Posts Tagged ‘Self Defense’

Contrasts

It is amazing to me that certain otherwise rational adults actually believe that the police are there to protect them and are willing to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the security of themselves or their loved ones.  They maintain this child-like delusion despite numerous court cases establishing that police have no duty to protect individuals.  Besides, when you call the police, you are basically just hoping that the violent thug that comes is less of a problem than the thug you called them to deal with – sometimes, this isn’t the case.   Even if all cops were angels and wanted nothing more than to protect you, what happens when they can’t get there in time or there are none of them to send?

Compare this story:

With this one…

…this one…

…. and this one (911 Audio):

You might be asking yourself, “Why are proponents of civilian disarmament so heartless?  Why do they believe a disarmed populace is the ideal when that invariably means that innocent people are left to the mercy of those stronger than them?”  I have some thoughts of my own, but let me know what yours are in the comments.

Advertisements

An Alarming Trend

Watch this short segment from the local Detroit TV news on concealed carry permit holders fighting back against crime.

Did you catch Stephen Clark’s opening comment?  “Alarming trend.”  Ha!  I suppose if you’re a criminal, you would find it alarming that people are refusing to be victims.  Hopefully it’s so alarming, would-be criminals will decide it’s in their best interest to find safer and more productive ways to make a living.

313538_269769746408862_309497563_n

But no, I know what’s really alarming.  It’s the observation that people have rightfully lost faith in the government to keep them safe.  They are not content to be defenseless sheep – they value their own lives, they value the lives of their family members, they value the lives of their friends and coworkers too highly for that.  What happens when people realize that they are honorable men and women worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – not cattle to be milked by street thugs or thugs wearing government costumes?  The illusion of government awesomeness is lifting and people are taking responsibility for their own destiny – that is what is truly “alarming” to a statist.

letter_chart_feb13

Concealed Pistol License Holders in Michigan

Women and Guns

In my experience, a person’s thinking about firearms and their utility for self-defense can be radically altered in a couple of ways:

  1. Being inspired by the story of someone who refused to be a victim.  (Click the link for the story that did it for my mom).
  2. Being shaken from your idyllic worldview by either your own personal experience or that of someone else.

For me, it happened around 14-years-ago when a female friend of a family member was forced to stop on the side of the road and was subsequently attacked and killed by a man using his bare hands.  Upon hearing the story, I experienced a sudden moment of clarity and I realized that if she had a gun, she would have at least had a fighting chance and would likely have stopped the assault.

Having many women in my life that are extremely important to me, I felt compelled to do what I could to make sure they remained safe and able to defend themselves if the need ever arose.  I took it upon myself, with some help from a generous co-worker, to learn as much as I could about guns so that I would be able to introduce my friends and family to shooting sports.  My goal wasn’t to beat them over the head with it, but simply to provide an opportunity to try it out so that they could then make an informed decision on their own.  That said, a significant part of my strong support of gun rights comes from a desire to make sure my loved ones are well protected.

It is extremely frustrating to me that 70% of women support a ban on semi-automatic weapons and 56% support a ban on “high-capacity” magazines (CBS News, “Missing in Gun Debate: Female Gun Owners”).  I’ve already provided several reasons for these tools, one of which includes defense against multiple-assailants.  After reading Rebecca Solnit’s disturbing article, “A Rape a Minute, A Thousand Corpses a Year” I was reminded of a specific form of multiple-assailant attack that should be of particular concern to women.  The first paragraph alone should convince most skeptics that the fairer sex should be quite interested in carrying ample ammunition and having the means to deliver it as efficiently as possible.

woman_self_defense1-410x227

I suspect that most criminals know that the vast majority of women are anti-gun and are unlikely to provide armed resistance.  If this tendency were to shift, and would-be criminals suddenly began succumbing to acute lead poisoning, might that not provide a possible deterrent effect?  Clearly violence against women is a complex issue and I don’t want to imply that what I am proposing is a perfect solution.  The charming, witty, and armed blogger, Rebecca Hauptman, has an excellent article that probably does a better job of making my point than I have:

I’ve never been under the illusion that a gun is some kind of magical talisman that can be carried to ward off menacing attackers.  No amount of training, nor tools, nor mindset can deter all violence, all of the time.  The best we can hope for is a chance—an opportunity to run, a chance to call out for help, a moment to draw our weapon and fire a shot.  Why not employ all the tools at our disposal, and acquire as many skills, and as much knowledge as is available in order to improve that chance?

Get educated.  Investigate all of the resources you have access to.  And PLEASE don’t believe anyone who tells you that you don’t have a chance of defending yourself.

I’ve heard it said that a liberal is a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.  I would like to encourage my readers to be proactive and not wait until something terrible happens to start taking steps to protect yourselves.  If you aren’t yet at this stage in your thinking, that’s fine, but don’t deny those of us who are, the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

There are some tactical issues with the above video, and it’s a bit corny, but I still think it makes a good point – it’s good to have an Emergency Life Saving device available when you need it.

Why Would Anyone Need Something So Scary Looking?

I’ve been hearing certain questions quite often lately: “Why does anyone need an AR-15 rifle?” or “Why would you need more than a ten-round magazine?”

New Picture (8)

I realize these aren’t actual questions in the sense that the person asking has genuine intellectual curiosity – they’ve already decided, a priori, that no one does.  Nevertheless, I will provide the following reasons for your consideration:

1)  Criminals use them – multiple assailants carrying semi-automatic rifles during an attempted home invasion in Tucson, AZ.

2)  Even more criminals use them now thanks to the government’s Fast and Furious gun running operation.  Yes, the very government that wants to prohibit ownership by law-abiding citizens has provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels which subsequently used them to “to slaughter 14 Mexican teenagers and wound 12 more” as well as kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  The hypocrisy is astounding, isn’t it?

3)  One-shot stops are largely Hollywood fantasy.  Sometimes five shots (or 14!, or 16!, or 22!) at point-blank range may not do the job.  If the mother in the linked story faced multiple assailants, the ending may not have turned out so well.  Besides, the hit percentages reported for police are between 27% and 34%.  If it can be expected that only 30% of shots will connect,  a ten-round magazine becomes a three rounder – again, hopefully you don’t have to deal with multiple attackers or any that have recently indulged in methamphetamines. (1, 2, 3)

4)  They are easier for people with limited training, like the 15-year-old boy that used his father’s AR-15 to defend himself and his sister from a violent home invasion, to use in self-defense situations.  With four points of contact with your body, a long gun is dramatically easier to use than a handgun.

5)  Protection during times of civil unrest.  When the police refused to help, Korean business owners used various firearms, including semi-automatic rifles, to defend themselves and their property during the 1992 LA riots.

6)  Diane Feinstein, along with other members of the global ruling elite, don’t want us to own them, ergo, it is our duty to own them.

7)  Because fuck you – that’s why.  I don’t need to justify the way I choose to exercise my rights to anyone.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
– Tench Coxe, American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789.

Hero Mom

Why exactly isn’t this mom being venerated on every news channel in the country for being the hero that she is?  Why do we celebrate when government agents kill a bad guy, but a brave mother protecting her children gets no respect?  Why do we think it would be more noble if this mother sacrificed herself to save her kids rather than showing them the virtues of strength, determination, and the will to survive?  Why can’t anti-gun advocates understand that guns are merely tools – tools that can be, and are, used to save innocent lives?

LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday. The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar. But the man eventually found the family. “The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

[Click for Full Story]

It’s Just Good Sense

I was recently thinking about how people will prepare for certain emergencies, but bury their heads in the sand for others.  I decided to get some data.

Most of us rightfully believe it is a good idea to have fire alarms and fire extinguishers in our homes.  According to the CDC, in 2010, fire departments responded to 384,000 home fires nationwide.

Contrast that with the number of burglaries that occur annually.  According to the FBI, there were 2,161,727 burglaries in the United States during that same year (2010).  In the category of violent crime, there were 367,643 robberies.

If prudence dictates that a responsible home owner have both fire alarms and fire extinguishers for an event that happens 384,000 times per year, wouldn’t it be even more prudent to have a security system and a gun for something that happens over two million times per year?

Just like your fire extinguisher, a gun is something you hope never needs to be used.  But if the day ever comes when you do need it, wouldn’t it be nice to know it’s an option that’s available?

Prudence

The Right to Bear Arms

Thanks to the wretched Diane Feinstein, there’s been a lot of talk recently on instituting more tyrannical and authoritarian gun laws in this country.  I originally planned on writing a post based on some of the facts laid out by John Lott in More Guns, Less Crime.  Facts like guns are used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens over 2,000,000 times per year.  And that more guns do, in fact, lead to less crime.  However, I eventually realized that for anti-gun people this is purely an emotional issue.  Facts don’t really matter to them.  Therefore, I will do my best to present a few emotion-driven reasons to support private ownership of firearms and to reject efforts to restrict this right.

The Right of Self-Ownership

Democrats seem to be defined as being a group of people completely devoid of principled thought.  These are people that will give endless lip-service to civil rights and a “woman’s right to choose” while at the same time showing utter contempt for a person’s right to their own property and self-protection.  Fundamentally, what we’re talking about is the right of self-ownership*.  If the goal is freedom and Liberty, this is in fact, one of the most important principles to understand.  As Murray Rothbard explains in For a New Liberty:

The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to“own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

Consider, too, the consequences of denying each man the right to own his own person. There are then only two alternatives:

(1) a certain class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B

(2) everyone has the right to own his own equal quotal share of everyone else….we can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone else, yet is not entitled to own himself.

So with this understanding, how do we apply the principle of self-ownership to the question of gun control?  It should be obvious that if a man owns himself, he then has the unquestionable right to defend his person and property in whatever manner he sees fit.  It is not for some authoritarian legislator to decide what tool can and cannot be used for said defense.

Vulnerable Members of Society

I’ve already discussed the story of Kendra St. Clair in an earlier post.  She is the twelve year old girl who was recently successful in averting an attack in her own home using a handgun.  Clearly a twelve year old girl would not have been nearly as successful if she were forced to rely on her brawn to defend herself.  But young girls are far from the only members of society for whom the only viable self-defense option is a firearm.  I’m referring to the elderly, the disabled, and anyone else whose frailty demands a firearm as the only practical means of self-defense.  It’s all well and good for a legislator who has access to armed guards, but what of the people who can’t afford that luxury?

It’s not at all difficult to find numerous examples of law-abiding citizens using a gun to protect themselves.  I simple Google search will reveal many examples.

Totalitarian Regimes

Whether or not you believe that guns in the hands of private citizens are an effective or practical deterrent to totalitarian governments (and I would argue that they are), the fact remains, that perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the gun grabber’s argument is that only military, police, militarized police, and other agents of the state should be allowed to have guns.

Gun grabbers efforts, especially recently, are fueled by those rare instances in which a random whack-job kills a few people in what is inevitably a “gun-free” zone.  Not to diminish these tragedies in any way, I simply want to point out that the people who gun grabbers want to be the sole possessors of firearms, the aforementioned military, police, and other agents of the state, have used their weapons to kill HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS!

To believe that these groups are the only ones trustworthy enough to have guns is an insult to the millions of innocent people who died at the hands of those government forces that made the 20th century the bloodiest in human history.  Thinking that these people will use their power responsibly and ethically is a naive, utopian dream that ignores about 10,000 years of human history.  (Seriously, these people represent this supposed exalted class who deserve the exclusive right to be armed?)

If your goal is to stop mass murdering criminals, the solution is not to restrict gun ownership – it is to encourage more people to arm themselves, practice, and to be prepared to stop would-be killers in their tracks.

Bottom Line – Guns Save Lives

In addition to the links I’ve placed throughout this article, please consider this small representative sample of ordinary people using firearms for self-defense:

Eight Horrible Crimes Stopped by Legal Gun Owners

College Student Kills Home Invaders and Saves 10 Lives

Recently Widowed Mother Shoots Home Invader to Protect Her Baby

Boy Uses Dad’s AR-15 to Shoot Invader

FL Teenager Shoots & Kills Abusive Father as He Choked and Beat Teen’s Mother

71-Year Old Shoots Robbers at an Internet Cafe in Florida

*For newbies to libertarianism, I don’t want to imply that the application of this principle in the context of abortion is settled.  There is quite a bit of disagreement on how to apply this principle to that question.

Hat tip to the Wolf in a Sheeple’s World Facebook page for some of the links on this post.