RKBA

A lady’s perspective

/ hsoi

So, how am I supposed to fight off a male attacker, who is probably both bigger and stronger than I am? What if there are more than one of them? The same way thousands of other women accomplish this—by being armed and skillful in my handgun’s use. By being armed and knowing what to do I can take back control over my own life. I do not carry a pistol so I can impose my will on someone else. I carry a pistol so someone else cannot impose their will on me!

– Lynn Givens (emphasis added)

Lynn writes about firearms training from a ladies’ perspective in the May 2012 issue of the Rangemanster newsletter.

Gun control (anti-gun) advocates view guns as bad things that are only capable of bringing about evil things. They are tools used by bad people to bring harm and havoc to good people. They cannot see that good people can use them in good ways.

Let’s go back to Lynn for a moment.

I came to this realization some years ago when I was being stalked by a mentally disturbed man who made credible death threats against me, my family, and others. The police and private investigators were looking into these death threats, but were unable to do anything. I never thought I would have to pick up a gun until someone tried to take my and my son’s choices out of our hands. It then became very real when I found my picture on the front page of the newspaper in an article about crime.

So you tell me… what should Lynn have done? Do you truly think a restraining order would keep her and her son alive? Yelling “NO!” and issuing a palm strike to the nose wasn’t going to cut it. Pepper spray or a taser isn’t going to be all that effective against someone bent on killing her. So you tell me, what should she have done? What would you have her do, since you, the gun-banner, think she shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun to enable her to preserve her and her son’s lives against this man? Would you, the gun-banner, be willing to guard Lynn all day and all day, every day, every week, every month, be willing to put your life on the line to protect her? If so, awesome. If not, then why not? And then again, what should she do?

A firearm is a force equalizer. I know Lynn, and while I know what a determined fighter she is, she’s still vulnerable. That Smith & Wesson M&P on her hip allows her to even the odds. It allows those who are weaker, older, of lesser stature — and believe me, for every badass guy you can think of, there’s someone bigger and badder out there — to stand on more solid ground against those who wish to do evil unto them. Why do anti-gun folks want the elderly, the frail, women, children, anyone to be at the mercy of those who wish to do them harm?

 

Response to: The Perils of Open Carry

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

On her Facebook page, Kathy Jackson shared this link about “The Perils of Open Carry“.

Given my recent open carry oddness experience, a few things about the article struck me enough that I wished to comment.

Before I start out tho, I should say that I’m not really an open carry advocate. Do I find it odd that it’s illegal in Texas? Yes I do. Do I wish open carry was free and legal here in Texas? Yes I do. If I could legally open carry, would I? Probably not, but I appreciate having the freedom of choice because sometimes it may be the right choice.

1) Open carry will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.

Yes I can see this being a reality today, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve come to believe it’s something that has to be done to allow for change.

Let’s say the wording was changed to “Openly allowing black people to walk around will cause hassles with other people and eventually the police.”  Sure that was the case years ago, but today? It’s not perfect, but it’s better. Should we keep black people, or gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or women under wraps because it will cause hassles and eventually involve the police?

How about instead we let people freely live their lives, and work to spread education and knowledge?

2) Criminals are not deterred by openly carried guns

Yes they are. There’s the Waffle House case back in 2010. There’s also numerous stories in the Chris Bird book “The Concealed Handgun Manual”.

But I will grant, it does change the game for a criminal. The author presents a story that showcases that the crime in fact seemed to be motivated by open carry! He wanted to steal the open-carrier’s gun!  So it didn’t just not deter him, but it also was the prime motivation for the crime itself!

3) Getting your gun taken is a likely possibility!

It’s possible, but when we talk to private citizens about how retention holsters aren’t necessary, it’s backed by many years of looking for a case where this happens. We might see more now, and certainly we will change our stance if we see this is in fact an issue.

But that all said, the author is right. You don’t have magic abilities nor are you Billy Badass enough to keep all criminals from ever getting within 10 feet of you. Shit happens.

4) Most people who carry guns have crappy holsters and no weapon retention skills

This is the one that struck me most, given what I saw the other day. Two people with guns on their hips in crappy holsters. I have no idea if they have any retention skills, but the crappy holster alone was enough. And it may not be just the holster, but their whole equipment system, such as a really cheap belt.

I don’t totally agree with Mr. Ellifritz’s reasoning, but I’m not in total disagreement with him either. I know this can be a controversial and passionate subject for many, even within the “proud gun rights advocate” community. My personal preference is to minimize abridgement of good people, of maximizing freedom and choice. But always remember, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s the right nor best thing to do. Legality doesn’t equate to moral or right or just or good or sound. I would just prefer to have it as a legal option, because the more choices a good person can have, the more options responsible people can work with, the better decisions they can make.

Been there, done that

/ hsoi

Sammy DeMarco, a student at Eastern Michigan University, writes about his change of heart:

Concealed weapons should be allowed on campus. There, I said it. After years of believing weapons should not be allowed on university property, I have flipped my position. I can no longer find a valid reason as to why law-abiding citizens who attend and work at Eastern Michigan University or any university campus should be left defenseless.

I know where Sammy is coming from. I too flipped my position some years ago. I gave up on my ignorance and my emotion, and looked at logic. I was convinced by logic because well… some things are just hard to defend, once you take your fingers out of your ears.

The EMU Public Safety folks are some of the most professional authorities I’ve encountered. I have no doubt they are highly capable of handling a situation similar to what happened last week at Oikos. But we cannot expect police to be on every corner, in every parking lot and every classroom every minute….

Many students live off campus, have night classes and walk home. We regularly receive emails and texts alerting us that yet another classmate was robbed or assaulted while walking home.

So, not only are citizens not allowed to defend themselves while on campus, they are left defenseless going to and coming from the university, too.

We don’t deny that police and other people whose job it is to “bring safety” can do their job, but the reality is they can’t always be around to do their job. Look around right now… is there a police officer within arms reach of you? And is that police officer always there? If the fact we have police is sufficient to stop people from being assaulted or mugged, then why do we have so many assaults and muggings? Obviously having a police force is not sufficient to get the job done.

Consider where people live vs. where they work or go to school. Maybe we can have useful tools at our disposal at some time, but then due to certain laws we cannot. Why should law-abiding citizens have to reduce their ability to stay safe? Isn’t the general argument towards increasing safety? So how is telling that 5′ 4″ 105# woman she cannot have a gun to fend off a rapist or crazed ex- going to make her any safer? Restraining orders are just pieces of paper and really don’t stop people hell-bent on doing evil. So why should she have to choose between her personal safety and getting an education?

I realize many people will say we need stricter gun laws, not less strict, to deter crime. That logic goes something like this: We need to restrict law abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons. This in turn will reduce the crime that criminals commit on those very law abiding folks.

So, out of all the laws criminals break, we think the one law they will obey is not carrying a concealed weapon? I’m having trouble reaching that conclusion.

That’s pretty much the case. In fact, many criminals are repeat offenders. They’re already felons, legally prohibited from having a gun. Yet they do. The law hasn’t stopped them, it won’t stop them (it sure didn’t stop them from committing their original crimes), so the only people abridged and hurt by the law are the law-abiding good people. Why are we doing that? What logic is there, other than perhaps someone having an agenda… or just being ignorant.

Sammy sums it up:

Self defense should go beyond law; it’s a right by nature. Denying someone a right to defend themselves against his or her would-be attackers is immoral. The reasons opponents give for supporting restrictions is not supported by data. The restrictions criminalize the good guys and empowers the bad ones. Police cannot be everywhere at once. Ultimately, there is only one person truly responsible for your safety: you.

That’s the thing. When you look at straight data, it’s there. Oh some will say it’s all statistics that the NRA provided to help further their “bloodbath agenda”. But that’s the funny thing… when folks like Howard Nemerov study data exclusively from anti-gun or neutral sources and the factual data and interpretation of it supports that gun control doesn’t work, how can you continue to argue against the facts? unless you just like to argue or are unwilling to accept the logic, reason, and hard fact.

It took me years to arrive here, but here I stand. It’s time we’re allowed to defend ourselves with more than a pen and a sharp tongue.

Sammy, it took me years to arrive here as well, but here I stand and stand with you. Don’t give up your pen and sharp tongue tho… keep spreading the word.

How could the answer be “no”?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

I read about this CSM quiz on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

For giggles, I started taking the quiz.

But I haven’t finished it.

I answered question #5:

5. What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?

That’s the Heller case.

After you answer each question, it of course says if you’re right or wrong and gives a blurb expanding upon the answer. #5’s blurb was this:

The Heller case left open the broader question of whether the constitutional right to possess arms for personal protection extends beyond the home to include a right to carry those arms in public places.

That is correct, the Heller case did leave that open. I read the quiz blurb, clicked forward to the next question, but then hit my browser’s Back button because something about reading that struck me.

If we make it a yes or no question: “can/should people be allowed to possess arms for personal protection outside of the home, a right to carry them in public places… yes or no?” I cannot see how someone could answer “no” to that question. That is, if you understand the realities of life and the world we live in.

I speak with a lot of people on this topic, and so far I’ve yet to encounter someone against the notion of home defense. Home is very personal to us, not just because it’s where we keep all our stuff, but because it’s our little slice of the world, our sanctuary, our refuge. It’s very personal when our homes are violated, and I don’t know of anyone that would deny others the right to protect themselves and their posessions within the grounds of their own home. But then some of those I have spoken with that are fine with protection in the home feel that doesn’t extend outside the home.

And I don’t understand that line of reasoning.

Wife was outside our home when she was sexually assaulted. Are you saying she has no right to defend herself?

When I think about the almost 60 students of Tom Givens that have been involved in personal defense incidents, just about all of them were not in the home. They were in parking lots, parking garages, sidewalks. If the majority of assaults and violent crimes against people are not in the home, how can we say personal protection doesn’t extend outside the home! That’s where most of the incidents occur and thus where you are most likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Why are we denying that to the law-abiding citizenry?

Then you say people could use something like pepper spray, or a taser/stun gun. Before you go recommending such tools, you probably should increase your understanding of those tools, their applications, and their limits. They aren’t what you think. A gun is a lot more effective. It’s like saying we should still use carrier pigeons and pony express to communicate around the world, instead of the Internet. We have better technology, we have more effective technology, and we are happy to use it. So why are we discouraging the use of better, more effective technology when it comes to personal protection?

Remember, I wasn’t always a gun guy. Once I took my fingers out of my ears and started listening to the logic, I changed my stance. Once the ugly realities of the world pressed themselves upon me and I accepted them as unavoidable fact, I changed my stance. I’m willing to be swayed, I’m willing to be persuaded, because the only thing I keep a stake in is finding Truth. If that means I have to abandon everything I know and based my life upon, then so be it. I don’t want to be right, I want to know Truth. So if someone can present me with facts and logic as to why we should be denied the right to preserve and protect our own lives, and to do so with the best technology available, I’m all ears.

Our home may be personal, but it doesn’t get any more personal than your own person. Your home being violated is bad, your body being violated is worse. Society encourages us to protect our homes: alarm systems, big dogs, adequate exterior lighting, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers. Why does society fail at encouraging us to protect ourselves?

Imagine a world without guns

/ hsoi

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we didn’t have guns?

Utopia, eh?

Some people decided to take a logical look at what would happen if we actually did eliminate guns from the world. Click and give it a read. (h/t CSSA_CILA)

I’m sure there are many that won’t like the conclusion:

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle “gives claws to the weak.”

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.

Indeed. Removing inanimate objects from the world doesn’t cause the world to get better (or to get worse). We have to remember that all the “evils” in this world are backed by people. As well, all the “good” in this world is also backed by people. When solving a problem, it’s generally not productive to address symptoms, but to instead go after the root cause. So, we should be looking at people.

Instead of imagining a world without a particular technology, what about imagining a world in which the human heart grows gentler, and people treat each other decently? This is part of the vision of many of the world’s great religions. Although we have a long way to go, there is no denying that hundreds of millions of lives have changed for the better because people came to believe what these religions teach.

If a truly peaceful world is attainable — or, even if unattainable, worth striving for — there is nothing to be gained from the futile attempt to eliminate all guns. A more worthwhile result can flow from the changing of human hearts, one soul at a time.

The problem with Open Carry

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Robb Allen links to an anecdote about how open carry may well have prevented a crime. Robb’s comment section has a few other “OC success” stories.

But you see, this is the problem with open carry:

Officer 1: They were definately going to hit the place. However since no crime was actually committed, the best we can do is look for them and see if we hit anything when we pull them over. You guys did great.

No crime committed. Thus, there will be no crime report, no papers to file, no statistics to pile up.

The naysayers and anti-gunners will say there’s no proof that guns stop crimes. To some extent, they are right because we can only get crime data when crimes are committed, reported, and statistics are then compiled from those reports.

There are no reams of reports when a crime is stopped before it ever has a chance to start. When there are less reports and “crime goes down”, it’s difficult to directly attribute that to more private citizens being armed and ready to defend themselves.

So alas… one problem with open carry is it just can’t generate statistics. All we can have is a growing pile of anecdotes, and the pile is growing.

But that’s fine. Less crime also creates fewer statistics. I’m fine with that problem.

5 years, and still no blood in the streets

/ hsoi

Nearly five years ago, Nebraska’s concealed carry law went into effect.

Over 15,000 permits.

Of course, any time laws like this are being debated, anti’s come out saying how this isn’t the Wild Wild West, how if regular citizens are allowed to carry guns that everyone will solve their problems with the gun and there will be blood flowing in the streets, etc. etc. etc..

And it never happens.

So far so good. The Grand Island Police Department told News 5 they have not encountered any issues with concealed weapon permits since the law went into effect in 2007.

Steve-“I’m unaware of any issues that we’ve had with them,” said Grand Island Police Chief Steve Lamken.

So once again, the data piles up… just more data for anti-gunners to ignore.

(And Omaha still needs to clear up it’s problematic legal situation)

Should you be allowed to carry a gun to church?

/ hsoi

Should you be allowed to carry a gun to church?

Yes.

What about the person sitting next to you?

Yes.

The question before a three-judge panel for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Thursday is whether Georgia’s prohibition on firearms in places of worship conflicts with the promise of religious freedom in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

GeorgiaCarry.org, which brought the initial lawsuit, believes religious institutions, not Georgia law, should dictate if firearms are allowed inside, and they point to accounts of shootings in churches as examples of why guns are needed even while worshiping.

Full Story. (h/t Fark)

An interesting legal approach by GeorgiaCarry.org, and we’ll see if it pans out. As expected, the opposition doesn’t get it.

But lawyers for the state say the ban makes it possible for “worshipers to focus on spiritual activities” instead of “protective vigilance.”

So perhaps we should ban smartphones as well, because I can tell you for sure they don’t do much to help worshipers focus on spiritual activities, especially when someone forgets to turn off their ringer. If this is about ensuring focus, there’s much else that we should ban to remain consistent. But of course, it’s not about that.

But Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that is not a participant in the lawsuit, said there is no constitutional right to carry loaded guns in public.

“If you chose to have a loaded gun in your home to protect yourself, that’s your right. It’s a whole different issue when you bring that gun where me and my children and other families are just going about … business.

Let’s play a little bit with the phrasing here:

If you choose to speak freely in your own home to protect yourself, that’s your right. It’s a whole different issue when you start practicing free speech where me and my children and other families are just going about … business.

Is that acceptable?

Why isn’t it a different issue when police bring their gun where you and your children and other families are just going about business?

And it would be even more dangerous, he said, if well-meaning, armed civilians, faced with a dangerous situation, begin shooting in an effort “to save the day.”

“Injecting more guns into more public places and being held by more people causes death and injury much more than it’s saved lives,” Lowy said.

Mr. Lowy, can you please present the data and evidence to back this up? Because we have data and evidence, and it does not support your conclusion; in fact, quite the opposite.

I posted about this just a few days ago. There is much violence in church. You’d like to think if there was anywhere there wouldn’t be it would be in a church, but alas, such is not the case. If we want to talk about the ability for folks to focus on worship well… I’d say allowing someone to go on a violent rampage kinda makes worship a wee bit difficult. If there are ways good people can deter and stop such events, I’d say that helps the ability to focus on worship.

Consider what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about self-defense.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

National Reciprocity

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

There’s movement afoot for National Reciprocity.

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

I’ve been torn on this issue because it hits two things dear to me: gun rights, and state’s rights. While sure the gun rights side of me would love to see this happen, it also feels like it’s potentially stepping upon state’s rights since as it is most gun laws — including concealed carry — is instituted at the state level. How to reconcile these? I know a lot of people, especially these days, are happy to jump on whatever part of politics achieves their goals: if screaming “states rights!” meets their goal, they’ll jump on it, even if it might contradict other things… because too many people are self-serving instead of principled.

Somehow I felt that yes, this is right, but I couldn’t adequately word it in a proper, Constitutional way, if in fact there was one.

The Cato Institute Daily Podcast for September 19, 2011 featured David Kopel and discussed this very issue. It’s only 9 minutes long, but it discusses why yes in fact a system of national reciprocity is Constitutional and doesn’t step on state’s rights. In short, 14th amendment. But to better understand it, listen to the podcast.