The Tucson Shooting: a Reminder to Arm Yourself
When Jared Loughner opened fire in Tucson on January 8, six people were killed and fourteen injured. No matter where you were sitting, as the 24-hour news carried the details of the story, the world seemed almost to stop spinning. The raw evil of what Loughner had done was simply too great for decent, law abiding citizens to comprehend.
Sadly, it didn’t take long for various talking heads on the left to see the shooting as just another crisis that could be used to further their agenda: tightening gun control, besmearing the Tea Party, and destroying Sarah Palin. For instance, within 48 hours of the shooting, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) promised to introduce stricter gun control legislation as soon as her staff could draw it up, the Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy affixed blame to the Tea Party, and uber-leftist Paul Krugman disgraced himself as one of the shrillest voices placing the blame on Palin.
Lost in these attempts to gain political points by placing blame on someone other than the shooter is the clearest lesson of the Tucson shooting: that we must take responsibility for our own lives — and be prepared to defend those lives with weapons we carry for protection.
Far from serving as fodder for the anti-gunners (save as they pervert the story to make it fit their template), the shooting in Tucson reminds us that when the criminal mind acts on its inclinations, its would-be victims must be prepared to take the necessary steps to stop the perpetrator in his tracks. Clearly, this is best achieved by lawfully carrying a handgun on our persons: a handgun with which we are familiar, and which we are willing to use to defend our own lives and the lives of other innocents.
If anyone thinks I go too far in positing a handgun as the best means of self-defense, consider Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s explanation for why that court famously overturned handgun bans in Washington, D.C., and Chicago: “We held that individual self defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right [to keep and bear arms]. …[And] we found that this right applies to handguns because they are ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.’”
Alito’s words rang in my head as I was eating lunch in a restaurant with my family on the afternoon of January 8, watching the television on the wall as news of the shooting poured in. My youngest daughter, who knows I legally carry a concealed pistol everyday, looked at me and asked: “Dad, would you have stopped him?” I explained to her that while I couldn’t say for sure I would have stopped him, I certainly would have been prepared to stop him and would have had absolutely no qualms about shooting a criminal who threatened the lives of my family and/or myself.
My wife and I carry 24/7 at least two guns, one primary and the other a BUG.
That said, I seriously doubt that even a team of SF guys would have been able to prevent this madman from starting to shoot in a middle of crowd. Yes, he’d have been neutralized in rapid fashion, but what can you do in a few seconds?
The best tool against criminals is to avoid them. The gun is the last option.
Only some 4 % of Americans eligible to obtain a carry permit actually bother to go through the process. I think there ought not to be any process (Alaska and Vermont come to mind), but I’d like to see at least 10% of us carrying every day in any place.
This is the world we live in.
I suppose you have your permit to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Do you also have a permit to exercise your right to free speech?
damned right we do. It’s called the Constitution.
Let’s go to the source – The unanimous Declaration of Independence. That document supersedes the U.S. Constitution as it states who our sovereign is – God! We have inalienable rights that no person or government can take away if we’re “willing” to stand up and be counted. Stand up! Be counted! Be heard loud and clear – Don’t Tread on Me!
Citizen Authority
In Vindiciam Libertatis | Defend Liberty
I try to comply with the laws of the land. As much as it pisses me off to have to obtain a permit to carry from the government, I’ll do it – and I suggest every other American does it as well.
You one of those who break the laws and carry illegally?
One day we hopefully get our Constitution restored; until that day arrives, I obey the law of the tyrants.
“…I seriously doubt that even a team of SF guys would have been able to prevent this madman from starting to shoot in a middle of crowd.”
We can’t prevent 100% of fires from starting and burning things up but I carry a fire extinguisher on my boat and have a few strategically placed inside my house to put out the fire and limit the damage.
Like a fire, a nut job (all inclusive) with a gun can and must be stopped with equal or greater force… period, end of discussion. Once the shooting starts they won’t be stopped or deterred by a loud voice or smooth talking. Put out the fire with the right tool for the job.
There’s an old saying, “I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy.”
I could not agree more. I was a big Science Fiction reader as a young fella and Robert Heinlien was my favorite author. He said in one or more of his books, “An armed society is a polite society.” I still believe that to be true. If everyone, or at least a high enough percentage, of the populace were armed manners and formal rules of polite discourse would become the norm. Misunderstandings could lead to tragedy. Sure, there would be accidents and unintended shootings but the actual total numbers of deaths through violence would decrease.
As the old saying goes, “God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.”
I’ve seen fights at baseball games, football games, hockey games, basketball games, car races, but never have I seen or heard of a fight at a shooting match. If there had ever been one, you know the MSM would have been all over it like a nest of ants on a cake crumb at a picnic.
Another place you will never see a fight is at a gun show. I have been attending gun shows several time a year for over 30 years and I have never see any sort of fight at one of these shows. I have also taken guests with me to some of these gun shows and they invariably comment that they have never seen people so polite to oneanother. Many people who attend gun shows, including myself, carry a pistol – but recently the police at the door force us to empty the weapon & strap it while inside, which is a good idea because there has been an occasional accident. The typical attendee at a gun show usually carries a bunch of cash, but strangely, I have never heard of any gun show attendee being accosted on the street and mugged. Of course when coming or going, his gun is always loaded and ready, and the muggers seem to know this.
When dueling was legal and then illegal in Europe, it got so out of hand that even more strict measures had to be taken. An armed society is not a polite society. Look at road rage and imagine them all armed.
You’re talking about Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon”; great novel but there’s a reason it’s called science fiction.
Nonsense. Look at the data that John Lott compiled and you’ll see that concealed carry permit holders commit weapons offenses at a minuscule rate. A link to his book is cited in another of my posts on this thread.
With “road-rage” you’ve already got a weapon at your disposal…it’s called a motor-vehicle.
“Look at road rage and imagine them all armed.”
Many drivers ARE armed–I’m one of them.
But I’m sure you have plenty of evidence to back up your claim of guns being a factor in road rage incidents.
How many times has a gun been a factor in post-accident altercation between drivers?
Looking forward to seeing your data.
(P.S. I already know the answer…)
“An armed society is not a polite society.”
I agree. I think Bob Heinlein got that one wrong.
A polite society is a society where only SOME people are armed, like in Japan for example.
They evolved an ultra-polite society because for generations only the lords and their henchmen were allowed arms, and any peasant who resisted them or mouthed off in the slightest, got their head cut off. Those are the conditions that create a polite society.
In America, we’re rude as hell, because every man with a .44 is a lord and doesn’t have to bow down or kiss up to anybody, unless he (or she) feels like bowing down. If some Samurai tells me to step aside so a better man can pass, I’ll just pull out my popgun and tell him to kiss my ass.
At least, that’s my theory.
Japan developed manners to deal with crowded conditions, not fear of the upper classes or of each other.
Those that I know who carry guns ARE more polite than others. They frequently say that carrying obliges them to be polite and show restraint.
If you would be one of the rare ones who felt that a gun gave you the power to assert yourself in an unsuitable manner, please do not get a gun, andplease do not project your attitude on the polite majority of CCW holders.
“Japan developed manners to deal with crowded conditions”
Sure they did. No doubt that explains why New Yorkers are so polite.
IOW, possible, but I doubt it.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with Heinlein’s adage, in “Beyond This Horizon” he was referencing a different type of society than what we have, in which a person could be held personally responsible for his words and actions – via dueling – and the person who was not prepared to defend his actions was either considered a woman or a child(“Liberated” women in this story carried their own weapons, instead of being defended by all the males present).
As when we teach our children to be polite (those of us who do teach our children to be polite), when there are perceived negative consequences to being rude, people tend to be polite to one another. The bully with the .44 cal pistol will tend to be less rude when around others who are equally well armed and prepared to defend themselves. And that, of course, is the point.
Gentlemen, while I don’t disagree with your premise, in fairness I think we have to acknowledge that there is a certain amount of pre-selection that goes on in gun shows and shooting events. There is a certain class of people there, with certain values in common.
These events are not just a collection of random people with a lot of guns thrown into the mix.
Of course, there IS some element of undesirables there (gangbangers, for example), but they are very much in the minority.
An excellent example of the immaturity and dishonesty of the gun-control proponents can be found in the recent thread at this link http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/a-right-to-bear-glocks/#comment-70204
Just went and read that link and about 50 of the comments. There are a whole raft of disillusional people over there!!!
How can anyone link a nutjob who is obsessed with lucid dreaming and mind control with anything in the recent public domain and not first and foremost mention the Hollywood movie, “Inception”? This guys web pages are almost an advertisement for the film and do not even refer obliquely to Sarah Palin or any other conservative.
One of the great surprises of the development of shall issue permit laws is how few actual defensive incidents there have been. Much of the benefit has been deterrence. Deterrence, unfortunately, does not work so well with someone who is prepared to die, as is the norm for the psychotic mass murderer.
Still, better to be armed, and in a position to shoot at an attacker under these circumstances than to sit there unable to take any action at all.
Anyone who doesn’t believe this should google Luby’s Restaurant.
Still, better to be armed, and in a position to shoot at an attacker under these circumstances than to sit there unable to take any action at all.
You say that as if a citizen without a gun is helpless and unable to take action. As I understand it, it was exactly *unarmed* people who stopped Loughner’s rampage. A woman grabbed hold of the high capacity magazine Loughner was trying to reload with, then others else helped her restrain Loughner….
Let me emphasize that I am *not* trying to argue against people being able to arm themselves; I’m just making the point that people who aren’t carrying firearm can – and do – still defend themselves. I expect that shooting Loughner from a distance would certainly have felt safer to the people who restrained him without guns and would therefore have been more desireable.
Not true. Joe Zamudio was a CHL, and was armed, but opted to tackle him instead of shooting. I wager that CHL attracts more of a certain type of person than the base population…. sheepdogs, and all that.
I just read the bit in the NY daily news about Mr Joe Zamudio.
I strongly suspect that if he had actually been at the original shooting location rather than arriving after the lunatic’s weapon was empty and he had been tackled, that he would have happily shot the mad-man on the spot.
Shame that there was no one closer who was armed.
@Henry Reardon
While it is technically true that the other people present during the attack in safeway defended themselves they had to wait until the one moment Loughner was vulnerable, when he had ejected his first magazine and was about to reload, and then it was only because the one woman had the presence of mind to snatch the second magazine away before he could load it that prevented him from continuing his killing spree. Had another person present also been armed and prepared to use his gun it may not have prevented the shooter from starting but the casualty count would surely have been greatly reduced.
The lack of defensive shootings surprised and puzzled me as well. I was certain that the criminals would have to have reality shoved down their throats.
The psychotic mass murderer, though… He wants to kill at least a magazine load of people before he gets stopped. He is very unlikely to start something where he will be stopped quickly. Loughner knew from observation that, in spite of the laws permitting people to carry, few did, at least in a grocery store parking lot.
(“Gee, to you right wingnuts really think you need a /GUN/ in Walmart?” Ahhhh, yup.)
I agree with many of the sentiments on Pajama Media but as a non-American I simply cannot understand the American fetish with firearms. In my view no private individual needs a gun, if you have one you will use it sooner or later. Coming from the UK where even the regular police are unarmed and now living in Israel, I had never seen a real gun until I left Britain. It came as quite a shock to the system to see firearms routinely carried by even security guards. Maybe it’s just the difference in cultures.
Yours is a very strange world view. The English shed a lot of blood to gain their rights (including the common law right to be armed)via the Magna Carta. . . then they let the government take the right away. . . then they fought for it again and had it enshrined in the English Bill of Rights. . . then they let the government take it away. Then the Nazi’s threatened to invade. And members of parliment took out adds in the magazine published by the NRA begging for American civilians to give them guns since theirs were abandoned at Dunkirk.
It is amazing given what the Jews’ own government did to them in Germany that any Jew would question the absolute necessity of being armed.
The American “fetish”, sir, is with freedom and self determination, neither of which are even a possibility without arms. Of course, the British hatred of American civilians’ guns goes way, way back.
“Of course, the British hatred of American civilians’ guns goes way, way back.”
To Kings Mountain, Cowpens, Bennington and a hundred other hallowed places.
“Then the Nazi’s threatened to invade. And members of parliment took out adds in the magazine published by the NRA begging for American civilians to give them guns since theirs were abandoned at Dunkirk.”
A similar dynamic occurred during World War II with Japan. A Japanese leader was asked after the war about the relative lack of American preparedness (the small size of the 1941 army) and why no invasion or other ground attack of the West Coast was mounted. Reportedly the answer was “We were not fools. We knew of the millions of guns in civilian hands in the U.S.”.
“The American “fetish”, sir, is with freedom and self determination, neither of which are even a possibility without arms.”
APPLAUSE!!!
Standing ovation, actually!
That’s OK, Brian, if you do not wish to carry. Many people have no business carrying one, given their just as likely proclivity for having others take care of their security needs in other ways as well. We have a military which quietly maintains global security; we have LEO’s who are also rough men who stand ready to do tough things on your behalf so you can rest relatively comfortably at night.
Others far more intellectually mature than you already provide your security for you, knowing too many of you fail to understand, and will likely never understand, that your security, however fragile, is one of your fundamental responsibilities to yourself and your loved ones. A mother nurtures, a father protects and teaches self-defense.
Bees,wasps and hornets are always armed and we avoid stirring them up.
Who is violent? None of the above is likely to attack unless their nest is in danger. Most varieties are not belligerent but will defend their home. I have been thinking on this subject. We have a very good example that is available to anyone wishing to check it out.
Read the books of Samuel of how Saul was chosen to be King and then David and how Saul later tried to kill David and how David honored Saul. David was a man of war so he could not build the temple but was he violent? In the sense that Saul was? These armed citizens are not violent people but they can become violent when the aggressor insists on it. That is what I have been reading to this point. People do get killed by lightening but is is rare. People do get get killed by these loughners but that is about as often as getting killed by lightening. They are much less of a problem than those who make an issue of their means and methods.Peace and violence are products of the heart, not products of the tool they choose whether it be a rock or a jet. The evidence say this was planned and premeditated. Maybe we can find out the planning behind it and whether it was on his own initiative or that of an agitator.
John Lott’s meticulous research demonstrates that having even a small percentage of citizens carrying concealed handguns works as a generalized deterrence against thuggery. Only leftists, with their delusional conception of what human nature is, would be surprised.
See Lott’s book here http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_20?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=more+guns+less+crime&sprefix=more+guns+less+crime
Brian, since their gun ban, violent crime in Britain has risen. Same for Australia. Please read my latest: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/giffords-shot-now-a-word-from-our-gun-control-sponsors%e2%80%a6/
As for Israel, it is one of the most armed countries in the world. When they liberalized concealed carry, terrorists stopped attacking schools. So armed deterrence works. There’s an excellent article by Dave Kopel on this:
http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp
As for your “fetish” allegation, that’s term used by people projecting from a mind consumed over the concept of a physical tool like a gun. Many people, not having familiarized themselves with firearms, are afraid of them. They project this fear on the physical tool, and upon those who employ it. The professional term for this is hoplophobia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
The best cure in most cases is to go shooting with somebody who’s a trained instructor. My wife and I run classes for new women shooters called Women on Target. Nearly all the ladies end up having a lot of fun.
What you need to understand is that self-defense is a civil right, and that civil rights are only as valid as your ability to protect them. Thus, the Second Amendment had two original intents: defense against violent criminals, and defense against a government run amok.
If you honestly read history, you will see these themes played out with unfortunate regularity.
These are the reasons why America exists. For those who are uncomfortable with this, there are many countries, like England, where people can live in the mistaken belief that gun control makes them safer, surrounded by people of the same delusional mindset.
I hope you can consider these things, so you can continue living in Israel, knowing that you will be passing many people carrying concealed handguns every time you are on the street, and knowing that the fact they are there is the reason why you have a better chance of carrying out your public business without suffering a terrorist attack.
Mr. Nemerov,
I would like to give you an idea for an article that would highlight the gun-control advocates intellectual dishonesty by featuring an example of a double-standard with regard to considering scientific evidence. If you would like further details, contact me at the email address filed with this comment or at “jayjourneyman AT hotmailDOTcom.”
Best Regards.
Some people cannot be trusted to handle a hammer without injuring themselves.
Brian, it appears you are living with your head up your ass. Police in England do carry as required. “In my view … if you have one you will use it …” What makes you qualified to judge? Try doing some research. Your prejudice and ignorance are typical.
Brian,
I hope you will reconsider your distain for the American gun “fetish” the next time you and your family hear a strange noise in the house at 2 am. Remember that even with a panicked call to the police, the police are 10 minutes away, while the bad guy is 1 minute away.
I would not worry because my gun is 1 second away.
Exactly right.
Since when is it a “fetish” to want to protect oneself, their loved ones and even a neighbor or stranger should the need arise?
Oh…Gawd…what…WHAT is wrong with these simple minded fools…( as if the cops appear instantly ) like in the movie “Minority Report” to relieve and protect them from any responsibility to protect themselves?
Are they living on an “Avatar” world? Are they so idiotic and naive that they actually believe that cops really care about their survival? Guess what idiots…the Cops care first and foremost ..ultimately care about their own assess…their own survival. Why blame them? Why would you sacrifice your life for a chicano, illegal SOB that hated your ass? Cause you’re a white cop…or a black cop..or a chicano cop?
Hey….criminals rule in America….and defending your self against these scum…..is why we have a 2nd Amendment.
They really don’t give a rats ass about you…who they will draw a chalk mark around.That’s your real importance to a cop.
But…to your family and survivors…the fact that you obliterated and dispatched a scumbag, criminal piece of sheeit to the gates of hell…and saved them from death for a few bucks to buy a new bag….is what matters.
Hey…buy a few rounds….forget the freakin’ cops…they won’t be there for you…ever.
Brian stated “In my view no private individual needs a gun, if you have one you will use it sooner or later.”
I use my gun(s) often. I use them to take waterfowl as well as upland game birds for my table. I use my rifles to take moose, caribou, and deer for the table as well. I use a very large revolver to protect myself while salmon fishing in case I encounter a grizzly bear that decides it wants to eat me. I use a .22 semi auto to take small game when I am hunting for large game. I use several semi auto pistols to make lots of holes in paper targets.
So yes I have a gun, or two, I do use them, sooner and later.
But we all know that that is not what you were talking about. You have assumed that if I have a gun I will use it to kill another human being. You have assumed correctly. I will do that.
However, I will not use it to kill some random person that has caused me some personal affront. I won’t shoot you for not answering my question at a townhall meeting. I won’t shoot you for taking a parking spot I was lining up for. I won’t shoot you for stepping into my fishing hole while I was rebaiting my hook. I will use it to kill a criminal that thought it was a good idea to kick in my door and harm my family. I will use it to kill someone that is harming another person in a way that will result in their death.
When it comes to being questioned about the American gun culture and how many people die from firearms each year, I always reply back “What about cars?” 3,000 to 4,000 people die from firearms related injuries each year in the US. 30,000 to 40,000 die from vehicle related injuries each year. The simple math clearly shows that cars are many times more deadly than guns and thus need to be removed from our society immediately. That is if the government actually cared about the subject of people dieing they would take our cars away from us.
Ray…you’re my damn hero. Well said…well done. You have said well…what we all feel about guns, individual protection and the usage of guns for survival, food and the protection of our selves and family.
Bravo.
“Maybe it’s just the difference in cultures.”
The European/Old World culture has a drawback though. Your governments have all the guns and every generation or two they like to get together and slaughter folks by the millions, or even tens of millions ,in either gigantic wars, or in mass purges of unmarmed and helpless people, like those carried out by the Nazis or the Communists.
A horrible atrocity here is a half dozen people shot at a supermarket or a few dozen Indians (including a few women and children) killed in an incident like the one at Sand Creek. Probably, the worst atrocity in U.S. history was when our kindly old Democrat Party ran the Cherokee Indians and other tribes off their lands in the 19th century. Around 4,000 Cherokee Indians are estimated to have died (mostlty from illness and hunger) when they were forced to walk from Georgia to Oklahoma without adequate food or medical supplies.
A horrible atrocity in Europe is 25 million people murdered in cold blood by the Nazis over the space of just a few years (that’s not counting WWII casualties…that’s just people who were flat out executed).
All other things being equal, I think I prefer our culture. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damned sight better than the Old World.
It’s not a fetish.
It is not a fetish, Brian. Do you know that after the outbreak of WWII, British citizens were placing classified advertisements in US papers in an attempt to arm themselves.
There are several good reasons to own firearms, but the most important is that individual freedom is not free. Individual freedom is a concept that is completely foreign to the collectivist mentality, but I will try by saying that what is good for society is not more important than what is good for the person. The greater good occurs as a result of the constructive activities of individuals.
You are mistaken, sir! Many an English ‘Bobby’ is now armed, especially those in the major population centers. Seems as if they recognized that if “guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns” and armed themselves. You might also note that the population itself is tired of being defenseless and there is a movement, gaining strength daily, for the citizenry to own guns once again. For the same reason as the bobbies. (And not a few are concerned about the growth of “home-grown terrorists”.)
You are so right in so many ways. Try living in my state, New Jersey, where it’s almost impossible owning anything that even looks like a gun. Try getting a straight answer from any law enforcement officer on what type of gun you CAN own, even if you keep it in your own home. Laws not only vary from county to county, but from town to town as well. So much for my Second Amendment rights. Just one of the many reasons so many people are moving out of this state.
Yep. Since moving to NJ I bought the guns I now shoot at the range. Since I legally bought them in NJ, I have some confidence (not complete) that they are legal here. What I bought previously remain locked away until I escape from here.
If restrictive and draconian laws reach a point where one must either go about unarmed and legal, or armed and illegal, which is the more rational choice? Magical thinking excepted of course.
Lots of people think the anti-gun laws in Europe are just wonderful. Well, the bad guys will always have guns, and for the rest goes that the weapons of choice there are knives. The violence isn’t any less.
GUN THREAD!!!!!
Hey what do PJM people carry concealed. I like the Kimber 1911 SIS Ultra 3″. It is smaller and I have a smaller hand and it packs a .45 wallop.
I’m strongly thinking of NOT taking a new job in Illinois due to the gun laws. Also, I’d have a long commute to Chicagoland from Wisconsin or Indiana to avoid the new 66% increase in the Illinois State Income Tax.
The people leading that state appear to be trying to DE-populate it. Strange.
I carry a Beretta Tomcat, model 3032, in 32 caliber with hollowpoints. Fits in my pocket very nicely, seems to be very reliable and has the nice feature that you don’t have to rack the slide to insert or remove a round from the chamber. And no, I don’t have a permit. You don’t need a right to exercise your rights. If arrested I will fight it to the supreme court if necessary.
Taurus 24/7 in .45 ACP. It has a 12 round mag, and a decocker. I researched pistols for about six weeks, and had it down to a Taurus or a Sig P220. While I like the 1911A1 model well enough, cocked and locked makes me nervous for IWB carry. Both the Taurus and Sig have decockers. I am very happy with my new pistol. It is accurate and the recoil is low for a .45. It was also less than half the price of the Sig.
I then researched holsters, and bought a Tucker “Silent Thunder.” It is leather lined Kydex. Excellent holster.
I live in Washington State, and getting the concealed carry permit was easy and cheap.
My daily carry is a 9MM KelTec. It’s light and fits in my back pocket and is a powerful little weapon. It kicks like a mule though. I’m a big fan of the 1911A and sometimes carry my Para but more often than not I use that pistol at the range. Depending on where I’m travelling and the threat risk I’ll pack my .45 Springfield XD which holds 14 rounds but I’m not as accurate with that pistol as I am with the 1911. I can drive nails at 50 feet with my Para.
Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver, hollow-point, at bedside. Smith & Wesson .38 Airweight, hollow-point, in the car, transferred to purse when out and about. Hope to get a Taurus judge for the car and use .410 shells.
Am an excellent marksman; been shooting for >20 years.
AZ resident; concealed-carry — without a permit, passed into law last summer. Permit necessary for carrying when entering certain establishments. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html
As an old retired guy & former US Army Ordnance officer, I would recommend that anyone without actual combat experience carry only a revolver as a concealed carry weapon. I taught firearms training and know from experience that anyone who is a novice at being in danger should realize that his fingers will NOT work properly when scared s**tless. If you are carrying a semi-auto pistol, when accosted by a bad guy you will suddenly find your brain is disconnected from your hands, & you will most likely jam your pistol when you try to rack a round into the chamber – unless you habitually carry your semi-auto with a round up the spout. In fact you will be lucky if you don’t drop your weapon as you try to bring it into action. Therefore I recommend to all my assoiates that a .357 revolver such as the Ruger SP-101, or a Taurus Judge .410 ga revolver, is the best thing to carry or have at home for self defense. You won’t need the huge magazine capacity of these newer semi-automatics, because 1 round of .357 or .410 ga round will end the crisis; and those rounds are a lot more effective than a 9mm round – especially if that round is stovepiped in the chamber. All you need in a defensive handgun is something you can point and pull the trigger once, with the least amount of handling needed. Even if you miss, the typical bad guy will then be trying to surrender, but if not – your remaining 4 or 5 shots will be more than sufficient to end the discussion.
A Colt Trooper II in 357 Mag is my daily carry. No Permit, but been hauling this thing around for 40+ years and haven’t had it out in public yet. BUT it is there and ready and willing. I carry this exactly because of what you advocate!
Excellent advise, Occam. May I also suggest the new .327 Federal Magnum for people who cannot handle the recoil of a .357 Magnum. My wife can handle this caliber with a lot of confidence.
Wow. So I guess you would say the best defensive pistol for everyone without combat experience would be a single shot .357 or .410 (“because 1 round of .357 or .410 ga round will end the crisis”) which is equipped with a lanyard (“you will be lucky if you don’t drop your weapon as you try to bring it into action”). How condescending…I hope you don’t still do firearms training.
Sorry Fairbanks, I went with the Sig P220. I load it with 230 gr Remington Golden Saber JHPs. I carry it off body in an osprey shoulder bag with all the stuff I need when I’m lugging kids around, and never get a second look (and no- it’s not a man purse)
I like the Glock 36 subcompact .45
Machine gun jubblies (shhh).
Wilson Combat QCB 1911 plus a Khar PM9 and the wife carries a S&W model 60 38 special. Michigan residents both with CC permits. I pretty much carry or at least have a weapon nearby (car or in the house) all the time, the wife not so much.
Some of my favorite quotes concerning firearms, and Brian, your answer is here…
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
George Mason, 1788
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1776
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”
Noah Webster, 1787
“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, 1788
“The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed.”
Patrick Henry
“You mean to say that when an imbecile walks into a church, office, day care center, or school, stumbling about, almost zombie-like, with gun-filled hands at his side, blabbering incoherently to his next victim, and the reaction of grown men and women is to run, cry, whimper, and hide under a desk or pew? The sheeping of America is nearly complete.
How many more times are we going to cower under tables and chairs, whimpering like mindless dogs, thinking that someone else has the responsibility to save and protect us?” Ted Nugent
Advertising is good for corporations wanting to sell goods and services.
It’s not wise for individuals who carry a firearm.
Mark, if by advertising you are referring to people here posting what they carry I don’t see how that applies. If everyone visiting PJ actually knew each other, lived in the same town, etc., that would be one thing but the chances of me winning the lottery are greater than any of us ever actually running into each other. But I agree with the principle which is why even though Michigan and a number of other states have open carry, you will never see me doing so.
Gah! I meant to say you don’t need a permit to exercise a right. It’s not me, it’s my fingers that got mixed up…
The current Liberal/Left dialog is the most dangerous. It’s completely irresponsible and reckless. These are the precise people who cannot be trusted in any emergency situation, because they think SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF THEM.
Dupnik is running interference to cover his own dereliction of duty. Loughner has a known history with Dupnik’s department.
In the confusing situation at the scene of this crime, anyone brandishing a firearm could have been mistaken for the perpetrator, and been shot simply for having a weapon in plain sight.
Conceal/carry individuals have to be “on duty” and constantly vigilant as to their surroundings. The one man at this scene who had a concealed weapon, was visibly shaken, and unsure of drawing his own gun.
Strange, that people in America do not want to believe in God, but have faith in some idea less tangible.
It wasn’t that Joe Zamudio was overly shaken, he made the judgment call (properly, I believe) that drawing his firearm was not called for by the time he arrived. If he had been on the scene when the shooter started, that would be a different case. See posting below.
Very good article, good comments. But lets UNDERSTAND something! While we can ask (as many do in the comments), “why?” and state, “…the best defense” and discuss methodology, equipment, other countries and laws and percentages, it WILL MAKE NOT ONE IOTA of difference to those who oppose ‘reason’, ‘logic’ and common sense in these areas. Out here in CA (talk about draconian) we’ve shut down the most fertile Central Valley region (by denying them water to irrigate) and put multiple thousands of people out of work BECAUSE of a tiny ‘endangered’ species! Ridiculous! Outrageous! Stupid! But done and so far not changed. Same with the ‘anti-gunners’. Lott’s efforts, the Supreme Court, and common sense will not persuade or dissuade their onslaught and thinking! There is, within America today, a growing group that is all TOO willing to allow a creeping Fascism to enter the ‘ruling class’ (and it is a class!). Our government no longer answers to the PEOPLE. It also no longer answers to ‘common sense’, reason or logic as recent economical calamities demonstrate. I do not say ‘rise up.’ I don’t say that will happen. OUR EFFORTS should be to continually point out the differences between ‘reality’ and the ‘anti-gunners’, radical government ‘control all’ types who want US OUT OF THE WAY. But do not expect them to go away. They have nothing else to absorb whatever insane drives exist in their psyche except to ‘take guns’, ‘protect endangered species’, ‘fence off wilderness’, ‘stop the sale of vitamins’, ‘allow more abortions’ and all the other radically progressive agendas they promote. All it takes is one 9/11 (or out here, a big quake) and everyone loves everyone else and pulls together… for a few weeks or months. We’ve had to oust the kind of minds that are pushing their agendas in Capital buildings nationwide before. They were called World Wars. I wonder if we can pull together to stop this tidal wave of illogical, oppressive government or will it come to some nasty head? All stay safe, sane and care for your loved ones!
All the things you mention are part of the attempt of progressive socialists to change the U. S. It will take a war of words and votes to removew them from government power, but the real problem is their control of the class room. The rational for destroying Cal. is coming from people who think they are supporting the real America, and not the vision of some old white slave holders.
=”If we want to be safe, we need to arm ourselves as a means of making preparation for safety. Perhaps this is the most valuable lesson the Tucson shooting can teach us.”
But how many times has this been presented to us? You cannot defend yourself from a thug by using a cell phone.
However before you go and get yourself a pistol please take the personal defense class offered in your area for CPL applicants.
The God given right of self defense is obviously one of the driving points behind the 2nd amendment. But please remember, the TRUE purpose of that amendment and of the right to keep and bear arms, as viewed by the Founders, is to provide the people with the means of securing their liberty against a tyrannical state.
It is a greater sorrow, to me, that so many intellectual “leaders”, within the last few days, have uttered complete stupidities on this event. The lone shooter can not bring down this nation, but soft thinking leaders can expand this sorrow to genocidal proportions. At its root, the problem is an ethical, or moral blindness, to simply accept a basic truth. This was evil, we have suffered it before, and we have done nothing effective to prevent it. One ballyhooed solution has been repeatedly tried, throughout history, and has always failed; it is the total reliance on government for personal safety. It sticks in my mind that the German people elected Hitler to office and voted to suspend a constitution, very much like ours. The first day on the job, he silenced all freedom of the press and confiscated all firearms.
It terrifies me that legal scholars proclaim that our constitution is merely a slip of parchment, of negligible value. The framers, knew the evil in man, and crafted a document to govern imperfect beings. Their hotly contested first Amendments forbade the central government from establishing a state religion. We, today, see the evil where this exists in foreign lands. Their next amendment gave the effective primary right of self defense to the people, not the government. These men knew human nature, and had suffered evil; they were not scholars in academia.
Clearly an unarmed population is at the mercy of criminals and dictators. The solution to Fort Hood, Tucson, VA Tech, the unending list, is to acknowledge that evil will happen, but an armed sane population will protect their loved ones. The task is to establish a legal system to prohibit unstable people from obtaining a weapon, while policing this government function from trampling personal liberty. Those who wish to disarm Americans attempt the impossible, the imposition of peace by prohibiting things, not human evil. It will never work.
“…The task is to establish a legal system to prohibit unstable people from obtaining a weapon.” And even HARDER, let’s try to prohibit UNSTABLE people from becoming State and Federal Congressmen and politicians! ;^) Probably more of that kind of unstable than the other.
As a Texan let me say one thing: Right on! My first thought when this shooting took place is that I needed to place more effort in being armed at all times. I have a concealed carry permit but I don’t carry all the time. It’s time for that to change.
Great piece. We need to carry our guns more and the media needs to lay off Palin. This criminal in Tucson did what he did because he’s a criminal (as AWR points out), he did not do it for any other reason.
Conceal/Carry requires education; And it is education that is being threatened in America by the vitriol of the Left.
They want an uneducated public that empowers them and blindly follows their diktats. And is totally powerless to redress the autocracy.
See also the American Thinker article at
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/would_you_run_to_the_sound_of.html
There was one armed person present, fortunately he arrived at the scene just in time to help subdue the shooter and didn’t have to draw his own firearm. But he was able and ready to help. How many of us would be?
I think my biggest concern about drawing a weapon to help end the carnage at an incident like the one in Tucson would be the prospect of being mistaken for an accomplice of the shooter by either other concerned citizens or, most likely, the police.
In other words, if I were someone like Zamudio, an innocent civilian who happened to be armed and on the scene at the time, and if I did draw a weapon to try to restrain someone like Loughner, I’d be concerned that either additional concealed-carry citizens like myself would see me with a gun and think *I* was the shooter or that the cops would make the same mistake.
I would not want to bet my life that the other armed people at the scene would first verify that I was one of the good guys: it’s not hard to picture some overzealous type that would simply shoot *me* as a precaution if I were waving a gun around without bothering to ask me who I was or what I was doing.
Correct. We need to be very careful about where and when we must use deadly force. The truth is that guns work a lot better as a deterrent than as a crisis intervention tool.
Great points here. We ARE RESPONSIBLE for our lives, and we need to be prepared to defend them when the time comes.
as an ademant supporter of the second amendment, I do not believe certified lunatics who have expressly declared intentions to be violent or have a history of violence have any right to own a weapon.
Perhaps if Dupnik’s people did their job during their countless interactions with Loughner, Jared’s sanity might have been examined. Perhaps the fact that his mother worked for one of Dupnik’s offices played some part?
how would someone carrying a handgun have prevented the Tucson incident? The whole thing happened in seconds. Even if there was a civilian on the scene with a weapon (and given AZ’s gun control laws, there may well have been), he or she would have had to have had remarkable response time (and nerves) to take down the shooter before he did what he did.
Prevented? Perhaps not. We’ll never know, will we?
Perhaps lessened the severity? The number of those killed and wounded?
I strongly believe that IF more CCW or open carry citizens were around the frequency and certainly the severity of them would be less. The same lesson HAS been learned by criminals. In areas where hand guns are banned just look at the crime rates — Chicago and D.C.? Look at what happened at Virginia Tech. Guns were banned from the campus. How many DEAD? 33! How many may have been saved if one or more were trained and ready to come to the help of their brothers and sisters?
Sure. CCW requires training, practice and above ALL mind set to prepare for this circumstances. Speaking for myself, I have planned and practiced clearing my house. Handgun drawn and loaded and step by step and room by room, I have practiced in the dark (with and without flashlight) and daytime. But, as a wise people once said, If you want Peace then Prepare for War.
“Guns were banned from campus” (at Virginia Tech).
As they say, you’re never in more danger of being shot in a rampage than in a gun-free zone. Schools, universities, the post office, the workplace, Fort Hood’s offices– all “gun-free zones”.
And aren’t the shooters in luck when that’s the case?
They may not have prevented this but they may have killed him and saved the taxpayers a lot of money
Ya know, you are all missing the point….it’s not about guns….it’s about government taking away just another one of our freedoms….when will people understand that. Check out http://www.takingonissues.com for the real truth about your freedoms.
You nailed it Shannon.
For home defence, I like Rose bushes, fence, a large German Shepard, and a Mossberg 12 guage pump with every third round select slug.
For taking it to the enemy, I will not write, because Home Land inSecurity has listed my kind as domestic terrorists.
BZO, or Die!
I used to hold a Concealed Handgun Permit but do no longer. However, I still carry: open on my 150 acre property and concealed when I leave it. I keep in mind the old adage It Is Better to Be Judged by Twelve than Carried by Six.
The wall-building efforts of Jamie Gorelick and of the as recidivist rest of the treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist Cli’toon Crime Family notwithstanding, had the Second Amendment been observed on the date that fixed the only lasting Cli’ton legacy, September 11 2001, I would not be posting this.
Just wanted to say that not all of us Brits are anti-handgun. The media here distorts the view many of us have of the U.S. and create the impression that violence is the result of gun ownership. My father and grandfather both kept handguns in their bedside drawers. Grandads’ was his Webley MkVI and Dad had a Luger that came his way in the Western Desert. Both were the gentlest of men who had seen the face of battle but to be honest I can’t really imagine them shooting a burglar. Impressed me though!
It is true that gun crime has increased since the ban in Britain and now only criminals have handguns. Having said that I can’t see any popular movement to change this state of affairs.
I would suspect that the local news media and your politicians are working together to keep people like you from learning of each other and getting organized.
Finally – Some sensible thoughts on why the 2nd Amendment should not be tampered with. It is for our self-defense.
Other than on scene involvement police intervention is usually withheld until a crime has been reported with delayed investigation to weed out exaggeration before positive action is employed unless a 911 operator transfers information to incite them to urgency after their lengthy inquisition.
An assistance request from one of their own on police radio gets a higher priority and requires no lag element for intervention. You should hear the big v-8s roar on their radio call in to volunteer their assistance when a police woman asks for help.
Concealed carry and the common sense not ingrained in minds of closet leftists eliminate the lag time required for police reaction. Best then to get some fat bystanders to practice CPR and sit on the perpetrator. Then relinquish all notoriety by slinking away to avoid the inevitable police inquisition that always puts one on the stepping stone list of a DA seeking political rise.
Confusion between the police report and bystander quotes may provide enough delay to ensure opportunity for another episode if you didn’t get exposed to a cellphone camera.
here is another fact for libs. If you could magically remove all guns and ammo tomorrow…. people would begin to manufacture guns and ammo on their own. Yes, guns can be made by mortal man!
A liberal believes that a woman who has been raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman who carries a gun for self defense.
it’s rare that they get a 911 call from someone about to be robbed, attacked or having their home invaded. it’s usually past tense and possibly posthumously. I enjoy hearing about someone calling to report shooting or chasing away their attacker or intruder. It shows the public and the criminals people are willing to take responsibility for their own safety.
I watched a clip of Obama’s speech at the memorial service in Tucson tonight. I was astounded when he talked about how Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes for the first time just “moments” after he had been there. Is it just me or was he actually trying to take credit for her opening her eyes? Does he actually want to believe us that he heals by his mere presence?
It was bad enough when other people had tingles down their legs or felt they were in the presence of someone divine but if Obama actually believes that of *himself* now, things have REALLY gotten out of hand!
Feel the hate. Really.
So what?
I’m, entitled to hate anyone I damn well please, and it pleases me to hate wankers like Barack Obama.
Got a problem with that?
Boo freaking hoo.
Sounds like you, all right. You have the hate thing down cold.
It’s easy to hate totalitarians. Doesn’t take that much effort, and getting it down cold comes naturally.
I imagine it’s also very easy to hate if you just declare everyone you disagree with to be a totalitarian.
That’s just how the right rolls now.
“I imagine it’s also very easy to hate if you just declare everyone you disagree with to be a totalitarian.”
No, you don’t have to do that. You can also have extreme dislike for lone wolf killers who gun down little girls.
That’s an interesting progression:
I’m, entitled to hate anyone I damn well please, and it pleases me to hate wankers like Barack Obama.
(I imagine it’s also very easy to hate if you just declare everyone you disagree with to be a totalitarian.)
No, you don’t have to do that. You can also have extreme dislike for lone wolf killers who gun down little girls
Erm … how are those two things related?
You said, or implied, that the Right called anyone they didn’t like totalitarian.
I pointed out that that claim was nonsense, at least for me, because I don’t call Loughner totalitarian (because he doesn’t appear to be totalitarian or part of any totalitarian movement…he’s a nutcase operating all on his own), and that’s not why I hate him.
That’s why things progressed the way they did.
And, we’re still right where we started: that I can dislike anyone I please, whether lefties approve of that or not.
What’s the point of you lefties constantly spewing this “feel the hate” nonsense? Yeah, obviously a lot of us think Obama is a creep, we loathe liberals, and some of us absolutely despise the Democrat Party.
So what?
We get to do that if we want to, and it gets tedious listening to left wing types constantly pointing out the obvious. Everybody already knows that we don’t like Obama.
I pointed out that that claim was nonsense, at least for me, because I don’t call Loughner totalitarian (because he doesn’t appear to be totalitarian or part of any totalitarian movement…he’s a nutcase operating all on his own), and that’s not why I hate him.
But nobody (in this comment and it’s feedback) was talking about loughner. We were talking about obama. YOU were talking about obama. You have to acknowledge that it was a bit of a non-sequitur.
You said, or implied, that the Right called anyone they didn’t like totalitarian.
Actually, I was talking about you. To wit:
“I’m, entitled to hate anyone I damn well please, and it pleases me to hate wankers like Barack Obama.”
(Sounds like you, all right. You have the hate thing down cold)
“It’s easy to hate totalitarians”
Now, to any reasonable person, you’re justifying your hatred of obama on the grounds that he’s a totalitarian. I think that’s ridiculous (and I think you do too), hence my comment. Why do I think YOU think it’s ridiculous? Because this is your subsequent explanation of why you dislike obama:
“Yeah, obviously a lot of us think Obama is a creep, we loathe liberals, and some of us absolutely despise the Democrat Party.”
Not a mention of totalitarianism anywhere.
“I imagine it’s also very easy to hate if you just declare everyone you disagree with to be a totalitarian. That’s just how the right rolls now.”
No, Matt, you weren’t talking about me, you we’re talking about “the Right”. Those are your words.
And, what you said above was that the Right was painting everyone they disagreed with as a totalitarian, and I just pointed out that, no, at least one person on the right (namely me) “disagreed” with old Mr. Loughner, and I say Loughner is not a totalitarian; he’s a crazy loner, he is NOT the head or part of a totalitarian group, like the Democrats…so, in my case at least, you are simply wrong.
No, that isn’t the way I roll.
I don’t declare that everyone I disagree with is a totalitarian.
He leaves an aroma of fresh fertilizer wherever he goes.
He is the “Light Worker”, you know. Flowers spring up behind him wherever he walks (including across water), etc.
More likely, her first words are going to be “What was that stench that woke me?”
Mayhem in Tucson IV: Liberal Hypocrisy
What in part distinguishes human beings from the beasts of the jungle is a certain empathy, the capacity to vicariously, compassionately, experience and relate to the feelings of another human being, particularly to that person’s sadness and grief. What in part distinguishes liberals from empathetic human beings is their mindless fixation on scoring political points in times of mourning and grief.
‘Twas ever thus. Possibly, to be generous, a lack of empathy may be rooted in their genetic makeup.
From Day One of the Tucson tragedy, with no regard for the emotional upheaval of the victims and their families, with no thought extended to a troubled and grieving nation, with few exceptions the leftist-liberal tribe has sought to capitalize–and make some bucks–on the murdered and wounded with distortions, innuendo, and outright lies.
In a word, that tribe has been nothing short of a disgrace. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3387)
Well, maybe. Maybe not. Watch the interview with the one guy on the scene (after loughman was subdued) with a gun.
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/?s=joseph+zamudio
He came very close to shooting the wrong person. In his own words “I was lucky”. He really could have shot the person who had already disarmed the bad guy. If he had been less smart, it could have gone either way. Then what? Would you be calling him a hero? Or an accomplice?
The RIGHT people with guns is a good thing. Trained people. Disciplined people, who have a plan in advance, who have practiced the situation, who have the authority to fire weapons knowing the outcome. People who are accountable. Those are good things. Random people on the street – not necessarily so. Why in hell should you trust somebody just because he’s carrying a weapon?
I’m always astonished by this line of argument. You assume that everyone with a gun is clearly identifiable as a good guy. A perfect shot, with perfect judgment. Anything less, and things might not turn out the way you hope. Suppose a bunch of random, unidentified students at virginia tech had been packing. Do you REALLY think the body count would have been lower? Nah – I reckon they would have slaughtered each other like laser-tag. It would have taken weeks to figure out who the original bad guy was.
The real world is messy. It’s not like a bruce willis film … not even The Last Boyscout (which is really good, IMHO – so is hudson hawke)
Matthew, ask the police how often they nearly shoot each other.
Mathew that’s a stupid statement. He didn’t nearly shoot the wrong man. He never even pulled the gun. He assessed the situation and acted calmly and cooly and asked the man who had possession of the gun to let it go. Which was a good idea. You don’t want people who know nothing about guns handling them in the first place.
Jared
Mathew that’s a stupid statement. He didn’t nearly shoot the wrong man. He never even pulled the gun.
He had his hand on the gun after switching off the safety. I think you’re treading a fine line
He assessed the situation and acted calmly and cooly and asked the man who had possession of the gun to let it go. Which was a good idea.
Yes, he did. And what if he hadn’t? Do they train you on that sort of thing when you get a license to own a gun? Or do they leave it up to the individual?
You don’t want people who know nothing about guns handling them in the first place.
That we can agree on. We also don’t want yahoos handling guns, people with a chip on their shoulder, people with something to prove, people with poor impulse control.
“The RIGHT people with guns is a good thing. Trained people. Disciplined people, who have a plan in advance, who have practiced the situation, who have the authority to fire weapons knowing the outcome. People who are accountable. Those are good things.”
Yeah, they’re great things, up to the minute you find out that the RIGHT people just so happen to be trained, disciplined Waffen SS, and they have guns and you don’t.
Do you get a lot of those where you’re from?
“Do you get a lot of those where you’re from?”
No, what we have here are Democrats. You’ve probably heard of them. They used to own millions of unarmed slaves.
Yeessss … back in the 19th century. Are they the waffen-SS you’re talking about?
No, Matthew, the SS was in Europe, the Democrats are in America.
There are tyrants and totalitarians all over the world and all across time, in the 19th century, the 20th century, and, by golly, even in the modern 21st century.
Do try to keep up.
And, those of us who have weapons, keep them, in part (at least I do), so that we don’t wind up as victims of guys like the SS or the Democrats.
The concept really isn’t all that complex, I’m surprised you can’t grasp it. Obviously, left wingers are none too bright, but even the densest lefty ought to be able to pick up the idea through rote learning.
Just keep repeating this over and over again, and eventually it will make sense to you: A man with a gun in his hand can never be made a slave.
“try to keep up”
I just wanted to work out whether you were entirely sure what you were defending yourself from. I mean … it’s a big step down from the waffen ss to the democrats. So what you REALLY meant to say was
“Yeah, they’re great things, up to the minute you find out that the RIGHT people just so happen to be trained, disciplined Waffen SS or the democrats, and they have guns and you don’t.”
Why stop there? Why not chuck in the boy scout movement – they’re trained and disciplined, probably more so than the democrats.
What I was really hoping was that you’d trot out the old chestnut about the nazis banning guns. Then you could look really, really silly.
Yeah, Matt, except the Nazis did ban gun ownership for the portion of the population they ended up all but exterminating.
Jews (and other groups, like Poles in Nazi occupied Poland) were forbidden, by law, to keep firearms.
“With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor’s decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:”
Ҥ1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority…”
That’s part of a law the Nazis enacted after they occupied the Sudentenland, and shortly after that…it was bye-bye Jews.
Ditto for slaves in the American south (obviously). There was no 2A RKBA for black slaves. Believe it or not, the Southern Democrat slaveowners weren’t in the habit of giving their “employees” Uzis and stuff. That’s on account of, if you’re a slaveowner and you just hand over an Uzi to one of your slaves, he’s likely to pop a cap in your ass.
And, I don’t mind looking silly, as long as I don’t do it in a death camp or a slave labor camp.
Jesus, Dude, buy a clue. The world is full of bad people (and a lot of times they’re in the government). Always has been that way, always will be, and if the bad people got guns and you don’t…you’re screwed.
It’s not that hard to figure out, Matt.
ALWAYS CARRY. NEVER TELL.
I like the idea of equal footing, not being helpless.
I carry a hunting knife, pepper-spray, a hand-gun and a coconut cream pie in my purse at all times.
So far, I’ve only had to brandish my knife once and use a coconut cream pie five times (lotta crazies out there, ya gotta be prepared with da pie in da face tactic).
BRB, gotta bake a pie…
COCONUT CREAM!!!!! Do you know how full of saturated fat that is? In New York, you might get charged with ‘assault with a deadly weapon’ using that.
I received the following email some time back, and found it so profound I saved it and will now share it with you.
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun
Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine)
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
paragraph of the letter….
“The Gun Is Civilization”
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well
as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but
because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those
who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I’m pretty sure that letter is a fake, and the author is mythical.
I don’t think I’ve seen the mention of SA here, or OODA. Living in Condition Yellow should be normative, I wonder about it.
Nor can we depend on ambulances either. It seems to have taken 6 minutes from arrival to activation of emergency medical services. Union rules?
This made for interesting reading. I am from Australia and shootings like this do not occur in my country. The last time we had a shooting like this (1996 i think?), the government put in place alot of restrictions for the use of firearms (such as completely banning semi-automatics, the need for a fixed safe to store guns in the house, and an arduous education course etc..). Since then we haven’t had any shootings like this. Most Aussies cannot believe you guys still carry guns to be honest. I am not like this however, and will respect your traditions and customs – you can do whatever you like. One thing I will say is, whoever thinks the solution to these shootings is to carry more guns, as opposed to limiting guns in the first place, your country will look more like the streets of Darfur sooner than you think.