An 82-year-old woman was stabbed 9 times in London Monday while walking home from shopping. How is she supposed to defend herself against such an attack by a man much younger and stronger? In the UK she can’t, as she’s not allowed to own a handgun for self-defense. Another victim of senseless gun control laws.
The BBC reports that a man with two pistols shot another man in the leg in a London restaurant. We all know, however, that this could not possibly have happened because private ownership of handguns is illegal in England.
CNN reports an Iowa high school football coach was shot and killed in the school’s weight room. We all know, however, that this couldn’t possibly have really happened because guns aren’t allowed on campus and criminals obey gun laws.
How is an elderly man expected to defend himself when he is attacked by three much younger, much stronger thugs? In the UK, he can’t. This poor man was savegely beaten and stabbed to death because he couldn’t legally own a handgun even for the purpose of self defense within his own home.
The attack was captured on a hidden camera installed after Mr Baker had previously been attacked.
Security cameras do not stop violent crimes. Guns often do. Another senseless victim of insane gun control laws.
CNN reports that authorites say the rifle used by James von Brunn to commit murder at the Holocaust Memorial Museum can’t be traced back to the original purchaser. What would be the point? The original purchaser didn’t commit this heinous act. Does it really matter who bought the gun? Other than returning the gun to the original owner? Why? It’s likely von Brunn purchased the gun legally and was the rightful owner (though not likely the original owner—it was manufactured between 1908-1928).
If a drunk driver kills someone, do we trace the car back to its original owner? Hunt down the 10 year old who bought the Louisville Slugger used by a street punk to bash the head of a mugging victim? Tracing guns used in crimes is equally absurd. The original owner didn’t commit this crime. Mr. von Brunn did.
In an unrelated note, a visitor to the museum displayed an all too common folly:
“We want to see the museum, and we trust the city of Washington to keep us safe,” he said. “Had we been in that lobby we could have been in the line of fire.”
Your trust, sir, would have been sadly misplaced as von Brunn clearly demonstrated. Had von Brunn chosen to open fire on the visitor, the city of Washington would have been helpless to protect him. Your personal protection is your responsibility. Except, of course, in DC where it’s virtually impossible to legally carry a handgun for self defense.
When it rains it pours. There another silly story going around about a gun incident at a middle school in Louisiana. Of course we know it can’t possibly be true because shotguns and handguns are banned on campus and we all know gun bans stop gun crime.
There’s an unbelievable story circulating among our media that a young man was shot near the entrance of a Harvard University dormitory. It can’t possibly be true because guns are banned on campus and we all know that gun bans stop gun crimes.
The Senate has approved a credit card reform bill with an amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-OK) which would definitively allow states’ firearms laws to apply to national parks. Just last year over 6,000 felonies were committed in national parks, many of them rather violent (rape, robbery, and kidnapping). The federal government can’t possibly pay for the manpower to provide protection for park visitors. The Coburn amendment would change the current restriction (no handguns, period) so that individuals who are allowed to carry a handgun per state statute would be allowed to carry in national parks.
As a simple example, concealed carry permit holders are convicted of gun crimes at a far lower rate than the US population at large. (Gun grabbers can start their whining now, but it’s true.) Allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks would not only not make our parks less safe, it would allow us to legally provide the protection for ourselves and our families that our federal and state governments simply cannot.
Write your House representative and urge him to support passage of this bill with the Coburn amendment. You can find the contact info for your rep here (if you don’t know your ZIP+4 there’s a link on the page that will give you that number). If, like me, you’re a Republican represented by a rather liberal Democrat, let him know that passage of this bill with the amendment would demonstrate true Congressional bipartisan effort as promised by The Messiah. (OK, I didn’t use that exact terminology in my letter.) Conservatives aren’t thrilled with the credit card bill. Liberals aren’t thrilled (alright, they’re outright terrified) by the Coburn amendment. Passing the bill as is would go a long way toward mollifying the 70%+ of Americans who consider personal gun ownership a Constitutional right. (And ease up the market pressure on those Federal 230 grain Hydra-Shok rounds I prefer. 
)
A pair of thieves try to steal an orange grove owner’s SUV, which was parked in a barn on his property. When it appeared they were going to run him over he fired a handgun, killing the passenger. The CNN reporter displays apparent surprise that he won’t be charged with a crime. Fortunately for the victim (that would be the SUV owner for those who aren’t clear) Florida has strong Castle and “No Retreat” laws to protect him.
You have to love the gun-grabbing Brady Campaign’s spin on the incident:
The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted “no retreat” laws, which some call “shoot-first” laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.
“The shoot-first law is not needed,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. “This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander,” he said.
As is usual for this group, the statement is a deliberate lie and, as CNN so often does, the reporter let him get away with it.
First, “No Retreat” laws do not “extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person’s home and into public places.” Rather, they remove the requirement of retreat when a victim is in a place he has a legal right to be. The right to defend yourself in public existed prior to enactment of the “No Retreat” law, but previously you had to demonstrate that you had done everything in your power to flee the situation first. This gives a blatantly unfair advantage to criminals, who are often stronger and faster than their victims. Turning to flee gives the criminal time to close the distance with the victim and press the attack directly. Now victims can use that time, instead, to present a weapon for self defense. That change in law was most certainly needed. (Note that, in any case, this crime was perpetrated on the victim’s own property rather than in public.)
Second, Florida’s laws do not allow indiscriminate use of a handgun. In order to avoid prosecution, the victim must have reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Further, Florida has nothing on the books which would prevent prosecution for shooting bystanders. Gun owners are responsible for every bullet they fire, regardless of intent. In this case the criminals had a deadly weapon (the SUV) and were approaching the victim—a classic case of failure in the victim selection process which resulted in a dead criminal.
How do you repel pirates? Fire back. Seems too simple, no? My only criticism is the choice of weapons:
A team of Israeli guards hired by the vessel’s owners immediately began firing back with pistols and spraying the attackers with fire hoses.
The security team should have been armed with, at the least, Uzis or similar compact submachine guns. They were, however, effective.
Ignoring the obvious, the “head of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme” offered this gem:
“There are a number of other methods which can be used to deter the pirates, having weapons on board is dangerous because it raises the stakes for the pirates,” he said.
“There is a far higher risk that a crew member of a merchant vessel, or a passenger, could die if the pirates feel they must fight harder to win the ship.”
Or they might, um, give up and look for an easier target.