My good friend Brian wished to address a comment made on a recent post of mine "The Best Argument for the 2nd Amendment - "The Gun Is Civilization" . The comment was made by someone going by the name "Sunflower" and I believed Brians' response to be better served as a post in not only is this "Sunflower" the only liberal be it here in the U.S. or abroad that is ignorant to actual information regarding gun ownership and or the use of them.
The pertinent comment in question:
"The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger" What utter baloney. If you are walking down the street and you feel a gun at your head you cannot reach for the gun in your bag. So do you have to be holding the weapon all the time? And an unarmed man could overpower a woman, reach into her bag and use her own weapon to attack her! In the meantime people get shot by accident, people shoot first and think later, kids play with weapons and gun violence becomes normal in society. You only have to look at countries where gun control exists and violent crime/homicide rates are far far lower.
You Don't Know That You Do Not Know
Sunflower, Wikipedia? and a United Nations chart of statistics? Really?! The biggest anti gun group in the world next to the Brady Campaign and that's where you get your stats? Great, well let me help you out. Try the FBI crime statistics. I think they have better numbers and you can Google it before you leave for Chicago or England where the anti-gun laws make it so much safer for people.
By the way, hot break in’s, that is, home invasions where the occupant is home, went up sharply after England enacted their gun bans.
Here’s more for ya:
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."
Highlights of the study indicated that:
-The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
-Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
-"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.
-England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.
-The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Going back to your comments.
The scenario you painted is a no win even for the police. A Kobayashi Maru if you will. And it exemplifies the false statement that only cops and military should have guns. In Sterling Heights Michigan four or five years ago a cop was shot sitting in his cruiser and his duty sidearm was stolen. It happens to the best and brightest unfortunately.
Yes, the great equalizer. When a 100 pound lady is confronted by a 200 pound mugger the little lady would be within her right to draw her gun and shoot the attacker even though he is, or may be unarmed. It's called Disparity of Force. The outcome of course is dependent on the fact that she is aware of her surroundings and recognizes the threat in time to do something about it. We call this being in condition yellow.
Any woman who has attended a credible CCW class was taught the worst place to carry a gun is the handbag or purse because it’s the first place the Goblin goes. Better to have it in a holster, strong side and loaded. So no, you don't have to be holding it all the time which would be considered brandishing in most, if not all jurisdictions and it would land you in jail.
Kids & guns. Yep it happens and it's extremely sad but is it the guns fault or the moron parent who left it unattended or unlocked and they should be held liable for any mishap. Is it the cars fault when someone leaves it running and some kid jumps in and drives away with it? No it’s the owners fault.
People get shot by accident, people get run over by accident and people drop things on their big toe by accident. The key words here are people and accident. It happens. I’ve handled guns for the last 30 years and so far I haven’t had any gun accidents. I have dropped things on my big toe though.
Shoot first and think later? Really? Did you think of that all on your own? I think not. All of the folks I know who carry guns have been through some training and all are taught how to think first to avoid having to use their gun, but if it becomes inevitable or necessary, they were taught to think through the problem not after it. “Shoot first and ask questions later” will land you in jail.
Gun violence is not the norm, unless you're watching a Hollywood movie, which some in the anti-gun community consider to be training films. Here's a clue, nobody in real life shoots that way. It wastes bullets and is usually not the most tactically advantages way to address a lethal problem. Not to mention the legal problems following the shooting as it’s the responsibility of anyone who carries a gun to be responsible for every round that comes out of the barrel and where it comes to rest.
“Gun violence” is just a play on words for folks of weak mind as it gives them something to blame for the problem instead of the person committing the crime. Gun Banners like it that way because they don't like people having guns even for defense and they think that if they can convince enough folks to be afraid of guns they will be able to get rid of them one day. You never hear knife violence, alcohol violence or baseball bat violence do you? It’s ok to have evil people out on the streets we just need to get rid of the guns. Right! Gah!!!
Sunflower your Pollyanna world of peace without guns doesn’t exist and never will as long as there is evil violence perpetrated by evil people. If you don’t want a gun for self defense it’s your choice to not have one. You can continue to walk around thinking guns don’t solve problems and be completely helpless and when you get in trouble and need help dealing with a lethal problem you can do what every other anti-gun person does, call somebody (the Police) with a gun.
Sunflower, you don’t know anything about carrying guns or self defense yet you want to come on someone else’s blog and give opinion on how we are wrong. You fall into a category of people I call the “don’t know”.
You don’t know, you don’t know that you don’t know, and if for some reason you did know, you wouldn’t care.
-Brian
Editors Note; Thank you Brian
