Armed and Female
Some years ago, my wife and I were living in California. We managed to persuade our police chief to issue concealed weapon permits after a robbery attempt. (If you live in California and have ever applied for such a permit, this should give you some idea of how persuasive we can be.) We went through the class taught at the police academy. While most of our class consisted of civilians, at least one of the students was a police officer in training who ended up in our class because of a motor vehicle accident. By the time we had completed our training, my wife and I had both dramatically improved our marksmanship (along with learning the laws concerning use of deadly force).
A few weeks later, we were visiting some friends in central Nevada. John was a military police officer at the Naval Air Station in Fallon. He was a nice guy, but he had a rather traditional view of women. We went out into the desert, and after doing some 500-meter rifle shooting, we set up targets for handguns. John, not surprisingly, thought rather highly of his marksmanship skills with the Colt Government Model .45 (still the U.S. military standard at the time). He shot a pretty decent group at 10 meters — all seven rounds in a circle about two inches across. My wife picked up the same gun, and when she was done, there was one large ragged hole. You could see John’s entire view of women catching fire and going up in smoke.
I’m not sure that there’s still a need for “ladies-only gun camps.” Increasingly, a generation of young women is growing up in homes that encourage girls to learn to shoot. When my daughter and son both reached about eight years of age, my wife and I took each of them out to the range. We did this to show them the fearsome and destructive power of firearms. We also did so to take away the inevitable mystery associated with a tool that features so prominently in our entertainment media. A few years later, I took my daughter to submachine gun at Front Sight.
Guns aren’t a major part of the lives of either of our children, but they know how to safely handle guns and to shoot — sometimes leading to some very amusing consequences. When my daughter was away at the University of Idaho, the young man who is now her husband proposed going shooting on a date. Let’s just say that he was more than a bit startled at what a crack shot she was!
Finally a real article on Pajamas, instead of the bankster worshiping trash. I think this is a real problem in California and without a concealed permit you have to lug around a lock box and AFAIK keep it in the trunk. That’s not very useful in the event of an attack. At this point my only option is to have a driver with a permit or form my own security company or do what Mr. Cramer did.
Good decent people should always be armed in my opinion but women especially since they’re probably much more likley to be raped, robbed or murdered. It’s too bad the anti-gun culture in much of the Western world prevents that from happening thanks to the anti-self-defense left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1buCylSzpc
There is nothing surprising about a female police officer shooting a deranged man. It is expected.
There is nothing surprising about civilian women learning how to use guns. It’s a necessity in some communities. But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .
You mean Sarah Palin isn’t the only woman in the US who can handle a gun? The whole purpose of weapons used for self-defense is to balance the situation. We know that criminals have no problem getting a gun on the street and have no compunction about using it. And even a criminal without a gun may overpower a potential victim, male or female. Carrying a weapon gives the person attacked a fighting change against a bigger, stronger attacker. As in the Old West, the gun is still the equalizer. Further, when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry, at least some criminals will think twice about attacking, knowing they may get more than they bargained for.
When I was in college, a classmate had a bumper sticker that read: God Created Men, But Sam Colt Made Them Equal!
Firearms are the great equalizer for women as well, who rarely are physically as strong as are men. But, women have to have the will to use them.
It’s all about the understanding of firearms and their use, and the will to use them. My grandmother, in the rural West in the early 1890s, ended a confrontation between sheepmen and cattlemen by interposing herself between the groups with a pair of pistols and telling the men she’d shoot anyone who made any move toward the other group. After several hours, the men shuffled off and ‘war’ was averted.
Vivo–But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .
What would a “safe” area be? A school? shopping mall? your home? All these areas have had rogue shooters kill people. These shooters could have been stopped and the carnage lessened if just one person with a concealed carry permit was carrying in the area and had shot them.
The police are under NO requirement (according to the Supreme Court of the US) to protect you or your family. They merely come after the murder and hopefully get enough evidence to catch the criminal.
We are responsible for protecting ourselves. The Founders knew that.
“But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .”
These areas would not be safe had it not been for the guns. Criminals normally think twice if they believe the common citizen might be carrying a gun. The thirteen soldiers may no have been murdered if allowed to carry a firearm on base. if nothing else, the crazed Muslim fanatic would have had a more difficult time committing this atrocity.
I am so proud of Kimberly Munley and of all the brave men and women at Fort Hood. She is a hero and there were many heroic acts that day.
Clayton, like you, my dad taught all his kids to shoot. We have experience using handguns, shotguns, and rifles. This is is good reminder that we need to do the same for the next generation so they understand the responsibilities that go with owning a firearm.
@ vivo
“But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .”
Define “safe area.”
The business offices of a financial organization?
An American University? High school?
A Soldier Deployment Center on the largest military installation in the free world?
A church?
The mall?
There are no “safe areas.” Only dangerous places and those less so.
I have been a firearms fanatic since a kid 48 years ago. Watching Gene Autry kick the snot out of the bad guys as he taught the value of morals was what most of us grew up on. Today they grow up on self-hatred and delirium from the religion of Liberalism. Firearms are more often deterrents than weapons. And had this base required that their people carry their sidearms this would NEVER have happened. That is a simple FACT. Our soldiers are paid to protect and they should be ON DUTY at all times. Even in the latrine.
Bad guys don’t go to pistol ranges to open fire on intended victims. They go to little country Amish schools in Pennsylvania. Swizerland understands this and that is why they require that every home have a gun and the government supplies them with one.
My love and fascination of guns has EVERYTHING to do with morals and the natural law which dictates instinctively that I have a right to defend myself and an obligation to defend others. This I have done and will cotinue do with or without a firearm. I have a very high success rate. Bad guys attack the innocent in my presence at their own peril.
I am a Sheep Dog and there are many of us.
Kimberley Munley, Sarah Palin, Christine Bachman……..We love them because THEY FIGHT!
Yucky:
Men are more likely to be mugged and murdered, not women.
Finally….Cramer gets one right.
I knew you had it in you somewhere
@vivo (#3) – There are “safe areas”? Where are these magical places? I want to live in a “safe area”!
@Yucky (#2) – Thanks, that video did my heart & soul some good
Guns are a great way to determine if a person is suitable for dating. I would always ask a prospective suitor if he’d like to go shooting with me. Several expressed outright shock at a woman enjoying the shooting sports. One man at work walked up to me and told me he thought I was cute, but he’d never date me because I carry a gun and “could kill him if I wanted to.”
My wonderful husband, on the other hand, was charmed and delighted that I knew how to shoot. Men who don’t want women to have guns are extremely suspicious. They don’t like the thought of a woman being able to defend herself?
And women who don’t want to shoot, to me, are suspicious as wife material. You want a helpless ninny, or a partner in good times and bad?
Armed and Female
Our social rule is:
Boys to men, girls to girls;
The female of the species,
as an adult woman, is too
intimidating for girly men.
Favorite Q&A:
Q: Why does a nice girl like you
want to be armed and dangerous ?
A: Because, when you have small
children with you, you cannot
run away.
This has a more general, political
corollary; When women realize what
future the State intends for their
children, Hell will have no Fury
like a woman at a Tea Party.
nothing is sexier than a chick with a gun
The heck with diamonds, A Handgun Is A Girls Best Friend.
More guns, less crime – every time.
Look at Vermont: basically anyone an carry concealed and the 3rd-lowest crime rate in America. This is not coincidental.
Look at the rise in crime in the UK and Australia following the gun bans.
One must be purposefully ignorant (ie the facts are there to read) to think that gun ownership causes an increase in crime.
Or one must understand that it is the statist Left that needs unarmed subjects to finish their destruction of freedom and liberty, as armed citizens won’t allow it.
Vivo, please describe a safe place?
3 vivo
“carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter”…
……….like Ft. Hood?……….
A good husband will get a weapon for his wife, and encourage her to get the training. For that matter, a good father will get her daughter a gun and encourage her through the training process.
A gentleman will get his wife a good gun, and encourage her to get the training. For that matter, a good father will get her daughter a gun and encourage her through the training process.
Clayton: Life for women is often different. Thank you for writing this worthwhile article that shows the value of women. Your respect for what we ladies can do and our intellect is really appreciated. from your Mom.
The fact that something like this has to be written makes me sad for you people. The most basic fact in the world is that using a gun has no bearing on physical prowess or bravery of any kind. It is the easiest way to kill someone–in terms of physical force, in terms of bravery [or lack thereof]. Guns were made so that any fool, regardless of moral or physical strength, could be conscripted into service.
There is nothing more attractive than a confident and competent woman.
Besides a handgun, I also carry/conceal a knife and I’m not afraid to use that either. Fortunately, I’ve only been in once situation where I needed to use my knife (before I ever had a gun back when I was still a teen). The knife worked but I made sure the perp knew I had every intention of using it on him once I sprung it on his sorry arse. The element of surprise worked in my favor and he went running.
Of course firearms make it possible for anyone able to aim and pull a trigger to injure or kill another at a relatively safe distance. Would you like to have a world without guns? Ever wonder what such a world would look like? Read a history of any era prior to the 15th century and you will get a really good idea of the social, political and economic institutions that we know existed when only those with the strength, agility and time to train in the use of weapons were those who could effectively defend themselves. Of course it may be that you want a world where only “authorities” possess firearms. The history of the 20th century delivers very clear examples of such societies and what they can and do become. Only an utter fool would want such a thing. But foolishness is quite common these days – it’s a sort of “in thing” at the dawn of the 21st century.
The invention of gunpowder and firearms has had more to do with the rise of human liberty and justice than just about any other physical factor in history. That a man of 62 years with a heart condition, overweight and out-of-shape can, if armed and even only an average shot (myself) can stand up to and have any chance at all against younger, stronger, more vigorous men is a testament to the value and NECESSITY of firearms. They may not make us truly “equal” (any trained young soldier or LEO would have the odds on his side against the likes of me) but they definitely give someone like me a chance. And that is often enough when the wicked come to calculate the prospects of forcing their will on others – that very real possibility that the weak might be armed and have a real chance at inflicting damage when they defend themselves – that is enough to maintain liberty in the face of malicious fools bent on personal aggrandizement (even if they dress this up in the trappings of some “noble” ideology). If we had to rely on swords or clubs or spears I wouldn’t last a minute against a younger, trained opponent. And of course if I have NOTHING with which to defend myself and that other fellow has a firearm I am virtually helpless.
So – Ladies – get you guns, learn to use them and don’t hesitate to open fire if the threat is clear.
Of course to a Muslim the article is sad……MoHo.
you seem to miss the whole point. Maybe your muslim women are scared mice and it upsets you to realize women are people too..imagine that..
@moho (#26) – You just don’t get it. You have my pity. If you are married and/or have kids, I pity them even more.
you seem to miss the whole point. Maybe your muslim women are scared mice and it upsets you to realize women are people too..imagine that..
One of the saddest elements of American culture is the severe impairment in literacy that seems endemic to it. I wrote that there is nothing masculine or feminine about guns. It takes neither courage or its absence to use one, nor does it take physical strength. Guns are perfect for governments who want to conscript large forces–many of whom would otherwise be a liability in the military, male or female–because it takes little training or resolve to use a firearm. The comment is completely outside the bounds of feminism or anti-feminism, and is as logical as the word allows.
Bob, what don’t I get? Or is that your way of disagreeing with people when you can’t defend your argument?
I absolutely love it that a person of the female persuasion is responsible for stopping bluntly and with force this derangoid who thinks that a misogynisic religion like Islam is something to be adhered to. Makes me wonder what all the shrouded and burka-clad estrogen-enhanced humans across the Muslim world might be thinking to themselves with this female police officer as a role model for what *they* (or their daughters) might aspire towards. I’ve often wondered to myself why Muslim women don’t seem to have discovered the wonders of poison in evening up the burdens they are placed under. I guess maybe through a millennia or two of selective breeding, at the same time they were breeding women for “more stupid” they might have also been breeding them for “less brave”. But, as was noted above, Colt is a great equalizer, especially for those who are more stupid and less brave and being forced into a marriage (or a gang rape) at the age of 12.
#11 don’t forget Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester
http://www.army.mil/women/hester.html
10. Jane: “I have been a firearms fanatic since a kid 48 years ago. Watching Gene Autry kick the snot out of the bad guys as he taught the value of morals was what most of us grew up on.”
Too bad you didn’t watch Roy Rogers and Dale Evans: “Be good to your enemies / and the Blessed Lord you’ll surely please. / How do I know? / The Bible tells me so.”
for women I also recommend Paxton Quigley Armed
& Female
Moho – Your post betrays your lack of morals. Of course it takes courage to use a gun.
First, it is easier to run away than to stand and fight. A devotion to principles is what makes brave men run TOWARDS gunfire, rather than away.
Second, if the other guy is shooting, too, it takes real courage to engage.
Third, most importantly, only a person bereft of morals thinks that it is nothing to kill another human being; that guns make it “easy”.
Those who would kill fall into three categories: the morally bankrupt; the coward; and the morally righteous who know they must, because, although normally it would be wrong, the current situation requires it.
You, Moho, clearly do not fall into the third category.
@ #24 professor guvinoff,
good comment sir! one of the first things i bought my wife when we married, over 40 years ago, was a pistol, and later an m-1 carbine. when my daughter reached her teen years she began shooting my m1911a1 .45 automatic, she later bought her own 9mm pistol, a colt “goverment model” on the same frame as the .45, and an ar-15, she’s in her late 30s now and still has both guns.
Marc Malone
Moho – Your post betrays your lack of morals. Of course it takes courage to use a gun.
First, it is easier to run away than to stand and fight. A devotion to principles is what makes brave men run TOWARDS gunfire, rather than away.
So you’re saying that Hasan had courage and a devotion to principles. Don’t bother responding, I know you’re not trying to say that. Its the only logical deduction one can make using your standards. I know that the absurd nature of your post given the actual topic, which relates to Hasan’s act of mass murder, is a product of you’re not having thought out your own morality very well. I won’t embarrass you anymore because of it.
Title of Essay: Armed and _Female_
@ 26. moho: Sad for weak cowardly fools
What would we do without your strength,
bravery, and wisdom, moho ?
Save your sadness for yourself, for considering
females, the “weaker sex” to be cowards or fools
for using firearms against physically stronger
opponents, and for your cowardly refusal to state
plainly what you imply; Might makes Right.
M. Report
I mentioned something before about how illiteracy seems to be one of the bigger challenges on this board, not the danger of Islam. I said none of those things; you’re on a mission to prove you’re the biggest idiot here, but there’s a wide field.
#3: vivo: Like Sharon Tate’s house in BelAir? Or an army base? The nation’s capitol at night? Or during the day? An Amish school? Perhaps a school in Colorado? Where exactly?
Best opening scene in a movie: Bette Davis in “The Letter’ (1940). The movie begins with her emptying a revolver into a gentleman who is not her husband.
“The female of the species is much deadlier than the male”. Kipling (he had a talent for understatement, I think).
Yes, women, especially those who have restraining orders out against former boyfriends or husbands are safest if they are carrying. Sad, but probably true.
On the other hand, why do we suppose that soldiers are not allowed to carry guns on the base? Evidently, having a lot of high-testosterone types walking around armed has some inherent dangers as well as benefits. Now there’s a shock.
People are responding to this terrible incident by coming up with all sorts of wacky lefty stuff and wacky righty stuff, but the women and guns thesis here seems to be on safe, but solid ground.
By the way, should Muslim American citizens be allowed to carry, even those who espouse radical Islam? Just askin’.
I would love to meet a woman who shoots. Out first date could be breaking in my new Kimber SIS Ultra.
She could show me a thing or two.
Yucky:
Men are more likely to be mugged and murdered, not women.
True, men are more likely to be murdered. But rapes are substantially more common (typically 5x or 6x) than murders.
Robbery is traumatic. But I know lots of robbery victims, and lots of rape victims. (I’m from Los Angeles.) The robbery victims, as bad as they have it, usually don’t have the trauma of the rape victims.
One man at work walked up to me and told me he thought I was cute, but he’d never date me because I carry a gun and “could kill him if I wanted to.”
Yes, an armed female would be a real problem for a guy who thinks that when his date says, “No,” she means “Hit me harder.”
The fact that something like this has to be written makes me sad for you people. The most basic fact in the world is that using a gun has no bearing on physical prowess or bravery of any kind. It is the easiest way to kill someone–in terms of physical force, in terms of bravery [or lack thereof]. Guns were made so that any fool, regardless of moral or physical strength, could be conscripted into service.
The original reason that Gutenberg invented movable type printing was to print Bibles. On that basis, Moho, you would have to consider movable type printing a bad idea.
I don’t want the ability to defend oneself to be dependent on physical prowess or bravery of any kind. We aren’t all muscular 18 year olds who can wield a sword for self-defense. Some of us are older; half of us are female (and therefore intrinsically weaker than our male equivalents because of size and hormonal differences in muscular development). A world where only the strong and aggressive are able to defend themselves is a world where the strong rule the weak. That might be the world that Moho wants to live in; I don’t.
On the other hand, why do we suppose that soldiers are not allowed to carry guns on the base? Evidently, having a lot of high-testosterone types walking around armed has some inherent dangers as well as benefits. Now there’s a shock.
So we don’t trust them until they get into combat?
I’m curious: why are the current gun control rules on military bases in effect? I rather doubt that they have always been there. Was there a particular incident that led to this?
I’m distinguishing between rules about issued weapons and those for privately possessed weapons.
10. Jane: “I have been a firearms fanatic since a kid 48 years ago. Watching Gene Autry kick the snot out of the bad guys as he taught the value of morals was what most of us grew up on.”
Too bad you didn’t watch Roy Rogers and Dale Evans: “Be good to your enemies / and the Blessed Lord you’ll surely please. / How do I know? / The Bible tells me so.”
And this leads you to what conclusion? That the police should be disarmed as well?
There are advantages to being armed. One of them is that you are in a position to remind an attacker that he has a choice: attack or maybe die. It’s amazing how much that seems to improve the morality of some people.
Moho writes:
So you’re saying that Hasan had courage and a devotion to principles. Don’t bother responding, I know you’re not trying to say that. Its the only logical deduction one can make using your standards.
If you actually read all of what Marc Malone wrote, you would realize that there are three situations where people kill.
And Dr. Hasan didn’t run to the sound of gunshots. He was already there.
Moho needs to improve his reading skills.
There is nothing surprising about civilian women learning how to use guns. It’s a necessity in some communities. But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .
Do you know that even jails and prisons aren’t entirely safe? Some years back, New York City was losing suits by prisoners who were being shot in jail, and getting both big awards, and sometimes reductions in sentences. Then they discovered that the jailers were taking bribes to allow guns to be smuggled into jail for this express purpose of prisoners shooting themselves in the leg. Prison guards in more than a few places have been caught allowing firearms to be smuggled in. Can you imagine anything more dangerous to the guards themselves than this?
This is why even the most extreme police state can’t implement an effective gun control law. If the U.S. completely prohibited guns (a most unlikely situation), they would be smuggled inside shipments of cocaine and marijuana. Customs would never find them.
High quality handguns right now are already about $300 per pound. What would the price be if they were illegal?
Don’t ask me why but when I read the article the name Hello Kitty Handgun came to mind. Sounds kinda catchy.
Sorry, Clayton, if you really think that any part of that contradictory rant makes sense, then you’re a lot dumber than I thought.
First:
This can’t be true:
Of course it takes courage to use a gun.
If this is true:
Those who would kill fall into three categories: the morally bankrupt; the coward; and the morally righteous who know they must, because, although normally it would be wrong, the current situation requires it.
Either using a gun to kill always takes courage, or its sometimes the act of a coward. But both can’t be true. I simply wrote that it does not take courage to use a gun, the second portion of that fool’s statement bears out my assertion:
It takes neither courage nor its absence to use one, nor does it take physical strength.
There’s nothing inherently courageous about using a gun, and Marc Malone and apparently you, are too stupid to understand that you agree with me.
As for my falling into the third category, for all you know I could be a fireman. Making such assertions simply because someone doesn’t agree with you, is a sure way to pwned. And Marc Malone did, bringing you in with him.
Well Clayton, you’re certainly out to prove your weak intellect today:
The fact that something like this has to be written makes me sad for you people. The most basic fact in the world is that using a gun has no bearing on physical prowess or bravery of any kind. It is the easiest way to kill someone–in terms of physical force, in terms of bravery [or lack thereof]. Guns were made so that any fool, regardless of moral or physical strength, could be conscripted into service.
The original reason that Gutenberg invented movable type printing was to print Bibles. On that basis, Moho, you would have to consider movable type printing a bad idea. There’s no judgement in my statement about the usefulness of guns, so I don’t know what you’re seeking to critique here. Its not actually relevant to the discussion, but if anything, I think that guns should be tightly regulated, and that people should only be able to protect themselves in their own home, where they can’t accidentally blow a hole in my me, my girlfriend or dog.
As for the rest of your odd post, nothing you’re saying contradicts what I said. We actually agree, there’s nothing inherently masculine or feminine about gun ownership, nor is there any courage required to own or use a gun. Again, you’re just too dumb to know that you’ve agreed with me.
I live in texas. It’s just assumed one knows how to shoot here, man or woman. There are plenty who can’t, of course, but the assumption is still with you. Women tend to be better shots than men too, once they learn.
I can not understand why people aren’t armed on-base. We trust them with large amounts of weapons in other countries, but can’t in our own? WTF?
39. Of course Hasan had courage and devotion to principles. It just so happens that the principles he was so devoted to were born in the fiery pit of Hell. He certainly stood up for what he believed in, but what he believed in is evil to the core, and has no redeeming value whatsoever.
Hey, Hasan, got your ass blown off by an armed infidel women w/o male escort did you? No 72 virgins for you!
Anonymous. Not that I care, but there is value to getting the story right. It was not apparently Munley that brought him down. That just makes better news copy, especially because she was shot. Read below. Makes no never mind to me, but the more you people try to distort the truth to fit your bigotry [in this case, snorting that a woman brought him down.] Just so you know, women serve in the Basiji, you idiots “The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable.”
Officer describes firefight that downed Hasan
By JAY ROOT (AP) – 2 hours ago
KILLEEN, Texas — One of two police officers who confronted the alleged Fort Hood killer says he shot Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan before kicking the man’s weapon away, handcuffing him and ending the nation’s worst killing spree on a military base.
Sgt. Mark Todd joined Sgt. Kimberly Munley, hailed as a hero for her actions, in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute. Todd, 42, was not wounded, but the exchange left Munley injured and Hasan critically wounded.
Seconds after Todd arrived on the scene, he said he saw a calm-looking Hasan, his gun drawn and his fingers pointing at people.
“He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide,” Todd told The Associated Press Saturday.
That’s when Todd, a retired soldier who now works as a civilian police officer at Fort Hood, said he shouted at Hasan.
“I told him stop and drop your weapons. I identified myself as police and he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn’t hear him say a word … he just turned and fired.”
There has been confusion since Thursday’s rampage about whose bullets actually brought down Hasan, who was shot four times. At first, Munley’s supervisor said it was her shot to Hasan’s torso that leveled him, but Army officials would only say that an investigation was under way.
Munley was down by the time he engaged Hasan, Todd said. He wasn’t sure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”
Todd said he fired his Beretta at Hasan. Hasan flinched, Todd said, then slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd says he then heard bystanders say “two more, two more.”
At first he thought they meant there were two more suspects, but realized they were urging him to fire two more rounds at Hasan, thinking he was still posing a threat.
Todd approached the suspect and saw that he still had a weapon in his hand. Todd kicked away the gun, which he said had a laser-aiming device attached to it.
“He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking,” said Todd.
Todd handcuffed Hasan and checked to see if he was still alive. “He had a good pulse,” said Todd. He also cut off pieces of Hasan’s clothes so he could get first aid and noticed Hasan had gunshot wounds on his side and back.
From the time he got to the scene until Hasan dropped, the whole encounter lasted only about 30-45 seconds, Todd said. “It was pretty intense. There was a lot of people shouting, a lot of people giving directions,” he said.
Munley, whose injuries weren’t believed to be life threatening, won wide praise after the incident.
Fort Hood spokesman Col. John Rossi read a statement on Munley’s behalf Saturday night. He said she and her family were thankful for the support and prayers that have come their way.
Rossi said Munley underwent a second surgery Saturday and is in good condition. She is most concerned that the wounded make a speedy recovery.
When Munley arrived at Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen on Thursday she was rushed into surgery within minutes, said Dr. Scott McAninch. He said she had “lost a lot of blood,” especially from a gunshot wound to her left leg that had hit an artery, and praised first responders for using a tourniquet.
“That pretty much saved her life,” McAninch said.
What does it matter who brought him down? You people are seriously mentally awol.
There’s no judgement in my statement about the usefulness of guns, so I don’t know what you’re seeking to critique here. Its not actually relevant to the discussion, but if anything, I think that guns should be tightly regulated, and that people should only be able to protect themselves in their own home, where they can’t accidentally blow a hole in my me, my girlfriend or dog.
1. Most firearms–even most handguns–will go through an external wall of most homes, so your position isn’t even consistent.
2. Accidental firearms deaths are a tiny fraction of firearms deaths–and about half of the roughly 800 accidental firearms death a year are hunting related. A sufficiently high fraction of the non-hunting related accidental firearms deaths involve elderly white men who shoot themselves–leading to suspicion that these are actually suicides covered up for either the deceased or family members because of shame or insurance concerns.
Sorry, Clayton, if you really think that any part of that contradictory rant makes sense, then you’re a lot dumber than I thought.
First:
This can’t be true:
Of course it takes courage to use a gun.
If this is true:
Those who would kill fall into three categories: the morally bankrupt; the coward; and the morally righteous who know they must, because, although normally it would be wrong, the current situation requires it.
Either using a gun to kill always takes courage, or its sometimes the act of a coward. But both can’t be true. I simply wrote that it does not take courage to use a gun, the second portion of that fool’s statement bears out my assertion:
It takes neither courage nor its absence to use one, nor does it take physical strength.
There’s nothing inherently courageous about using a gun, and Marc Malone and apparently you, are too stupid to understand that you agree with me.
What’s funny is that you don’t realize (or pretend not to realize) that there are some assumptions in the statements. Once you plug in the assumptions, it all makes sense.
“Of course it takes courage to use a gun [in defense of self or others].” Makes more sense now?
In response Moho notes that “there’s nothing inherently masculine or feminine about gun ownership, nor is there any courage required to own or use a gun” is not contradicted by anything Clayton Cramer wrote. Well, given that the assertions quoted are inherently vacuous, I suppose this is right. If anything, Mr. Cramer’s mistake is in assuming that Moho had anything meaningful to write. A mistake commonly made on these threads, I’ve observed.
@Bonnie and M.Report — As the only child/daughter of parents who wanted a son, I say welcome, and well-met. My father taught me to shoot, rifle and pistol; my mother taught me bow and arrow. I taught myself to use a knife. I used to think this was all just ‘sport.’ Now I wonder ….
Here in Israel, we all learn firearms safety and basic marksmanship. Every citizen, male and female, is required to serve in the IDF.
In addition there is no restriction on how weapons are carried (no concealed carry). It is common to see men and women openly carrying pistols
and rifles.
Terror attacks are stopped by armed civilians, teachers, bus drivers and EMT’s.
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
29@foont:
That’s such an obvious point that I never made the connection before reading your post. Growth in the USA exploded upon people being able to defend themselves. Teach the wife to shoot and pan gold, knowing the homestead is safe. Brilliance in simplicity.
6. kimo:
9. Deployed:
14. Bob:
21. Ms. Attitude:
22. Sallie:
42. blackwell:
“Vivo–But carrying guns in safe areas is an entirely different matter . . .
What would a “safe” area be?”
Anywhere you go is a safe area. Unsafe areas are well known to locals, like parts of Oakland CA, Detroit MI, Los Angeles CA, Tijuana BC, Mexico City, Sao Paulo BZ, Iraq, the whole Middle East, etc. It mostly depends on the people you interact with. Do you buy illegal drugs? Do you frequent bars? Do you walk alone at night? Do you frequently argue and get mad?
Can you avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Well, given that the assertions quoted are inherently vacuous, I suppose this is right.
Some people need extra time with the teacher apparently. Using a gun is an inherently neutral act on the part of a human, it requires none of the qualities you people masturbate about on a regular basis. Children pick up guns and shoot each other and themselves in the head on a regular basis. It is easier than using a knife or blunt object to kill someone; there is no method of murder easier short of an unmanned drone. Do you get it you simpleton?
“Of course it takes courage to use a gun [in defense of self or others].” Makes more sense now?
That may make sense to the losers who follow your blog, but we both know that would get you laughed out of any conversation with moderately educated people. Along with your assertion that most bullets pass through walls. Nice citation on that one. You know a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment, but your other faculties–reason, for one–have withered on the vine from interacting with so many idiots.
Moho, your “points”, as in the example of a child’s ability to operate a firearm are trivial and known to all. To note that operation of a firearm is gender neutral is simply banal and completely beside Mr. Cramer’s point which was adequately explained in his commentary without need for further elaboration. You really need to check the definition of vacuous as it applies to all you’ve written.
Now, your assertion that it is easier to kill with a gun than a blunt object or a knife suggests that you know little about guns and the effects of gunshot wounds, much less about actually killing a person. Those who do would say, “it all depends”. Your initial assertion and now your response are rather good as examples of vacuity.
Mr. Cramer extends to you the courtesy of assuming some measure of good faith, and reasonable intelligence, in your argumentation: an honor your postings clearly do not deserve both by the their repeated violations of points 2 and 3 of the stated guidelines for posters, but mostly their banality and triviality as already noted.
Odyseus,
Now, your assertion that it is easier to kill with a gun than a blunt object or a knife suggests that you know little about guns and the effects of gunshot wounds, much less about actually killing a person. Those who do would say, “it all depends”.
Absurd. You’re a total fool [and its quite clear from your dodge that you haven't even read the article in question].
Its an empirically probable fact that in almost any instance killing someone with a gun is easier, in terms of effort and time, than doing so with a hand held weapon. Its simply true, it arguably even takes more courage and more wherewithal to kill someone with a knife, because generally one must commit to many blows or strokes, and witness the effect in real time. Its absurd that anyone would even argue the contrary; the whole point of having guns, as Cramer suggests, is because:
I don’t want the ability to defend oneself to be dependent on physical prowess or bravery of any kind.
Your argument relies on a friendly group not willing or able to apply reason to what you suggest. You generally enjoy that privilege, but its interesting to watch you idiots fall apart at the slightest challenge.
What really surprises me is how necessary your mythologies of gun ownership are to your belief in the right to carry firearms. I don’t believe that it is a right that evolves from the constitution, I also don’t object to people owning guns within reasonable limits. But to elevate gun ownership to some ideal of homeric bravery, or some sacred bond with the earth, or however you idiots describe it, only works against you. Almost anyone who’s ever been in danger has probably wished for a magic wand to even the odds and for most people that is a gun. To be honest, I’d rather fight someone off the old fashioned way or lose in the process, even if that means my death. Its a philosophical way of looking at things I don’t expect other people to understand, nor do I require you to, because my way of doing things requires no legislation. If you want to argue that guns make it safer for physically weak, not necessarily brave people to protect themselves, then do so. But jumping back and forth about how guns are necessary to defend oneself from stronger foes, while simultaneously imbuing the same weapon with some preternatural quality of courage or masculinity is simply as self-defeating as it is silly.
My very proper grandmother was a “lady” of her day (early 20th century), and always packed a top-break S&W revolver when she needed to travel unescorted. It was expected at that time that a lady was prepared to defend her honor, up to shooting an assailant or robber. As they were growing up I taught my children, both M and F, safe firearms handling and basic marksmanship, just because it’s a useful skill to have as an adult. As adults now, they are neither afraid of firearms, nor want to take them away from peaceable citizens.
Moho: Ad hominem doesn’t strengthen much less make an argument. You’re the one who is hedging or as you would have it, dodging: You begin with an absolute assertion “It is easier than using a knife or blunt object to kill someone”, and then begin to hedge in response, e.g. “in almost any instance”.
Well, Mr. Cramer, and many others with the knowledge noted earlier could imagine circumstances in which a revolver or pistol, for example, would not be ideal. To take one example, I’ll give the average person on the street a .22 revolver, and an average sized guy a baseball bat. At close range, I’d bet on the guy with the bat surviving the encounter. While it’s better to have a gun than not, it’s better to be armed appropriately, and better still to be armed and trained appropriately. Firearms aren’t death rays. Above all else, it takes training, but also a certain element of character, to use firearms effectively in stressful situations. This is common knowledge to a great many people, but that knowledge is not reflected in your comments I’ve noted, Moho. Your arguments continue to reflect your ignorance. Your last paragraph may reflect your own prejudice, but it reflects nothing present in either Mr. Cramer’s comments or my own.
Along with your assertion that most bullets pass through walls. Nice citation on that one.
Moho, what I said was that handgun bullets will pass through exterior housing walls in much of the country. I know this from experimentation. A friend was having a house built some years ago in California. We constructed some sections of wall, six interior walls thick and one exterior wall. Then we fired various handguns through the walls. The 9mm rounds in FMJ and JHP went through all six interior walls and the exterior wall, and disappeared into the ground behind. Even .380 ACP, in either FMJ or JHP, easily penetrated all walls.
Now, brick, masonry–probably another matter. But in much of America, we use gypsum board and wooden exteriors–and anything but a .22 LR will penetrate readily.
To take one example, I’ll give the average person on the street a .22 revolver, and an average sized guy a baseball bat. At close range, I’d bet on the guy with the bat surviving the encounter. While it’s better to have a gun than not, it’s better to be armed appropriately, and better still to be armed and trained appropriately.
Really, that’s a hilarious assertion based on absolutely no evidence, except your “bet”. My point, that it is easier to shoot someone than club them to death is as apparent as the fact that it is easier to walk 20 miles than drive it. It requires no evidence, its simply self-evident. Such an argument requires no proof but relies on a certain level of applicable intelligence on the part of the counterpart to the argument.
I am about to call you an idiot, but that is not part of my argument. The fact that you are stupid has nothing to do with the fact that you presented an absurd argument in your defense; now that its been dealt with and dispatched:
Idiot.
Its an empirically probable fact that in almost any instance killing someone with a gun is easier, in terms of effort and time, than doing so with a hand held weapon.
Doubtless. But the limiting factor for the vast majority of people isn’t “effort and time” but that they have been raised to believe that it is wrong. Now, a culture that spends a lot of time telling everyone that right and wrong are culturally relative might find guns a problem, because there will then be lots of people who will decide, “You know, I would like to $500 in my pocket, but I am too lazy to work. I’ll just go rob someone at the liquor store. If I have to kill him, so what? His life isn’t worth anything, and there’s nothing intrinsically right or wrong about murder, is there?”
I can see why liberals are terrified of guns. They believe fundamentally that there is nothing right or wrong–just what you can get away with–and a society that actually buys into those liberal values will be extraordinarily violent.
I am fortunate to live in a society filled with knuckle-dragging antiques who raise their children to follow the Ten Commandments. Enlightened, liberal societies such as California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., don’t bother with those antiquated ideas–and they are hellholes of murder, rape, and robbery as a result.
Mr. Cramer extends to you the courtesy of assuming some measure of good faith, and reasonable intelligence, in your argumentation…
No, I just give him enough rope to intellectually hang himself. It’s not difficult. Moho’s frequent use of abusive language suggests to me that he probably lacks the self-control to possess a firearm without misusing it. (Of course, many people are reasonably polite in person, but turn into flaming Mohos on the Internet.)
I think a lot of why many people get so insistent that gun possession makes everyone violent and aggressive is projection: they are convinced that they couldn’t carry a gun without turning every minor disagreement into murder–and therefore the unwashed masses certainly aren’t even at their level. There are people like that.
On the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, we occasionally post news articles of persons whose actions were technically legal, but you want to say, “You fool. Couldn’t you have de-escalated this confrontation before it led to a gun fight?” But those circumstances are remarkably rare. Overwhelmingly, the cases that we find in news accounts involve people who had no realistic choice but the use of deadly force–and a surprisingly high number of cases where the victim could have legally shot the attacker, but instead merely held the criminal for the police.
It’s not difficult. Moho’s frequent use of abusive language suggests to me that he probably lacks the self-control to possess a firearm without misusing it.
Really? Talk about rope. I do know one thing, judging someone’s real life demeanor by how they comport themselves on line has to be the stupidest thing anyone can do. You know nothing about me, I have friends who own guns but would never want to take them out of the house, simply because they find that an ugly thing to parade in public. They are apparently not so afraid of some unidentified boogeyman jumping out of the shadows, though the fact is they are probably quite a few times more likely to encounter such an individual than the majority of cul de saced paranoiacs writing here.
And yes, I do insult you people, because I’m exasperated by the lazy thinking you people present here. Our country is mired in two wars that you people voted for and continue to support though our children will be paying for them forever, you slept while our infrastructure fell apart for the last decade. Your fixation is on guns while your rights to privacy and imprisonment with trial have been slowly eroded by precedent over the last two decades. And your stupid fixation on Islam, which you obviously know little about except the comforting bigoted mythologies that make you feel better about your own decaying society. Yes, stupid hardly covers it. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with calling someone stupid if you believe they are. I’ve never called someone stupid in this forum who was not demonstrably so. Doing so is the only way to tell certain individuals that they lack the capacity to reason; its always up to that individual to acquire that skill, though few here seem willing to endure the pain of reading a newspaper regularly in order to do so.
Lastly, I’ve never said that gun ownership makes EVERYONE violent, that’s your invention and a distraction that you find easier to attack than the actual point I’ve made. In every single post I’ve made it clear that people who want to kill people find it easier to do so with a gun; more murders are committed with guns than any other weapon. That is not because more assaults occur with guns, but because assault with a gun is more likely to end in death than any other weapon. The majority of spousal murder is committed with a gun, think about that.
Finally, I don’t care if you have guns nor if you shove their barrels up your bunghole. Do what you want in the privacy of your own home with your weapon. All things that can cause death by accident are regulated you idiots, that’s why people don’t drive their cars on sidewalks, even though it would sometimes be more convenient and that’s why people aren’t allowed to light fires in the middle of national forests, even though they have the right to carry lighters.
Nno one’s trying to take away your guns you babbling babies. All I see is a bunch of people out to make themselves victims the only way they can.
“My point, that it is easier to shoot someone than club them to death is as apparent as the fact that it is easier to walk 20 miles than drive it. It requires no evidence, its simply self-evident.”
No Moho, this was not your point. This was: “It is easier than using a knife or blunt object to kill someone; there is no method of murder easier short of an unmanned drone.”
You need to keep your random thoughts straight. My response was to your assertion that it is easier to “kill” or as you put it “murder” someone with a gun than with a blunt object or a knife. My response was “it all depends”. And indeed, it does all depend on a number of variables (which was why I described your “points” as vacuous). That is an empirical truth with plenty of experience and data to back it. That was the point of my example to which you seem to object.
Do a little research for once before you write. Check on the relative effect of gunshot wounds by handgun caliber, in particular; further, check on the effect of barrel length on accuracy and accuracy by model and make and add to that a check on the effect of stress in accuracy.
Moho, I’m happy to let you ramble on and on, losing track of your own writing, knowing that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of firearms sees you as profoundly ignorant. To me, that’s amusing. By all means, continue.
(Yes Mr. Cramer, I’ve understood for some time that you lend folks all the rope necessary for them to hang themselves. Great sport actually.)
All of the regulation in the world doesn’t stop or diminish criminal activity. A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon that can mow people down and if someone decides to break the law and do just that, there is no stopping that person’s intent other than trying to get law enforcement on the scene to stop the carnage.
There are still people who get drunk and drive and people who don’t have car insurance and have their licenses revoked and still pose a danger to others on the road.
Laws are only for law-abiding citizens.
Perhaps our country should abort criminals rather than paying for them to live in a jail cell and learn how to commit more crimes via their cellmates. Recidivism after release from incarceration is an insidious problem and the Leftist idiocy that these inhuman blights on society can somehow be rehabilitated is a joke.
Mr. Cramer,
Let me add my personal thanks for maintaining a fine example of decorum in response to much foolishness from the likes of Moho, to name one example. Your commentary and response are refreshing as well as informative.
Thanks too for the pointer to the Civilian Gun Self-defense blog. I did not know of it, but it’s bookmarked now.
“continue to support though our children will be paying for them forever”
Actually, they’ll be paying for the stimulus and the public option forever, with an ever-shrinking remnant of the wealth they could have created had it not been for cap and trade.
But nice try.
“Guns were made so that any fool, regardless of moral…could be conscripted into service.”
HA! Those Huns were real moral people I tell you. But I see why you’d say that. You seem to be the “I know best, everyone kneel to me” type of moron that seems to infect societies after a period of calcification – the idea of warrior elites able to impose their will on the weak probably appeals to you.
There’s a reason why guns are called the “great equalizer.” They democratized the ability to compel by force – which unfortunately is an ability necessary to exist as free men (that bit hasn’t changed since the dawn of time, as the Athenians told the Miletians).
CLAYTON CRAMER: Let’s look at ultimate motivations,MOHO is a liberal,ie: a crypto stalinist.Like all would be GULAG promoters ,he knows his ultimate dream of turning this nation into another Cuba, will never be realzed until the American people are disarmed.All his anti-gun drivel is just easily-refuted claptrap designed to disguise his true intentions.The phrase:”public safety,”in the mouth of a liberal,is lie the phrase “democratic party”,both lies to camouflage power grabs.
#75 MOHO’s mouth frothed:”IDIOT” Calling the kettle black are we?
51. Clayton E. Cramer:
’10. Jane: “I have been a firearms fanatic since a kid 48 years ago. Watching Gene Autry kick the snot out of the bad guys as he taught the value of morals was what most of us grew up on.”
“Too bad you didn’t watch Roy Rogers and Dale Evans: “Be good to your enemies / and the Blessed Lord you’ll surely please. / How do I know? / The Bible tells me so.”
‘And this leads you to what conclusion?’
It’s a Christian thing. You wouldn’t understand.
Nno one’s trying to take away your guns you babbling babies.
Actually, that’s been the stated purpose of a number of gun control advocates, including Michael Gartner, then president of NBC News, and Charles Krauthammer.
‘And this leads you to what conclusion?’
It’s a Christian thing. You wouldn’t understand.
Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.
Now I know Ms. Palin won’t allow so much as a cell phone at her events. But howza bout somebody shows up with a loaded hand gun strapped to their thigh? Or maybe an AK47 slung stylishly over their shoulder? That’d be OK, Im sure, given she’s a huntress and all. What do you say folks, that be alright? Think Sarah would allow that? I mean, a cell phone, sure I can see the mortal danger that represents, but a good old 2nd Amendment hog leg, come one, whaddya say. Everybody good with that?
You now have my permission to start your gymnastic rationalizing.
CC wrote, “Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.
CC wrote, “Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.”
Yes, it is the minority view, for sure, but that is one of the central paradoxes of Christianity, that most just conveniently ignore a lot of Jesus’ teachings, which are just too damned hard to follow. Instead, they praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Hey, why not pick and choose the part of any religion that one wants to follow. I would do it inn a heartbeat, but most Christians aren’t so good about admitting their selectiveness in this area. “If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” What do Christians do with that line?
At any rate, I haven’t heard any responses to my question about the gun-carrying rights of Muslim Americans. Do I hear an “Amen” for Muslim-American Second Amendment rights? And their freedom of speech? Hmmmm
Dwight, Constitutional rights apply to all citizens except as those rights may be abridged, for example, by reason of felony conviction or mental defect. Why you would think, as your note seems to suggest, that Mr. Cramer, for instance, would think otherwise, is beyond me. But by all means do tell.
87. Clayton E. Cramer: “pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.”
“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Mr Cramer seems to be a relatively reasonable guy, but many of the posters on these gun threads passionately affirm the absolute nature of our constitutional rights, but now that we have Mr Hasan who apparently abused those rights, the obvious question arises: when and for whom should those rights be abridged BEFORE a crime is committed? If the answer is NEVER, then say it.
I think that “politically correct” is going to cut both ways in this case from what Mr Hasan said and the response to it, to his going to the gun shop, etc. Is there something which Mr Hasan said or did which should have triggered his NOT being able to make the purchases at the gun shop? This question undoubtedly deserves a separate thread, so maybe Mr Cramer will write a new column addressing this issue.
Tough question, eh?
Not a tough question at all, Dwight. This thread simply has grown cold. (I’ve no idea if you’ll see this.) Mr. Cramer can speak or write for himself. But with Heller v DC establishing an individual right in the 2nd Amendment an interpretation affirmed by 9 justices with disagreement primarily on the DC law as it impacted that right and with most now expecting NRA v Chicago to result in incorporation of the individual rights interpretation via the Privilges and Immunities and the 14th Amendment, there’s will be no question of Hasan’s right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity.
Odysseus wrote “there’s will be no question of Hasan’s right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity.”
Yeah, the thread has grown cold, but do you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be “removed from his position” that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms?
I think that you are saying, yes, he could still purchase firearms , but no, he could not be in the military. Maybe none of it is a tough question, but it leads us to a position, and maybe it is simply a necessary cost of our freedom that one can worship at a mosque, espouse jihad, and still purchase as many firearms as you or I.
Dwight, you asked, “(D)o you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be “removed from his position” that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms?”
If he were judged to be mentally impaired then it’s possible his rights to ownership could be abridged: (http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/3/330) contains a bit of this history in the beginning, I think. But, Hasan was surrounded by mental health pro’s none of whom seemed concerned enough to take action: This will make an insanity defense, rather interesting, I think.
But of course, legal ownership and possession are two different things. I think, I would agree with the conclusion you draw in your last paragraph; but would add that there is no escape from the responsibility of being honest and aware of threats that do exist. The tragedy in this case came to be for lack of honesty that professionalism, at the very least, should have mandated.
I think the best reason to hold off on judgements about this issue is pure self-interest. Cramer is revealed now to have jumped to conclusions before all the facts were out and writing a hagiographic account of an incident that never happened. It was Munley’s partner who brought down Hasan, and he brought him down in an extremely professional manner–shooting to wound and incapacitate, and calmly disarming the suspect. The man deserves an apology from those who sought to obscure him from the account.