Aug 11 2011

Pro-life policies include access to the means for self-defense, when you need it

Category: guns,libertyharmonicminer @ 12:36 pm

In my recent article at Renewing American Leadership, redefining the “seamless garment” argument for pro-life causes, I mentioned that supporting the personal right to own and carry suitable weapons for self-defense is itself a highly pro-life position.

In the light of the recent tragedy in Norway, Charlie Cooke at NRO has observed that if Norway’s firearms laws had been more like Idaho’s or Utah’s, it is very likely that the death toll would have been far smaller from the lunatic murderer’s killing spree.

It took about 90 minutes for the police to respond effectively.  While that’s an atypically long time by US standards, the fact is that the police in the USA almost never “get there” in time to stop murders, even multiple murders.  The only people who can stop them are those on the scene.

Those who congratulate themselves for being in favor of making it essentially impossible for private citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones, from some “morally superior” perspective that believes laws against guns save lives, are simply ignorant of the facts regarding gun ownership (including keep and bearing) by law abiding citizens, and have the blood of innocents on their hands wherever they’ve succeeded in imposing such restrictions.

A gun locked up in a safe in a closet does you very little good when you’re attacked in grocery store….  or on an island.  40 states have realized this, and now have “shall issue” laws for concealed carry permits, meaning that people without criminal backgrounds are automatically approved with suitable training.  I wonder how long it will be before the rest of the states come around.  I wonder how many people who could have defended themselves will have to die before those states change their laws.  I also wonder how many people will be attacked who might not have been if the criminals had not been so certain that their intended victims were not armed.

“Gun free zone” equals “target rich environment” for lunatics and just plain killers, who ignore gun laws by definition.

Aug 11 2011

Britain R.I.P.? Part five

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 8:45 am

The previous post in this series is here.

The nation that refuses to allow people the means to defend themselves is also the nation that refuses to defend itself, it seems.

During the Los Angeles riots, many shopkeepers armed themselves and defended their property, often with great effect, in the sense that the rioters simply went to destroy and loot stores where the shopkeepers didn’t shoot at them.  Reports widely circulated at the time repeatedly revealed police decisons NOT to defend property and people for fear of “escalation.”  They literally abandoned the residents of many neighborhoods to their own devices.

One Korean businessman’s report:

Jong Min Kang, president of the Korean American Business Association, was president of Korean Young Adult Team of L.A., when the riots erupted.

“THERE was a lot of activity to protect Korean businesses, especially in Koreatown. A lot of young Korean people had weapons. There was every kind of weapon, AK-47s and Uzis.

“I have two businesses, one downtown, which is general wholesale merchandise, and another in South Central, a discount retail shop. My store in South Central is in a strip mall and there were more than 100 merchants there and more than 20 security guards to protect the Korean stores. So (the rioters) couldn’t come in. Nothing happened to those stores but a lot of other stores were burned. It was a terrible situation.”

Britain’s experience shows what happens when a disarmed populace is confronted with amoral looters and thugs. On the other hand, far from increasing the chaos, the presence of firearms is wonderfully clarifying. People who are determined to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property do not make good victims.  Even ARMED thugs simply choose to go elsewhere (the LA riots experience), let alone cretins whose primary weapons are rocks and bats.  The criminals are not brave.  They are looking for easy victims at low risk to themselves.

Britain may be abdicating as a nation.  I hope not.  But the signs are all there of an aging society that can’t rouse itself to take necessary action to defend itself, a society that just seems not to care if it survives or not.  On the other hand, there are many elements of current British society which, even if they are not directly behind the unrest (an open question, in my judgment), will surely be happy to take advantage of it to push their own agenda for Britain.

The next post in this series is here.