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying. Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it. Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades. This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns. It is proven by how little coverage those events get. It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year? All three with 10+ victims? Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).
Liberals want to take your guns. They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright. And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys. Thus the article.
ABC is lying to you. The White House is lying to you. They do want you disarmed. Don't believe different.
You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up." Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation. See, ABC said so, so it must be true.
But maybe we should make our own determination. When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do. So let's look at those proposals.
Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks." Essentially this would do nothing. Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole." Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist. If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check. Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL. Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway. And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."
In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult. They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally.
Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size. First, as the memo points out, this is just silly. Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining. That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare. Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.
Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away. What then? Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it. It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines. If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.
Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons." We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger. "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary." It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle. Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15. Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.
And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.
At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer. Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves. None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets. None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used. None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals.
If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry. That is the only option.
Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying. Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it. Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades. This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns. It is proven by how little coverage those events get. It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year? All three with 10+ victims? Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).
Liberals want to take your guns. They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright. And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys. Thus the article.
ABC is lying to you. The White House is lying to you. They do want you disarmed. Don't believe different.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Softer Tyranny
Or: How even a 2nd Amendment Defender Can Fall For the Left's Lies
In piece on Law.com, Robert Levy, co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller (of District of Columbia v Heller) posits that: "Reasonable persons should be able to fashion reasonable restrictions—a framework for gun control in the aftermath of Newtown—without violating core Second Amendment rights."
With due respect to the counselor, he has bought in to many of the left's lies. Rather than take down each of the specific proposals (which would be pointless anyway, as he provides them in a "pros and cons" format), I'm going to point out some flaws in his premises.
1) "The (2nd Amendment) is not absolute."
Okay, first lets fight that straw-man. No 12-year-old is (in current culture) going to carry a machine gun in front of the White House at any time- the President being present or otherwise. Of course the absurd is absurd. That said, why would a 12-year-old not have a "right to possess a machine gun" other than being a minor in the first place? Let's put this another way- granted that a 12-year-old should being carrying a gun unsupervised anyway, does a 30-year-old have a "right to possess a machine gun?"
This leads directly into this line: "the right is not absolute." If that were the case, it wouldn't be a "right." It would be a "privilege." The authors of the 2nd Amendment, however, called the ownership and usage (to Keep and Bear) of weapons a "Right." Rights are, by their definition, absolute. I have an absolute right to defend my Life. I have an absolute right to determine my own destiny. I have an absolute right to accumulate property. And you will notice that liberty and property (or the more genteel "pursuit of happiness") do not receive the same treatment that the right to self defense does. The right to self defense is declared sacrosanct: "Shall Not be Infringed."
2) Magazine Size Limits
This is one of "pros and cons" arguments, but it bears special attention. The point he misses (either willfully or coincidentally) is that those two situations are very different.
A murderer (say, in an elementary school) is going to have lots of people running away and (importantly) darned few trying to attack him. Seconds, in an actual fight, are a very long time. An active shooter isn't in a fight, though. So a mass shooter has lots of time to reload. Unless people have suddenly become able to outrun bullets, however, their victims are not going to benefit overmuch from those seconds.
The Korean shop owner, or a woman in her own home, facing multiple assailants is in a distinctly different situation. There, they are not the aggressor. As such, even the seconds (~1 - 2) it takes (even longer if you're in California, and so can't have normal one-button magazine releases), can be all the time it takes from the last shot you fired until the first of those (remaining) "multiple assailants" can actually get to you. So where the seconds are a luxury our mass shooter has, they are not available for someone engaged in fending off multiple assailants.
3) Legalize drugs.
No, no it wouldn't. First off, no one (rational) is considering some gang member or drug dealer who gets shot because of a drug deal gone bad a "victim" of gun violence. Outlaws are outside the law; they'll find something to fight about anyway. And it completely ignores (as in: does not even address) the problems inherent in legalizing drugs, especially in our current culture.
Responsible gun owners already know that guns and alcohol do not mix. People who are into drugs are not going to be "responsible gun owners" (for the most part), and may not grasp the wisdom inherent in not mixing guns and drugs.
It also assumes that the drug cartels will suddenly "go legit." No. Most narco-terrorists are using the "narco" part simply to fund their other activities. Those activities will still require funding. Even if drugs are no longer a viable avenue of funding, they'll find something else that is. So unless you're going to legalize everything (and I mean everything) then you're not going to end drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs. You might change it into "Soccer game-fixing related violence," or any number of other things. But the violence will continue.
4) "Mental Health."
I've already addressed this one, actually. Who determines who is mentally incompetent to possess a firearm? How long do those determinations last?
Now, to be fair to Mr. Levy, he is "on our side" on this one. My problem is not with him, and he sides with 2nd Amendment advocates, on balance, in his piece. The majority of his opinion is well formed and well founded. But if we do not address these points, and expose them as faulty premises and ideas, we will never completely win the argument. Until we have won the argument, gun owners will be forced to defend their rights every few years, and potentially in a more hostile political/cultural environment than we have currently.
In piece on Law.com, Robert Levy, co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller (of District of Columbia v Heller) posits that: "Reasonable persons should be able to fashion reasonable restrictions—a framework for gun control in the aftermath of Newtown—without violating core Second Amendment rights."
With due respect to the counselor, he has bought in to many of the left's lies. Rather than take down each of the specific proposals (which would be pointless anyway, as he provides them in a "pros and cons" format), I'm going to point out some flaws in his premises.
1) "The (2nd Amendment) is not absolute."
As co-counsel to Dick Anthony Heller, I was a vigorous advocate for the right to possess firearms for self-defense. But I understand, as does every rational individual, that the right is not absolute. The Second Amendment does not guarantee a 12-year-old's right to possess a machine gun in front of the White House when the president is walking on the lawn.
Okay, first lets fight that straw-man. No 12-year-old is (in current culture) going to carry a machine gun in front of the White House at any time- the President being present or otherwise. Of course the absurd is absurd. That said, why would a 12-year-old not have a "right to possess a machine gun" other than being a minor in the first place? Let's put this another way- granted that a 12-year-old should being carrying a gun unsupervised anyway, does a 30-year-old have a "right to possess a machine gun?"
This leads directly into this line: "the right is not absolute." If that were the case, it wouldn't be a "right." It would be a "privilege." The authors of the 2nd Amendment, however, called the ownership and usage (to Keep and Bear) of weapons a "Right." Rights are, by their definition, absolute. I have an absolute right to defend my Life. I have an absolute right to determine my own destiny. I have an absolute right to accumulate property. And you will notice that liberty and property (or the more genteel "pursuit of happiness") do not receive the same treatment that the right to self defense does. The right to self defense is declared sacrosanct: "Shall Not be Infringed."
2) Magazine Size Limits
Firearms experts note that murderers can easily load a second or third magazine in a matter of seconds. Accordingly, limiting magazine size to, say, 10 rounds will not have much practical effect. Perhaps so; but that would also mean individuals trying to defend themselves would not be seriously hampered by a 10-round limit. They too could reload very rapidly.
This is one of "pros and cons" arguments, but it bears special attention. The point he misses (either willfully or coincidentally) is that those two situations are very different.
A murderer (say, in an elementary school) is going to have lots of people running away and (importantly) darned few trying to attack him. Seconds, in an actual fight, are a very long time. An active shooter isn't in a fight, though. So a mass shooter has lots of time to reload. Unless people have suddenly become able to outrun bullets, however, their victims are not going to benefit overmuch from those seconds.
The Korean shop owner, or a woman in her own home, facing multiple assailants is in a distinctly different situation. There, they are not the aggressor. As such, even the seconds (~1 - 2) it takes (even longer if you're in California, and so can't have normal one-button magazine releases), can be all the time it takes from the last shot you fired until the first of those (remaining) "multiple assailants" can actually get to you. So where the seconds are a luxury our mass shooter has, they are not available for someone engaged in fending off multiple assailants.
3) Legalize drugs.
The single most effective option—which is not being discussed at all—would result in a huge reduction of gun violence: Legalize drugs.
No, no it wouldn't. First off, no one (rational) is considering some gang member or drug dealer who gets shot because of a drug deal gone bad a "victim" of gun violence. Outlaws are outside the law; they'll find something to fight about anyway. And it completely ignores (as in: does not even address) the problems inherent in legalizing drugs, especially in our current culture.
Responsible gun owners already know that guns and alcohol do not mix. People who are into drugs are not going to be "responsible gun owners" (for the most part), and may not grasp the wisdom inherent in not mixing guns and drugs.
It also assumes that the drug cartels will suddenly "go legit." No. Most narco-terrorists are using the "narco" part simply to fund their other activities. Those activities will still require funding. Even if drugs are no longer a viable avenue of funding, they'll find something else that is. So unless you're going to legalize everything (and I mean everything) then you're not going to end drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs. You might change it into "Soccer game-fixing related violence," or any number of other things. But the violence will continue.
4) "Mental Health."
I've already addressed this one, actually. Who determines who is mentally incompetent to possess a firearm? How long do those determinations last?
Now, to be fair to Mr. Levy, he is "on our side" on this one. My problem is not with him, and he sides with 2nd Amendment advocates, on balance, in his piece. The majority of his opinion is well formed and well founded. But if we do not address these points, and expose them as faulty premises and ideas, we will never completely win the argument. Until we have won the argument, gun owners will be forced to defend their rights every few years, and potentially in a more hostile political/cultural environment than we have currently.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Gun Control Is Racist
"Why has no enterprising racist made the point that requiring ID and a background check to buy a gun will prevent poor people of color, particularly, illegal immigrants, from accessing their Second Amendment rights?
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 08, 2013 11:27 AM (kXoT0)"
That was a comment today at the AoSHQ. I liked it so much I'm stealing it. (Wait, I already gave attribution? Crap.)
The point of the comment (for my willfully ignorant readers) is to link the idea of Voter Id (which, for some reason is racist and will prevent Blacks or Hispanics from voting), to the concept of gun control. It's absolutely right in all it's particulars, and it sums up the idea nicely. I'd like to expand on it, though- because that's what I do.
The same people who would have us believe that presenting a valid, photographic identification card would "disenfranchise" the poor and minorities would have us overlook the fact that photo Id and a background check- not to mention permits (which are sometimes quite expensive) and other requirements- would have at least the same effect on people exercising their second amendment rights. Even more so, because of those previously mentioned permits.
See? Photo Id for Voting = Racist. Photo Id for 2nd Amendment = "Common Sense Controls."
But the 2nd Amendment is a right- conferred by Nature (or Nature's God) and merely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it strictly prohibits the Government from infringing on that Right.
On the other hand, voting is a privilege. Unlike the Right to Self Defense/Defense Against Tyranny (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), voting doesn't even exist without specific government action. Voting is unique to democratic and republican forms of government. An absolute monarchy, for instance, does not have voting. That does not mean an absolute monarchy could not protect the Natural Rights of its Citizens/Subjects (such a situation is absurdly unlikely, but not inherently impossible).
So why is it that the one they don't have a problem limiting is the one that is a Natural Right?
Further, I should point out that Gun Control really is racist. It was first implemented in the United States as a way to keep newly freed slaves from obtaining and using guns. When Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was to institute very strict gun-controls (mostly used to disarm the Jews).
It is simply true that any extra burden on gun ownership really will (as Liberals claim would happen with voter ID) have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. Add into that the fact that the poor and minorities are at least slightly more likely to live in neighborhoods with high crime rates, and it's even worse. But these supposed "Civil Rights" crusaders do not acknowlege the damage they are doing. Whether unknowing (which seems unlikely at this late date) or intentional, they really are attempting to implement laws which will deprive the poor and minorities of one of the Rights.
Why do Liberals hate brown people?
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 08, 2013 11:27 AM (kXoT0)"
That was a comment today at the AoSHQ. I liked it so much I'm stealing it. (Wait, I already gave attribution? Crap.)
The point of the comment (for my willfully ignorant readers) is to link the idea of Voter Id (which, for some reason is racist and will prevent Blacks or Hispanics from voting), to the concept of gun control. It's absolutely right in all it's particulars, and it sums up the idea nicely. I'd like to expand on it, though- because that's what I do.
The same people who would have us believe that presenting a valid, photographic identification card would "disenfranchise" the poor and minorities would have us overlook the fact that photo Id and a background check- not to mention permits (which are sometimes quite expensive) and other requirements- would have at least the same effect on people exercising their second amendment rights. Even more so, because of those previously mentioned permits.
See? Photo Id for Voting = Racist. Photo Id for 2nd Amendment = "Common Sense Controls."
But the 2nd Amendment is a right- conferred by Nature (or Nature's God) and merely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it strictly prohibits the Government from infringing on that Right.
On the other hand, voting is a privilege. Unlike the Right to Self Defense/Defense Against Tyranny (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), voting doesn't even exist without specific government action. Voting is unique to democratic and republican forms of government. An absolute monarchy, for instance, does not have voting. That does not mean an absolute monarchy could not protect the Natural Rights of its Citizens/Subjects (such a situation is absurdly unlikely, but not inherently impossible).
So why is it that the one they don't have a problem limiting is the one that is a Natural Right?
Further, I should point out that Gun Control really is racist. It was first implemented in the United States as a way to keep newly freed slaves from obtaining and using guns. When Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was to institute very strict gun-controls (mostly used to disarm the Jews).
It is simply true that any extra burden on gun ownership really will (as Liberals claim would happen with voter ID) have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. Add into that the fact that the poor and minorities are at least slightly more likely to live in neighborhoods with high crime rates, and it's even worse. But these supposed "Civil Rights" crusaders do not acknowlege the damage they are doing. Whether unknowing (which seems unlikely at this late date) or intentional, they really are attempting to implement laws which will deprive the poor and minorities of one of the Rights.
Why do Liberals hate brown people?
Punishing The Innocent: Gun Insurance
James Taranto has a piece in the Wall Street Journal from yesterday where he takes on the not-so-new idea of Gun Insurance. For those unfamiliar with the scheme, it works like this: when you buy a gun, you must also pay to insure it against any damage "it" may cause. California legislators are trying to pass it now, but it's not exactly a new idea- having been tried and failed in Massachusetts and New York dating back to at least 2003.
Taranto focuses on an Op-Ed by political scientist HL Pholman. Pholman, like so many liberals (I don't know his political leanings, but the arguments are those made by liberals) suggest that being forced to purchase insurance would cause people to change their behavior. Which is likely true to at least some extent. He does have the fallacious idea that semiautomatic rifles (rarely used to kill humans) would be more expensive to insure than handguns (quite frequently used to kill humans), but his idea is not entirely incorrect.
Taranto deals with the behavior modification aspect, but I want to deal with another. Even if all of the benefits that Pholman asserts actually were to come to pass, this law would be terrible. Why? It punishes the innocent for the behavior of the guilty.
Think about it. The people who would purchase gun insurance are people whoa are unlikely to be murdering people anyway. Oh, some of them might use their insured guns in acts of passion, but the vast majority of weapons used to murder are used by criminals. These criminals are not going to purchase gun insurance. Even if it becomes a requirement enforced on the seller, all that means is that they'll resort to the Black Market. These are criminals- by definition they break the law.
On the other hand, someone who buys a gun and insures it legally is now being forced to pay for those "uninsured gun owners." My Second Amendment Rights are being Infringed (he claims they aren't, but they are- any hurdle; even a financial one; placed on the People by government is an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms) because of the acts of criminals. Now, let's say I'm Johnny Gun Owner, and I have my guns insured because the law says so. Then, Billy Bad Guy comes and steals my guns while I'm at work (darn, I knew I should have sprung for a gun safe instead of just a gun cabinet!), and goes on a shooting spree.
Now I, Johnny Gun Owner who has done nothing wrong, am liable for all that damage. Presumably I'll have to pay a deductible (just like you do for every incident with your car insurance or homeowners insurance), and the insurance company will be stuck for the rest. Now, maybe if he'd stolen the guns the day before, I could have registered the guns as stolen, but not now- now it's too late.
Now, before anyone starts saying, "Yeah, but," realize that we cannot legislate by "yeah, but." That's part of what got us into the mess we're in- where every American Citizen probably violates at least three laws every day.
Once more, for the Liberals- it is already illegal to murder people. It is already illegal to threaten them with physical violence, whether with a gun, a knife, or even just your fists. It is already illegal to steal guns. At what point do we acknowledge that criminals don't care about the law, and that punishing law-abiding citizens is not the answer?
Taranto focuses on an Op-Ed by political scientist HL Pholman. Pholman, like so many liberals (I don't know his political leanings, but the arguments are those made by liberals) suggest that being forced to purchase insurance would cause people to change their behavior. Which is likely true to at least some extent. He does have the fallacious idea that semiautomatic rifles (rarely used to kill humans) would be more expensive to insure than handguns (quite frequently used to kill humans), but his idea is not entirely incorrect.
Taranto deals with the behavior modification aspect, but I want to deal with another. Even if all of the benefits that Pholman asserts actually were to come to pass, this law would be terrible. Why? It punishes the innocent for the behavior of the guilty.
Think about it. The people who would purchase gun insurance are people whoa are unlikely to be murdering people anyway. Oh, some of them might use their insured guns in acts of passion, but the vast majority of weapons used to murder are used by criminals. These criminals are not going to purchase gun insurance. Even if it becomes a requirement enforced on the seller, all that means is that they'll resort to the Black Market. These are criminals- by definition they break the law.
On the other hand, someone who buys a gun and insures it legally is now being forced to pay for those "uninsured gun owners." My Second Amendment Rights are being Infringed (he claims they aren't, but they are- any hurdle; even a financial one; placed on the People by government is an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms) because of the acts of criminals. Now, let's say I'm Johnny Gun Owner, and I have my guns insured because the law says so. Then, Billy Bad Guy comes and steals my guns while I'm at work (darn, I knew I should have sprung for a gun safe instead of just a gun cabinet!), and goes on a shooting spree.
Now I, Johnny Gun Owner who has done nothing wrong, am liable for all that damage. Presumably I'll have to pay a deductible (just like you do for every incident with your car insurance or homeowners insurance), and the insurance company will be stuck for the rest. Now, maybe if he'd stolen the guns the day before, I could have registered the guns as stolen, but not now- now it's too late.
Now, before anyone starts saying, "Yeah, but," realize that we cannot legislate by "yeah, but." That's part of what got us into the mess we're in- where every American Citizen probably violates at least three laws every day.
Once more, for the Liberals- it is already illegal to murder people. It is already illegal to threaten them with physical violence, whether with a gun, a knife, or even just your fists. It is already illegal to steal guns. At what point do we acknowledge that criminals don't care about the law, and that punishing law-abiding citizens is not the answer?
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
About Focusing on "Mental Health"
In my Jan 16 post "Tyranny in a Velvet Glove" I said this:
Then, just two days later, I wrote this:
Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."
Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD. Here's what she wrote (published last night):
Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR. How would she know?"
Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously. So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.
Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons. However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late. So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.
Disarming everyone is not really on the table. Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics? Congratulations, owners of multiple guns. You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.
Then, just two days later, I wrote this:
So there you have it. Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.
Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."
Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD. Here's what she wrote (published last night):
Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?
The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.
So there you have it. Not from some schlub on the internet, but from someone in medicine who can see how the SCOAMT is manipulating that profession for his own political ends.
Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR. How would she know?"
Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously. So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.
Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.
Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”
Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons. However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late. So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.
Disarming everyone is not really on the table. Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).
Monday, January 28, 2013
Also, Burger King "May" Sell Hamburgers For Money
It's absolutely pernicious. The Left's hate of people having any Liberty and freedom from "Daddy Government" colors their every perception. Case in point. A home invader was shot during the course of his crime. How does WPXI out of Pittsburgh report it? "Police said people inside of a Garfield home may have acted in self-defense when they shot an intruder Wednesday night."
May have. Now, reading the rest of the report, I'm pretty certain the police did say, "They may have acted in self defense." Note the lack of a quotation in the piece. It seems pretty clear that the bad guy was armed (broke in by shooting the door), and dangerous (during said shooting, hit one person inside the house in the face). I can't imagine there's a jury outside of New York City, or maybe England, who would convict the people inside the house of anything.
So, if it's unlikely that the police said "may have," then why did the station report it that way? Well, because the assumption (to Leftists) is that any use of a gun is criminal, and the burden lies on the shooter to prove that it wasn't. Shooting is quickly becoming the new "harassment" in that mere accusation will soon be enough for a conviction.
It's also to make you, the reader, think that when someone breaks into your home, using a gun to get through the lock, your first reaction shouldn't be to defend yourself, but to hide and hope help arrives. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
May have. Now, reading the rest of the report, I'm pretty certain the police did say, "They may have acted in self defense." Note the lack of a quotation in the piece. It seems pretty clear that the bad guy was armed (broke in by shooting the door), and dangerous (during said shooting, hit one person inside the house in the face). I can't imagine there's a jury outside of New York City, or maybe England, who would convict the people inside the house of anything.
So, if it's unlikely that the police said "may have," then why did the station report it that way? Well, because the assumption (to Leftists) is that any use of a gun is criminal, and the burden lies on the shooter to prove that it wasn't. Shooting is quickly becoming the new "harassment" in that mere accusation will soon be enough for a conviction.
It's also to make you, the reader, think that when someone breaks into your home, using a gun to get through the lock, your first reaction shouldn't be to defend yourself, but to hide and hope help arrives. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
An Uncomfortable Truth
One of the rhetorical devices that the anti-gun nuts will use is that if you support the full-auto weapons ban, you must necessarily support the "Assault Weapon Ban." Now, that argument has at least two problems with it.
First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different. A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things. Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.
Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place. We'll come back to that later.
Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round. (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing). So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:
Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:
Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.
In that case this:
is more dangerous than this:
Wait. That can't be it...
No. What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.
Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place. Some people do. I don't.
The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible. The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal. I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime. But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.
First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different. A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things. Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.
Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place. We'll come back to that later.
Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round. (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing). So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:
 |
| A Highly Deadly Semi-Automatic Rifle. In .22LR |
Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:
 |
| A Nice, Safe Howitzer requires reloading between shots. |
Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.
In that case this:
 |
| A .45 Revolver Fires a Big Bullet |
is more dangerous than this:
 |
| NATO 5.56 is not much larger than .22 caliber. |
Wait. That can't be it...
No. What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.
Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place. Some people do. I don't.
The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible. The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal. I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime. But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.
A Stark Example
There are two areas. One is a city, the other is considerably larger. One is, and has been for decades, controlled by Democrats and has a very strict gun control scheme. The other is an active war zone. One has had 4 deaths this year, the other has had 40, just from gun-shots. What are we talking about? Afghanistan and Chicago, IL. But which is which?
Chicago, home of our Gun Grabbing President, and his ballerina ex-adviser (who happens to be mayor now), has had 40 gun related murders, despite having one of the most strict gun control schemes in the country. Afghanistan has seen only 4 US servicemen die this year. Which of those sounds like an active war zone?
Of course, the difference is that Afghanistan is an active war zone. US Soldiers carry weapons with them all the time. They have the means, as well as the right, to protect themselves from violence. If you even look like a threat, a US Soldier will treat you as one. Given the means to do so, they are very good at making sure the ones dying are the bad guys.
Contrariwise, the only people with guns in Chicago are the bad guys. Citizens of Chicago have virtually no ability to defend themselves from violence. This weekend alone there were 7 gun-related deaths, and 6 more injuries, in Chicago.
But SCOAMT and his ilk think that Chicago is a model for the rest of the country.
Now, I already hear some of you say "but US Soldiers receive extensive training!" Indeed they do. However, the strict use of their weapon doesn't receive a whole lot of training. Practice, yes. Training, no. They're taught myriad things, from weapon use, maintenance, and discipline, to the US Army field guide (I'm told they're supposed to memorize it), to battle discipline, and even tactics and strategy. And that's just in Basic Training.
Those things are designed to let them fight wars. A simple gun owner, carrying a weapon for his own protection "just in case," doesn't need "extensive training." He (or she) needs to know how to use his weapon, how to clean and maintain it, and discipline ideas from where to point it, when to touch (let alone squeeze) the trigger, and (just as importantly) when not to pull it out, let alone aiming it at someone/something or touching the trigger.
That doesn't take that long to learn. Most people can pick it up very quickly. If you don't think you can, you have two options- elect not to carry yourself (if gun controls are loose enough, one of your neighbors will have a weapon and probably be willing to defend you), or take classes that let you pick it up anyway. You can even find tactical training programs for civilians.
Whatever the case, though, any supposed dangers have got to be better odds than simply living in Chicago with its current murder rate. When an active war zone is safer (because self defense is not only allowed, but facilitated) than a major US city, I think it's fairly obvious that further restricting gun ownership is not the answer to make us safer.
Chicago, home of our Gun Grabbing President, and his ballerina ex-adviser (who happens to be mayor now), has had 40 gun related murders, despite having one of the most strict gun control schemes in the country. Afghanistan has seen only 4 US servicemen die this year. Which of those sounds like an active war zone?
Of course, the difference is that Afghanistan is an active war zone. US Soldiers carry weapons with them all the time. They have the means, as well as the right, to protect themselves from violence. If you even look like a threat, a US Soldier will treat you as one. Given the means to do so, they are very good at making sure the ones dying are the bad guys.
Contrariwise, the only people with guns in Chicago are the bad guys. Citizens of Chicago have virtually no ability to defend themselves from violence. This weekend alone there were 7 gun-related deaths, and 6 more injuries, in Chicago.
But SCOAMT and his ilk think that Chicago is a model for the rest of the country.
Now, I already hear some of you say "but US Soldiers receive extensive training!" Indeed they do. However, the strict use of their weapon doesn't receive a whole lot of training. Practice, yes. Training, no. They're taught myriad things, from weapon use, maintenance, and discipline, to the US Army field guide (I'm told they're supposed to memorize it), to battle discipline, and even tactics and strategy. And that's just in Basic Training.
Those things are designed to let them fight wars. A simple gun owner, carrying a weapon for his own protection "just in case," doesn't need "extensive training." He (or she) needs to know how to use his weapon, how to clean and maintain it, and discipline ideas from where to point it, when to touch (let alone squeeze) the trigger, and (just as importantly) when not to pull it out, let alone aiming it at someone/something or touching the trigger.
That doesn't take that long to learn. Most people can pick it up very quickly. If you don't think you can, you have two options- elect not to carry yourself (if gun controls are loose enough, one of your neighbors will have a weapon and probably be willing to defend you), or take classes that let you pick it up anyway. You can even find tactical training programs for civilians.
Whatever the case, though, any supposed dangers have got to be better odds than simply living in Chicago with its current murder rate. When an active war zone is safer (because self defense is not only allowed, but facilitated) than a major US city, I think it's fairly obvious that further restricting gun ownership is not the answer to make us safer.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
What's Missing Here?
I got this from FotB tsrblke:
He has two points- one with which I agree, and one with which I don't:
The one I don't agree with is that he takes exception to this line: "Look confident and purposeful when you walk." Yet self-defense experts will tell you this is an invaluable piece of advice. They sometimes put it another way, "Don't act like a victim." Merely looking confident and purposeful is a way to help say, "I'm not easy pickings. Wait for the next guy."
The other point he makes, with which I agree, is this: no where in that email is any talk of self-defense. The closest they get is to tell you that you can get a "free" safety escort. In fact, this specific incident would not have been helped by the safety escort- that program (per the email) only runs 6P - 1A Mon - Wed. That means they knocked off at 1A on Thursday morning. The robbery happened at 2 AM.
Of further note, the robber was apparently not terribly concerned with the fact that robbery was illegal. Nor that it was illegal to carry a gun on campus. It's almost as if criminals don't obey the law.
Now, this was a simple robbery. Most self-defense experts will also tell you just to comply with a robber. For one thing, this one already had his gun out. Had the student had a weapon, and attempted to draw it, she probably would have been shot herself. For another, even if he didn't have a gun at all, by the time a robber is demanding your stuff, he's close enough that you probably don't have time to pull a gun and fire (with anything resembling accuracy) before he could be hitting/kicking/stabbing you.
But what if it hadn't been a simple robbery? What if it had been a rape attempt? An assault?
Bad people are going to do bad things. That's simply the way the world works. Given that truth, I want the ability to defend myself when the situation rises. Liberals would have you believe that the mere ability to defend yourself is worse than getting robbed, raped, or beaten to death.
In accordance with the Jeanne Clery Campus Security Act, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (DPSEP) is sharing the following Campus Safety Notice about an incident reported to DPSEP.[1] - Redacted by request
This morning, the [1] Metropolitan Police Department notified DPSEP that a student was robbed at approximately 2:00 a.m. near the corner of [1] Boulevard and [1] Avenue on the edge of the campus.
The student was approached by unknown subject, who displayed a silver handgun. The student surrendered her purse and cellphone, and the subject fled the scene in a dark-colored SUV.
The student was not injured during the incident. City police are investigating the matter, and DPSEP will increase its evening patrols in the vicinity.
The subject is described as a black male in his early 20s, 5’8”-6’ feet tall, thin build, wearing a dark-colored ski jacket, black pants and a black knit cap.
In addition to making you aware of this incident, we would like to share the following safety tips.
If possible,don't walk alone at night.
Always remain alert and aware of your surroundings.
Scan parking lots,sidewalks and streets for suspicious persons and activity.
Look confident and purposeful when you walk.
Don’t flash your personal belongings such as MP3 players, cell phones, and laptops
Report suspicious activity or persons to DPSEP or the Metropolitan Police Department.
If you are the victim of a crime:
Report the incident immediately by calling DPSEP at [Phone] or 911.
Make a mental note of the suspect’s gender, race, age, height, clothing and distinguishing characteristics.
If more than one suspect is involved, concentrate on the person closest to you.
Try to note the direction of travel of the suspect(s) from the scene.
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness' [1] Program also provides free safety escorts for students, faculty, staff and visitors who want to be accompanied to cars,other buildings or across campus. [1] operates: Monday through Wednesday - 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., Thursday - 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday - 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., Saturday - 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., and Sunday - 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. To request a safety escort call [Phone]
For additional crime prevention tips and safety information, visit the DPSEP web site a [Website removed]
He has two points- one with which I agree, and one with which I don't:
The one I don't agree with is that he takes exception to this line: "Look confident and purposeful when you walk." Yet self-defense experts will tell you this is an invaluable piece of advice. They sometimes put it another way, "Don't act like a victim." Merely looking confident and purposeful is a way to help say, "I'm not easy pickings. Wait for the next guy."
The other point he makes, with which I agree, is this: no where in that email is any talk of self-defense. The closest they get is to tell you that you can get a "free" safety escort. In fact, this specific incident would not have been helped by the safety escort- that program (per the email) only runs 6P - 1A Mon - Wed. That means they knocked off at 1A on Thursday morning. The robbery happened at 2 AM.
Of further note, the robber was apparently not terribly concerned with the fact that robbery was illegal. Nor that it was illegal to carry a gun on campus. It's almost as if criminals don't obey the law.
Now, this was a simple robbery. Most self-defense experts will also tell you just to comply with a robber. For one thing, this one already had his gun out. Had the student had a weapon, and attempted to draw it, she probably would have been shot herself. For another, even if he didn't have a gun at all, by the time a robber is demanding your stuff, he's close enough that you probably don't have time to pull a gun and fire (with anything resembling accuracy) before he could be hitting/kicking/stabbing you.
But what if it hadn't been a simple robbery? What if it had been a rape attempt? An assault?
Bad people are going to do bad things. That's simply the way the world works. Given that truth, I want the ability to defend myself when the situation rises. Liberals would have you believe that the mere ability to defend yourself is worse than getting robbed, raped, or beaten to death.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Another I Told You So
Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses? I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?
Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns. Apropos of nothing, of course.
My mother often calls me a pessimist. She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead. I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore. After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist. It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.
When I wrote that piece, I said this:
Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result. People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill." Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.
I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment. What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual." Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain. We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others. Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse. Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.
I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).
What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual. It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.
Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.
Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns. Apropos of nothing, of course.
My mother often calls me a pessimist. She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead. I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore. After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist. It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.
When I wrote that piece, I said this:
Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics? Congratulations, owners of multiple guns. You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.
Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result. People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill." Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.
I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment. What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual." Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain. We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others. Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse. Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.
I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).
What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual. It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.
Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Liberal Media Personalities: You Gun Owners Are Evil
See, if you own a gun, you support the Eeevil "Gun Lobby." And the Gun Lobby must be opposed like the Nazis, and failing to do so is the same as failing to speak out against Democrats (like Bull Connor) during the 1960 Civil Rights debates.
I would set aside these two statements, because they're so stupid, but many will listen to them. Even if these two particularly stupid statements don't persuade anyone, they're simply adding to a growing chorus designed to make you believe that a) guns are evil, b) gun owners are evil, and c) anyone who thinks otherwise is weird or defective. Therefore they must be exposed and ridiculed. They must also be refuted.
So let's take this "Nazi" thing, first. Opposing gun ownership is being like the Nazis, not like opposing them. For those of you not aware, just like every other tyrannical regime since the 19th Century, one of the first things the Nazis did was prohibit private ownership of firearms. You see, the point of owning a gun is not to hunt, or shoot at paper targets, or at clay pidgeons. The point of owning a gun is not even, primarily, to defend yourself, your family, or your home from robbers and theives. The point of owning a gun is to have the means to oppose a tyrannical government.
So, when a tyrannical government wants to take power, the first thing it must do is to disarm the populace. So far from opposing the "Gun Lobby" (read: "Gun Owners") being like opposing the Nazis, it is simply enabling those who would be Nazis, or any other kind of tyrant. This is also why, yes, I should be allowed to own a howitzer.
Now, on the Civil Rights comment. Again, would it surpise you to know the nation's first gun control laws were enacted (again, by Democrats) in the South to prevent the newly freed slaves from defending themselves from the likes of the (largely Democrat) KKK? So, far from failing to oppose the gun lobby being akin to failing to oppose desegregation and Civil Rights, opposing the gun lobby is exactly like opposing the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
The simple fact is that no single item represents the Freedom of Man, and the fact that the People are Sovereign over their Government like The Gun. An armed populace is one that does not need to fear its government. An armed populace is one that is sovereign over its government. Armed civilians are the employers and bosses of the military and the police. Simply put, a disarmed populace is none of those things.
And only a tyrannical government would seek to disarm its populace.
I would set aside these two statements, because they're so stupid, but many will listen to them. Even if these two particularly stupid statements don't persuade anyone, they're simply adding to a growing chorus designed to make you believe that a) guns are evil, b) gun owners are evil, and c) anyone who thinks otherwise is weird or defective. Therefore they must be exposed and ridiculed. They must also be refuted.
So let's take this "Nazi" thing, first. Opposing gun ownership is being like the Nazis, not like opposing them. For those of you not aware, just like every other tyrannical regime since the 19th Century, one of the first things the Nazis did was prohibit private ownership of firearms. You see, the point of owning a gun is not to hunt, or shoot at paper targets, or at clay pidgeons. The point of owning a gun is not even, primarily, to defend yourself, your family, or your home from robbers and theives. The point of owning a gun is to have the means to oppose a tyrannical government.
So, when a tyrannical government wants to take power, the first thing it must do is to disarm the populace. So far from opposing the "Gun Lobby" (read: "Gun Owners") being like opposing the Nazis, it is simply enabling those who would be Nazis, or any other kind of tyrant. This is also why, yes, I should be allowed to own a howitzer.
Now, on the Civil Rights comment. Again, would it surpise you to know the nation's first gun control laws were enacted (again, by Democrats) in the South to prevent the newly freed slaves from defending themselves from the likes of the (largely Democrat) KKK? So, far from failing to oppose the gun lobby being akin to failing to oppose desegregation and Civil Rights, opposing the gun lobby is exactly like opposing the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
The simple fact is that no single item represents the Freedom of Man, and the fact that the People are Sovereign over their Government like The Gun. An armed populace is one that does not need to fear its government. An armed populace is one that is sovereign over its government. Armed civilians are the employers and bosses of the military and the police. Simply put, a disarmed populace is none of those things.
And only a tyrannical government would seek to disarm its populace.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Tyranny in a Velvet Glove
Here, go read this. Human Events has the list of the SCOAMT's Executive Orders on Gun Control.
At first glance, these don't look so bad. They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing." But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.
Let's take a look at just a few:
Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen. It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself. But it is what could happen. And that should be enough. The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.
This is tyranny in a velvet glove. The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.
All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."
No. From my cold, dead hands.
At first glance, these don't look so bad. They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing." But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.
Let's take a look at just a few:
Oh, good. So now my private health information is an "unnecessary legal barrier" to the Government deciding if my 2nd Amendment Rights should be honored.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person." So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs. You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.
Law enforcement already runs a background check on individuals before returning seized guns. So the only purpose for this, that I can see, is that a "full background check" takes longer, which means yet more delay in retrieving your wrongfully seized gun.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.Guns reported lost are stole are already logged that way. When someone runs a gun's serial number, it will come back as "lost" if it was reported lost, or "stolen" if it was reported stolen. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish if it's not more than that. If it is more than that, expect DOJ officials to come "verify your report" of a lost or stolen gun.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics? Congratulations, owners of multiple guns. You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.Now he's just re-writing the law by fiat. Not that that's new for him.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.Remember that point about the DSM-V I made earlier. Yeah.
Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen. It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself. But it is what could happen. And that should be enough. The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.
This is tyranny in a velvet glove. The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.
All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."
No. From my cold, dead hands.
From My Cold, Dead Hands
Today, Barack Obama will outline his plans for further gun control, in addition to announcing Executive Orders he plans to sign to enact some form of gun control without Congress.
I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons. First, there are none. Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.
See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them. Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting. Neither did any previous mass shooting. If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:
Here's the thing. In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either. In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower. In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer. Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much. In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.
Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important. See, there were people at that event who were armed. But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners. At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent.
When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves. The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.
Democrats know this. Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s. It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out. So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.
So why would they want to enact these laws? As I said above: Power. A disarmed populace is a compliant populace. If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny. The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.
I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant. Not even passively.
I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons. First, there are none. Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.
See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them. Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting. Neither did any previous mass shooting. If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:
- Bad guy selects location where victims have no ability to resist
- Bad guy goes on rampage
- When people with ability to resist show up, Bad guy surrenders or (just as likely) takes his own life.
Here's the thing. In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either. In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower. In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer. Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much. In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.
Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important. See, there were people at that event who were armed. But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners. At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent.
When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves. The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.
Democrats know this. Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s. It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out. So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.
So why would they want to enact these laws? As I said above: Power. A disarmed populace is a compliant populace. If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny. The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.
I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant. Not even passively.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
What's Next? "Reeducation" Camps?
Now, this is from Joe ("J-O-B-S. Three letters") Biden, so I suppose we should take it with a grain of salt. Apparently the Administration is seeking to bypass congress in an unconstitutional twofer. The Malignant Traitor wants to issue an executive order for gun control. Unconstitutional 1: what part of "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" doesn't he understand? Unconstitutional 2: Laws are made by congress, silly. The Executive has no authority, even via Executive Orders to compel or direct the private citizenry in any way, unless specifically granted by statute. Which statute provides the President the power to do anything about guns I own or wish to own?
Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing. It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist. It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany. Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin. Now what do these four have in common?
Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.
And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.
Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing. It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist. It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany. Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin. Now what do these four have in common?
Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.
And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.
The Good Guns Do
It is easy, in the wake of any mass shooting tragedy, to fall prey to base emotionalism and believe that merely banning guns (or banning "bad" guns) would have prevented the tragedy. As shown over and over that is simply not the case. Obviously someone intent on murder is not going to be particularly hampered by some law prohibiting him from having a "semi-automatic assualt rifle" (a gun which, by definition, cannot exist).
What is harder, or has been up to now, is to show the ways good, responsible, law-abiding citizens are using guns to make the world better. Or, at least, to protect themselves.
Stepping up to the plate on this matter is the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank. They have put together this interactive map. What does it show? Instances of responsible gun owners using their guns to defend themselves, their family, their neighbors, and their homes. It's still a work in progress, and I'm sure it will be for the forseable future. Go check it out, and pay particular attention to the types of things against which people use guns to defend themselves.
With newspapers and web-zines publishing lists of legal gun owners names (and addresses), it only seems right that someone point out what those legal gun owners are doing with those guns.
What is harder, or has been up to now, is to show the ways good, responsible, law-abiding citizens are using guns to make the world better. Or, at least, to protect themselves.
Stepping up to the plate on this matter is the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank. They have put together this interactive map. What does it show? Instances of responsible gun owners using their guns to defend themselves, their family, their neighbors, and their homes. It's still a work in progress, and I'm sure it will be for the forseable future. Go check it out, and pay particular attention to the types of things against which people use guns to defend themselves.
With newspapers and web-zines publishing lists of legal gun owners names (and addresses), it only seems right that someone point out what those legal gun owners are doing with those guns.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Feel Good Story of the Day
Chalk this up as another story the anti-gun crowd doesn't want you to know about.
In Georgia, a woman defended herself and her child by shooting an intruder several times in the face and torso, then escaping to a neighbor's house.
There are lots of little gems in the story; things like how the intruder had been arrested six or seven times (the math is unclear) since 2008. There is the part where the woman tried to hide, and the intruder kept looking through the house until he found her and her son.
These should show that no amount of law or appeasement will stop bad people from doing bad things. It certainly seems like Mr. Slater is a certified hard-case. Something tells me he wouldn't think twice about violating a "Gun Free Zone."
Also of note, however, are how the confrontation played out. She emptied the cylinder of her .38 revolver into the man. Based on reporting, she hit him 5 times in the face and torso, and that didn't put him down. It did stop him, but getting shot in the torso and face five times did not kill him. Once he was stopped, he only stopped because he didn't realize she didn't have any more bullets. This indicates he was hopped up enough on adrenaline that he would have been capable of harming her if he'd realized she didn't have any more bullets and she hadn't fled.
I want it to be clear that this woman did everything right. She did it exactly as most safety experts would have told her. She attempted to avoid the confrontation, but defended herself with full force when the confrontation became inevitable.
However, this could easily have gone the other way. Had she been unarmed, as many in the anti-gun lobby would wish, she and her son could easily be dead today. There are more than a few liberals who will get the vapors over the fact she emptied her gun at the man. They will tell you it it's a good thing she didn't have one of those evil "assault rifles" or "extended clips."
I'll tell you exactly the opposite. This woman (unidentified by the linked report) was very lucky that her assailant lost count of the shots she fired, or didn't recognize that she only had a revolver. If he had, he may have attacked her anyway. I'm willing to bet when she realized the man was still capable of action, she wished she'd had one of those evil extended clips.
The fact is that responsible gun ownership is responsible for far more prevented crime than any "mass shooter" is responsible for death an mayhem. Further, I'd be willing to bet that if he'd been facing an AR-15 instead of a .38 revolver, the assailant would have run from the confrontation. In fact, her having such a weapon may have finally avoided conflict- there would be no reason to shoot a man, soiled pants clinging to his waist, who is running away.
In either case, I'm glad this woman and her son are safe. I feel no pity for the criminal who, according to the report, lies in critical condition with pierced lungs, liver, and stomach. If he dies, that's the price he chose to pay by breaking into their home. If he survives, I hope he is locked up for the rest of his natural life span.
In Georgia, a woman defended herself and her child by shooting an intruder several times in the face and torso, then escaping to a neighbor's house.
There are lots of little gems in the story; things like how the intruder had been arrested six or seven times (the math is unclear) since 2008. There is the part where the woman tried to hide, and the intruder kept looking through the house until he found her and her son.
These should show that no amount of law or appeasement will stop bad people from doing bad things. It certainly seems like Mr. Slater is a certified hard-case. Something tells me he wouldn't think twice about violating a "Gun Free Zone."
Also of note, however, are how the confrontation played out. She emptied the cylinder of her .38 revolver into the man. Based on reporting, she hit him 5 times in the face and torso, and that didn't put him down. It did stop him, but getting shot in the torso and face five times did not kill him. Once he was stopped, he only stopped because he didn't realize she didn't have any more bullets. This indicates he was hopped up enough on adrenaline that he would have been capable of harming her if he'd realized she didn't have any more bullets and she hadn't fled.
I want it to be clear that this woman did everything right. She did it exactly as most safety experts would have told her. She attempted to avoid the confrontation, but defended herself with full force when the confrontation became inevitable.
However, this could easily have gone the other way. Had she been unarmed, as many in the anti-gun lobby would wish, she and her son could easily be dead today. There are more than a few liberals who will get the vapors over the fact she emptied her gun at the man. They will tell you it it's a good thing she didn't have one of those evil "assault rifles" or "extended clips."
I'll tell you exactly the opposite. This woman (unidentified by the linked report) was very lucky that her assailant lost count of the shots she fired, or didn't recognize that she only had a revolver. If he had, he may have attacked her anyway. I'm willing to bet when she realized the man was still capable of action, she wished she'd had one of those evil extended clips.
The fact is that responsible gun ownership is responsible for far more prevented crime than any "mass shooter" is responsible for death an mayhem. Further, I'd be willing to bet that if he'd been facing an AR-15 instead of a .38 revolver, the assailant would have run from the confrontation. In fact, her having such a weapon may have finally avoided conflict- there would be no reason to shoot a man, soiled pants clinging to his waist, who is running away.
In either case, I'm glad this woman and her son are safe. I feel no pity for the criminal who, according to the report, lies in critical condition with pierced lungs, liver, and stomach. If he dies, that's the price he chose to pay by breaking into their home. If he survives, I hope he is locked up for the rest of his natural life span.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Why "Gun Control" Doesn't Work
Okay, since we're still apparently "having the discussion" about gun control- a "discussion" which mostly involves responsible gun owners being harangued for the actions of a criminal- I think it's time we point out why Gun Control laws have never worked, and will never work.
Take this case, for instance.
See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon. He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer. Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time. Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety. Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.
It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one. It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.
On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves. As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force. That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.
William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.
Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.
It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true. I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States. I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms. How's that working out for them?
Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes. Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists? Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist? Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?
No. We don't. We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes. Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators. Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff? It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.
We already have laws against murder. Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his. People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is.
My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust. What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?
Take this case, for instance.
See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon. He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer. Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time. Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety. Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.
It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one. It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.
On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves. As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force. That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.
William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.
Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.
It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true. I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States. I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms. How's that working out for them?
Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes. Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists? Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist? Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?
No. We don't. We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes. Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators. Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff? It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.
We already have laws against murder. Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his. People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is.
My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust. What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)