The students in my basic pistol classes are usually too overwhelmed with new information to ask many questions, but I often get good ones from the intermediate and conceal carry students. This last week I got an exceptional one, and it caused me to consider rewriting a part of my book.
Here's a "project" we could easily do, and promote everywhere. Feel free to edit and add/subtract questions, of course. I know you will anyway. :)
Absolutely sterling article... print off these "questions" and offer them to anyone who wants any sort of infringement on our self defense rights. Could start a real discussion, once in a while anyway. I intend to post this all over the place. Oh, and how many of those questions can WE answer accurately? I had to look up two of them. ML
I carry a gun - Get over it
By Susan Callaway, Editor
July 30, 2012
I carry a gun. All the time, just about everywhere I go except to bed and the shower. Even then, a gun is within a foot or so of my hand all the time. An occasional trip into the disarmed victim zone of the post office, and my last (and I do mean last) trip to California to visit family are the extreme and very temporary exceptions.
This article is from the current issue of The Price of Liberty. I like to think it is one of my better efforts, and have been surprised at how little feedback I've gotten after posting it on a number of freedom and gun rights message boards. A little discouraging.... but I guess that's just life these days. Anyway, thought I'd share it with you here as well. Comments are, of course, most welcome.
I Love My Guns
By Susan Callaway, Editor
April 02, 2012
Some recent comments on various message boards frequented by shooters indicate that a few people are either changing their minds or are bowing to the politically correct pressure of the day. They have begun to assert that they do NOT "love their guns" and only view them as necessary tools.
While I couldn't agree more that guns are simply tools, pretty much like any others, I don't know why that would make them unlovable. Most men love their tools, all different kinds, and men have always loved their guns. I'm certainly not ashamed to join those men.
But, you might ask, just what is it that we (who still profess it anyway) actually love about guns? Aren't they killing machines, good only for harming others? We hear that a lot.
So, why do I love my guns? Let me count the ways.
Via the LRT discussion list comes word that JPFO founder Aaron Zelman died on December 21. I wasn’t fortunate enough to meet him in person, but did communicate with him a few times. His energy and creativity were palpable even in email. He will be sorely missed ... and I hope JPFO continues their important work. My condolences to Aaron’s family and friends.
Guns And Weed
Because there's no such thing as "half-free."
Finally getting to the long promised story of my trip to California. You were warned. [grin]
It all started months ago when my sister sent me tickets for the airfare. She'd always wanted to do that, but I'd never before agreed to fly... but I had a 2 1/2 year old grandson I'd never seen, and wanted badly to reconnect with my two sons, so I bit the proverbial bullet and accepted.
I have a friend who is into guns in a big way. He has been since before he was old enough to buy one without his mother's permission. He loves to shoot. He also is a computerphobe. He son gave him a computer. He refuses to use it. We were talking the other day and he noted to me that among his shooting friends, almost none of them use the computer. To me, this is mind-boggling. It is like choosing not to read or some such thing. But so it is with this group of people.
Sometimes a seemingly simple question - or a misunderstanding - can create great rifts between people and challenge deeply held ideas... I may have lost a very long time friend - and he's an incredible champion of freedom - over this. I really don't understand why and he, strangely, is not at all clear why he disagrees with me. I would really appreciate any feedback.
The usual suspects, naturally. But it turns out that isn’t all.
Those of us who have longed for international comparisons on firearms ownership and various crime rates have something to sink our teeth into. A taste for you [reformatted, footnote numbering removed, emphasis in original]:
[M]anifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. .... While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:
[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups ....
[T]he undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plummeted in the United States over the past 15 years. The fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast should induce thoughtful people to wonder what happened in those nations, and to question policies based on the notion that introducing increasingly more restrictive firearm ownership laws reduces violent crime. Perhaps the United States is doing something right in promoting firearms for law‐abiding responsible adults.
Much more for your perusal at Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence [PDF] by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. Thank you, gentlemen!
You've probably had an article or movie smack you upside the head at some point... probably more than once. I know I have, and will again.
The latest such was an article submitted to The Price of Liberty called, An Old-Fashioned, Judgmental, Closed-Minded American Pleads “Guilty”
By Timothy A Thorstenson from American Handgunner magazine.
I saw this movie last night. It may not be in theaters much longer. It has qualities that a large screen will show better than a small one.
First the trailer -
Please see the completed/final article at my website.
I've spent a great part of the last week reading the "news" and hundreds of commentaries, blogs and emails related to the tragedy in Virginia on Monday.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually studies old fashioned journalism anymore... not that it was ever pure, but the current mix of hysteria and conflicting stories - not to mention horrible writing and endless typos - make me wonder just where these "news" people come from.
With various state legislatures tackling the "issue" of guns in the workplace parking lot again, I see the usual Repugnican apologists whining that letting workers store guns in their cars violates the companys' rights.
Let's put that argument in plain corporate English:
It has come to our attention that many employees are abusing company property. This will cease immediately.
As of this date, all employees are forbidden to consume the company's atmospheric oxygen, and likewise are forbidden to contaminate the workplace environment with the federally recognized pollutant carbon dioxide. Henceforth, all employees are required to hold their breath for the complete duration of their work shifts, and while on company property, whether on duty or not.
Your individual human rights to life are trumped by the property rights of this artificial legal entity. If you don't like it, quit. Or if you are caught consuming company air, or polluting the offices with greenhouse gases, you will be fired, without any severance package.
Those employees who attempt to skirt these rules by using medical oxygen canisters and CO2 absorbing rebreather elements must be aware that oxygen also presents a heightened fire and explosion hazard; bottled oxygen is forbidden on the same penalty of termination.
CO2 absorbers are probably pretty safe, but since you are on our property, you may not have them either.
Understand this: The company's property rights take supreme precedence over any of your human rights.
Similarly, defensive firearms will not be stored in employees' privately owned vehicles in the company parking lot. You will respect company property rights, even to the point of death.
Do not bother trying to sue the company for protection of life that we are hereby forbidding you to provide on your own. Since the courts all say that the police -- specifically charged with protecting the community -- have no obligation to protect you, our over-paid attorneys find the idea that the company should do so totally hilarious. Really- Mr. A. Chaser actually blew scotch out his nostrils when he heard this. Besides, we added it to the company handbook that you have no right to legal process.
And heads up; it has come to our attention that some of you have currently unemployed offspring. We are considering making it a condition of continued employment that you give your first-born to the company to be used at our discretion.
Well, that takes care of life and liberty. And we suppose that it also makes the pursuit of happiness moot.
God, we love the concept of company property rights.
The Overseers and Masters
When honest people speak of "rights" we are using a bit of verbal shorthand; the complete term is "human rights." Real people have rights; not artificial legal constructs.