The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
During the coronavirus lockdown, there was a public debate over whether gun stores should be deemed “essential.” During this outbreak of rioting, such an inquiry seems quaint. Now, as ever, there is no greater prophylactic against a criminal on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.
Read the whole thing.
The two self-confessed “rednecks” are being interviewed. The two “gentlemen of color” off to the right there also defending the store, were not. Note they all are carrying the evil AR-15 rifle, but they aren’t shooting anyone.
The Second Amendment is for everybody.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y1KDoRQ5Tw]
Linda has turned to the courts of this State for redress, asking that the city be held liable in damages for its negligent failure to protect her from harm. With compelling logic, she can point out that, if a stranger, who had absolutely no obligation to aid her, had offered her assistance, and thereafter Burton Pugach was able to injure her as a result of the negligence of the volunteer, the courts would certainly require him to pay damages. (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 323.) Why then should the city, whose duties are imposed by law and include the prevention of crime (New York City Charter, § 435) and, consequently, extend far beyond that of the Good Samaritan, not be responsible? If a private detective acts carelessly, no one would deny that a jury could find such conduct unacceptable. Why then is the city not required to live up to at least the same minimal standards of professional competence which would be demanded of a private detective?Linda’s reasoning seems so eminently sensible that surely it must come as a shock to her and to every citizen to hear the city argue and to learn that this court decides that the city has no duty to provide police protection to any given individual. What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” (My emphasis)
This situation has raised its head again in many places, but New York in particular. Read the New York Post piece Worse than War: My Night Besieged by Looters and Thugs in New York. Excerpt:
Every minute brought some new shock and a fresh surge of adrenaline: more and more of those roving gangs, some sticking around for minutes. Squad cars racing down in convoy, sirens blaring. The smashing of windows (a hair salon on the block, I learned in the morning, had been smashed in). The screeching of tires. The shouting of men: “Stop, you motherf–ker!”
Why won’t the men in blue stay in front of our house?
At two in the morning, it couldn’t be denied that one particular roving gang was roving no more; its members were obviously staking out our building. Now cackling, now going ominously silent. Should I race upstairs and bring a kitchen knife? How would this scenario play out? Would they just smash our lobby and leave? What could stop them if they wanted to take the elevators up to our homes?
See also Joe Huffman’s Quote of the Day.
Two things, before my calm gets damaged further.
a) most businesses are not insured against civil unrest. Most will get nothing.
b) when you say “are your possessions worth a human life?” Most people’s possessions are their lives. They spent days of their lives and strength and health to acquire them.
As for their being “worth” a human life… Humans who think it’s okay to hurt people and take their stuff are only going to cost more lives in the long run. The right to be secure in your possessions is part of what made America great. Who will work, invest, innovate, if at any minute the government can decide their work is non-essential and brownshirts at the service of the democrats can burn it all down?
You allow this to continue, you have Mogadishu, not the US.
On December 29, an armed gunman entered the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas and shot two members of the congregation. Within six seconds, a third member of the congregation drew a weapon and shot the gunman dead.The events were captured on live-streamed video, with the dramatic events — in the minds of many observers — highlighting the benefits of privately owned firearms as a defense against armed criminals. Moreover, the gunman, who had a criminal history, obtained his gun illegally, and demonstrated one of the central pitfalls of the gun-control narrative: namely, that those with criminal intent are not easily restrained by laws controlling access to firearms.
To many people who aren’t left-leaning journalists, it is hardly “terrifying” that some other private citizens of unknown expertise were armed in the congregation. After all, these people never fired a shot once they saw the shooter had been incapacitated. None of them provided any reason to suspect they pose any risk to anyone else.On the other hand, 2019 has provided plenty of reminders of what sort of “expertise” and heroism government-provided security forces offer.
Here’s a short, pithy exchange from Quora. The original answer is mine.
Original question: “How many ‘good guys with guns’ have saved the day against criminals in the US?”
The lowest estimate for defensive gun usage in the U.S. is approximately 108,000 per year – that’s (carry the one…) 295 times a day. The vast majority of these defensive gun uses involve no shots fired. As a result, no mention in the news. A few do make it, like these:
Man holds suspected burglar at gunpoint in east Tulsa
Citizen holds assault suspect at gunpoint at Wenatchee gas station
Deputies: Homeowner pulls gun on intruder with face he won’t forget
Couple holds home invasion suspect at gunpoint
NH Dad Pulls Gun on Intruder Until Police Arrive
Michael Hill
4h agoYou claim 295 times a day then as evidence for decades all over America give just FIVE cases.
How damned stupid do you think we are?
Kevin Baker
Original Author · 3h ago“How damned stupid do think we are?”
I gave five specific instanced in the past few weeks where NO SHOTS WERE FIRED, and the story still made the (local) news.
How stupid do you have to be to misrepresent that?
EDITED TO ADD: A Violence Policy Center paper? Really? An organization dedicated to the banning of all handguns is supposed to be nonpartisan? Pull my other leg.
Michael Hill
2h agoBoring NRA propaganda.
Don’t cry. We won’t take your guns away.
Kevin Baker
Original Author · 1h agoOK, I’ll see your 2015 VPC paper and raise you a 2013 Centers for Disease Control report. They’re a shill for the NRA, right? Who was President in 2013?
From Page 15 of Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
108,000/365 = 295.89 defensive gun uses PER DAY. Absolute minimum.CDC propaganda? National Crime Victimization Survey propaganda? Or fact?
And you’re right, you won’t.
I’m curious as to whether or not he’ll respond.
UPDATE: He did!
Michael Hill
4m agoLies, lies lies in your article:
“According to the Congressional Research Service, public mass shootings “have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims” since 1983 (Bjelopera et al., 2013, pp. 7-8). “
Real world with actual data for this year alone:
List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 – Wikipedia
More lies in your article:
“with ESTIMATES of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower ESTIMATE of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.
So it is anything from 108,000 to 500,000 to 3,000,000. What kind of crazy figures are those? They are EXTRAPOLATIONS from a small number of responses.
The great stsistics LIE:
Fascinating new book that shows how easily we’re misled by statistics
Kevin Baker
Original Author · Just nowSo the CDC – and by extension the National Crime Victimization survey are lying. But the Violence Policy Center isn’t. And Wikipedia is never wrong. Because you say so. Check.
(Wikipedia? Seriously? Well, you believe the VPC, so…)
UPDATE II: He came back for more.
Michael Hill
6h agoA Government body lying? Who’d have believed it?
As to wikipedia your arm waving is a decade out of date as they have long ago proved what they say by giving references, etc.
So another failure.
Kevin Baker
Original Author · 3h agoSo the references Wikipedia uses are dependable, but the CDC and Justice Department aren’t because they’re government entities.
What happens when Wikipedia cites government entities?
But hey, let’s use the all-knowing oracle that is Wikipedia – Defensive gun use – Wikipedia
Excerpt – “Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study’s definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. ”
So let’s take that absolute lowest estimate, 55,000 defensive gun uses per year as our basis. That’s 150 per day. Are you going to tell me that’s false too?
The third most popular piece on TSM is a reprint of an old Usenet post, written by a Florida pawnbroker who went by the handle Flimflam. It’s the story of how he was attacked in his store one day and had to defend himself from a sword-wielding nutcase. He wasn’t wearing his fully-loaded Glock, the backup .38 in his office was disassembled for cleaning, but while standing with a blade jammed through his abdomen he finally remembered the tiny Beretta .25 in his back pocket and it saved his life.
Well, yesterday someone emailed me a similar story of how a .25 saved another life:
While out walking along the edge of a pond just outside my house in The Villages with my soon to be ex-husband, discussing property settlement and other divorce issues, we were surprised by a huge 12-ft. Alligator which suddenly emerged from the murky water and began charging us with its large jaws wide open. She must have been protecting her nest because she was extremely aggressive.
If I had not had my little Beretta .25 caliber pistol with me, I would not be here today! Just one shot to my estranged husband’s knee cap was all it took. The ‘gator got him easily, and I was able to escape by just walking away at a brisk pace. It’s one of the best pistols in my collection, plus the amount I saved in lawyer’s fees was really incredible. His life insurance was a big bonus.
The .25ACP. It ain’t much, but it beats harsh language!
Paraphrased because I can’t find the actual quote at the moment, but seen elsewhere:
Handguns put holes in bodies.
Rifles put holes through bodies.
Shotguns, at the proper range and with the proper load, remove significant portions of bodies and splatter those portions all over the ground.
I’m advised that quote is from Clint Smith, President and Director of Thunder Ranch. And I think that’s a pretty fair assessment.
On January 12, an Arizona Highway Patrol officer responding to a rollover wreck was attacked by the driver of the vehicle in the incident. The officer was shot in the shoulder and chest, and then the assailant physically assaulted him, trying to bash his head on the pavement.
A passing motorist saw the assault, stopped and exited his vehicle with a handgun, ordered the attacker to stop, and upon his failure to respond and the officer’s cries for assistance, the motorist shot the assailant, killing him, and possibly saving the life of the officer.
In a statement given today, the emotional shooter described the incident. Rambo he is not:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56YVIBxTkDE?rel=0&showinfo=0]
DPS Director Frank Milstead discusses the incident in more detail:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g64i9cl1mco?rel=0&showinfo=0]
Not an off-duty cop. Not ex-military. Just a guy who goes shooting “three or four times a year.”
Moreover the Samaritan, Thomas Yoxall, had a felony conviction in 2000 that would have rendered him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S. Code § 922 (g)(1). However, “In October 2003, a Superior Court judge vacated Yoxall’s guilty judgment and restored his right to possess a gun.”
We’re told that dangerous criminals like Yoxall can’t be trusted with a firearm. Trooper Ed Anderson, I’m sure, is glad that he was armed.
