Everyone's a psychopath except for me and thee and I have my doubts about thee...
Needless to say, the "gunfights after every traffic accident" which were predicted by the gun control advocates have not transpired in any state adopting such "no retreat" measures.
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed www.licensetomurder.com.
The crux of the anti-self-defense crowd's argument is that everyone except for them is a psychopath ready to gun down a minivan full of kids at the slightest provocation after a stressful day. This is clearly why they are so adamant that only the police can carry guns and use them at their discression. Everyone knows that they have a job that never gets them into situations where heated words or rude behavior get the best of them...
A martial arts instructor I knew once commented to the effect that the average fight lasts only a matter of several seconds to thirty seconds. The person who attacks in most situations is going to win. So, one can only conclude that these people are objectively in favor of putting law-abiding citizens into a position where they'll probably be maimed or killed.
Via Instapundit
Police go through training, and are aware what/why/when/how to use their weapons.
The average person doesn't need a gun for protection. There are a google of self defence courses, along with aware driving classes available - in order to avoid dumb people's confilict.
Or perhaps we could just not think about ourself, piss people off, BE KIND - not too many genuine down to earth, good people are murdered for challenging a donkey butt.
Therefore, do your best, be who you're meant to be, treat others as they need to be treated, and learn how to take care of yourself.
DISCLAIMER: There is always a chance taken, with anything that we do or are a part of.
Again, this is life - lets begin living!
AKA: Spit don't swallow, unless you know him ;)
You can't be serious about cops being able to handle guns. The police frequently get away with firearm usage that would get the electric chair if a "mere civilian" pulled that crap. Cases like Salvatore Culosi's shooting, where a Fairfax County SWAT officer shot him by acciden through the heart as he walked down the steps of his house (he was an optometrist caught up in a gambling entrapment case) are all too common.
The last thing that we need is a state monopoly on firearm ownership. Eveytime that has happened tragedy as been the result. Just go ask Abe how well it's worked out in Britain! People get beat up and killed far more frequently there than they do here where the risk of getting shot is a very real threat in many areas.
As I have said before, the only people who need to fear private gun ownership are would-be tyrants and violent jackasses. Me... I'm not afraid of the average person having a gun because I don't think they'll abuse it, and if they do abuse it, chances are they wouldn't be that much of a threat.
There is one little problem with your suggestion, though, and that's that the average woman, even with the best of training, would not be able to fight the average healthy man. I could easily overpower most female martial artists because I am bigger, stronger and more aggressive like most men. I'm not being sexist; I wish it weren't this way. However the reality is that self-defense courses are no substitute for the ability to use a solid weapon like a firearm or bladed weapon because a weapon is a powerful equalizer.
And is there really any reason to care if the weapon gives a deadly advantage to the would be victim?
Take away a person's right to self-defense and you can pretty much do whatever you want with them. To suggest that this would somehow "civilize" society is most disingenuous, and how women especially can fail to appreciate this is stupid beyond words.
Most women weren't brought up around guns. They're just uncomfortable with them. Now, if you trained them on an appropriate firearm, they'd have no problem with it. I'd chalk most of it up to a lack of self-confidence and fear of the unknown. If I have a daughter, she'll be brought up with at least a confidence in how to use a 0.22 pistol. I know that's weak, but a 0.22 is a hell of a lot better than pepper spray!
And a comment or two about cops and guns --
First (mostly to Wonder Woman, since I suspect Mike is aware of this statistic) - "cops" are about seven times more likely to shoot and kill an innocent person than armed civilians. (multiple cites, including Kleck, Lott)
Why? VICTIMS know who the "bad guy" is! Cops may not! (And they're more likely to shoot first, ask questions later; less likely to be held responsible; more likely to be involved in color-of-law transgression, unfortunately - such as warrantless searches -- and on and on.)
Bottom line: people acting in self-defense are VERY likely to have a better idea of who is a threat than a third party!
Second: Don't think cops aren't going to be disarmed by the coming Totalitarian State. They're on the list; just not as big a threat (yet) to those to whom "the chains of the Constitution" are no longer any bond.
(And don't be surprised that most of them, just like the other sheeple, won't see it coming. They never do. As an old saying goes, there's those who MAKE things happen, those who WATCH things happen, and those that WONDER what happened. Which will you be, WW?)
And a quick PS to WW and any other women who may be in the “unfamiliar†camp of which MikeT wrote:
Read a copy of Paxton Quigley’s great book, “Armed and Femaleâ€ÂÂ. It’s written by a woman who was a former co-founder of one of the big anti-gun lobbies, and was tasked to do research to bolster the case against guns, from a woman’s perspective.
To her credit, she did it honestly, thoroughly, and with integrity and intelligence. Her book explains her journey, in a way that women can relate to on every level. She is now a nationally-known pro-self-defense spokesperson, and firearms expert.
I’ve never yet known a woman to give her book an honest reading and not begin to see the light.
(She has a new book, "Stayin' Alive: Armed and Female in an Unsafe World," which I haven't seen, but I'm sure is excellent as well.)
And a quick PS to WW and any other women who may be in the “unfamiliar†camp of which MikeT wrote:
Read a copy of Paxton Quigley’s great book, “Armed and Femaleâ€ÂÂ. It’s written by a woman who was a former co-founder of one of the big anti-gun lobbies, and was tasked to do research to bolster the case against guns, from a woman’s perspective.
To her credit, she did it honestly, thoroughly, and with integrity and intelligence. Her book explains her journey, in a way that women can relate to on every level. She is now a nationally-known pro-self-defense spokesperson, and firearms expert.
I’ve never yet known a woman to give her book an honest reading and not begin to see the light.
(She has a new book, "Stayin' Alive: Armed and Female in an Unsafe World," which I haven't seen, but I'm sure is excellent as well.)
I don't think the cops are ever going to be disarmed, Mark. That's part of the problem. They'll stay totally armed and armored while the public is disarmed.
One solution that I have for the problem of SWAT excess is for a state like Virginia to do the "unthinkable:" create a bonafide gendarmie group composed of only a few hundred officers who are constitutionally only allowed to intervene when:
1) The police are pursuing a murder suspect who is known to be armed with more than a handgun and has shown to be willing to murder again after a warrant was issued.
2) Hostage situations.
3) Taking down armed terrorist groups.
Municipalities would, as part of the state constitutional amendment, be prohibited from maintaining their own SWATs and using any weapon regulated or prohibited to the public. Emphasis on the first point there. If ownership requires any license or ownership, the municipality cannot own such a weapon under any circumstance.
Well, I'd rebut your last statement simply by saying that, at least in part, I agree with your opening statement, Mike ;)>
The biggest problem with laws like you describe utlimately is your third exception clause --
"3) Taking down armed terrorist groups" --
simply because ultimately that's all of "us", who think the now-discarded 2nd Amendment was really a prohibition on government control of arms of any sort. More than guns, the ultimate weapon of the State is the "law", and the power to rewrite the meaning of words as necessary to mold it.
(Whatever the meaning of "is", is - today.)
I don't think "all" the cops will ever be disarmed, either, of course. It's just that, just as the brown shirts found out seventy years ago, there will be some who think they are The Privileged Ones, blessed by the Omnipotent State with the power to take life, who won't end up there...
It's perhaps one of God's little ironies against the would-be tyrants that the more advanced that weapons get (and armor gets to meet those advances), the deadlier that "archaic weapons" get. In close range today, a katana or a well-designed dagger would make short work of a typical kevlar vest. I am not an expert on physics, but it is my understanding that if things got to that point, that a crossbow would be tremendously powerful against modern armor. And... unlike a handgun, it is actually logistically possible for the average person to craft a working bow and set of arrows.
Personally, I couldn't see myself fighting the government except if things got to where they were going totally brownshirt on the weak like children, old people, etc. It'd just not be worth it. I'll be the first to admit that I see no particular honor in fighting and dying pointlessly when the people support their tyrants.
MikeT and Mark like typing redundantly, continually, oh how luck - y, for us all...
MikeT and Mark like typing redundantly, continually, oh how lucky, for us all...
I see you're pretty quick to jump on our little bandwagon...
Bandwagon.
Soap Box.
NEVAH!
Sorry, "WW", thought for a minute there (benefit of the doubt, I guess) that you were actually capable of informed dialogue.
Please play again sometime if you learn to process information, as opposed to propaganda.