| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
03/13/10
|
|||||||||||
|
February
25, 2008 Let's pretend, just for a moment, that the Bradys and Feinsteins of the world got their fondest wish and passed all the "laws" they could think of that would keep guns out of the hands of everyone but the police and active military (and except their own public and private armed guards, of course). Imagine they were actually able to confiscate every gun in private hands and turn them all into scrap, or made private gun ownership so expensive and dangerous that it actually became impossible. Now let's imagine the average inner city or even urban area and see if all of the criminals have suddenly become productive citizens because there is no way they can get a gun. You don't think so? If guns cause the crime, they should all have good jobs within a week, shouldn't they? Or do you think they might have a field day, knowing that the chance of anyone hurting them or thwarting their plans is now almost nil? Is a gun the only thing they can hurt you with? How about imaging a lady at home with her children, who suddenly finds the back door kicked in and a big man advancing on her with a knife. She has no hope of defending herself from this man, even if she can grab another knife off the counter. Fade film to the usual coroner's van hauling off the remains and the police filling out all their wonderful paperwork. Oh yes, they got a shoe print of the intruder, made in the children's blood in the middle of the floor, but the chances they'll ever lay hands on him is slim to none. Let's try again, shall we? In your mind's eye, see a loving husband and father on his way home from work who stops at a gas station to fuel up. He walks toward the pay window and suddenly sees a man running at him with a baseball bat! He puts up his arm to take the first blow, but unfortunately the next two bash his head in and the thief runs off with his wallet. The clerk and other customers watch in helpless horror. The usual coroner and police drama come next... Then you could think of a big college dorm somewhere, full of students getting ready for bed or busy studying. All of a sudden there is a sound of screaming and you see someone with a hammer beating on heads and faces while the blood runs down the hall... A half hour later the cops all rush in... Film at 11. Now imagine an elderly woman, fixing her supper and hearing the glass break on the front of the house. She runs to the bedroom and hides in the closet.... If the robber doesn't hear her crying or chooses to ignore her, then she only loses her possessions. But if he's afraid of a witness or is just annoyed, her daughter may find her strangled body in that closet when she comes to find out why the phone just keeps on ringing. Nice thought, isn't it? Go ahead and imagine a lot of other scenarios like this. I'm sure you can remember quite a few such incidents from recent news, especially if you live somewhere like Washington DC or Chicago. Crooks 4+, victims 0 - and that's pretty much the way it would go until someone developed an effective personal defense weapon - and people started using it! Fortunately, we already have one. It's called a gun and comes in a wide variety of sizes and calibers. But we don't need guns, so many folks cry! We've got Tasers! Mace! Kung Fu! Criminals can and do use these things too, but few of their victims can use them effectively for defense, especially women and the elderly. Even if you are strong and healthy, just think of trying to defend yourself from a knife attack with a spray can - or your bare hands. And you might give a thought to why the police NEVER would dream of confronting such an attack without guns. If they can't and won't, just why should anyone else? Now imagine that first woman pulling a gun out of her pocket, or a kitchen drawer, and shooting the intruder. She might well still be badly injured, but she would at least have a chance to save her life, and that of her children. Unarmed, she has absolutely no chance of any kind. Imagine that young man drawing his sidearm and stopping the threat of the thief with a baseball bat. Or one of the clerks or customers inside might have been able to stop the madman if they'd been armed and trained to respond. Aside from that, the attacker has all of the advantages and little or no risk to himself. Can you see a college student draw her gun from her purse and drop the hammer madman in his tracks before he can get started? Even if no students were armed, a house matron or other school employee could stop the crime quickly if they were armed, or at least hold the criminal at bay until the police could arrive. Unarmed, they would all be completely at the mercy of the man with the hammer. Even the old woman standing at the stove could easily arm herself at the sound of breaking glass and then, if she chose to hide in the closet, would at least have a good chance to survive if the thief came after her there. Multiply all those better outcomes by the thousands of attacks made on people all over the country today. Picture the police coming to haul off the criminals instead of the dead and mangled bodies of the helpless victims. Do you think crime rates might come down? Just why would any of these people CHOOSE to die, to be a helpless victim? Yet a great many politicians do not want to give us that choice at all. They are so misinformed, or so EVIL that they would rather see us all dead than able to choose life for ourselves and our loved ones - to choose to be armed and able to defend ourselves. I choose life. I have already stopped a deadly attack on myself with a firearm. It's not just a pipe dream or a fluke. I didn't know much about how to use that gun then, and I had no training in self defense either, but I did what had to be done and saved my life. The man I shot learned that attacking a woman alone - especially one holding a shotgun - was not a good idea, and I hope he never tried it again after that night. And if he learned, we'll never know how many other lives may have been saved. Often just the threat of armed defense is enough to cause the attacker to run away. Many times each day, people now defend themselves with guns without ever firing a shot, and many crimes simply never even get started because a potential criminal is afraid that his intended victims just MIGHT be able to resist and he's not interested in getting hurt if he can help it. He (or she) will go on to look for easier prey - someone who quite obviously can't defend themselves. Nobody knows how often this happens, of course. The criminals certainly won't tell us, and many incidents where no shots are fired are never reported by the innocent either - especially if their use of a defensive weapon was somehow "illegal" where they live. But I can hear some gnashing their teeth, saying that we should just call the police and let them protect us. Isn't that their job? Isn't that what we pay them for? Unfortunately, unless you can afford to hire around the clock personal guards on your own dime (or at taxpayer's expense), that's just not an option. The criminals are not apt to wait for the police to come. They will almost always have done their deed and be gone long before they hear sirens. Call 911 and die is not a joke. The police have NO LEGAL obligation to protect you - as an individual - in any case, even if they were standing there! Get over it. Check out the recent history in places with total gun bans. The UK, Europe and Australia are prime examples. The number of criminals, using all sorts of things as weapons, and their victims have increased dramatically as the number of guns in private hands has diminished. In some areas, innocent people face greater penalties for defending themselves - by any means - than the criminals would for killing them! A determined criminal can kill someone with their bare hands. Would the people who now want to ban all guns begin calling for a ban on hands? Would that make any more sense? Of course not. Guns don't cause crime. Weapons of any kind do not create crime. People create crime within themselves - a sad part of human nature - and will use whatever tools they can find, including their bare hands. But their intended victims, properly armed and motivated, can reduce both the incidents and the incentive for these criminals to prey on others. Just the creation of concealed carry permits in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania has been followed with a significant drop in murder and assault rates, as well as lower rates for other violent crime. Those who predicted that ordinary people would suddenly indulge in street corner gun battles, road rage shootings and "blood running in the streets" have been proven wrong time and time again. And places like Vermont and Wyoming, which never restricted gun ownership much, have such a low rate of violent crime per capita that it almost doesn't exist. (Remember to separate violent crime, with real victims, from prohibition type "crimes," at least for the purpose of this article.) Eliminating all the guns would do nothing to remove the reason some people wish to rob and harm others. It would only remove the possibility that the intended victim might have a realistic way to defend themselves. The criminal can and does use a great many different things as weapons, but the gun is the single most effective means of defense. Would all crime be prevented if everyone were armed who wished to be? Probably not, as human nature will always leave room for hate and dishonesty this side of heaven's gate. But there is no good reason why anyone should be a helpless victim if they have the will and means to prevent it. And that choice must be available to everyone because all human beings have the same basic right to their life and to defend that life from any aggression. That's not just my own idea, by any means. If you have any doubts, please spend a little time looking at some of links above and the following additional references. Operation
Self Defense
Because self-defense is a basic human right... The psychology of self defense and the force continuum Violence
is a Function of Behavior, Not a Function of Firearms Violence is a function of behavior. If a violent person chooses a firearm as the instrumentality with which to wreak havoc, the firearm is no more to blame than is the vehicle of a drunk driver. If a person chooses to commit arson, the match is not the guilty agent. Driving while impaired, by the way, is violent behavior. If a violent person strikes another with a stick or a stone, the violent behavior is in the person, not the stick or the stone. The issues we need to address to reduce violence have much more to do with behavioral choices and much less to do with "gun control". The
Cornered Cat Some folks say the most dangerous place in the world is between a Mama Bear and her cubs. It may be so. I've never met a Mama Bear, myself. The most dangerous place I ever stood was between a cornered cat and an open door. When a cat feels threatened, she gets away from the danger as quickly as she can. She doesn't care what damage she inflicts on her way to safety, but she's not interested in fighting for fighting's sake. She does only as much as she needs to do in order to escape. She doesn't deal in revenge. If she feels threatened, she simply leaves. Efficiently. Until she needs to use them, her claws stay sheathed. She doesn't go around threatening to maul people. She's cuddly, she's cozy, she likes to curl up next to a crackling fire on a cold winter's day. She's great company. But don't try to trap her in a bad situation. This site is about women and guns, not about cats. But in a way, it's about the cornered cat in all of us. It's about the determination to get away from an attacker if you need to. It's about making the decision to say, "Not me. Not mine. Not today." And it's about the tools to make that decision stick. Damnable
Lies That Killed a School Imagine that you are a new security guard in a school known for troubled teens and violence. From your office window you see a student step out of a truck and fire two shotgun blasts into the air. Wearing a long black trenchcoat opened to reveal more weapons, the student carrying the shotgun approaches your office. Visions of the worst possible scenario -- Columbine -- blink in your mind. You must protect the students. You must act. But you are unarmed. Your security guard partner is unarmed as well. You have no bullet-proof vest. You deploy your only defensive tactic: radio for help. The attacker looks into your office windows, searches for the door, finds it, enters and fires the gun. You shout at your partner to run away with you, but instead he stalls the attacker a few seconds. You run out the door. Two shotgun blasts later, your partner is dead. Rosie
vs. Reality: What Every Woman Must Know Suppose a Hollywood star or a political figure publicly announced that he or she favored making all women and families helpless and defenseless against vicious thugs. Would women cheer and vow their undying support for that person? Yet if you believe the published polls and the media news showmen, then it's true: women actually want to be defenseless. Many women don't want to be able to protect themselves or their families from crazies, druggies, violent ex-boyfriends, rapists, home invaders and stalkers. What's more, these women want to prevent other women from protecting themselves, too. When some women say they want more "gun control," they are actually saying they want to make it harder for peace-loving women to obtain personal and home defense tools. All current and proposed "gun laws" work to discourage firearm ownership. Except for the shall-issue concealed carry rules in some states, none of the "gun laws" does anything to help an endangered woman obtain a firearm and learn how best to use it for self-defense.
Links from
the previous articles: Self ownership essay: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eight.asp The Ludwig von Mises Institute: http://www.mises.org/ What about the "poor?" - Reinventing America: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=289 Advocates for Self-government: http://www.self-gov.org/home.shtml Second Amendment Sisters -- Self defense is a basic human right. Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership -- Learn more about the real meaning of the Bill of Rights and the people who have fought to preserve it. Keep And Bear Arms -- a grassroots movement of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a call to action, a call for self-education, and a 21 gun salute to the many good men and women who fought and died to bring America into being. Gun
Owners of America -- "Gun Owners of America was instrumental
in mobilizing the grassroots to fight the crime bill." Opencarry.org - Great forum for those who open carry. The
Cornered Cat These will lead you to many others. |
Letter
From The Editor Reclaiming Ownership Of Our Lives Open Carry - Mama's Got A (BIG) Gun! The Price of Liberty is Three Years Old Some Truth About Narcotics and "Addiction" Open Carry - For Better or Worse Is WalMart The Next Disarmed Victim Zone? Land of the free and the home of the brave.. The Bill of Rights - Book Review Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters Open Carry, A Reader's Feedback Trusting God - No Greater Love Complete Archives for The Editor
[Susan Callaway is a Certified NRA instructor for handguns and Personal Protection in The Home. Classes are especially geared for the novice women, especially those who are afraid of guns] |
|||||||||
 |
|
