"Junk expands to occupy all available storage."
-Pop
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Why are Guns the Best Tool for Self Defense?
Howdy, Friends;
Why do we need guns for self defense? (Note - this discussion does not apply to long guns or hunting.)
You've probably heard them called 'equalizers'. Well, they are. They allow anyone to successfully defend themselves against single or multiple large assailants. And in fact, disparity of force is one of the factors taken into account when self-defense cases go to court.
Nobody has invented anything that comes close. Pepper spray doesn't work effectively in all cases. Tazers only have one shot without reloading, so if you miss, you're defenseless. Both of these are short range, as well. Both of them likely do not perform well in the rain, for instance, although I have no data on that.
A reasonable replacement for guns for self defense would have to be something non-lethal that has all of the good characteristics of a gun, such as: multiple shots; high certainty of success; small enough to carry concealed; safe to carry; extremely reliable; decent range; will work in all weather; cannot easily be defended against; cheap enough to be able to own one, along with whatever you load it with; will cause the aggressor to not move until the cops have time to show up. Also must work on dogs, bears, snakes, etc. The science-fictional "stunner" ray gun.
Of course, as soon as somebody invents this 'stunner', and if we give up our guns, the crime rate will skyrocket. A lot more people would be willing to "pull the trigger" if it was non-lethal, as they wouldn't risk the death penalty if caught. Stunning (and robbing and raping) shoppers in the Wal-Mart parking lot would become a whole new worldwide sport. Another new sport for thugs using such a device might be to shoot drivers in passing cars on the interstate, as well. Much carnage, difficult to catch the perpetrator - thugs might see this as great fun. Think about the D.C. Serial Snipers back in 2002. Multiply that by 1000. You anti-gunners may want to be careful what you ask for.
And, such a device wouldn't be an adequate weapon for the intent of the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. Might still need to keep a gun somewhere to help along those lines if ever needed.
Footnote: Without fail, everywhere it's been tried and all other factors the same - passage of right-to-carry laws results in a decrease in violent crime. The statistics are there if you care to look. http://www.gunfacts.info/ is a good place to start. Be aware that the far left gun-grabbers put out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.
On reflection, I'll keep my guns. Nothing better is currently available.
-Pop
Why do we need guns for self defense? (Note - this discussion does not apply to long guns or hunting.)
You've probably heard them called 'equalizers'. Well, they are. They allow anyone to successfully defend themselves against single or multiple large assailants. And in fact, disparity of force is one of the factors taken into account when self-defense cases go to court.
Nobody has invented anything that comes close. Pepper spray doesn't work effectively in all cases. Tazers only have one shot without reloading, so if you miss, you're defenseless. Both of these are short range, as well. Both of them likely do not perform well in the rain, for instance, although I have no data on that.
A reasonable replacement for guns for self defense would have to be something non-lethal that has all of the good characteristics of a gun, such as: multiple shots; high certainty of success; small enough to carry concealed; safe to carry; extremely reliable; decent range; will work in all weather; cannot easily be defended against; cheap enough to be able to own one, along with whatever you load it with; will cause the aggressor to not move until the cops have time to show up. Also must work on dogs, bears, snakes, etc. The science-fictional "stunner" ray gun.
Of course, as soon as somebody invents this 'stunner', and if we give up our guns, the crime rate will skyrocket. A lot more people would be willing to "pull the trigger" if it was non-lethal, as they wouldn't risk the death penalty if caught. Stunning (and robbing and raping) shoppers in the Wal-Mart parking lot would become a whole new worldwide sport. Another new sport for thugs using such a device might be to shoot drivers in passing cars on the interstate, as well. Much carnage, difficult to catch the perpetrator - thugs might see this as great fun. Think about the D.C. Serial Snipers back in 2002. Multiply that by 1000. You anti-gunners may want to be careful what you ask for.
And, such a device wouldn't be an adequate weapon for the intent of the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. Might still need to keep a gun somewhere to help along those lines if ever needed.
Footnote: Without fail, everywhere it's been tried and all other factors the same - passage of right-to-carry laws results in a decrease in violent crime. The statistics are there if you care to look. http://www.gunfacts.info/ is a good place to start. Be aware that the far left gun-grabbers put out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.
On reflection, I'll keep my guns. Nothing better is currently available.
-Pop
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Right to Defend Yourself
Hello, All;
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Switching from Windows to Macintosh - Chapter 13
Hello, World!
Still loving the Mac! I have almost eliminated any need for Windows programs. The very few I do need, I run in Parallels Desktop or on my other machine. One thing that bothered me was the lack of alternatives to Excel on the Mac. Thankfully, I've finally found one that works well. Go to http://www.neooffice.org and take a look at NeoOffice. NeoOffice is OpenOffice for the Mac. Spreadsheet support is excellent - I pulled in a multipage Excel spreadsheet, and the only thing I found a bit strange was that it changed the text I had in some graph legends, replacing it with the column and row numbers. Not bad at all. Best of all, it's free!
I mention only the spreadsheet, but NeoOffice also offers a Word compatible word processor, as well as presentation tools and a database. I am not as familiar with them, so I'll offer no comment at this point. If I had known about this suite when I bought my Mac, I could have saved $79 I spent on iWork 06.
I bought a copy of Ecto, which I've been using in trial mode to bring this up to date. It is a good program, designed to make posting or revising a blog easy.
I am still astounded that the Mac lifestyle includes leaving many programs running all the time for instant access. At this moment, I am running ten (10) programs simultaneously, and that does not include the finder or desktop. Several of these are big programs, too. The system has not detectably slowed down. I left all this running, cranked up Parallels Desktop, launching Vista, ran Solid Edge, printed a drawing, closed Solid Edge, Vista and Parallels Desktop. While I was in Vista, it downloaded and installed one of it's updates. There is no noticeable slowdown of the system, that I can tell.
I'm still amazed.
Have an excellent Easter holiday, and remember Who it's about!
-Pop
Still loving the Mac! I have almost eliminated any need for Windows programs. The very few I do need, I run in Parallels Desktop or on my other machine. One thing that bothered me was the lack of alternatives to Excel on the Mac. Thankfully, I've finally found one that works well. Go to http://www.neooffice.org and take a look at NeoOffice. NeoOffice is OpenOffice for the Mac. Spreadsheet support is excellent - I pulled in a multipage Excel spreadsheet, and the only thing I found a bit strange was that it changed the text I had in some graph legends, replacing it with the column and row numbers. Not bad at all. Best of all, it's free!
I mention only the spreadsheet, but NeoOffice also offers a Word compatible word processor, as well as presentation tools and a database. I am not as familiar with them, so I'll offer no comment at this point. If I had known about this suite when I bought my Mac, I could have saved $79 I spent on iWork 06.
I bought a copy of Ecto, which I've been using in trial mode to bring this up to date. It is a good program, designed to make posting or revising a blog easy.
I am still astounded that the Mac lifestyle includes leaving many programs running all the time for instant access. At this moment, I am running ten (10) programs simultaneously, and that does not include the finder or desktop. Several of these are big programs, too. The system has not detectably slowed down. I left all this running, cranked up Parallels Desktop, launching Vista, ran Solid Edge, printed a drawing, closed Solid Edge, Vista and Parallels Desktop. While I was in Vista, it downloaded and installed one of it's updates. There is no noticeable slowdown of the system, that I can tell.
I'm still amazed.
Have an excellent Easter holiday, and remember Who it's about!
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)