Away, way back in 1977, when I began writing my first novel, _The Probability Broach_ (still in print, after four decades), I was regarded as something of a nutcase because I argued that American society would be a much better, safer place if everybody who wanted to, carried a gun. I was by no means the first to do so, nor was I the only one at the time, but, except for Robert A. Heinlein, Elmer Keith, and the ghost of H. Beam Piper, I often felt very much alone in my simple, straightforward, common-sense advocacy of exercising one’s natural rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now, of course, forty years later, armed self-defense has become a social movement. The degree to which I share responsibility for that is debatable, but I am proud of any part I may have had in it.
Last weekend (no, I am not changing the subject) was a pretty lousy one for peace and civil order in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Egged on by various evil shamans (one of them in the States), Islamic terrorists employed an automobile and big knives to wound and murder dozens of innocent individuals who were trying to enjoy a warm summer evening—in a near-Arctic climate that doesn’t offer many of them—and whose only “crime” was that they did not choose to follow the benighted religious precepts of a 7th century Arab merchant-trader.
Less than 24 hours after an assassination attempt on members of the United States Congress the editorial board published an article entitled America’s Lethal Politics.
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.
They pointed out how an assassination attempt on Gabby Gifford after Sarah Palin ordered the execution and how the mission failed because of an incompetent right wing killer. Oh, wait, I may have gotten that wrong. Actually, Sarah Palin used the “T” word, yes I mean Target, and that somehow caused Jared Lee Loughner, age 22 to murder 6 people. She was also targeting districts, not people.
Loughner was a nut job, a fruit cake. There is no evidence that his actions were politically motivated and even less that he was a Conservative. CBS News noted in 2011 that a former friend of Loughner’s wrote:
“… he (Loughner) had once been ‘very liberal’ and added, ‘he was leftwing when I knew him in highschool and college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows.”
“Why would some go through 16 hours of training if they could mail order to get a concealed carry permit from Virginia or from Florida?” Asked Colleen Daley, executive director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “We want to make sure only the most qualified individuals… who’ve gone through the training and know what they’re doing are carrying firearms in our state.”
Really? So you think that the 16-hour course as mandated by Illinois is somehow superior to a mail order system?
Please list the facts that back up the claim that after state training people “know what they’re doing,” and then explain to the class why Illinois residents are too stupid to be able to do the same as those from Florida and Virginia who can mail order.
“Meaning many international students at Kansas universities would be surrounded by firearms without the legal right to also carry one — making it potentially even more dangerous for these students,” she wrote. “Considering the shooting of two Indian men who were presumed to be ‘Middle Eastern’ by a white supremacist in Olathe, Kansas last week, international students, especially those from certain countries or regions, are at a greater risk of being the victims of deadly violence once this campus carry law goes into effect.”
The horrors of being treated like a common citizen…
A newly-retired hero detective with more than 600 arrests wants to carry a gun in retirement — but the NYPD has treated him like a common criminal in denying his application, he claims in a legal petition.
“The confrontation began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer’s property,” Anaheim police said in statement Wednesday.
This is most interesting.
You can watch the OODA Loops spin out of control as communications break down and either the wrong tactic is used or no tactic is selected at all due to the Sympathetic Nervous System or “SNS” reaction.
As the SNS response continued to rise all parties were beginning to think with their survival brain, hence the continued decline in communications which lead to anti-social behavior.
While one could write an article on the video tearing apart the officer’s tactics, or lack thereof (a training issue, not the officer’s fault). I won’t.
And while one could write an article critiquing and condemning the society and education system that fostered such blatant disregard for individual and property rights, I won’t do that either.
I will, however, state that had both sides had a modicum of respect for each other, other’s property rights, abided by the NAP, and had just a little bit of training, all these unpleasantries could have been avoided.
Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet, fortunately, were closer than most think (thanks technology!).
In the end, I hope the officer doesn’t face the same unjust consequences that as Mike Strickland is now facing for making the same sensible decisions to protect his life.
After all, two wrongs don’t make a right. And while a badge shouldn’t grant extra rights, it shouldn’t mean you have any fewer rights either.
Seems rather desperate when one is forced to use the same regurgitated, unpopular, and failed arguments one has used in years gone by.
I do recall the same reactionary types calling Florida the “Gunshine State” because its citizens had the gall to support giving themselves more control over their own security.
This repeated itself time and time again, as it will continue to and should.
You can’t defeat a distributed threat by centralizing the response… most people sense this intuitively, hence the resistance to centralize.
“In the aftermath of the deadly Orlando nightclub and Fort Lauderdale airport shootings, two Republican lawmakers in Florida are pushing to eradicate the Sunshine State’s “gun-free zones” in a move that would put more guns in public areas. Sen. Dennis Baxley, of Ocala, and Rep. Don Hahnfeldt, of The Villages, want to allow people with concealed weapon permits to carry a deadly firearm nearly anywhere, including local bars, voting booths, courthouses, public schools, colleges and university campuses, airport passenger terminals and maybe even a Miami Dolphins game.”
Of the 86 fatal shootings involving imitation firearms since 2015, the most common theme was mental illness: 38 of those killed had a history of it, according to their families and police reports. Fourteen of the calls were domestic disturbances. Ten others began as robberies. The remaining circumstances range from patrolling neighborhoods to serving arrest warrants to making traffic stops.
Are more laws needed to make a fake gun look fake to protect the person wielding it inappropriately?
Is the problem fake guns that look too real (whatever that means), or could other factors be at play?
Since people under a life or death situation (such as those described in the article) naturally achieve a sympathetic nervous system or (SNS) response which includes the loss of color vision; what modifications will be demanded when simply coloring guns differently doesn’t fix the problem?
It seems to me that the real problem is that some people choose to intimidate, coerce, or otherwise threaten other innocent people, and then other people react with appropriate levels of counterviolence when faced with someone acting in a manner that suggests that they or others are in immediate jeopardy of loss of life and limb.
As my friends in law enforcement say “You do stupid thing, you win stupid prizes.”
Using the force multipliers of shock, speed, and violence of action, a Georgia woman quickly routs the armed miscreants. Well done, we love it when the victim isn’t.
In Georgia, three armed would-be home invaders surely picked the wrong house when a woman came barreling in with her firearms, killing one of them. Security camera footage captured the attempted home invasion, showing the men flee as shots rang out. Two of the men are still at large. The local police department said this was a clear-cut case of self-defense. The men were shown to be carrying firearms when they entered her home (via WSB-TV):
Not believing that all is fair in love and war, the gun-control crowd at the University of Texas (UT) is upset about a parody film created by other students that seems to imply “a dildo can’t save your life.”
“At first I thought that it was just a poorly made rebuttal to our protest,” Lopez said. “And then I skipped forward and I saw the subject shot in the head with the sex toy fall to the ground next to her. Of course I was disgusted.”
While a logical argument could be made that the film is stating an obvious point, the offended group is overlooking the more subtle and twisted sub-plot. . . by disarming people or keeping them disarmed, they are condoning sending men with guns to enforce their desires using the credible threat of lethal force.
In other words, it’s our own fears that enslave them (and their law abiding neighbors). . . And in this case – firearms owners have proven they are the least of societies worries.
Who in their right mind would want to disarm the very group of people that have been proven to break the fewest laws?
Who in their right mind would want to disarm a group whose use of lethal force is demonstrated to be extremely long suffering – even to a fault.
This same demographic invests millions of their own dollars seeking out self improvement through training, then purchasing their own training, firearms, training and defensive ammo, and even investing in the best life-saving equipment (including first aid) their money can buy.
Firearms owners do this in order to increase their ability to win the fight of their lives in the hopes of saving innocent life, they do this without any government mandates, handouts, or tax breaks… and they do this knowing full well knowing they will be highly scrutinized and likely be targeted for their efforts to defend innocent life.
Firearms owners and carriers voluntarily deal with red tape, pay the added expenses (in both time and money), and places themselves under government scrutiny — all to be permitted to exercise the right to defend themselves (both before and after, if — God help them — they actually need to shoot another human being in the defense of innocent life).
This heroic behavior and judicious use of lethal force doesn’t just seem to be the product of regulation either, because in those states that allow constitutional carry (no licensing to exercise a right), these unregulated and armed citizens have also proven to be among the least of societies’ problems.
It’s also noteworthy to remember that this demographic includes a grassroots movement whose activists have single-handily kept well funded, astro-turf, special interests like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and their ilk – fighting defensive battles as the anti-gunners continues to lose support of their illogical stand.
“… fortunately that citizen was is a concealed carry permit holder and armed and was able to defend himself by firing at the assailant… what I can tell you is thank God that citizen was armed, thank God that citizen was able to defend himself… and had he not been this maybe could have gone a much different terrible way… the assailant got what was coming to him.” – Tom Gibbons – Madison County State’s Attorney
The (intended) victim was dropping off a friend after work when the suspect attempted to rob him. He was able to defend himself by firing his concealed weapon at the robber. Detectives say the victim’s action saved his life.
Last week, I was chatting contentedly with my friends on Facebook (who would ever have thought I’d say that?) about gun politics, when I was interrupted by (ostensibly) a young woman (everybody’s young compared to me these days) who denied that anyone in politics was out to take my guns away and asserted, in essence that I am some kind of paranoid crank.
“The right to possess a firearm does not come from government, the amendment is a restriction on government,” says one of the talking heads in Targeted: Exposing The Gun Control Agenda. The documentary, directed by Jesse Winton, 22, is set to release on Sept. 29 in a limited one-night run that will include a town hall style panel that includes both members of the right (Gov. Mike Huckabee, Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Joe Wilson, Fox News Contributor Katie Pavlich) as well as those from the left to such as the former vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center earlier this month found concealed-carry permits have boomed nationally, but particularly among women and minorities. “In eight states where we have data by gender, since 2012 the number of permits has increased by 161 percent for women and by 85 percent for men,” the report says.
Of course, your rights shouldn’t be violated even if a majority of people don’t like them.
The poll also shows the majority of Americans–58%–believe gun ownership “does more to protect people from crime than to put people’s safety at risk.” Only 37% of respondents believed “gun ownership does more to endanger personal safety.
Well, it’s not necessarily about the actual firearm [so] much for us. It’s about the safety and training around [guns]. It’s understanding what your rights are. Not something that was given, necessarily by the government. Something that’s a human, inalienable right. You can have all the constitutional rights and amendments you want, but if you don’t have something to defend those rights and beliefs from somebody who’s trying to violate those rights, then it doesn’t even make sense. It’s got to be something behind those words. A bully doesn’t stop bullying because you’re just saying stuff. A bully stops bullying because you pushed back.
The worst part of it was that the vast majority of the individuals who approached Crowder’s table knew nothing about guns and admitted to not owning or even shooting a gun. Yet they were willing to support sweeping bans based on the guns’ cosmetic features or the false information Crowder was purposely throwing at them to highlight their ignorance.