Howdy, everybody.
Gun free zones DON’T WORK. If ONE person in the auditorium in Illinois had been armed, it is very likely the death toll would have been much less. The Munchkin Wrangler says it very well.
How many more people will die because of this plain-stupid idea that a law declaring an area to be a gun-free zone will actually make it so?
God protect us from our law-makers! They disarm us, but they don’t protect us.
-Pop
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Democrats vs Republicans
Frankly, I’m getting tired of thinking about it. But I do have some opinions, and I’m entitled to mine just as you are yours. Here’s what I think:
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Nifty Gun a Friend Bought
Howdy, Everybody;
One of my co-workers recently bought a Taurus "The Judge". This is a pretty nifty revolver, that shoots .45 Colt ammo. It has the (mostly) unique capability of also accepting .410 shotgun shells. Capacity is five rounds. It fits the hand well. The front sight is a fixed red fiber optic site, very easy to get lined up with. The cylinder is really long, to handle the shotgun shells.
Now this should make a very effective self defense weapon. In demonstration videos I've seen, shooting what looks like a 12" square target, the shotgun shell makes a hole in the middle about 2" across, and scatters across the target to the edge of the target, from a range of about 10 feet. This makes an effective weapon without having to be dead-on in your aim. A great time-saver in a defensive situation. This would be an ideal weapon shooting down a hallway in a home invasion scenario. Or for defense against animal attack.
The owner was using it to shoot skeet last weekend. What a trip!
Fun!
-Pop
One of my co-workers recently bought a Taurus "The Judge". This is a pretty nifty revolver, that shoots .45 Colt ammo. It has the (mostly) unique capability of also accepting .410 shotgun shells. Capacity is five rounds. It fits the hand well. The front sight is a fixed red fiber optic site, very easy to get lined up with. The cylinder is really long, to handle the shotgun shells.
Now this should make a very effective self defense weapon. In demonstration videos I've seen, shooting what looks like a 12" square target, the shotgun shell makes a hole in the middle about 2" across, and scatters across the target to the edge of the target, from a range of about 10 feet. This makes an effective weapon without having to be dead-on in your aim. A great time-saver in a defensive situation. This would be an ideal weapon shooting down a hallway in a home invasion scenario. Or for defense against animal attack.
The owner was using it to shoot skeet last weekend. What a trip!
Fun!
-Pop
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
And a NON Gun Free Zone Shooting
Howdy, Everybody;
About the church shootings in Colorado:
The media seems to want to emphasize that the lady who stopped the murderer was a 'security guard', the unstated implication being that this was someone like you would see working for a security firm, maybe in uniform, with a gun on the belt. In fact she was a volunteer security guard for her church; in reality, a private citizen with a concealed carry permit; something the media hasn't exactly made clear. Liberal (anti-gun) bias in the media, again.
Good Job, Jeanne Assam!!! You are a hero!
Also please note that the killer was stopped at a location that was NOT a gun free zone. If this had been in a gun free zone, and Jeanne Assam was obeying the law by not carrying, how many more would have died at the hands of the murderer before the police (who can be armed in a gun free zone) arrived? The murderer was carrying two handguns, a rifle, and over 1000 rounds of ammo.
This is the reason for concealed carry. To save lives.
This is the reason that gun free zones are worse than useless. Because the sign on the door won't stop a murderer - it will only stop law-abiding victims from being able to protect themselves efficiently.
-Pop
About the church shootings in Colorado:
The media seems to want to emphasize that the lady who stopped the murderer was a 'security guard', the unstated implication being that this was someone like you would see working for a security firm, maybe in uniform, with a gun on the belt. In fact she was a volunteer security guard for her church; in reality, a private citizen with a concealed carry permit; something the media hasn't exactly made clear. Liberal (anti-gun) bias in the media, again.
Good Job, Jeanne Assam!!! You are a hero!
Also please note that the killer was stopped at a location that was NOT a gun free zone. If this had been in a gun free zone, and Jeanne Assam was obeying the law by not carrying, how many more would have died at the hands of the murderer before the police (who can be armed in a gun free zone) arrived? The murderer was carrying two handguns, a rifle, and over 1000 rounds of ammo.
This is the reason for concealed carry. To save lives.
This is the reason that gun free zones are worse than useless. Because the sign on the door won't stop a murderer - it will only stop law-abiding victims from being able to protect themselves efficiently.
-Pop
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Yet Another Gun Free Zone Shooting
Foxnews.com has an excellent article about the shooting at the Westroads Mall in Omaha. Yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. When will they learn that only the good guys obey the law? Gun free zones = killing fields for lunatics.
It's hard for me to understand why the owners of a Mall (or any other place) think putting up a sign will keep anybody safe. Doesn't work. Maybe the bad guys can't read?
-Pop
It's hard for me to understand why the owners of a Mall (or any other place) think putting up a sign will keep anybody safe. Doesn't work. Maybe the bad guys can't read?
-Pop
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Brinks Home Alarm Advertisement
Have y'all seen that Brinks ad for their home security system? It's designed, of course, to sell alarm systems. I find a few things in it that should make you think:
1. When the bad guy kicks in the front door, the alarm sounds, and the bad guy immediately runs away. I don't think it's likely that would happen in my neighborhood - maybe if you lived next door to the police station. Where I live, 20 minutes out of town, your response time is usually 20 minutes on up.
2. The alarm company calls the home before any response happens. From experience at my job, I know they will call going down a list until somebody answers. If you tell them you need help, then they will call the cops. If you are on the floor, being raped, you are not going to be able to answer the phone. If no one answers, the alarm company will go down the list to the next person to call. This process adds to the response time.
3. Because of the above, the bad guy is not in any particular hurry to run away. If he is intent on violence, you are dead meat.
4. Notice that after all that, the police show up. They take a statement. They leave. They did not protect anybody. They would if they could, but they weren't there when the bad guy was. This isn't the fault of the police - it's just the facts of the situation.
Don't get me wrong - an alarm system is a great idea. Just don't expect it to protect you from anything. It's mostly useful to wake you up if you're asleep, so you can get your gun; or to let the cops know your house has been broken into when you're gone. But it can't protect you from anything.
If you want protection from the bad guys, buy a gun and learn to use it. Protect yourself - because when you need it, you're likely going to be the only help you've got.
Even that doesn't guarantee that you will come out all right - but at least you'll have a chance.
-Pop
1. When the bad guy kicks in the front door, the alarm sounds, and the bad guy immediately runs away. I don't think it's likely that would happen in my neighborhood - maybe if you lived next door to the police station. Where I live, 20 minutes out of town, your response time is usually 20 minutes on up.
2. The alarm company calls the home before any response happens. From experience at my job, I know they will call going down a list until somebody answers. If you tell them you need help, then they will call the cops. If you are on the floor, being raped, you are not going to be able to answer the phone. If no one answers, the alarm company will go down the list to the next person to call. This process adds to the response time.
3. Because of the above, the bad guy is not in any particular hurry to run away. If he is intent on violence, you are dead meat.
4. Notice that after all that, the police show up. They take a statement. They leave. They did not protect anybody. They would if they could, but they weren't there when the bad guy was. This isn't the fault of the police - it's just the facts of the situation.
Don't get me wrong - an alarm system is a great idea. Just don't expect it to protect you from anything. It's mostly useful to wake you up if you're asleep, so you can get your gun; or to let the cops know your house has been broken into when you're gone. But it can't protect you from anything.
If you want protection from the bad guys, buy a gun and learn to use it. Protect yourself - because when you need it, you're likely going to be the only help you've got.
Even that doesn't guarantee that you will come out all right - but at least you'll have a chance.
-Pop
Violent Crime in Gun Filled Zones
Isn't it interesting how you never seem to hear about any sort of violent crime, murders, rapes or things like that - at shooting ranges?
If you believed the anti-gun crowd, it looks like there would be murders and shoot-outs left and right in those places - after all, nearly everybody there is armed!
Instead, you get a bunch of polite, friendly people who mutually respect each other and everybody has a good time pursuing their sport. People you've never met before are friendly and polite. This is awesome.
More guns = less crime. Statistically proven again and again. Check out http://www.gunfacts.info/
-Pop
If you believed the anti-gun crowd, it looks like there would be murders and shoot-outs left and right in those places - after all, nearly everybody there is armed!
Instead, you get a bunch of polite, friendly people who mutually respect each other and everybody has a good time pursuing their sport. People you've never met before are friendly and polite. This is awesome.
More guns = less crime. Statistically proven again and again. Check out http://www.gunfacts.info/
-Pop
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
New CHL Laws in Texas
I have a Texas CHL (Concealed Handgun License). Therefore, I try to keep up with the latest and greatest laws that pertain thereto. The following is in the current book (ls-16.pdf) published by the government for the purpose:
PC 9.34 PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
(a) ...
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.OK, so... I can kill somebody dead in order to save their life?
Okee - Dokee, now.
-Pop
PC 9.34 PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
(a) ...
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.OK, so... I can kill somebody dead in order to save their life?
Okee - Dokee, now.
-Pop
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Pacifism - Wrong!
Violence is something that exists in life, and sooner or later all of us will be confronted with it on some level. Many people are taught to submit when confronted with violence. These people tend to believe that in order to be 'peaceful' they must never be aggressive themselves. After all, Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. These people are taught, falsely, that if they submit, the bad guys will not hurt them. But that puts the decision about your welfare in someone else's hands - and at best, that someone has already demonstrated zero respect of you and your rights.
In some cases, this may work as a survival strategy, but by definition it puts you at the mercy of the aggressor. Pacifism is not a survival strategy in the real world - it only works when EVERYBODY is a pacifist. One aggressive individual in a room full of pacifists is THE BOSS, and the pacifists have no rights.
It is appropriate and moral to be aggressive in response to an attack. The basis of this morality is in not being the initiator of the conflict.
A careful reading of the Bible shows that 'turning the other cheek' means to not respond to insults or other similar provocation with force. But when the provocation escalates to bodily harm to you or other innocents, or even hurting you in a financial way by stealing what is yours, then you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself. A truly excellent treatment of this subject can be found at The Cornered Cat. Highly, highly recommended.
It is possible and right to be a non-pacifist, deal from a position of strength, and still be a moral person who loves God.
-Pop
In some cases, this may work as a survival strategy, but by definition it puts you at the mercy of the aggressor. Pacifism is not a survival strategy in the real world - it only works when EVERYBODY is a pacifist. One aggressive individual in a room full of pacifists is THE BOSS, and the pacifists have no rights.
It is appropriate and moral to be aggressive in response to an attack. The basis of this morality is in not being the initiator of the conflict.
A careful reading of the Bible shows that 'turning the other cheek' means to not respond to insults or other similar provocation with force. But when the provocation escalates to bodily harm to you or other innocents, or even hurting you in a financial way by stealing what is yours, then you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself. A truly excellent treatment of this subject can be found at The Cornered Cat. Highly, highly recommended.
It is possible and right to be a non-pacifist, deal from a position of strength, and still be a moral person who loves God.
-Pop
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Violence!
I just read an article describing how many Utah schools are either not commemorating 9/11 or are downplaying it. The text of the article stated, regarding the children, "we don't want them to dwell on violence".
It occurs to me that, though we all want to protect our children from violence, hiding it from them may be a mistake of major proportions. After all, it is a violent world!
Now, I'm not saying we should support violence, or put a positive spin on it. But I am saying that our children will have to learn how to deal with it at some point in their lives. The ability to deal with violence, both emotionally and physically, needs to be part of the training and education of every person, so that when confronted with it, a reasoned response can be generated.
This might be anything from calming down someone who is about to go ballistic, all the way to taking the initiative to defend yourself when physically attacked instead of just giving up. Right now, so many people are being taught that, when attacked, give the aggressor what he wants and he will go away. Sometimes it does happen like that. But many times, it does not. As witness the Virginia Tech massacre. Some of the students and teachers were mentally prepared to defend themselves - and some were not. Particularly in an execution scenario, doing nothing is not a survival strategy that works.
I believe that educating people about violence would improve the ratio of those able to defend themselves, if done correctly. And I think we would become a healthier society because of this. Denying that violence exists will not make it go away - therefore it is absolutely necessary to learn how to deal with it.
God help us if we ever get a U.S. President that believes in going belly-up at the first sign of aggression.
-Pop
It occurs to me that, though we all want to protect our children from violence, hiding it from them may be a mistake of major proportions. After all, it is a violent world!
Now, I'm not saying we should support violence, or put a positive spin on it. But I am saying that our children will have to learn how to deal with it at some point in their lives. The ability to deal with violence, both emotionally and physically, needs to be part of the training and education of every person, so that when confronted with it, a reasoned response can be generated.
This might be anything from calming down someone who is about to go ballistic, all the way to taking the initiative to defend yourself when physically attacked instead of just giving up. Right now, so many people are being taught that, when attacked, give the aggressor what he wants and he will go away. Sometimes it does happen like that. But many times, it does not. As witness the Virginia Tech massacre. Some of the students and teachers were mentally prepared to defend themselves - and some were not. Particularly in an execution scenario, doing nothing is not a survival strategy that works.
I believe that educating people about violence would improve the ratio of those able to defend themselves, if done correctly. And I think we would become a healthier society because of this. Denying that violence exists will not make it go away - therefore it is absolutely necessary to learn how to deal with it.
God help us if we ever get a U.S. President that believes in going belly-up at the first sign of aggression.
-Pop
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
9 Guns for Every 10 Americans
Howdy, Friends;
There's an article on foxnews.com here that says that there are 9 guns for every 10 Americans. This means there's not enough guns out there (grin).
Seriously, though - one interesting factoid in this article is that it states "The figures dispel the idea that gun ownership and high levels of violence necessarily go hand in hand"... and "There's no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence."
I already knew this from other sources, but it's nice how these studies keep rolling in. Now, if we could only get the anti-gunners to look at the actual facts! An excellent source of more confirmed information is Gun Facts.
The ability of the general public to effectively defend themselves, on the spot in real time, is the greatest deterrent to violent crime. Taking this ability away from the law-abiding public (by passing anti-gun laws which only affect law-abiding citizens) consistently results in a general rise in violent crime.
Addendum: I do not support the idea that everybody should have a gun. However, I do believe that they should be available to all mentally healthy, law abiding citizens for home self-defense or hunting - and it should be legal to carry open or concealed when suitably trained and licensed. I do think training similar to current CHL program should be required to carry in public, primarily so that the person involved has a good understanding of the law relating to lethal force.
-Pop
There's an article on foxnews.com here that says that there are 9 guns for every 10 Americans. This means there's not enough guns out there (grin).
Seriously, though - one interesting factoid in this article is that it states "The figures dispel the idea that gun ownership and high levels of violence necessarily go hand in hand"... and "There's no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence."
I already knew this from other sources, but it's nice how these studies keep rolling in. Now, if we could only get the anti-gunners to look at the actual facts! An excellent source of more confirmed information is Gun Facts.
The ability of the general public to effectively defend themselves, on the spot in real time, is the greatest deterrent to violent crime. Taking this ability away from the law-abiding public (by passing anti-gun laws which only affect law-abiding citizens) consistently results in a general rise in violent crime.
Addendum: I do not support the idea that everybody should have a gun. However, I do believe that they should be available to all mentally healthy, law abiding citizens for home self-defense or hunting - and it should be legal to carry open or concealed when suitably trained and licensed. I do think training similar to current CHL program should be required to carry in public, primarily so that the person involved has a good understanding of the law relating to lethal force.
-Pop
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Gun Free Zones
Howdy, friends;
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
