Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, May 05, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Caution! You Are About To Enter A Gun Free Zone
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I don’t have to remind my readers that I spend a good bit of my time disagreeing with campus leftists. Nor do I need to remind them that most of these disagreements are with leftist professors. But, until now, I haven’t written about one of the subjects upon which we frequently disagree. That is the subject of whether deterrence theory “works.”

Conservatives and leftists (I have a hard time calling them liberals because of their fascistic tendencies) have a fundamentally different view of human nature. Leftists see humans as innately good. That is why they think rehabilitation works. It is also why they think the United Nations is a good idea. If people are innately good then, surely, they can talk out their problems without resorting to war.

But conservatives have a more tragic view of human nature. We believe that people with innately destructive tendencies must be held in check. That is why we so frequently speak of traditional values. That is why we also speak of the need to have a punitive criminal justice system, which serves as a back-up plan when traditional values fail. The ideal system would mete out punishment that is swift, certain, and severe.

In a nutshell, conservatives believe the Reagan military build-up produced the fall of the Berlin Wall. And we believe that criminals, like communists, are on their best behavior when they are afraid.

Ever since I began my transformation from leftist atheist to conservative Christian I’ve been arguing with professors inclined to dismiss deterrence theory. Those professors usually fall into one of two groups. First, there are those who name a specific “get tough” program that they believe “hasn’t worked.” Second, there are those who just blandly assert that deterrence theory, in general, “doesn’t work.”

Today, I plan to respond to both of these groups. Let me start with the second group.

Every time I hear a professor say that deterrence theory “doesn’t work” I log on to his university web page to peruse his syllabi. And in each instance I find evidence that he really does believe in the efficacy of deterrence theory. That evidence comes in many forms such the assertion that “plagiarism will be punished under the academic honor code” or “those who miss more than two classes will have three points deducted from his or her final average.”

Obviously, these professors seek to deter cheating and skipping class through the medium of punishment, not negotiation. That means the professors are hypocrites – not because they fail to live up to the things they say but because they do not even believe them in the first place.

It is better to ignore these hypocrites altogether. But those in the aforementioned first group should be taken more seriously. Since they tend to rely on specific empirical data rather than broad theoretical assertions, I now invite them to participate in a little experiment meant to assess whether specific measures based on deterrence theory actually “work.”

I want all of those leftist professors who say that having a gun in one’s home does not deter burglary to do the following:

1. Post a sign on your front door saying “Caution: You Are About to Enter a Gun Free Zone.”

2. Send a post card to DrAdams.org, P.O. Box 319, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 28480. Just note that you have posted your sign and leave a return address so I can mail you a crime victimization survey this time next year.

Next, I want all of those gun owners who say that having a gun in one’s home does, in fact, deter burglary to do the following:

1. Post a sign on your front door saying “Caution: You Are About to Enter an Armed Household.”

2. Send a post card to DrAdams.org, P.O. Box 319, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 28480. Just note that you have posted your sign and leave a return address so I can mail you a crime victimization survey this time next year.

There are also professors who continue to assert that actually carrying a weapon with a valid permit does not deter violent crime. For those, it will not be necessary to conduct a crime victimization study. There are already 15 refereed studies indicating that concealed carry permits reduce violent crime. While some published studies are inconclusive, none draw the conclusion that the permits increase violence.

Nonetheless, some leftist professors continue to use scare tactics by ignoring the evidence and claiming that concealed carry permits do increase violence. Such assertions are immoral because they are dishonest.

Such assertions are also careless because even those without guns are safer living in areas that allow citizens to carry concealed. This is because violent criminals do not know who has a gun and who does not. But, today, I plan to change all that by asking these leftists professors to write to DrAdams.org to re-assert their opposition to concealed carry laws.

After they send a post card to the address supplied above, I’ll send them a free t-shirt saying “Caution: I’m an Un-Armed Citizen.” If they get into trouble wearing it, they can always negotiate their way out of the situation.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Prof. Adams
Thanks for another great article.

Brilliant, as always.
This speaks directly to your continued position on society's Sheep, Wolves and Shepherds.

Wolves will prey on the Sheep they perceive as unarmed and Shepherds will be called upon to protect the flock.

I wonder just
how many lefties will take you up on your challenge and send you postcards?

Prof. Adams, I can't wait to see the follow-up article to this one.

Yes, Michael
Many of us liberals DO see human beings as innately good. This seems to me, when in doubt, the honorable default position.

Evangelical (reason-free, "faithful") christians see human beings as innately sinful, as innately evil, in need of mystical redemption & supernatural guidance. This seems to me a life-negating proposition, a learned hatred of body, of self, of neighbor.

Regarding guns: If you (Mike) hurl anti-gay rhetoric at me & subsequently get physically assaultive, can I legally blow you away?

I think there's a whole lot of merit supporting viewing your fellow man as decent & good. Viewing your fellow man as sinful & evil, in need of a superpower's grace or redemption, is a form of nihilism (it really is self-hatred; we get that horrible Dostoevsky philosophy: "If there is no God, everything is permitted", which is patently untrue: we had moral & social codes & ethics long before this God or other Gods were invented).

Will
A couple of things.

1. If someone physically assaults another person, I can't think of a single conservative that would not say that the victim has a right to defend himself with the force necessary to make the attacker cease his effort. Now, you do need to use some common sense, though, Will. If another man comes up to you and throws a punch at you, regardless of the reason he does so and regardless of what he says prior to throwing the punch, unless he says "I'm going to kill you," you do not have the right to use lethal force. You do have the right to punch the idiot back to get him to back off. If he then grabs a weapon, sure you could grab a weapon to defend yourself. Shooting someone because they punched you one time in the arm is not acceptable, legally, morally or ethically.

2. All people are capable of good and evil. It is absolutely foolish to look at people as innately good and that's it. People do have goodness in them, and there is always the chance for redemption, but pretending that they have no evil in their souls as well is patently foolish, whether you hold religious beliefs or are an atheist.

The adage is true
An armed society is a polite society.

But I sure do hope some doofus or doofi takes Dr. Adams up on his offer. The results should be enlightening.

Another thing, Will
I hope that you are not implying in your 12:44 a.m. post to Professor Adams that someone spouting anti-gay rhetoric deserves to have violence done against him.

Surely you are not suggesting that, because that would make you a pretty foul hypocrite. That would be a statement that it's okay for you to state your views, but not okay for someone to speak or shout an opposing view. That would be a declaration on your part that you really don't believe in First Amendment rights for all Americans.

I will refrain from judgment against you at this point and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not implying any such thing. It would be an appropriate action on your part to clarify your words, and let the rest of us know whether or not you imply such a belief.

Curtal Friar
There are always exceptions to any rule. You're mostly correct than one doesn't have the right to use deadly force in retaliation for a punch.

An example of an exception to that rule is this: I have an injury to my abdominal area, an old wound that cannot be repaired. The injury is sufficiently severe that if someone hits me in the gut, it will most likely be lethal. (I have to take extraordinary precautions to avoid being injured in routine daily life situations such as driving or carrying groceries from the car.)

In sum, what might be inconsequential to someone else could easily kill me. In any event, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll defend myself with deadly force against any attack, however slight.

SNAFU
SNAFU writes:

****I have an injury to my abdominal area, an old wound that cannot be repaired. The injury is sufficiently severe that if someone hits me in the gut, it will most likely be lethal. In sum, what might be inconsequential to someone else could easily kill me. In any event, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll defend myself with deadly force against any attack, however slight.****

Wow. Okay, a couple of things. One is, I do express my sympathy for your condition, in that you have much greater things to worry about than a punch in the gut. There are many events that could happen that don't feature any violence at all that could result in a blow to that region. Hopefully, nothing happens to you to set off your injury.

Two. If someone did try to punch you in the gut, I would think that you could act to protect yourself, and it would make sense that your fear for your life would prompt you to use much greater force than normal in such a situation. However, you are not justified in using lethal force against any attack. Someone punching or slapping you in the face is no threat to your life. Someone punching you on the arm is no major threat. Someone kicking you in the shins is not a lethal threat to you, and would not warrant the use of greater force.

Three. It is so very rare to find someone in your condition, that you could not prove that an assailant intended to cause deadly harm to yourself, so it might indeed be very difficult to legally prove your "right" to use lethal force against any attack.

SNAFU
I'm not picking on you, and please don't think that, but something else that occurs to me and probably would to a judge or a jury were you ever tried for using great or lethal force against an attacker is this:

If your medical condition is bad enough that a blow to the midsection, whether accidental or purposeful, could end your life, then what steps have you taken to protect yourself? I would want to know if you wore any type of padding around your midsection to help prevent a blow or damage to that region.

I would also demand that you take extra steps socially to avoid situations that could result in any kind of fight. If I found out that you were in a bar, and were with friends that became rowdy, and they, through their actions, started a fight with someone else, and you shot someone who took a swing at you, I would not extend to you the the legal right to use lethal force to defend yourself, were I a judge presiding over your case.

Moreover, it would be very tough to prove that the other person had intent to cause grievous damage or death to your person. YOu would have to prove that your assailant knew about your injury and was specifically trying to hit you there. Say someone got angry at you and took a swing at you, there is little to no excuse for using greater force. The court would want to know why you simply didn't move away or block his punches or turn away so your midsection did not get hit or put something between the two of you and then warn the other person about your injury.

I could be wrong, but I think you're on very shaky ground, legally, on the issue of using great or lethal force against someone who throws a punch at you.

Will
?Regarding guns: If you (Mike) hurl anti-gay rhetoric at me & subsequently get physically assaultive, can I legally blow you away?"

That did not sound right at all Will. In that case, Mike would have every right to pull out a revolver on you.

Curtal
That's why I specifically added physicality into the mix (assault, gay bashing). I do believe people have every right to be vocally anti-gay, though not physically anti-gay.

Curtai friar
Are you a judge or lawyer? I ask because you make the claim that if an attacker does not have a weapon the victim is legally barred from using deadly force to stop the attack. I don't see how that can be correct. If someone threatens and/or punches me in a malicious manner and I feel my life is threatened, I believe I am within my right to use deadly force against my attacker. Perhaps I am wrong?

Is it entrapment if . . .
I wear a “Caution: I’m an Un-Armed Citizen” t-shirt when it not true?

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
I am not a judge or a lawyer, but I have been in and around the security arena, and have worked with many members of law enforcement, so I am fairly familiar with the laws governing use of force, both for the members of law enforcement and for civilians.

Generally speaking, and of course different states may have different laws, and some may not match what I am saying here, so it's always best to check the laws in your own state to be absolutely sure, but as far as the state I am in, you generally are allowed the use of lethal force only to save your life and the lives of others.

It would be a real stretch to say that someone throwing a punch at you is endangering your life.

Your wording in your post is kind of vague. What do you mean by malicious? If I walked up and kicked you in the buttocks, that could definitely be viewed as malicious, but not a threat to your life, and you would not be able to legally justify the use of lethal force.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
Continuing my last post to you:

It really depends upon the situation. If another man states that he is going to kill you, and moves toward you in a menacing manner and raises his hands to attack you, then I think you could definitely back up the claim that your life was endangered and you did what you needed to do to save your life.

However, the powers that be are going to be looking at many factors. For instance, in the above situation, what is the physical build and strength and ability of the attacker? If you are six foot four and your attacker is five foot six, and you are strong and you, based on your history and experiences, are able to handle yourself, it would be hard to establish fear of great harm or death to yourself.

Also, did you have other options? Was there a good chance of you just leaving the situation and getting to safety? If it can be demonstrated that you could have simply left the barroom without any real difficulty, then you would probably have no legal justification.

Now, everything I am saying here is concerning situations that happen in public. If you are talking about defending yourself against someone who has illegally entered your home, that's a whole different ballgame. Just the fact that someone has entered your house and approaches you in any kind of menacing manner is enough to establish that you feared for your life, in most states I am familiar with.

Will
With regard to good and evil, humans, left to their own devices, and without a moral code (whether it be "supernatural" and "reason-free" or decided by the state) will regress to a selfish, lazy, often violent lifestyle. Consider riots, mob violence (that is large crowds, not "The Mob."), anarchists (who believe that killing authority figures is good), etc. The problem with the "Humans are inherently good" model of social psychology is the voluminous amount of evidence to the contrary. After all, we are only human.

As to your point about whether you can shoot someone that assaults you. If you reasonably fear for your life (say someone comes at you with a knife or a baseball bat or points a gun at you) you can, in fact, shoot them both legally and morally (at least so long as you are in a jurisdiction where carrying a weapon is not, in and of itself, illegal. They don't even have to be shouting anti-gay slurs at you.

As a matter of fact, in some situations, shooting the assailant is recommended because if they are coming at you, negotiations would probably not work well.

Lethal force
Lethal force is justified when, considering all the circumstances, there is a reasonable basis for an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The courts will weigh all the factors and circumstances in making this judgment.

In many scenarios, the attacker need not even try to throw a punch. For example, if an intruder is advancing toward you in your home at night, you may use lethal force under the "Castle Doctrine." You have no obligation to investigate whether he's armed because the attempt to do so would put your life if danger - he could shoot first.

The statement that you have some obligation to wait for your attacker to state "I am going to kill you" is absurd on its face.

Curtal Friar
It's important that you added that last paragraph, since the home invasion issue is perhaps the most common situation where the question arises.

In my state, the mere fact that an intruder has forced his way into your home is sufficient cause for the use of deadly force - and in my home it will be used.

I've been a prosecutor and
can tell you that many, many people are injured or killed becuase they owned and gun yet did not receive proper training in its usage. It is irreponsible to suggest that guns are the all purpose answer to deterrence. Good stiff prison sentences are also wonderful in that regard. As is self defense training.

However, studies have for years shown that guns act as a deterrent to crime, so this is nothing new. Look up Gary Kleck's research at FSU.


retchemprof, the "Castle Doctrine"
is the law in KY as well. Any person attempting to avail themselves of my personal property will soon meet Mr. Colt. I'm not the best shot in the world, but I'd have at least 15 cracks at him if I didn't scare him off with the sound of loading a round in the chamber.

Ph.D., J.D.
Years ago, my sister lived in a neighborhood that became increasingly more dangerous. It was a section of the City of Carson bordering Watts. Her and her husband purchased about a dozen firearms and strategically placed them around the house so that they would be not more then a few steps from a weapon in case of home invasion.

My sister was well trained and a damned fine shot (her husband was a Marine, I was going to say former Marine, but he epitomized the saying "Once a Marine, always a Marine").

One night the inevitable happened while her husband was at work. She grabbed a small .25 and called out a warning that she was armed. She panicked in the chaos of the dark and noise and tripped over an ottoman and shot herself in the abdomen.

As luck would have it, the bullet went in the abdomen and out the back without hitting any vital organs. Two days in the hospital and she was on her way home. She was very fortunate.

PhD, JD
The point you make on training is extremely important. If you are going to own a firearm, you NEED to have an understanding of how to use it safely and effectively. The problem is not guns, but idiots who do not understand guns. You need to know how to aim, how to shoot, how to hit only what you intend to hit, and what not to do (like never pointing a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.)

Did she get...
Frog,
Did she get the perp?

I guess it is just me
"If you (Mike) hurl anti-gay rhetoric at me & subsequently get *physically assaultive,*..."

Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing this nonsense? The assumption of *PHYSICALLY ASSAULTIVE* is used so often. And I am fed up completely with it.

On a personal level: I wouldn't harm a hair on your head or anywhere else. But, you have to jump to that *PHYSICALLITY*. And is it JUST to make your point about "blowing him away?" I don't think so. The assumption is ALWAYS in pro-gay stances. That assumption of *physicallity*.

There are a lot of people that are "anti-gay" if that means what I think. I AM "ANTI" anything that makes people sick in body and soul and make them die quicker than they should. I do not preach, as such, but if you ask - I will tell you. GOOD Christians will pray for your soul, not get "PHYSICAL".


Frog
And your point is?

One must presume her arming herself worked since she lived through the invasion. The intruder evidently fled.

One must then wonder what the result would have been had she NOT armed herself. The self-inflicted wound may have been very minor in comparison.

Sounds to me like the arming worked... Do they still have firearms scattered around the house or do they wear one of Dr Mike's T-Shirts today?

Of course deterance works
Has there ever been a mass shooting at a Friends of the NRA dinner?

Burden of Proof...
"You would have to prove that your assailant knew about your injury and was specifically trying to hit you there."

I would point out that it is a good thing you are not a judge or a member of a jury.

The burden of proof is always on the accuser. In the hypothetical case you posed above, the burden would not be on the individual with the 'abdominal' condition. If he is accused of a crime, he doesn't have to say a word. The state would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of criminal intent.

Personal Responsibility
Frog's story illustrates another fundamental difference between left-liberals and conservatives -- personal responsibility.

Each individual person who chooses to exercise the right (NOT privilege, RIGHT), to keep and bear arms is responsible for learning how to use that weapon properly. This includes training in how to draw and carry it safely and forming action plans for foreseeable circumstances.

The lady with the little gun of inadequate caliber seems to have failed in that responsibility. Perhaps, like many on both the right and the left, she thought of the gun more as a magical talisman than as a tool. No one expects to pick up a chainsaw and carve a grizzly bear yard ornament first go. Yet many seem to believe that they can simply pick up a gun and use it perfectly without regular practice.

That's magical thinking at its silliest.

Self Defense and Legal Rights
I believe it is fair to say none of the post here have been confronted with possible life threatening confrontations.

I have been there on more than one occasion. Two people broke into my vacation residence in early morning hours. Thankful to have a weapon, I was outnumbered but evened things up with my handgun. No shots were fired they were arrested.

I was awakened by sounds of a neighbors property being broken into. I confronted the person and a hand to hand broke out for my handgun. The individual was not able to take my handgun but did end up in the hospital with serious injuries and arrested. I got a lecture for the police for not dispatching the thief because he went for my weapon.

The point I make is you do not know what you will do because every situation is different. Everything else is pure speculation.

Mother of 4
Good one.

Good Response, Mother of 4
Perfectly explained.

mother of 4....
"Of course deterance works
Has there ever been a mass shooting at a Friends of the NRA dinner?"

Good one.

Democrats want to take away our guns for 1 reason...an unarmed populace cannot fight back when all their other rights are taken away.

I've asked this question before....if a Democrat controlled Washington ever succeeds in outlawing private ownership of firearms...who's going to disarm tens of millions of angry Americans?

Since 90% of all American law enforcement and military personnel are conservative and would themselves balk at such action...who would the dems get to pull it off? The UN? lol.

What i'd like to see is Nancy Pelosi or harry Reid or B. Hussein come to my door and demand my weapons......they'd get part of it....the projectile part.

Keep your powder dry...American Revolution II is coming.

Use of Deadly Force Laws
Its ridiculous to argue about use of deadly force laws because they vary considerably from state to state.

I just took the NC Conceal Carry class and here in NC the key is that you believe yourself to be under an "immanent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

This is rather imprecise and circumstantial. In the case of thrown punches it leaves out exactly by what means you are supposed to read the attacker's mind to determine whether he means to just hit you a couple times or beat you to a pulp. BUT if you and a "person of ordinary firmness" have reason to believe that a severe, life-threatening beating is on the way the use of deadly force IS lawful.

It does, however, come down to individual cases. The instructor, just-retired from the army and in splendid physical condition, would have little justification to shoot if an average-sized guy started pounding on him because its reasonable to assume that he could handle a fistfight by other means.

On the other hand, I, as a short, middle-aged woman with a toddler in tow -- too small to fight and too encumbered to run -- would have every right to draw and fire a gun at an average-sized guy who started throwing punches at me because it would take far less to kill me or my child.

Likewise a frail, elderly man or a disabled man would have more reason to be in fear for his life than a tall, athletic woman with black belts in multiple martial arts.

Most attacks on armed citizens
are stopped without a shot being fired. When the attacker sees a gun pointed at him, he will stop the attack. Of course, if the attackee is not armed, nothing will stop the attacker other than the severe injury or death of the victim. Would you rather be the armed or unarmed victim?

MGC
While it is true that in most cases of defensive gun use no shots are fired at all, to believe that you could simply show a gun with no intent of using it and all will be well is more of that gun-as-magical-talisman thinking.

Though one state recently legalized, in a narrow and targeted way, "defensive display", to pull a gun in a situation where lethal force was NOT justified is a crime in itself -- brandishing.

If you are the sort of person who could not bring yourself to pull the trigger on an attacker you have no business carrying a gun at all.

While the "you'll just have the gun taken and used on you" anti-gun argument is silly when applied to a responsible gun owner the situation of a person carrying a gun they have no intention of using is the one time that argument is actually true.

Mike,
You recognize yourself as a well educated, logical and intelligent American. Your articles appear as though they have facts to back them up.
I believe you would welcome well-rounded evidences in any given debate.

I'm about to offer some more:

Attend some Wednesday evening testimonial meetings in a Christian Science Church. Spend some quality time in the reading library.

Your opinions might grow broarder. Send me a post card, after you've done some in-depth homework in this regard, if you like.

No doubt, you will want to. Happy researching.

Please see this site ...
Please go to the following website and see the topmost (April 29th) post, entitled "UFC 85 and some other stuff…":
http://www.matt-hughes.com/

Contains a list of 25 short statements entitled "Firearms Refresher Course." Mike, if you read the comments on your editorial -- you will love this.

Nellie
Nellie wrote: "Spend some quality time in the reading library.

Your opinions might grow broarder."


Mike could then discover that self defense is unnecessary. With Christian Science he could just suffer his wounds and heal them by meditative positive thinking.

No, she did not get the ..
perpetrator. There was evidence of a forced breakin so it wasn't a case of hearing things. They lived in the neighborhood a few more years without incident, but there was strategic planning that ensued.

Though there was only the two of them, they always owned a third car so one was always parked in the driveway. They purchased a number of mechanical timers so that there were always lights going on and off at different times during the night. They even had some timers on radios that would turn on during the day when no one was at home. An ounce of prevention ...

one more ...
From a comment on the http://www.matt-hughes.com/ page I mentioned in my 09:11AM post:

"I always carry a gun, because policemen are too heavy and almost impossible to conceal."

LOL.

How I Love Lefist "History" ....
Will wrote "we had moral & social codes & ethics long before this God or other Gods were invented)."

Really … are we to believe that you're an expert on pre-historic human behaviors? Can you please cite one social construct that had an ethical code before it had religion? (Given fairly clear evidence of religious belief/practice pre-dating the emergence of homo-sapiens I am very interested in your thinking here.) This is yet another example of my on-going crusade to get our leftist brethren to clarify their historical assertions on TH. You are entitled to your own opinions Will … but not your own facts.

Weapons
I don't see the need for someone to own an anti-tank missile system ..........However, If someone breaks in my house the first thing they will see is my .38 automatic. The next thing I will do is call 911.

you know
I think I first read about the “Gun Free” signs from Mike 2 years ago and it’s a pretty good idea for the hard core anti-gun crowd. Heck, I think I’d like one of the t-shirts just for laughs. But seriously, the problem is not in having gun free zones, it’s in enforcing them. It would be impossible to cover a college campus but it works well in the gallery of the US Senate. As I’ve said before. I think if we could get past the emotion and rhetoric, we could reach the basic concerns and desires of both sides and devise a plan that both sides would approve. This issue is not as insurmountable as it appears.

FROG's story - hmmm
Your sister may have received some training, but she is far from "well-trained."

First, .25 caliber is a cheap "Saturday night special" cartridge, and no serious firearms expert would recommened it for self-defense.

Second, "calling out a warning that she was armed" was the second major blunder. An amped-up perp is more likely than not to immediately begin firing in the direction of the sudden yelling. Despite what's shown on TV melodramas, you're under no obligation to "call out a warning" to a nighttime intruder in your home!

Third, a "well-trained person" would not walk around in the dark with their finger on the trigger! I'm glad your sister is okay, but she, you, and her "trainer" should immediately get some decent training if you intend to keep firearms. Being related to an ex-Marine is no substitute.

jbird
Where do I sign up.

swampfox
I've read this comment here at town hall several times.......When seconds count police are only minutes away.

Caution>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt that quipped the line, `Walk softly and carry a big Stick'
I believe America has the right to arm herself as well her peoples. So did our forfathers.
So Many WISHFUL DREAMERS, is the nicest way I can discribe them, want firarms banished from the world and truely believe that we should be first. NOT
But we need stiffer punishments for those that commit a crime with our rights. If capital punishment is not acceptable then how about deportation, lose of wealth, removal from sight for eternity, labled as an enemy of the people for life and incarcerated as such without prevelge. Pick your favorite alterative.

Is anyone paying attention?
As far as Jbird's question as to who would take away all the guns, that's been answered in recent memory. In case no one heard of them, there were incidents at places called Waco and Ruby Ridge where the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and FIREARMS were the legal justification for the mass murder of citizens that followed. If you weren't paying attention then, there was this hurricane called Katrina down south; in order to ensure the safety of gangs of looters and thugs the cops went around confiscating lawfully purchased and owned firearms from residents. BTW, only one in six -the ones residents have applied to courts- have been returned to date.

Tacitus X,
Very true.

For those unfamiliar with gun safety that is, depending on which set of gun safety rules you subscribe to either:

Rule #2 -- Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

OR

Rule #3 -- Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).

I understand the temptation of those dainty, little mini-caliber guns to my fellow women. They're pretty in their fancy finishes and they sit so nicely in a small hand. Looks do matter and there are few things on earth uglier than a blocky, black, polymer carry gun. I cringe at the thought of having that ungraceful lump of a Taurus Millenium Pro (which fits my hand better than any other 9mm carry gun), become my constant companion.

Its not the smartest thing on earth, but looks do matter to most women. Me included -- I have regretfully concluded that, while DD conceals much in a shoulder holster, the weight of a Taurus PT-92 (stainless with pearl grips), would probably do horrible things to my back.

Remember Carl T. Rowan, anybody?
Anybody here remember former Washington Post columnist Carl T. Rowan? He was a strict gun-control advocate. Then, in 1988, in an incident at his OWN home, he used an unregistered gun to shoot a trespasser. Of course, he could come up with no good explanation as to why his LIFESTYLE didn't line up with his very publicly expressed WORDS. I suspect a lot of liberals out there, including several who post here, are cut from the same cloth: publicly advocating gun control while privately exempting THEMSELVES from their position by owning their own heat. Remember how Rosie O'Donnell has also very vocally been anti-gun? The fact that her OWN personal security people pack heat themselves doesn't seem to bother her, however. Look at how many elite liberals, who also mouth anti-gun sentiments, themselves live in neighborhoods which are patrolled by private security firms, staffed by armed employees. With liberals, it's do as I SAY, not as I actually DO.

God made Man.
Samuel Colt made them equal.

I felt safer
I live in Florida. During the '03 or '04 hurricanes and the power was out for 4 or 5 days, I was VERY happy to have weapons available during the hours of darkness. The dog would alert me first....the rest was up to me.
The thugs/crooks/punks (take your pick) was the reason for most of the people in New Orleans to own weapons to begin with. For the police to WASTE time confiscating weapons from law abiding folks and not out hunting and KILLING the thugs /crooks/punks that are taking from folks already in trouble is just plain wrong.

Agent_Crawfish
You quoted and asked for evidence supporting : "we had moral & social codes & ethics long before this God or other Gods were invented." Let me suggest conclusive evidence to the contrary --- Genesis chapters 1-3. The first human society certainly DID have a religious basis: they talked with God face to face. You don't get much more religious than that :-)

Is Genesis a reliable source for sociological / historical data? Well, I certainly think so. Jesus did too, from numerous comments He made.

DavidM,
Alas, no 1911 of any size from any manufacturer suits my hand.

Colt may continue to equalize you gentlemen, but as a short-fingered woman I'm finding that equality springs from Taurus and Beretta.

;-) :-D LOL

MGC
Better take a close look at your state's laws about the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Here in North Carolina if the situation isn't dire enough to justify firing attacker then its not dire enough for the gun to be pointed at the attacker. Pointing the gun is legally equal to pulling the trigger and, if done when it shouldn’t be, you get arrested too.

Your state's laws may vary.

Looking for a "Dainty .45" ...
Take a look at Para Ordnance's Warthog. I can't say I've shot it myself (my hands ain't exactly dainty) but I have seen it and it is very small for a .45. I think it purports to be the smallest .45 on the market. http://www.paraord.com

Having said that there are a lot of calibers that can get the job done and are available in smaller guns: .357, .40 & 10mm. I particuarly like Walther's P99 ... I think they have a compact version.

Keep in mind that a pistorl firing a "larger" bullet will tend to be more difficult to control, particularly on follow up shots, if the gun itself is light/small.

I've been asking that for years.
Every time some fascist left wing nutjob (but I repeat myself) screams about how I should be barred from protecting myself from another of his fascist left wing nutjobs, and should have my guns taken away, I've always responded that I'd give up my guns if he puts a big sign in his front yard saying "This is a gun free home." I have yet to have any fascist left wing nutjob take me up on that challenge.

Sorry, but I'll keep my guns, and my sign reading "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." thank you very much. If fascist left wing nutjob criminals refuse to respect me and my property, then let them fear me!

Martial Arts
Martial arts training provides a good, and legal, basis, I think, for dealing with threatening situations. Three basic rules:

1. (Avoid.) Act wisely at all times and avoid potentially threatening situations.

2. (Run away.) If Rule 1 fails and you do find yourself in a threatening or potentially threatening situation, attempt to leave as quickly as possible without becoming involved in a confrontation.

3. (Attack.) If Rule 2 fails and you believe you or someone near and dear to you (i.e. another innocent) is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm and potentially death, immediately take the most drastic, unrestrained action at your disposal to neutralize the threat, then stop. Anything less is foolish and just increases the probability of harm to the good guy(s).

In the real world, adhering to Rule 3 effectively means having (or being) a weapon and knowing how to use it. Otherwise Rule 3 fails also and you are dead.


Will, Adams is wrong...
about libs seeing most people as innately good. Libs see most people as innately bad.

1)That's why libs favor high taxes on the "wealthy"- because you can't make a lot of money without being a cunning, crooked SOB, or without some type of unjust privilege- like being born a white male or having rich parents.

2) That's why libs want to control everything. From regulating business, to outlawing private ownership of firearms, to telling people they can't smoke a cigarette despite being on private property, smoking with the consent of the owner, to telling everyone what mode of transportation is acceptable for the greater good of society.

3) Since "bad" people manipulate and control societal norms, "good" people are reduced to oppressed beings who commit crimes that aren't their fault b/c society is oppressive. "Poor" people can't get (fill in the blank) that they need b/c they're oppressed by the elites.

Therefore, libs will overthrow the existing oppressive, unfair order and replace it with an "enlightned" set of principles. They'll do so even if a majority of the citizens don't want the existing order to change all that much because they created the order and the institutions through their duly elected gov. representatives. After all, it's for your own good.

So no, you're not on the moral high ground. Libs are pessimistic about human nature, and that leads to fascist tendencies.


May I suggest a KelTec?
My primary carry weapon is a Glock 23 in 40 caliber. I tend to carry this weapon in the winter, and it conceals well. But for summer I carry a KelTec P11. The weapon is tiny, fires the 9mm luger round and holds up to 13 rounds, depending on the magazine.

I would highly reccomend this gun for women who want something small and easy to conceal. Also it has a very deliberate double action only trigger. Having this gun go off "by accident" would be quite a feat.

MGC
Thanks for clarifying. I read your initial post as pulling the gun and expecting the bad guy to vanish.

My understanding is that such a "defensive display" is legal in some states and prosecutable as "brandishing" in others.

Here where I am its a grey area because NC is legal for open carry -- though its not necessarily wise in certain places.

:)

bob,
I handled a number of Kel-Tecs on my research trip to the gun show yesterday. At best, the largest model felt prickly and uncomfortable. At worst, the smallest felt like holding a butcher knife by the back of the blade.

They were so uncomfortable to hold that I can't imagine how unpleasant they'd be to fire and have the recoil drive that narrow backstrap into my palm.

I saw a photo the other day where someone must have had the same opinion because they'd enveloped the entire stock in soft rubber and slid a piece of stethoscope tubing over the trigger. LOL

Its good to know
To Mother of 4,
It's good to know there are women who are willing and able to be the protector of their children.

Hey Will! What if an assailant kills you without ever announcing their intention? Does it count? Do you get a do-over? Are you still dead?

caution: my name is will and I'm gay
Will, wouldn't such a t-shirt keep you from getting attacked?

I know people who will not strike gays because they fear infection.

Leftists Acually Want More Criminals!
Someone once suggested that suppose tomorrow the government declared that murders committed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays would be punishable by death, and murders committed on any other day of the week punishable by 15 years in the slam? What days of the week do you suppose the vast majority of murders would take place?

Now, just watch these little socialist street urchins roaming TH start howling, "What a stupid hypothetical!" And, as usual, they will do this because they know damn well what would happen but aren't intellectually honest enough to mutter the words. But of course they personally aren't averse to tossing out weird hypotheticals for the rest of us to reflect on when it suits their own political agenda.


Lastly, if the death penalty is not a deterrent, then why, with very few exceptions, do those on death row appeal their sentences for years on end? If life imprisonment is far worse, as so many lefties suggest, doncha think these guys would be firing their lawyers right and left?

So, leftists actually "want" mor criminals - swells their political base!

badboy
I think you're right on this, libs see most humans as innately bad - with one big exception, of course: THEMSELVES! Of course, once those politically left-of-center actually gain control - the communist block is Exhibit A on this point - we see how much their own "goodness" comes to the forefront: the political left has a history of mass murder that is second to none, even in the worst "theocratic" regimes they can name. And, of course, for those who denounce what the communists call "bourgeousie oppressors", once lefties gain power themselves, they sure seem to want to live very bourgeous lives themselves, don't they? I've said before and I'll say again: as far as I'm concerned, most liberals are little more than commissars-in-training.

Sorry, Your Initial Premise Is Flawed
Adams writes: "Leftists see humans as innately good." I disagree. Leftists see humans who are not among the Ivy League elite as half-wits who are to be herded and fleeced like sheep so the elite can make them ever more dependent on the Imperial government, so in turn the elite who run that Imperial government can seize the assets of the productive in society.

Allowing the half-wit public to keep their guns slows down this process. Hitler and Mao knew that they couldn't completely take over until they'd rounded up all the guns.

Fear the politicians who want to collect up the guns for "society's sake." They are plotting to annul the rest of your freedoms once you are defenseless.

Please send
one of your shirts to Gov. Jim Doyle in Wisconsin.

Entrapment
cambeul41
Is it entrapment if . . . I wear a “Caution: I’m an Un-Armed Citizen” t-shirt when it not true?

Thanks for the laugh. I would love to see the look on the perps face when he assalts someone thinking he is safe and sees the gun come out. "Hey no fair."

Mother of 4
Very good statement of when you can use leathal force. That is what I took away from the CCP class I took too.

FROG
Re: Your post of 7:34AM.
The incident of your sister accidentally shooting herself is a good illustration of what PhD J.D. says about those who choose to be armed should first be properly trained. Apparently your sister wasn’t. And I also question the choice of purchase of a .25 by her Marine husband for home defense. It’s a useless weapon for Any purpose. But not to seem too critical of your sisters training or choice of weapons, I too once carried a .25 for concealability, as I live in a State that rarely issues CCW permits. I was forced to use it on an attacker who was relatively unaffected and able to run away after being shot. But he could just as easily have killed me with the knife he threatened me with. I now carry Serious hardware. So should your sister; after she gets proper training.

Curtal Friar
I was away for some hours so couldn't respond to your post earlier. I know you're not picking on me. I should probably have explained in more detail. Here's my situation.

Yes, I take extraordinary precautions to protect my injury. I wear special padding and prosthetics to shield it from damage or further harm. I don't drink, and I don't go to bars or other places where scuffles might break out.

And I've made certain of the current laws in my state of residence (GA). I was a cop for some years and also served a career in the Army, working in the counterguerilla/counterterrosism arena (where I picked up the wound). I've been around the block a time or two in some violent places and violent times.

Actually, in the narrow circumstances I described to you earlier, I don't have to prove anything regarding the intent of an assailant. The assailant doesn't have to know of my injuries, etc. I have to show that I feared I was in danger of suffering grievous injury or losing my life, something that is self-evident in my case due to the gravity of the injury, as is well-documented. (It's severe enough that the Army medically retired me as 100% disabled.) Common law and laws of the state of GA permit me to defend myself with lethal force in these circumstances.

Admittedly, my circumstances are rare, but they do justify my using deadly force if assaulted.

Even if they didn't, however, I would prefer to be tried by 12 of my peers than carried by 6 of them.

Anyway, I don't fault your reasoning but wanted to add in some more detail to explain my position.

Bashing
In Will's mind, anybody who does not approve of homosexual behavior is a gay-basher, who is only one step away from actually beating someone up because they are gay. So naturally, if Mike were to hurl any epithets at him, the next logical step would be to beat his pansy arse into the ground.

Will, if you live in such fear for your life from everyone who is homosexual (because you're either paranoid or you have concluded that anybody who thinks homosexual behavior is a sin because it says so in the Bible would in the next second cast aside that very same Bible and bash your head in), perhaps you should be in favor of concealed carry permits.

Mother of 4
May I recommend a pistol for you? Sig Sauer is one of the top manufacturers, in my opinion. They used to make a very compact .45 known as the P245. It's very well-made, is quite compact, yet big enough to get a good grip on it. The backstrap is wide enough that recoil is evenly spread, and recoil is consequently easy enough that shooting several hundred rounds of ammo through it at the range is not punishing on your hand and arms. Sig Sauer dropped it and followed it with two slightly larger versions, the P220 Carry and P220 Compact. Both are very nice, just a bit bigger than the P245.

Although I carry a Para Ordnance P14 .45 in most cases, when a lighter pistol is important, my P245 drops right into a pocket or holster.

Anyway, any of those three can be found in larger gun shops or online at gunbroker.com or other online sites. There are still some new P245s available and there is always the used market, too.

Good luck on your quest!

Dear Frog;
Who in their right mind protects their home with a .25 automatic???

If you want to protect your home there is only one firearm for the job -- A 12 Guage Pump Shotgun!

There are home invaders who will jump you while you point a Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum at them that will decide they have someplace better to be just at the sound of that pump sliding.

Training or no, I think that the choice of weapons played a part in your sisters self inflicted wound.

just my thoughts

jd

Will, you wrote...
"Regarding guns: If you (Mike) hurl anti-gay rhetoric at me & subsequently get physically assaultive, can I legally blow you away?"

I cannot adequately describe how sick and tired I am of inane questions like this from anti-gun nut-jobs.

Most anti-gun nut-jobs think that people who carry concealed firearms on a daily basis are frightened, schizophrenic, redneck, morons who are ready to yank out a handgun and start firing as soon as a heated discussion begins.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I've been carrying concealed handguns for just over half my life (now 43). I carry a concealed handgun just in case some uncivilized, scumbag drug-addict chooses me to fund their next fix.

I would NEVER be able to forgive myself if I or a member of my family were grievously injured by some idiot punk and I was not able to defend properly.

In my 22 years of carrying a concealed firearm, I have never even had to put my hand on it. However, twice in that time, I was glad I had it.

I'm just sick and tired of pinko leftist pansies, who think of us 'carriers' as having a very short fuse. It's simply not true.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Thank you, SNAFU
Sig's are a bit out of my price range, but I'll make a note to keep an eye out for the discontinued one used.

DH got the S&W M&P in 9mm so he can afford to shoot it enough to get good with it so I'm trying to find a 9mm too. I don't think I can use the same gun (the compact is a possibility), and thus standardize the spare magazines, etc. but standardizing the ammo, at least, seems like a good idea.

Mother of 4
That is always a problem with any gun: Some folks find a weapon to be comfortable while others detest the feel. Not that the KelTec is bad for me, but I would not call it comfortable. Fortunately I have decent sized, rough mitts so handling it is probably easier for me than the average person.

As far as comfort goes, I have yet to find anything that fits in my hand as nicely as the old 1911 A1. Well, it is a toss up between that and the Browning Hi Power. Of course carrying them is another matter.

Mike Adams Is Pretty Shrewd!
While I personally own many firearms and am as conservative as they come, I am begining to think Adams keeps writing these gun columns so as to maintain his "most read" standing on TH.

That is to say, he knows the gun enthusiasts will come out en masse and start "debating" which firearm is the superior weapon for personal protection, and it goes on and on and on and on! Always good for about 800 replies inside of 24 hours.

Never seen it to fail. Hell, I could even write their stuff just reading the first three words of any post as a jump off point!

Dear beowulfe
With a sign like yours in the front yard;

Be certain when the occasion arises that you must protect yourself and your home, after the threrat is neutralized, Do NOT call the police.

When you call EMS, ask for an Ambulance, or Fire Dept. Rescue Squad. Be adamant. Don't worry, they'll send the police, but be absolutly certain to ask for MEDICAL ASSISTANCE!

That way when the perp's family and the ACLU sue you for "Wrongful Death" you have a tape recording establishing that your first concern when danger passed was the "health and safety" of the perp.

just a thought.

jd

The Ideology of Control: Part I
The conservative argument that tradition and the state are required to control the wicked nature of human beings is really an ideology justifying repressive control over people. In other words, the authoritarian desire to achieve control over people has generated an ideology that blames the desire to control on the subjects of that desire.

The truth is that human nature is an oxymoron. We are neither inherently good nor bad. Human beings are socialized to be more or less good and bad, and the degree to which we lean one way or the other is shaped and determined by the character of the society in which we are socialized.

A society that is acquisitive, selfish, and brutish will systematically generate people with these characteristics are acquisitive, selfish, and brutish. Such societies have more inequality, crime, and violence. A society that is sharing, altruistic, compassionate, and caring systematically generates individuals with these characteristics. Such societies have less inequality, crime, and violence.

Ideology of Control: Part II
The truth of my argument in Part I is found in comparative analysis. There are no innate differences between the people in countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, on the one hand, and people in the United States and Russia, on the other hand. But these societies are very differently organized and it is this differential organization that leads to the different levels of inequality, crime, and violence. If Adams' argument were true, then Sweden should be one of the most brutish societies on the face of the planet, since Swedes have largely abandoned religion and do not pursue harsh law enforcement measures. The opposite is true. Both cross-societal/cultural and historical-comparative analyses show that it is the type of societal organization that determines the overall character of the people.

It makes sense that an authoritarian ideology of control - here advocated by Mike S. Adams - exists in a society where the prevailing form of societal organization systematically generates inequality, crime, and violence. But attention to the facts of the matter show us that the real solution lies in societal transformation, not in rooting an authoritarian ideology of control in the myth of human nature.

WE want to control people?!!!!
Have you LOOKED at the intrusive and assinine ways the liberals want to control us? From determining how many gallons we need to flush our toilets to foisting TOXIC CFLs on us to micromanaging every aspect of daily life they are no different than the mullahs. Maybe THAT'S why they won't fight them.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Mother of 4
This is a subject that has come up frequently on Prof. Adams' threads. I wonder why you feel the need to have such a powerful weapon? As a parent you need to understand that any misses can go right through 2 layers of drywall and into a kid on the other side. I know that a .45 is a beautiful weapon and will always put someone down but so will a .357 (and a .38 will almost always do the job, too). A revolver has the advantage of not having to clear the weapon if it jams; you just click to the next cylinder. These are the most reliable handguns and should be considered for anyone concerned with home and personal defense. I wish you luck and may further suggest a used weapon- you can afford a better gun than a newer, less reliable one.

First original thoughts in months
letmeatfreehealthcare, allow me to comment your 11:17 AM post. The hypothetical you posited demonstrates very clearly not only that the death penalty deters, but that everybody knows it. Brilliant.

Your point about death vs. imprisonment is also pretty cogent. These are original thoughts here; have you been here before as someone else, or are you just discovering TH?

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Question 4 PhD or any attorney
I have a question for PhD J.D or any attorney knowledgeable on 4th Amendment issues: (search & probable cause). I’ll post the question should I get a response from any attorney within the next few hours indicating willingness to consider the question.


SaveTheGuns
Appreciate your response. Some of the more personal stories here make me see the gun issue from a completely different angle.

I live in southern California. Gang members tend to have the guns in these parts. I have always tended to think in terms of less guns, not more, being the answer (in a perfect world).

You guys get whack-jobs on your side, though, saying we should physically arm every university students to stop the Virginia Tech-type shootings (I think I heard Coulter say as much). This type of virulent second amendment advocate does not help clarify the arguments, it muddies them. I don't believe the proposition that a surfeit of guns in the hands of hormone-driven teens reduces killings or massacres.

A deluge of nonsense
Wwsword wrote: "The conservative argument that tradition and the state are required to control the wicked nature of human beings is really an ideology justifying repressive control over people. "

How interesting it is, then, that the group of political theorists who articulated exactly this belief constructed the form of self-government that the entire world has taken as the model for human liberty.

And how interesting that the philosophy that posits the inherent perfectibility of man by way of dialetic evolution, produced the most oppressive, murderous regimes in the history of the planet.

Wwsword in this instance has posited something precisely opposite the truth, and directly into the teeth of observed fact. One wonders how somebody could read history and get it so thoroughly wrong.

Then, he posits a flood of conclusions based on the simply incredible assertion that the only difference between Swedes and Americans is the ownership of guns. That is HILARIOUS. How long do you suppose it would take me, wwsword, to produce surveys illustrating a mere dozen social characteristics in which Swedes and Americans differ? And how would you propose to filter out the intervening variables from your conclusions?

Guys like wwsword go out of their way to sound erudite and educated -- and then produce assertions and assumptions that no educated person could possibly accept. Either the surface erudition is a pretense, or wwsword is insane. Possibly both. Hard to tell. But his assertions are the ravings of the completely uninformed.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

CVN65
Yes, revolvers are extremely reliable. I own a nice colt detective special myself. But 38s can and do punch through walls and other obstacles. So will a 22 for that matter. If you are looking for minimal penetration, a shotgun is the way to go since even buck shot tends to overpenetrate less than most other rounds.

As for reliability, most modern autos are so reliable that it becomes a non issue. After firing thousands of rounds through an assortment of modern pistols, I can count the total number of failures on one hand. And I have also had failures with revolvers, though not as often. The most common of these is cylinder lock.

For the record, there have been numerous tests and real world shooting studies that prove the superiority of larger caliber rounds to smaller ones. Yes a 38 can be lethal, but you will rarely hear reports of a perp needing to be hit with five or six rounds from a 45 before he drops. Such reports are far more common with the old 38. That is why almost every police force in the country has switched to larger calibers like the 40 and 45. There are only a few that still carry the 9mm.

wworstword
Perhaps you should explain that to the punk holding a gun to your wife or childs head while you are emptying your wallet for him. Or, maybe those words will give YOU (and only you) while the pastor speaks at your family's funeral. Social engineering will not help a damn bit then.

Another Leftist Strawslinger!
Wwsword, we see you enjoy knocking down straw men of your own creation. You state the following: "The conservative argument that tradition and the state are required to control the wicked nature of human beings is really an ideology justifying repressive control over people."

Sir, please read carefully what you just wrote. What you did is deliberately and dishonestly distort what conservatives are all about, what they truly believe.

While it certainly is our position that evil and wicked people exist and need to be controlled, it is not our position that ALL people are wicked and evil and thereby indiscriminately subject to "represssive" government control. That was the straw man you placed in the argument by way of setting up a false premise.

Further, it is not in the least authoritarian to want to achieve control over wicked people. Rather, it's more properly called self-preservation. Your foolish argument is tantamount to saying that if one puts a roof over his dwelling to keep out the rain, then it necessarily follows he wants to repress and control ALL sources of water and ALL weather event.

Nice try, though.

Guns in the hands of gang-bangers
Will wrote: "I live in southern California. Gang members tend to have the guns in these parts. I have always tended to think in terms of less guns, not more, being the answer (in a perfect world)."

Gang members would continue to have guns even if the state outlawed them; this has been amply demonstrated in the British Isles, Australia, and Russia, where guns are illegal to the population, but criminals have no difficulty obtaining weapons.

Gun bans don't affect hardened criminals or gangs; they affect only those ordinary citizens who obey laws. Thus, gun bans strip only the most responsible individuals of their weapons.

Will, you need to regard Ann Coulter's comments as exaggeration for effect; she thrives on hyperbole. Nobody really argues that EVERYBODY should own a weapon; we argue that well-behaved, responsible citizens should be able to own them to defend themselves.

Of course, I can see how somebody might argue for effect that a community where EVERYBODY owns a weapon will be safer than one in which NOBODY BUT CRIMINALS own weapons. I actually think this would be true, and I think it's been tried. However, I don't know anybody who's seriously defending this as the correct approach.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Dear inkling_revival
Some Ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual can believe them.
... George Orwell

The Facts are on My Side
inkling-revival, characterize my rhetoric anyway you want, but the plain truth is plainly my side. Societies that are more democratic and egalitarian have less traditional-ideological and repressive state controls and enjoy less crime and violence. Societies are more authoritarian and class-divided present with more traditional-ideological and repressive state controls and suffer more crime and violence.

In other words, the plain truth of our world disproves the ideology of control used to justify authoritarian and class-divided society. You cling to your belief not because of evidence, but for the sake of ideology. This is largely the result of the internalization of authoritarian sentiments, itself the result of socialization in an authoritarian society.

jaydee
Many states, not mine yet but many, have enacted Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws that specifically eliminate the possibility of civil lawsuits against a person who is judged to have made a clean, defensive shoot.

RE: jaydee
Rest assured, jd, I was only joking about actually having a sign in my front yard that reads "Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." Anyone that actually does have such a sign is just asking for trouble in todays kooky times where anyone can sue for anything...and WIN such a suit. If the time came where I'd have to actually defend myself from some left wing nutjob gone wild, such a sign would virtually guarantee that any civil suits would be a loss for me, especially here in the CommonTheft of Taxachusetts. It wouldn't matter if I provided the left wing kooks on the jury video footage depicting the crook molesting and murdering 20 kids right there in my front yard, and that the shots I took were done so to protect myself or any other kids he would have harmed, such a sign would be read by the Phylos of the world as "proof" of a so-called "murder".

In any event, here's some real advice for anyone looking to protect their home:

1) A big, loud dog. Surveys of criminals convicted of home invasions found there were 2 things they most feared upon breaking into a home: a big dog and a gun in the owners hands. In that order.

2) Strong doors. Forget bars on your windows. No crook is coming in through a window, even if it's open. It's too easy for them to get stuck in the window only to be enounters by a big dog or an owner with a gun (see #1).

3) If you're out of your home, forget the martial arts BS, unless you have absolutely no choice. Crook with a gun > victim with a black belt. But someone trained to shoot a gun > gansta' crook with a gun.

Other than that, if you need to use force, just pray you get a good lawyer. Nothing pleases the ACLU and their buddies more than seeing an innocent victim of a crime sent to prison for defending themselves against the "poor, unfortunate" felon.

CVN65
Somewhere you're not reading something correctly.

The 9mm I'm looking for is generally considered the lowest caliber, lowest-power round that is truly effective for self-defense.

Rule #4 -- Know your target and what is beyond it applies in defensive shooting as well as in hunting and sport shooting.

God willing, I can be between the bad guy and my kids. If not, I'd better have both planned what shooting angles are best inside my house (the brick sheathing should stop bullets from proceeding on to the neighbors), and spent enough time at the range to make sure I can hit what I'm aiming at.

If I do both of those the chance of hitting one of my kids through either a miss or an over-penetration is less than the chance that a home invader will kill, kidnap, or rape one of them.

wworstword
Your words ring of altruism and would make sense and appeal to those likeminded to you. But to the punk/druggie/gangbanger in your house or on the street would think to his/herself.....What the he!! is he talking about. Did he just dis me???.....Bang..Bang..Bang..Bang..
So much for philosophy. The words will only have effect/meaning to someone can understand them. There a lot of turds out there that can't understand the words and they have weapons and that is what they understand. Aint sayhin it is good....just REALITY. Once again I'll say that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

WWS
"Societies that are more democratic and egalitarian have less traditional-ideological and repressive state controls and enjoy less crime and violence. Societies [that] are more authoritarian and class-divided present with more traditional-ideological and repressive state controls and suffer more crime and violence."

The problem with your argument is your statement that the U.S. is authoritarian compared to the rest of the world. That statement itself is ridiculous.

mother of 4
Have you tried the Berretta 9mm semiauto.

wwsword's logic revealed
I think this exemplifies how wwsword thinks;

A scientist had 50 frogs.

He took a Cricket Bat and created a sudden noise behind the frogs and then measured the results.

In his book he wrote: 'Frogs when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of 20 feet.'

He then randomly cut one leg off of each frog, lined them up again and created the same noise with the Cricket Bat and observed the results again.

In his book he wrote: 'Frogs with one leg cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of 15 feet.'

He then randomly cut a second leg off of each frog, lined them up again and used the Cricket Bat to create the same noise again.

In his book he wrote: 'Frogs with two legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of 10 feet.'

Continuing he randomly cut a third leg off of each frog, lined them up a fourth time and using the Cricket Bat created the same noise.

In his book he wrote: 'Frogs with three legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of 5 feet.'

Realizing he was on to something he proceeded to cut the final leg off of each frog, he lined them up again and grasping his Cricket Bat created the same noise again.

With no reaction from the frogs he continued to slam the Cricket Bat to make his noise in progressively harder strokes.

In his book he wrote: 'The correlation is undeniable. You can see the deterioration with each leg being removed, and the final result is that with all four legs cut off, Frogs become completely deaf.'

******************************************

It's not that he's absurd and ignorant that bothers me, it is that he is proud of it.

jd

Some Bright Conservatives in Here!
Inkling, read your post. It read like a beautiful rift by a great musician on a fine guitar. You are one helluva bright guy, and you write extremely well.

In passing, there is no hope for dullards like Wssword masquerading as intellectuls. This is what our colleges and universities are now cranking out. Cognitive dissonance is so ingrained in these little socialist street urchins that they quite literally view the world in specially-made upside down glasses.

Anyway, bravo for the great commentary.

RE: Mother of 4
If you're looking for a gun for home defense, the best out there is a standard 12 gauge pump action shotgun. Even loaded light bird shot, it's plenty effective, and you wouldn't need to worry too much about "what's behind the target" because past defensive ranges, the damage the shot will do is very minimal.

If you're looking for a concealed carry gun, they also have some pretty effective frangible ammunition -- the stuff that many air marshalls use. It's basically like a shotgun shot round that comes in practically any calliber.

In looking for a smaller, easier to handle, round that is less likely to over penetrate, go for a .40 calliber. It's got plenty of stopping power, yet the round is bigger and doesn't move as fast as a 9mm, so it won't zip right through someone, hitting a bystander behind them, as often.

Just a little more advice: smaller sized guns are not always better. Get one you're not only comfortable holding, but also comfortable firing. The lighter the gun, the more it's going to recoil when you fire it. My little Glock 32 is easy for me to conceal because of its size, but most of my friends can't fire it because the hot .357 Sig rounds it fires makes the light gun kick FAR more than a .45 1911.

'Course, if you're like me, and prefer to make sure you'll never need to fire more than once, Mr. 12 guage loaded with 3" magnum 00 buck is the preferred home defense weapon, with either my aforemention Glock 32 (.357 Sig), Glock 20 (10mm), or (when I am wearing a winter parka) .500 S&W Magnum revolver are my conceal-carry defensive weapons of choice :p

Wssword Needs a Brain Transplant
Just a thought for Wssword to ponder. If the US tomorrow exported all its millions of crime-prone blacks and Hispanics to Sweeden, how do you think the respective crime and violence in each country would graph? Wanna bet that it would immediately graph right through the roof in Sweeden and graph down like a runaway elevator in the US?

Tell ya anything about the flaws in Wssword's goofy "arguments?" Sir, you've been ripped to shreds in here, so quit while you're still alive.

Mother of Four
No disconnect here. I disagree that .38 or .357 calibers are not effective, though. Those calibers have been lethal for years. Bob, I use hollow-points in my handguns to both ensure maximum lethality and minimum wall penetration. Mom of Four- you are not always going to be able to choose when you get a shot so wall penetration is an issue. This will not be an ambush at 3 am, not on your part, anyway and you will have no time to think or preposition yourself. I know where I want to make a stand in my house to put my four kids at the least risk possible but the criminal might not play along.

SNAFU
Maybe fewer people would be interested in fighting or throwing punches if they understood that there are people like SNAFU out there who could die from a punch to the gut and are prepared to defend themselves with lethal force if so threatened. If I were on the jury, I'd vote innocent by reason of self-defense for SNAFU.

Anti-inellectual and anti-science
I fully expected the anti-intellectual and anti-science types to come out in force against my simple statements of fact. This is the consequence of socialization in the more authoritarian locations of our society. But for those among you with a bit of reason in your approach to understanding the world around you, all you have to do is check out the facts. They are as I said quite plain.

I need to correct the perception that it is merely an assumption that the US is more traditionalist-ideological, authoritarian and class-divided than European countries. On the contrary, this is another plain fact. In addition to being among the most unequal and most conservative-religious Western country, the United States has a much more extensive and aggressive police and military apparatus than do European countries.

In fact, the US locks up more people relative to its population than any country in the world. With 5 percent of the world's population, we hold more than one-fourth of the world's prisoners. Add to the number of prisoners the number of parolees and probationers and the US is off the chart in terms of carceral control. Yet we are much more crime ridden than European countries.

For the person who talked about crime-prone black and Latino populations, I thought conservatives had (at least rhetorically) moved beyond overtly racist arguments.

Curtal Friar
You were wise to say that some states have differing laws regarding the use of deadly force. In Kentucky you are allowed to use deadly force to repel an attack on you if you believe that the attack may result in death or serious injury to you. You are not required to retreat or to try to remove yourself from the area. That was originally a case law decision wherein the judge's opinion said, "A Kentuckian is not required to retreat." Now it is in the statutes that you do not have to retreat from an attack but can use deadly force to repel the attack, if you believe that your life or safety are in danger.

WWS
The same logic you apply to the U.S. (we have more people in prison than the rest of the world, hence we are worse) is applied by letme...healthcare, and you call him a racist. So using statistics to prove a make a generalization is okay when you do it, but not when someone you don't agree with does it. Hypocrite.

Anti-hyperbole actually
Dear wwsword,

I'm not anti-science, nor am I anti-intelletual.

What I am is anti-hyperbole and that is what you are.

Those who have something of substance to say, do so with the simplest of words to describe the most complex of concepts.

You, on the onther hand, use the most complex of words to disguise the most ludicrous of concepts which are, in truth, not just wrong, but Exactly Wrong.

In as much as I am attacking your faith however, I find my post will have little or no meaning to you and therfore I shall dissipate no further utterances upon you. (WOW, big words!)

my simple statements of facts

jd

wworstword
Your first mistake is thinking you spout "facts". Your next mistakes are continuing to spout.

Bob
Keep in mind that I was answering the posts of other people who stated they would use deadly force in situations where it was not warranted.

One said he would use deadly force in response to a punch.

I don't think that's acceptable in any state. You're in a bar, fists start flying, you're afraid of getting punched so you pull out a gun and start shooting....I don't think any court in any state will let you off the hook for reasons of self defense.

wwsword
Your "There are no innate differences between the people in countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, on the one hand, and people in the United States and Russia, on the other hand."

You missed a major factor because, yes, there *are* differences. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are, by and large, homogenous societies. The US is comprised of many races, many ethnic backgrounds and differing national origins, and conflict between the various groups is, sadly, inevitable.

Your other comment is a real hoot: "The conservative argument that tradition and the state are required to control the wicked nature of human beings is really an ideology justifying repressive control over people."

Far from wanting control, classic conservatives believe in the supremacy of the individual over the state. It is the left wing that wishes to control human beings from womb to tomb, and the left wing that presents a clear and present danger to human and civil rights.

The Race Card Rears Its Ugly Head!
Wssword wrote, "For the person who talked about crime-prone black and Latino populations, I thought conservatives had (at least rhetorically) moved beyond overtly racist arguments."

Sir, I wrote that and am at a complete loss as to how anyone with three neurons firing up there could possibly construe that as racist. Something is either true or not true, and the mere fact that it may make you uncomfortable to concede its veracity has absolutely nothing to do with it. You know damn well what would happen if we shipped out millions of crime-prone blacks and Latinos to Norway and Sweeden, period.

Moreover, I made this observation precisely because it bears directly on your puerile musings about the differences in European and American cultures, the point being that Scandanavian countries (at least for now) are largely homogenous societies with shared values. This is no longer true in the United States, which is why your comparisons are specious and downright misleading.

It's a hard, cold statistical fact that blacks and Latinos in the United commit crimes far out of proportion to their relative representation in the overall population percentage-wise. Deal with it.

My comments stand, sir, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that instead of addressing the argument head on, you pulled out the race card. Quelle surprise!

One always knows a leftist is defeated when they start shouting racist and bigot.

Reality check for handguns
Okay, one short post on handguns for women, preceded by my bonafides: I bought one for my mother, my sisters and my 5' 0" daughter. Doesn't get much better than that. Buy a Makarov (pronounced MUH-kar-off). At a gun show (less than $10.00 admission in most places) they can be purchased with two magazines for under $200.
Why? The Makarov was developed by the Soviet military -same folks who brought us the RPG and AK-47- for their armed forces. It is boat anchor simple and sturdy and RELIABLE (no italics, sorry) to the point of monotony. It was designed for the average Russian soldier ~ who was not seven feet tall; rather, he/she was Asian and 5'8', on average, with hands to match. Unlike our trouble plagued Berettas, this gun was designed to be used and not a badge of office. Surplus ammunition for practice runs about 1/3 of commercial anything. The 9x18 cartridge is about 3/4 as powerful as the US 9mm round- on par with a standard load .38 Special. But, for a really hefty price special ammunition is available that will not penetrate walls- basically exploding into sand sized gravel and not pass through to kill your neighbor if you miss, and worse yet for the perp, explodes inside them. And the beauty of this is instead of being sued for using hollowpoints which some sleazy lawyer (redundancy alert!) will claim proves you meant to do harm to their client; it has been successfully argued your use of non-penetrating ammunition is instead an act of responsible ownership in an urban area. : )

Subjective/Objective
I don't know if this question was ever answered, and I don't know if it's the same in all 50 states or not, but usually when using self-defense, you need to show that you reasonably, subjectively believed that your life was in danger AND that a reasonable person in the same circumstances believed that their life was in danger.

If you don't get a yes on both, you get imperfect self-defense which is, I think, involuntary manslaughter.

re: wworstword
Just curious have you ever been to Europe? Even relatively free countries like England are much more restrictive than we are here. Here people gripe about cameras at intersections to catch people running red lights. In most of European cities you're under the camera's eye 24/7. If you're in your home there is more than likely an infrared camera looking you over to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. In most of Europe you can be arrested and held without charge for as little as a month or as long as indefinitely. In much of Europe, the newspapers and television news is tightly controlled by the government as in censored by the government for content. In the case of England the only legal local broadcast stations are owned outright by the government.

So your allegation that we have an aggressive, repressive police force compared to Europe is blatantly false and in direct contravention of the facts of the matter. It's one of those things live there a while and take a look around after you get over the place and watch how carefully people talk. Politically correct isn't a fashion statemnet in Europe it's a survival skill.

re: ladykrystyna
Actually, the right to self defense requires usually only that you might reasonably expect severe personal injury. This is primarily due to a legal concept which comes to us from common law called the right of punitive redress. Basically, if somebody hits you with their fist to make them stop you can hit them with a blunt object. If somebody tries to cut you with a blade you can shoot them dead. Basically, if somebody attacks you, you are able to inflict enough damage to that other person to stop the attacks. And this is where such things are open to discussion. Typical liberals think that no violence on the part of the victim is desirable. While conservatives believe if somebody attacks you, you should respond with all the force you require to stop the attack. If that include lethal force such is life and death in the real world.

God made man, Col Colt made them equal
The idea that a man armed only with his fists is immune to an armed response is nonsense. That only allows the strong to victimize the weak and the many to victimize the one. I am a decent sized middle aged man in fair physical condition and if I am physically attacked by someone I think will beat the crap out of me I will pull, and likely use, my weapon.

SNAFU, Robert Heinlein's complete quote
Robert Heinlein's complete quote from "Beyond This Horizon" is:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Will,
If you're really so terrified of "rednecks" beating you up get your own gun.

Check out http://www.pinkpistols.org -- because though you can't grasp this concept, conservatives believe that perverts do have exactly the same rights that normal people do -- including Second Amendment rights (we just don't believe that perverts deserve any special, extra rights).

Will, and other no God posters
Have you ever considered what a two year old would do to you if he/she was 6 foot 5 and weighed 250 lbs. with the musle tone of that adult frame. Thats correct he/she would kill you without a thought for the food you have or a toy. Man is born with a sin nature just as the Bible says. The difference between man and animals is we can speak and we do know the difference in right and wrong. There is no question that a well armed properly trained public is a serious deterent to crime. The 2 year old that grows up without Christian based instruction regardless what he worships will quickly take what you have if you have no protection, and don't count on the police to do it in our culture today.

Bans
Are the professors against self-defense or just guns?
Do crazies or criminals obey gun-bans on universities?

UncleB,
The only Beretta 9mm I've handled so far has been the now discontinued Cougar.

I am interested in handling one because the Cougar and the little .22s both fit my hands nicely.

Sweden crime
mary k

wwsword

FYI

google (exactly) youtube sweden islam and click on the first entry. Wonderful! Wonderful! Gun-free
Sweden!

CVN65,
When did I say that .38 or, especially, .357 weren't effective?

We chose 9mm for a number of reasons -- level of power, cost, the fact that we both prefer semi-autos to revolvers, the wide variety of available guns that use 9mm, the desire to standardize as much as possible for the household to reduce confusion and redundancy and to maximize availability of what we have on hand, ...

If it should turn out that I can't find a 9mm, semi-auto carry gun that fits my hands and meets my needs I know that there are at least 3, small, .38special/.357magnum revolvers that do fit my hands and I'll pick one. But I don't enjoy shooting revolvers.

Curtal Friar,
Every time I hear that argument about defending yourself against someone throwing punches I ask,

How, exactly, am I to read the attacker's mind to determine whether he merely intends to beat me a little or whether he intends to cause "great bodily harm", beat me to death (a single punch can kill a healthy, adult man), or render me helpless for a sexual assault? Can I say, "Just a minute here. I need to know your precise intentions for this assault before I decide what to do."

Bottom line -- if a person doesn't want to be shot he (or she), shouldn't go around throwing punches at strangers.

In Plain Words
Gun Control-gun con•trol n. definition 1. The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker received that fatal bullet wound. 2. The ability to hit what you are aiming at.

Mother of 4
You can kill a Kodiak bear with a .22 RF short if you hit him right.
If you miss it matters not how big the bullet is or how fast it is moving.

Whatever gun is most comfortable for you to shoot will probably be the most accurate for you also.

The Massad, CIA, KGB, and our own Mafia all rely on the .22 Rim Fire Long Rifle round for serious social work.

ladykrystyna,
The working in North Carolina is,

"immanent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault."

And the standard is, "A person of ordinary firmness" -- essentially the average person if faced by the same situation.

Mother of 4
I hope one of your "4" turns out to be gay. Then maybe you'll cool it with the "pervert" hate speech.

I will accept your gay child for exactly who he/she is.

MyOpine
Not missing is what training is about.

My goal is to be able to cover my 7-yard groups with a quarter (two-handed, modified Weaver, rapid-fire), and my 25 yard groups with the palm of my hand.

A person who WILL NOT spend the range time learning to shoot well shouldn't be carrying a gun. But I see no reason to use a .22 when I could use something more appropriate.

The goal of defensive handgun use is not to kill the attacker -- a well-placed .22 can certainly kill but its often after a significant lapse of time. The goal of defensive handgun use is to STOP the attacker.

Stopping the attacker often does entail killing them but its really rather irrelevant. Larger calibers that punch bigger holes may not really knock someone down like a Hollywood stuntman but they do have better stopping power.

9mm happens to have the particular combination of power, ready availability, cost-effectiveness, and wide variety of handguns that suits OUR needs. Not necessarily anyone else's needs -- but our needs.

If I achieve my desired level of proficiency I would end up able to put a .22 in an attacker's eye reliably. But it would be a better bet to put a 9mm in his center of mass.

Will
A pervert is a pervert.

But that's beside the point.

You do have EXACTLY the same right to keep and bear arms that any American has. Did you check out that web site?

I don't have to approve of your perversion to believe that you are entitled to your Constitutional rights -- which do not include marrying a member of the same sex or forcing me to "celebrate" your perversion but which do include arming yourself and using lethal force to defend yourself against death, serious bodily harm, or sexual assault.

But I suppose you'd rather keep on whining about how horrible everything is and how persecuted you are than take responsibility for your own safety.

wwsword ....
Huh?

Dude, what the heck are you rambling on about? I assume you're aware that your posts make no sense of any kind. I've been grading student papers for a long time now ... tell the truth ... you're a junior at a 3rd tier college majoring in "feminist studies" or some other such nonsense aren't you?

PS Inkling ... You're brilliant.

Psychopathy and human nature
My therapist (I have Asperger's Syndrome) once remarked to me that by the clinical definition of "psychopath", virtually all eight-year-olds would qualify. We are not born good, but need to be taught to consider other people.

He also noted that children of alcoholics were more likely to be pschopathic, since alcoholics have one standard of behavior sober, and another when they are drunk. The child cannot predict what behavior will result in punishment, so they just start doing whatever they want.

The good news is that psychopathy IS treatable, despite what you have heard on TV. Early studies using outmoded techniques showed that psychopaths were "untreatable", but modern methods actually are effective.

Where I disagree with the doctor, is if you are a brutal serial rapist or a murderer, whether you can be cured or not is moot, since you should spend the rest of your days in jail as punishment.

A final note: the doctor who came up with the test for psychopathy used prison inmates to do his research; had he not been allowed access, his second choice of subject would have been stock brokers.

Mother of 4 ...
Can't tell you how fun it is to "speak" with a woman who knows so much about shooting. You put 'em in the bull's eye girl!

Mother of 4
"My goal is to be able to cover my 7-yard groups with a quarter (two-handed, modified Weaver, rapid-fire), and my 25 yard groups with the palm of my hand."

Amen!

My wife enjoys shooting all sorts of firearms. One of her "toys" is a Ruger 10/22 and, at 25 yards, she can "sign" her 3 initials in a target. In cursive, no less.

Interestingly, she came from a seriously anti-gun family before I showed her the error of their ways. Now she never leaves home without her favorite protection, a Glock .40. And all our children and grandchildren have, as was my family tradition, received a .22 rifle for their 6th birthday--along with training and lots of ammo.

Myopine
OK, you go right ahead and try to take on a Kodiak bear with a .22; if by some miracle you "hit him right" congrats. It is far more likely that you will just annoy him, and then make a lovely hors d'ouvre.

Mother of four
Loved your definition of gun control!

Force Continuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

Use of force, especially lethal force can depend on the circumstances.

Number of aggressors would be a factor
Age disparity, 21 yearold atacking a 92 year old
Physical size, 98 pound weakling versus a 250lb linebacker.
Physical infirmities etc, broken arm, Wheelchair bound etc.

Responding with lethal force doesn't mean that the agressor has to be armed.


SNAFU
Sign her initials? Wow.

cleverness_of_me
Its something I've seen around in various places.

IMO, it is the perfect summation of the sanctimonious self-righteousness of the gun control advocates.

I saw a new one today that's not specifically about gun control but which pertains to the same attitude:

"Reality doesn't go away just because you stop believing in it."
John Derbyshire

Finally
Finally, someone is puttin the bell on the cat.
Progressives/socialists/communists/national socialists/liberals/fascists are all the same cat. It is refreshing to see that in print. It is well enough time for that to happen.

Sorry, off topic, but the increase of the price of foodstuffs, I can afford, but perhaps the oil producing countries cannot deal with, i.e. food riots. Tit for Tat, perhaps.

Another rant: Cut off all foreign aid and divert it to research on solar energy, etc.

Don't speak for me

If people weren't inherently good, then the cold war would have resulted in the end of life on Earth. Sorry Mr. Adams, but you are way off base on this one and shame on any conservative who agrees with this garbage.
There is one thing I'm in agreement with and that is the neo-conservative belief that, "We believe that people with innately destructive tendencies must be held in check." And since there is no such thing as a mind reader, it explains why the neocons feel compelled to make everything a crime. Of course when everything is illegal everyone will be a criminal.
What happened to the GOP? They seem more like fascists every day. God help us.

So Ann Frank was wrong?
"Leftists see humans as innately good. That is why they think rehabilitation works."

Now, if this a&*hole (who always potrays himself as the ever-victim of the evil feminists, homosexuals, fascists, communists, whatevers) tries to say he has been "oppressed" as much as she was, I will vomit my dinner up into my mouth.

Better than guns
Just an FYI

I saw a police defense training film years ago at a PBUS convention about dealing with a knife carrying assailant. They had the "20 or 25 foot rule" (sorry, I can't remember which number) about approaching a person with a knife. If you are within that amount to the assailant, the odds are overwhelming that they will have sliced you up before you get a shot off.

Just an observation
"I want all of those leftist professors who say that having a gun in one’s home does not deter burglary ..."

I don't think anyone would argue that: by going into an unknown person's home, who could be armed to the gills, they are already taking the chance. What it does decrease are the odds of them being successful, if you are a good shot.

The other problem is that people who do shoot intruders are sometimes sued by the victim. I was involved in an attempted robbery at a friend's house, and the cop who responded told us this, and advised us to shoot to kill, not to wound. He also said that he "didn't say this."

Great way of thinking
CALIFSON: "The 2 year old that grows up without Christian based instruction regardless what he worships will quickly take what you have if you have no protection, and don't count on the police to do it in our culture today."

So you are saying that all the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, and others will be out there waiting to attack me? I can see it now: watch out the next time the Dali Lama is speaking in your area! He is such a bastion of violence and intolerance.

Who's afraid of whom?
I contend that gun grabbers are not at all afraid of conservatives having, holding and owning guns. They are afraid if liberals owning them.

The Northern Illinois and V Tech shooters were both golden children of the marxist mentorship program we call universities. The nut in Illinois was a proponent of "justice reform", whatever that is. And the other guy, among other things, railed against the "injustice" of having to attend school with people he didn't know, but assumed they were "oppressors".

William Ayers, a "respected" scholar of "education, no less, thought that blowing things up was simply an act of civil disobedience, a kind of loud bumper sticker. Che, Raul, Fidel, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc made sure as many of the proletariet received their recommended minimum daily dose of lead as possible.

The lefties feel comfortable going toe to toe with cops, disrupting church services and marching with leftist illegal aliens, but find it unsettling to attend their Bund meetings with armed fellow "deep thinkers".

Thanks Mike

Mike,
some misinformed tend to believe that spiritual groundedness is of no necessity...that it is merely positive thinking, wishing, chanting, voodoo, etc., etc.

Grounded spiritual living (the demonstration that one knows his true existence) keeps THOSE well protected, come any situation.

The SCIENCE of Christianity is a proven, beyond a doubt, science.

You need not try to disprove what Jesus first proved.

I; One would wonder what keeps you from
desiring to know, as Daniel knew and practiced, in the lion's den; what all would benefit from knowing.

Wednesday evening testimonial services are made up of personal miracle proportion experiences based on knowing what Daniel knew. What Moses knew. What Jesus knew. What Ghandi knew. What Pope Paul II knew. What Mother Teresa knew. What Mrs. Eddy knew.

Our protection [defense] is in what we know of God's Truth about His Creation.




Caligula
Re: Your posts of 2:27 & 2:33 AM where you state that an assailant armed with a knife and within 20 – 25 ft of an intended victim armed with a gun will likely get to the victim before he or she can use their gun. Yes, That may be “statistically” true. So is your “point” that it’s pointless to carry a gun?

Re: The possibility of a civil suite even if a shooting is justifiable. True. All responsible gun owners know this. But are you implying that because of this possibility one should not carry a gun. Being armed is not without risks and responsibilities. Carrying a gun is no guarantee of safety or legal consequences, nor is this implied by anyone here. So what is your point in mentioning these issues?

Note: The one time I used a gun in self defense was against an assailant with a knife who was within 10 ft. of me. I’m still around to tell of the incident. He’s NOT. But feel free to quote all the statistics you want.

Ragnar
I live by the maxim that it's better to be tried by 12 of my peers than carrier by 6 of them.

Congrats on surviving the knife assault!

Oops
The above should read "carried by 6"...

Guns
You don't have to liberal or conservative to admire the art of weapons, be they swords, arrows or guns. In my father's day before TV, he lived on a farm. After they would plow the fields getting them ready to plant, and after a rain, he would go looking for old arrowheads.

Survival
Surviving a violent attack can depend not just on your weapons but more importantly, your attitude.
Old, gray haired granny's frequently drive off intruders with nothing more than their ferocity. Meanwhile, many large, armed and physically fit men find during their first encounter with deadly violence that they are unable to respond well. Not everyone is innately capable of being a warrior.
Learning to prevail should start with proper and constant training of mind and body and becoming proficient with the right tools for the job... Plus, guts and good chops...and it helps, when needed, like those courageous old gals mentioned at the top, to have the attitude of a junkyard pit bull. Which is: "If you just bite and grind long enough, eventually you get to the tender parts!"

Nellie, Bible says
An eye for an eye, I have a 38 and value life mostly mine pity the trespasser who gets in this old granny's house, ever hear, pray for a good harvest but keep on hoeing? Well I say pray for peace but always keep your piece nearby. Just a little insurance. Mom of 4 NRA sons who taught me how to shoot.

DevilsPaintbrush
"If people weren't inherently good, then the cold war would have resulted in the end of life on Earth."

If ALL people were inherently good then there wouldn't have been a cold war in the first place, would there?

I assume you'll admit that even if everyone is born good, not all stay that way? I don't want a gun to defend myself against the good people: they aren't a threat. I want it to defend myself against the not-goods, and you can hardly deny that they exist, or that they are a threat to good people.

Right weapon for Mom of 4
There were so many posts here that I may have missed it being mentioned, but I think you may wish to check out the Glock GAP .45. It is a .45 round using a 9mm frame and therefore easier on the grip for smaller hands. I carry the model 20 (10mm) and my wife simply cannot control it properly. However, the GAP is perfect for her. It has the power of the .45 ACP but with a smaller cartridge allowing it to fit in a smaller frame. Many other manufacturers have introduced their own GAP (Glock Auto Pistol) .45 models now as well, and the round acceptance seems to be assured.

Good luck!

Re: 20-25 feet and inherent goodness
I'm not sure what the situation is here, but that's true for ANY weapon, assuming the assailant has his weapon out and the victim doesn't.

Somehow I wonder where evil comes from if everyone is basically good. I mean, it's not like evil is deliberately propogated, is it? After all, we don't go cultivating weeds in gardens but we have them anyway.

Sorry Grandma
Just because you can read the Bible doesn't mean you understand it, and it drives me nuts when people like you MISquote the Bible to advance their own narrow minded agenda.

Exodus 21:23-27 is talking about the treatment of one's slave or an innocent party, and it actually says that if you take the slave's (or innocent party's) eye in punishment or by accident, you should take your own eye as well. It does NOT in any way advocate what you suggest it advocates.

The quote also appears in Leviticus, and here it does seem to advocate retribution, but if you read it closely it is clear that retribution is God's to mete out, not ours.

The quote also appears in Deuteronomy. Here it says that after the accuser and the accused appear BEFORE THE LORD, and only then are you entitled to retribution.

So in reality, the 3 Old Testament passages make it abundantly clear that justice is the Lord's to mete out, not yours, not mine.

If there is any doubt, you can refer to the gospel of Matthew chapter 5 verse 38. Here, Jesus makes it clear that you are to turn the other check and offer it to the evildoer, even referencing the original "eye for an eye" quote from the Old Testament.

People who misquote the Bible as you did are either completely ignorant of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or are deliberately attempting to mislead others. Not sure which you are, Grandma-ma but I resent it. It's hard enough to be a Christian in today's world without idiots like you making it harder.


Deterrence works
There is a pawn shop near my house with a large sign over the entrance that says "$10,000 reward for killing anyone in the act of robbing this store".

I asked the owner about it and he told me when he first opened the store he got robbed at least two or three times a year. In the six months before he put the sign up was robbed seven times.

Since he put the sign up he has been threatened by law enforcement with all kinds of legal trouble if a robber is killed. But it hasn't been a problem because in the over ten years since he put up the sign no one has robbed his store.

On self-defense
Regarding the 20 or 25 foot rule, one might be surprised at how far an attacker with a knife can move in one second. The apeed record -- and it was an average speed, not a sprint -- that I recall was 21.7 mph by Jesse Owens; that translates to almost 32 feet per second and short sprints can exceed that. If you don't know that before pulling the trigger the judge won't allow the jury to know it so now we all know.

For Mom of 4: My Makarov is very reliable and inexpensive but the grip angle -- similar to the P.38 -- may take some getting used to. Also, if you prefer, the Glock 30 (if I remember the model correctly) in .45 ACP bears trying out. I didn't see Kahr mentioned but that looks like a good one also.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.