Sunday, December 23, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The liberals, including Hillary, believe that the best way to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves (Ask Hillary, or any other anti-gun politician, what they'd do if attacked, and they can't tell you so they just "call you names"). But if you ask them how that facilitates self-defense, they tell you it "gets guns out of the hands of criminals." Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gets guns out of the hands of honest people, who are the only ones who obey laws. Politicians ignore the fact that when the Constitution was written, a "militia" was simply, "all the people." At the time there were no "organized, state-operated militias." So how could anybody with any degree of intelligence, think the Second Amendment, alone among constitutional amendments, refers to a "governmental right" instead of a "personal right." Do they really think American citizens can't understand the difference? The court is soon going to for the first time, decide whether or not the Constitution does refer to a "collective" or an individual right in the Second Amendment when it takes up the question of Washington DC's literal ban on the ownership of guns by citizens not cops or government employees or armed security. It may make the wrong decision, I don't know. But at least now it is talking about it. (Jed Babbin, in Human Events, 11/26/07)
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
"NRA member and county commissioner Greg 'Lumpy' Lambert is known for his pro-gun stance, but that was apparently news to an alleged robber. Police say the suspect approached Lambert, who was wearing his 'Friends of NRA' cap, and feigned interest in a car at Lambert's car dealership. Lambert went inside to retrieve the sales paperwork. When he returned, the man pulled a handgun from his jacket. Lambert countered by producing his .380 pistol. 'I told him to drop his weapon, and he said he didn't want any trouble,' said Lambert. The robber laid down his gun and fled, but left behind his driver's license which police used to locate and charge him. Chillingly, police linked the suspect to a murder committed 10 hours before Lambert disarmed him. (Knoxville News Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 11/13/06) This is but one of many such stories of private citizens who confronted armed criminals with their own guns and routed them without a shot being fired, or killed them, saving their own livers, and possibly that of their families. Save this link and go back regularly. There's a new list every month of just a few of the MILLIONS of examples that happen each year. (Armed Citizen, 2/07)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ordinarily, you don't expect "armed security" in a church, but there was in this one, and it's a good thing Jeanne Assam was there when a shooter walked into a Colorado Springs, Colorado church and began shooting in all directions. Assam, a former police officer and licensed to "carry concealed," had been "co-opted" as "volunteer security staff" because of it. She had had to pull her gun many times as a cop, but had never had to fire at a human being. That ended that day, and the shooter was dead before he could kill the hundreds of innocent people he planned to shoot. This proves again my thesis that if there was just one "responsible person" there with a gun and the will to use it, such shootings would be minimized. I spoke to a convenience store clerk the other day and she said, "I'd hate to see some of the characters that come in here be allowed to carry a gun." I responded that if some crazy came in here, wouldn't you like to be able to defend yourself? The "operative word" is "responsible" person. I don't advocate allowing everybody to carry a concealed weapon. There should be measures in place to deny legal guns to violent felons and crazy people. But if "responsible people" were able to get licenses easier, and we did not put up signs to say "No gun zone. Come on in and kill us" on schools and other places, maybe we'd all be better off. the point is, if there were more licensed guns out there, such people as this killer would not be able to go into a crowded room and kill at will. (7 News Colorado, 12/10/07)
Sunday, December 9, 2007
"On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips’ weapon: an automatic shotgun." He was busily killing people but was instantly stopped by another man who had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. Back in 1915, the anti-gun freaks hadn't yet been able to take the guns away from everybody, so this attorney still had his, and stopped this mass killing. When are they going to learn that people who wish to kill a lot of people will get a gun, any way they can -- they don't care about legalities -- and the lack of guns in the hands of responsible people allows such crazies a "free hand" in killing others because there are no other guns in the area to use in stopping them. (Just common sense)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
"BELLEVUE, WA – Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness at Omaha’s Westroads Mall this week, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today that the real outrage of this crime is that it happened in a “gun free zone” where law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. 'In the wake of this horrible crime,' said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, 'gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation. A prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rampage.' " When are these people going to learn that anti-gun laws do not stop people who are determined to kill? The "common denominator" in the major shootings in the United States is that they have happened in "gun-free-zones." What the hell do they think more anti-gun laws will accomplish? Do they think THIS shooter cared about how many laws he violated (beyond nine murders)? Did the shooter at Virginia Tech care about how many laws he broke (beyond 23 murders)? (Alan Gottlieb, 12/6/07)
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
How do activist judges get away with "finding" continuously FOR one side or another where their bias is so transparent it's obvious to all? The answer is simple. There is NO "oversight" on judges. They're "autonomous." The "chief judge" is supposed to keep track of the bias in judges under his/her sway, but they don't. It's so unheard of to call a judge to account for his decisions that most people don't even try. This case is so important, however, that the Second Amendment Foundation has demanded this judge "retire" and go home to "write his memoirs," and no more "gun cases" ever be sent to his court. I agree wholeheartedly. (Second Amendment Foundation, 12/4/07)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
This story is about cops who tasered a man who was resisting them, then they beat the hell out of him. What does the media concentrate on? He was "tasered." Did it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, he died from the beating they gave him and being tasered was the least of his troubles? People who do not have pre-existing medical conditions or are not being severely beaten do not usually die from being tasered. Especially from the ones usually sold for personal use. But I'd think a man with a known precondition ought not to place himself in a position to be tasered. No, I don't think cops are "overdoing" it. Not yet. Because being "tasered," while painful, is a lot easier on the body than is a severe beating. I would personally rather be tasered by a cop than beaten to death. Notice that even the news media (which is prone to blaming tasers) are even asking if the beating, rather than the taser had anything to do with this man's death. If someone attacks me, I'm going to use my taser (as I have in the past). I'm not worried about killing anybody, just from the tasering. (Globe & Mail, 11/24/07)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Seems to be a little bit of overreaction and lack of training in how, and WHY to use his taser on a citizen. Refusing to sign a ticket while demanding your rights isn't one of the reasons. Seems to me he could have simply arrested this man and put him in the back seat of his car. As I watched the video, I saw him attempt neither. The man was NOT "threatening" him. He was, in fact, walking away from him. Seems to me this trooper needs a lot more training in how to make a proper judgment call. But then, some policemen think ANY resistance to their demands calls for violence. Fortunately, most don't. This is a good example of the improper use of a taser. Nobody, not even a policeman, should ever use a taser on someone who is not threatening them. Carrying one is not illegal in most states, and using them in self-defense is not, either. But using one in an offensive manner could be construed as a felony assault. Hitting someone with your fist without provocation could also be felonious assault. Put simply, these are not toys, and should never be used in an irresponsible manner. (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/21/07)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
You don't even think about it, but how often do you arrive at work before anyone else, or leave after everyone else is gone? Do you have to walk through a dark, deserted garage or parking lot to get to your car? When you leave for work in the early morning is it still dark, and with no one around? What would happen if someone decided you were an "easy mark" and attacked you? That happens every day, many times, in every city or town on the map. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it's only a matter of time. I lucked out one night when I stopped to make a phone call (before cell phones) at a lonely and dark roadside pay phone. As I got out of my car, a man approached me and asked for a match (THAT old ploy). I reached for the metal flashlight in my right back pocket. I guess I scared him, He said, "Don't shoot me, man!" Then he ran off, and another man I hadn't even seen ran off in the same direction. They must have thought I was armed. So it has happened to me, although not in the way the bad guys thought. Check out getting a stun gun or pepper spray. It might save your life some lonely night. The "bad guys" are essentially cowards and will run off at the first sign of effective defense. (PDC,)
Sunday, November 18, 2007
One of our customers had just left a restaurant and gotten into his car when a man put a knife through his driver's window demanding he get out of the car. So our customer, who had a 650,000 volt "Runt," hit him for two seconds with a jolt that completely changed his mind about carjacking him (if he was, in fact, capable of thinking for a while). He was gibbering on the ground when cops arrived to arrest him. He will probably rethink his profession when he gets out of prison.
In Boston, they plan to go to homes where they think a teenager might have a gun and intimidate their way in to look. They SAY that if permission is denied, they will just "go away." But don't count on it. The police are very good at intimidation, and what will happen if they find a gun? They'll "confiscate" it and the kid will just go out and get another one. He'll either steal it or find a gun dealer from whom to buy it out of the trunk of his car in an alley. "In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention [they think-RT], and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave. If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide." That's what they say now. But if the citizens of Boston allow them to get their foot in the door this time, there's no telling what they'll do later. Like the camel that asks to put his nose in the tent because he's cold and winds up fully within the tent in the morning, they'll just "nibble away" at gun rights until ALL gun ownership is illegal except for cops and government agents. If they try that In Denver and come to my house, they'll get "the bum's rush." Let them TRY to intimidate this old man. (Boston Globe, 11/17/07)
Saturday, November 10, 2007
"A Fort Collins mother is suing the man who held her son at gunpoint after the man was given a plea agreement she calls 'a slap on the hand.' Cherylynn Barber asked Chief District Court Judge James Hiatt on Thursday to reject the plea agreement offered to Kenrick Illidge, who was charged with felony menacing in the July 17 incident. 'The punishment does not fit the crime,' she told Hiatt. 'I'm furious that no action has been taken against him.' " This is something victims need to do more often. If the criminals knew they'd be saddled with suits by the victims seeking damages for their crimes, maybe they'd do something else for a living. It often isn't enough to have and use a stun gun or pepper spray to "fend off" an attacker because our court system often does "let him off with a wrist-slap" which tells him, "go forth and attack someone else and we won't put you away for a long time." (The Coloradoan, 11/9/07)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
"UNIONDALE, N.Y. -- Police in Uniondale, N.Y., said a crazed man broke into a home, attacked the owner, beat him with a karaoke machine and bit off his ear. A Nassau County police spokeswoman said doctors were not able to reattach the victim's ear but his injuries were not life threatening. The 64-year-old man attempted to defend himself with a vacuum cleaner hose. Police said the attacker then crouched in the hallway until police arrived. A police official said the attack appeared to be random and that the suspect's behavior suggested drug use. 'This guy just randomly picked this house,' said police Sgt. Anthony Repalone. Luis Hidalgo, also of Uniondale, pleaded not guilty to charges of burglary and assault. He was being held at the Nassau County jail on bail of $250,000 cash or $500,000 bond, prosecutors said." Looks like this 64-year-old man could have benefited from having a stun gun or a pepper spray. Or maybe a Bear Spray. Might have saved him an ear. The story doesn't say how he kept the attacker there until the cops arrived, but I've got to say, "You go, gramps!" (Live Leak, 10/15/07)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
She had had trouble with him before while working. The boss threw him out when he tried to pinch her bottom. When she went home later, he attempted to attack her in revenge; but he didn't count on her key chain pepper spray. He reached for her and she hit him. He tried again and she gave him a shot of hot lightning. He writhed on the ground while she called the police. Then she went home, unhurt. She told him to stick with what's on the menu in the future.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A stun gun is a battery-operated device that gives an electrical shock to an attacker using two metal prongs located on top of the device. It can be used as protection from attackers, muggers, or even your husband, if he's an abuser (don't let him know you have it). The current of the gun interrupts the nerve impulses that control muscle movement. It can cause a person to be disabled for nearly 30 minutes. You should always have your stun gun or pepper spray in your hand and ready for use whenever you are in a potentially dangerous situation such as a dark parking lot or while walking your dog. Other dangerous situations are when your spouse or boyfriend (or in some cases your girlfriend) has shown him/herself to be an abuser. Do not "threaten" him (or her) with it. Just use it without warning. If that person is capable of abusing you, showing it to them will only give them warning. Do not tell them in advance that you have it. These things work because you can use them without warning, giving your attacker, whoever it is, a big surprise when he/she attacks you. You need to touch the stun gun to the person's body because, unlike those used by police, the smaller ones normally carried by individuals do not "shoot something out." You must touch the person's skin (even under clothes), preferably on the upper hip, below the rib cage or the upper shoulder. This is because there are nerve centers there that make the stun gun more effective. But it will still work when touched at any point on the body. Touch the trunk of the body because stunning a limb may only stun that limb without affecting the rest of the body. Doing so will not cause a shock to you, even if he/she is holding you. Hold it there from one to five seconds, however long it takes to incapacitate them and allow you to escape. With a pepper spray, aim it at the attacker (preferably the eyes) and push the button, holding it long enough to incapacitate the attacker. Then run away and get help. Always touch the points of contact to a metal source (without touching the trigger) soon after using the stun gun to "discharge" any residual charge so as not to hurt yourself. On some of the smaller ones using a 9-volt battery, it's a good idea to replace the battery if you held the trigger for a while.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The simple answer is that the anti-gun freaks are STUPID and just don't understand that banning guns ANYWHERE is an INVITATION to criminals to attack us. "The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is taking issue with a crass remark by Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in which Hamm contended in a Fox News report that self-defense advocates have no business on college campuses. Hamm's remark, reported by Fox News on Wednesday, was, 'You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school.' CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff, himself a part-time college student, fired back, 'For a fairly bright, though philosophically misguided guy, Peter said a remarkably stupid thing and he ought to apologize to every college student who believes that their right of self-defense should not be nullified simply by stepping onto a college campus.' Taff said the Virginia Tech outrage might never have happened if that university had not adopted a campus gun ban, and actively lobbied against a proposed statute that would have allowed legally-licensed students and instructors to be armed. A shooting at Virginia's Appalachian Law School a few years ago ended when the gunman was confronted by two armed students. A high school shooter in Pearl, Mississippi was taken down at gunpoint by a school administrator who ran to his private vehicle, retrieved a pistol and confronted the gunman." For Hamm to make such a stupid statement, in the face of such evidence shows just how stupid such people really are. (CCRKBA, 10/25/07)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
I never have any problem finding enough examples of guns being used in self-defense, sometimes without a shot being fired. My biggest problem is trying to decide which ones to leave out. So I'm not going to leave ANY out. Check out the link below to see the latest ones on the NRA web site. Why do I have to go to the NRA web site to find these? Because they are ALL treated as "local stories," and the national media just ignores such stories because they don't reflect their predisposed position that armed people would be more likely to shoot themselves instead of the criminals. (The Armed Citizen, 10/07)
It's called, "America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent age." Written by a prominent advocate of Second Amendment rights, Alan Gottlieb, and Dave Workman, this book puts the lie to the anti-gun fanatic's contention that people are more likely to shoot themselves or a loved one if they had a gun. Former Congressman Bob Barr said, "During my years in the U.S. House of Representatives serving on the Judiciary Committee, I tired of listening to the arguments of one gun-control advocate after another endlessly repeat the same tired, baseless arguments in support of their efforts to disarm law-abiding American citizens. Now, in "America Fights Back – Armed Self Defense in a Violent Age," we have a well-written defense of the Bill of Rights that provides both sound substantive arguments in support of the right to keep and bear arms, as well as true-life stories of how the Second Amendment works in practice not just in theory. This book ought to be required reading for every Member of the House and Senate; and every occupant of the White House." Maybe then, they'd understand that laws against gun ownership by criminals don't work -- because they're criminals -- who break laws for a living. (Amazon) By the way: I get no commission from any sales. I just think as many Americans as possible should read this book.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The government enlisted these people and trained them in how to use guns and other military equipment. Now Chuckie Schumer wants to deny them the right to have guns at home. But another Senator disagrees: "Senator Tom Coburn isn't going to go away quietly. As you know from previous GOA alerts, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma has placed a hold on the noxious legislation that is being pushed by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Because of his actions, the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640 and S 2084) has been stalled in the Senate for a few weeks. But not content to remain silent, Sen. Coburn sent a pointed letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking them to justify their actions. Coburn states in his letter that the Veterans Affairs continues to send the names of "approximately 1,000 additional veterans" to the Department of Justice every month. According to the Congressional Research Service, Coburn says, this has resulted in 'approximately 140,000 Veterans' being added into the NICS background check system. 'This situation is concerning to me,' he continues, 'as the vast majority of these veterans have committed no crime.' Coburn correctly notes that if these veterans should continue to own a firearm, they could 'unknowingly be in violation' of federal law." If we can't trust these people, as civilians, to own guns, how could we ever trust them as soldiers? This is so typical of the ignorant laws people like Chuckie Schumer want to pass. We should have a way of getting rid of such idiots from congress, even if we don't live in his state. (GOA, 10/18/07)
Two women were unloading a "Meals on Wheels" van at a Montessori School in Rocky Mount, NC, when a man suddenly attacked them in a robbery attempt, stabbing one to death and putting the other in the hospital with serious injuries. The women attempted to fight him off, but were unarmed, while he had a knife. Does that suggest anything to you? It does to me. If one of those women had been armed with a stun gun or pepper spray, the ending might have been different. (Rocky Mount Telegram, 10/18/07)
"On November 4th, the manager of a NY café was stabbed to death by a delivery person who was just fired. While the manager was known for being generous and flexible, the assailant became enraged when he was told he was being let go in the back of the restaurant. The 26 year old manager staggered to the tables area that was filled with customers with the knife still sticking out of his chest. The assailant fled and evaded capture." I wonder how much difference a stun gun or pepper spray in the hands of this manager would have made? In Aukland, NZ, this: "The Auckland-based Framework Trust in New Zealand provides mental health services for mentally and intellectually disabled people as well the dangerous. A young man who is patient struck a staff member in the head without warning on October 4th while they were out in public. The worker was not responsible for watching the client but was standing close by. The staff member was hospitalized with serious head injuries and concussion. The same client had struck another employee in the head with a cricket ball which then required stitches. Workers and family members are concerned about the safety and security of their positions. The government's Occupational Safety and Health department is holding an investigation." Again I wonder: what difference would a stun gun or pepper spray in the hands of this victim have made?
I've often wondered what we can do to ensure the safety of children too young to be responsible with a stun gun or pepper spray. I was afraid if we allowed them to carry them, they'd use them to "have fun" at somebody else's expense. This is not my imagination. It's reality. But a friend of mine has come up with a solution. Equip them with electronic whistles and inform everybody you know that if they hear this whistle, there's a child in trouble. Teach the lids never to use it unless they're in trouble. Not to "cry wolf." In one area, they did this. A child used the whistle when some thugs were accosting her. Within seconds, about thirty people responded and ran the thugs off. Someone who had a cell-phone camera got their pictures and they will soon be apprehended. This proves that you don't always have to hurt them to stop them. Alert everybody around and they will run away to find easier victims. PDC can supply you with these whistles. (Personal Defense Consultants)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
That's the best, and ONLY answer to the significant increase in school shootings (many of which are "copycat" shootings by people who got the idea from Columbine). If the principal at Columbine had been armed, he could have put a couple into the head of one of the shooters, whom he was able to watch while he was shooting into a room. Instead, he just "backed away" so as to stay alive himself. CCKRKBA says, "BELLEVUE, WA - While anti-gun organizations are demanding that Congress quickly pass new legislation in response to the Virginia Tech massacre, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms suggests another approach: Abolish the concept of 'gun free zones.' 'Every tragic school shooting, and attacks such as those at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square, Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and the Tacoma Mall had one common denominator,' said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. 'They all happened in so-called 'gun-free zones'." Last spring's attack at Virginia Tech occurred months after the university proudly lobbied the Virginia Assembly to continue prohibiting legally-licensed students and faculty from carrying defensive handguns on campus. Thirty-two students and instructors died when Cho Sueng- Hui went on a rampage that might have been stopped short by an armed student or instructor." But NO! Our idiot legislators will cling to the idea that you can stop criminals and potential school shooters from obtaining guns by passing a law that says they can't be armed. I wonder how many laws the Columbine shooters violated (22, according to news reports)? I wonder how many laws were violated by Cho Sueng when he shot up Virginia Tech? Laws do NOT stop such people, who are planning on violating the law, anyway. You have to allow innocent and responsible citizens to defend themselves, since the cops admit they can't do the job. All they can do is clean up and catch the murderer later. Even a stun gun in the hands of someone the shooter does not suspect of having one could have helped. (CCRKBA, 10/17/07)
A friend of mine (whose name I cannot reveal) says, "On the street you need an ace up your sleeve." One of the best things to use for your "ace" is the "Triple-Threat Mace" with permanent dye. (PDC has it) It hits the attacker like a "brick wall and he'll feel like he "just stepped into hell." His breathing will become labored, then his eyes will fill with tears and he won't be able to see. He'll start coughing and won't be able to stop. The UV dye will "mark him" and make him easy prey for the police. The police already carry the "Triple Threat Mace because it works -- and if it didn't, they wouldn't carry it. In the news today is a story abut a guy who just walked up to the window of a car while it was stopped for a moment and shot a young girl to death. Maybe if she had had a "Triple-Threat Mace" and was quick enough to use it, she'd still be alive. Just walking down the street is dangerous for a woman of any age, and men, too. Especially the aged. Criminals look upon them as "easy targets." For my part, I'm not going to be anybody's "easy target." (Just common sense)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
"A man escaped a hold-up in North San Jose by pushing his assailant and running away late Tuesday, police said. Around 10:30 p.m. a man walking near the intersection of Cropley and North Capitol avenues was approached by an armed man, according to police records. The armed man asked the other for his cash. The man pushed the robber and ran away with his money still in his wallet, police said. The would-be robber, it's unclear what kind of weapon he had, reportedly headed west toward Capitol." I'd bet the robber didn't have a gun or he'd have sot the victim as he ran away. I've always said if a robber or other kind of assailant had anything less than a gun, a disguised stun gun or pepper spray would stop him long enough for the victim to run away. He didn't even need one in this story. (San Jose Mercury-News,)
SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA - A tour bus full of senior citizens on a cruise from Florida were forced to defend themselves against a trio of alleged muggers in the Atlantic coast city of Limon, sending two fleeing and killing the third, said police. Officials for the Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines say the incident occurred on an outing that the tourists had planned on their own. The three assailants were armed with a gun and a knife when they held up the tourists, but fled after a 70-year-old retired military member put one of the 20-year-old suspects into a chokehold and killed him. The tourists were questioned by local police and then released. They have opted to continue their vacation." It doesn't say if any of these tourists had a stun gun or pepper spray, but this story does show that muggers can be defeated, sometimes by a 70-year-old man. (From Florida Today)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Schools continue to be well-known "gun-free zones," which tells the "bad guys" there will be no opposition if they want to go onto the school campus and shoot someone with their illegal guns. Yes, there might be a uniformed cop who has a gun, but he's easily dispensed with because he's in uniform and cannot ALWAYS be "alert," every minute. Teachers, however, if they were allowed to be armed, may, or may not be armed. The assailant has no way of knowing which one WILL be armed. This particular teacher has good reason to want to be armed. Her ex-husband, against whom she has a piece of paper called a "restraining order" for whatever good THAT does, is an eminent danger to her and everybody around her. Even if she hired an armed bodyguard, he wouldn't be allowed to take his gun on campus, either. What stupidity! "The teacher, identified as 'Jane Doe' to protect her privacy, is licensed to carry a concealed firearm under Oregon state statute. She is fearful for her safety, and that of her students, because of threats she has reportedly received from her ex-husband, against whom she has a restraining order. School officials are refusing to allow her to bring her gun on campus, despite Oregon law which appears to allow it. Anti-gun State Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) has vowed to introduce legislation that will exempt Oregon public schools from the state’s pre-emption law. 'This is a case where the issue seems crystal clear,' said SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) founder Alan Gottlieb. Here is a woman who has taken all the proper, legal steps for her own safety, and quite possibly the safety of her students and fellow teachers. Oregon’s pre-emption law appears to be on her side, and so are we.' " The next question here is, will she be murdered in her classroom while legislators fight over the question? Or will she get a stun-gun and use that? (Second Amendment Foundation, 9/28/07)
That's what the "anti-gun freaks" always say: "guns should only be in the hands of police and government agents." How ignorant that is! And this story shows that ignorance, in all its glory. A bunch of Albany, NY cops illicitly bought a bunch of "automatic weapons" some time ago, and it was thought that they had been dealt with. But NO! The weapons disappeared and, as yet, not a single police officer has been charged. "The Albany Times Union reported this week that dozens of automatic weapons, obtained apparently without approval by police officers in 1993 and 1994 -- during the first Clinton Administration -- were originally thought to have been rounded up and destroyed a few years ago. But now, the newspaper said, some of these guns are apparently still missing. One of the guns was reportedly found at a Texas gun store. Another of the guns had been obtained by an assistant district attorney, who ultimately turned it in about four years ago. It was not explained why he had the gun in the first place [or why we're just now hearing about it. -RT], but he certainly should have known better, SAF said." If this is what they mean, maybe everybody ought to go out and find an illicit gun dealer and buy a gun out of the trunk of his car in an alley. He probably buys his guns from the cops, anyway. Nobody has so far explained why those police officers have not been charged in the original case. But if there were a perfect example of why gun laws DO NOT WORK, this is it. Yes, I advocate allowing all honest people to carry guns for personal protection. "Anti-gun freaks" disagree . . . until somebody attacks THEM. Then, guess what? We find that they had a gun all along! (Second Amendment Foundation, 10/10/07)
Monday, October 8, 2007
MISSING COLLEGE GIRLS I recently Googled "missing college girls" and got 13,700,000 hits. That means to me this is a huge and growing problem. I wonder how many college girls could have escaped becoming a "missing college girl" if she had been in possession of a powerful stun gun disguised as something else? Most men who think they can do such a thing as kidnapping a college girl, for whatever reason, do so because in most cases college girls are easy to kidnap. If more were able to carry guns for self-defense, that number would go down precipitously. But the government will not allow honest and reliable people to carry guns while criminals, whose entire reason for living is to break the law, can get a gun easily out of the trunk of somebody's car, illegally (laws will never stop criminals from obtaining guns). But the government is not going to come to its senses soon and allow innocent people to carry guns for their own safety so they must depend on a non-lethal defense mechanism such as a stun gun or pepper spray. Once in a great while you'll find a man upon whom these devices will not work. But the vast number of men can be instantly, and temporarily disabled by their use so the intended victim can get away and, in some cases, call the police. Those who can withstand the high-voltage stun guns or hot pepper sprays will still be surprised and give the intended victim time to get away. Another factor that needs repeating: only about 17% of criminal attacks are done with guns. Most criminals depend on intimidation.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
There are way too many men in this world who feel that ANY opposition to their wishes gives them an excuse to beat, and even murder their former wives and girlfriends. In the case cited here, this woman sued her former husband for holding her down on the floor and beating her nearly to death. But it seems to me if she had had a powerful stun gun or even a pepper or tear gas spray, she might not have had to endure that beating.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
One still alive, one dead. The one who is dead was told by the "authorities" there was a fifteen-day waiting period to buy a gun after her ex-husband threatened her life. She accepted that and her ex murdered her the next day, beating her to death, along with her son, who tried to intervene. The second woman took action, buying a high-powered stun gun. Her ex came calling the next day, thinking he'd beat her to death. But it wasn't to be. When he backhanded her the first time, she took out her stun gun and zapped him for two full seconds. He fell to the ground, writhing and gibbering. He was still "out of it" when the police arrived a few minutes later. He tried to file assault charges on her, but the police weren't buying. He went to prison for a long time.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, "Handgun crimes accounted for about 13% of all violent crimes." I've always said, if the "bad guy" has a gun pointed at you, I don't care if you have a Howitzer in your pocket. Don't reach for it. But if he has anything less than a gun, a stun gun or pepper spray gives you a chance to disable him long enough for you to get away. But don't stand around admiring your work. Get out of there -- now, before he recovers.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
I don't think so. Even though some cops are using them too quickly and when they don't need to, all they're doing is showing just how well they work in the hands of a responsible individual who needs to defend him (her)self. A friend of mine asked this question and opined, "My own point of view is that the tasering of the student was unjustified. Even if he was just being stupid and annoying, he wasn’t endangering anyone." My friend is right. He was completely surrounded by at least six cops and was being held down. They didn't need to "taze" him. Just as the big, burly cop didn't need to use his stun gun on a small woman he was trying to arrest (shown on national television). Just because some cops overreact, doesn't mean that stun guns aren't an effective countermeasure to the danger (fomented by ignorant politicians who don't understand that criminals, who break the law for a living, will not obey a law that says they can't be armed) presented by thugs who use intimidation and beatings to ply their trade (Only about 17% of all violent crime involves a gun in the hands of the thug). I suggest more and better training for the cops who are indiscriminately using their stun guns when they don't need to, even though deciding when it is proper to use one is simple. If you are not in danger, don't use it. And don't use it for frivolous purposes, such as for "shocking the dog" (That dog will hate you forever). That student might have been hurting, but at least he is still alive. If they had shot him, he might not be. My friend also said, "Getting tasered might be painful, but at least you get to live." I wonder how many times in the past, people have been shot to death because stun guns hadn't been invented yet. Just remember this lesson: Tasers are very effective when used responsibly. Always use yours responsibly.
This is my personal story: The other day, a driver came out of a side street, passed me on the right at high speed, then cut in front of me into my lane. I just shook my head as I followed him. Apparently, he didn't like this old man shaking his head at him so he slammed on his brakes and stopped short. I had to lay on the brakes to keep from rear-ending him. He jumped out and ran toward my driver's door with "blood in his eye." I took out my "Runt" and waited. He reached through my door to grab me and I shocked him for about a full second. He screamed and jumped back, wondering what had happened to him. I backed up and drove around his car without injury. I guess he thought I'd be "easy meat," since I was obviously an old man (I'm 70 years old) and he was young and muscular. He definitely got a surprise. My son (a former police officer) was irritated at me when I told him about this because I didn't get the guy's license number so he could be arrested for the several felonies he had committed. But I figured, leave well enough alone. If he tries it again, I will.
Sunday, September 23, 2007