I belong to an online forum called Bersa Talk, which is a community for Bersa brand handgun enthusiasts. On a recent thread the question was posed: "Is it standard to carry a spare magazine, or just the one fully loaded mag with one round in the chamber?"
I responded that I carry a spare mag if I think to grab one before I leave the house. After the Trolley Square shooting last year, it makes sense to me that one magazine just might not be enough. And after a recent home invasion in West Valley, in which 5 thugs invaded a home and held the occupants at gunpoint while they hauled out their valuables, it might not be a bad idea to carry a spare magazine on your person, at home.
Dozens of others responded one way or another. It turns out that many do carry a spare. As often happens on internet fora, there was eventually a little bit of topic drift as the debate warmed up and strongly held views were expressed and defended. In the latter stages of the thread, it was dominated by two participants who were sparring back and forth, and the topic became whether some people shouldn't carry a gun at all. Here's a segment that I found particularly interesting:
RF: From a statistical standpoint, not carrying AT ALL, AT ANY TIME, is...defensible.
GB: Interesting assertion, and one that evolution, grand design, or whatever has settled upon as racial survival strategies for a large number of species. It manifests itself as relatively unarmed prey species that congregate in large numbers in herds, flocks, schools, or whatever the appropriate term might be. Anyway, the principle is that even with predation which will certainly claim a large number of the herd, flock, school or whatever -- enough will survive to ensure the survival of the species into the next generaton. It is all fine and good if you are one of the survivors. "Baaa" says the sheep(le)! It ain't so good if you are one of the culls who gets predated. A better personal survival strategy is to recognize the existence of the predators, be vigilant and prepared to fight back against them. That way your personal odds of survival become markedly greater than that of the unarmed herd, flock, school or whatever. Oddly enough, the presence of sufficient numbers of members of the herd who are vigilant and prepared to fight back against the predators increases not only their own chances of survival but that of the entire herd. It is the tact that is taken by such animals as elephants, bison and baboons.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that while the not carrying at all, ever, is defensible ("Baaa"), it is not optimal. It does nothing to combat ever increasing predation. It is largely based on the premise that life is cheap. That individuals in the herd may be sacrificed to the predators as long as there are enough who survive to insure survival of the herd, and that should there not be enough survivors then the herd itself will die as nature dictates. Personally, I don't hold to that "life is cheap" mindset that this necessarily implies. Certainly not my life or my loved ones.
RF: If you have a normal lifestyle...the chances you will be involved in a true life-or-death self-defense scenario are very remote indeed.
GB: That chance is remote, yes. But non-zero. And, as society continues to coarsen and the value of life is held in ever less regards by those who engage in lives of crime, that chance become greater over time. The point is that the cost of being caught without carrying when you truly need it is so high that the remote chance argument is negated. Same thing as with catastrophic health insurance. Same thing as having homeowner's insurance, flood insurance or a fire extinguisher. Since the cost of not carrying could very well be your life or the life of a loved one, carrying is justified even if the odds of needing to use it is remote.
RF: Some call CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] 'paranoid' behavior.
GB: No more paranoid than someone who has a fire extinguisher in the pantry, or who takes out flood insurance. It is actually the act of viewing the world as it is, and not of viewing the world through rose colored glasses. It comes from actually contemplating worst case scenarios and being prepared for such in a rational manner.
RF: Others think it necessary to be prepared no matter the risk-small or large... Call it what you will-it's all about choice, and risk/benefit.
GB: It should be a choice, and from the pro-carry folks it is normally treated as exactly that. The vast majority of pro-carry people have no desire to coerce people who do not wish to carry to carry anyway. It is viewed as a personal choice, as it should be. However, the actions of the anti-carry folks is not so -- they seek not only to not carry themselves, but to take away the option of carry from those who wish to do so, by way of legal means or by way of societal pressure, stigmatizing those who desire to carry as being "paranoid" or anti-social.
RF: I choose to carry intermittently, and believe the choice I have made as to carry mode satisfies that risk/benefit analysis.
GB: Yes, that is your prerogative. Personally, I choose to carry whenever possible in the most optimum manner feasable, since it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty when a true sociopath, psychopath, or other variety of violent criminal may choose to attack myself or [family member]. That lack of certainty and the cost/risk analysis that I have undertaken leads me to do just that. The cost of an unprepared for encounter is just too high, and the risk of one is non-zero and ever increasing.
It was a lively conversation. If you're interested in reading the whole thread, here's a link: http://bersatalk.com/forums/1/55676/ShowThread.aspx
And here's a link to Bersa Talk: http://bersatalk.com/
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Sean Taylor Died Because He Took A Knife To A Gunfight.
Sean Taylor, the Washington Redskins football player who was gunned down in his home last year, died because he took a knife to a gunfight. The NFL contributed to the circumstances of his death by insisting on a "no guns" policy for NFL players, putting all their people at risk of being unarmed victims.
Sean Taylor, awakened in the middle of the night by the noise of someone breaking into his home, armed himself with a machete to protect himself and his family. His attacker was armed with a firearm, and shot and killed him.
What if Sean Taylor had had a gun? Chances are better than even that he'd still be alive today. But all he had was a large knife, and now he's dead. He never had a chance.
The four young thugs who were bent on robbing Taylor are primarily responsible for his death. But the league is complicit because they foster an attitude of disarmament and submission among their personnel. NFL players have a high profile, are often famous, wealthy, and thanks to the NFL, unarmed and unprotected.
This is only the beginning, folks. There will be much more of this as long as the NFL clings to this insane policy. In an article at Reasononline this league policy and the weak rationale behind it are discussed at length. Read the whole thing.
Sean Taylor, awakened in the middle of the night by the noise of someone breaking into his home, armed himself with a machete to protect himself and his family. His attacker was armed with a firearm, and shot and killed him.
What if Sean Taylor had had a gun? Chances are better than even that he'd still be alive today. But all he had was a large knife, and now he's dead. He never had a chance.
The four young thugs who were bent on robbing Taylor are primarily responsible for his death. But the league is complicit because they foster an attitude of disarmament and submission among their personnel. NFL players have a high profile, are often famous, wealthy, and thanks to the NFL, unarmed and unprotected.
This is only the beginning, folks. There will be much more of this as long as the NFL clings to this insane policy. In an article at Reasononline this league policy and the weak rationale behind it are discussed at length. Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Supreme Court to Decide if Second Amendment Applies to Residents of DC.
I was watching a news report on TV where they discussed the DC gun ban and the Supreme Court case. They said our nation's capitol is also our nation’s murder capitol, (showing footage from a crime scene, with a dead corpse on the ground under a sheet, with cop cars and flashing lights all around). They mentioned the high murder rate, and that all these victims were "killed by guns" (showing footage of a gun collection with hundreds of evil handguns displayed in a large glass case). They quoted DC authorities saying that the gun ban "saves lives".
What a crock.
All those victims were killed by criminals. That never came up in the report.
Guns don’t kill people. Gun control laws kill people by disarming law abiding citizens and giving career criminals a safe working environment.
Will the Supreme Court rescue the Second Amendment? Historically they haven’t shown a lot of consistency in interpreting the rights of the people, because they’ve defended some rights that aren’t actually mentioned in the text of the document, such as our Constitutional rights to sodomy, while muddying the water concerning other rights that are specifically mentioned in the text, (the People’s right to keep and bear arms, for instance). So who knows? But we can hope. And so I do.
I think this highlights the importance of keeping liberal gun grabbers out of the White House, because it's the president who appoints justices to all our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Some of those justices are well advanced in years and are nearing death or retirement. Our next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court. That could have a huge impact on our civil rights in the not too distant future.
What a crock.
All those victims were killed by criminals. That never came up in the report.
Guns don’t kill people. Gun control laws kill people by disarming law abiding citizens and giving career criminals a safe working environment.
Will the Supreme Court rescue the Second Amendment? Historically they haven’t shown a lot of consistency in interpreting the rights of the people, because they’ve defended some rights that aren’t actually mentioned in the text of the document, such as our Constitutional rights to sodomy, while muddying the water concerning other rights that are specifically mentioned in the text, (the People’s right to keep and bear arms, for instance). So who knows? But we can hope. And so I do.
I think this highlights the importance of keeping liberal gun grabbers out of the White House, because it's the president who appoints justices to all our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Some of those justices are well advanced in years and are nearing death or retirement. Our next president could have the opportunity to appoint as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court. That could have a huge impact on our civil rights in the not too distant future.
Friday, October 12, 2007
UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUSPENDED AFTER ADVOCATING LEGALIZED CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS
From the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
"Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation."
Freedom of expression and academic freedom are phrases that ring hollow on American college campuses any more, it seems.
Related material here.
ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
"Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation."
Freedom of expression and academic freedom are phrases that ring hollow on American college campuses any more, it seems.
Related material here.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Military, the Militia, and the Second Amendment
“Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Militia referred to in the amendment doesn’t refer to the Army or the National Guard. People in the military don’t have a Constitutional right to keep and bears arms as individuals. In fact, they don’t actually have all the same Constitutional rights as civilian citizens because they are under martial law and are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a private in Marine boot camp I literally slept with my rifle every night. It was locked to my rack (bunk), and when ordered to, I carried it in close-order drill along with everyone else in my platoon. But nobody had ammunition except while we were at the range, and every single round was monitored and accounted for with fanatical, obsessive ferocity by the Drill Instructors and Range Officers. My MOS was not a combat specialty and I served most of my enlistment in headquarters garrisons where I was rarely issued a weapon, and when one was, it was kept at the battalion armory and I wasn’t allowed to have it unless authorized by my commanding officer. We were only allowed to draw weapons from the armory when it was required for inspections, parades, or range qualification. If you want to see “gun control”, it is rampant and pervasive in the military. Only certain people get to carry guns, and even fewer get to carry ammo, too. That’s why the recently uncovered plot to attack Ft. Dix in New Jersey had such potential for death and destruction. Soldiers in garrison are usually not issued weapons and are almost never issued live ammo. Those six or 10 guys could have murdered hundreds of soldiers and wouldn’t have been stopped until they ran out of ammo.
The people are the Militia, the law abiding citizens of a community. Armed thieves, robbers and gang members don’t qualify as “the people” because they are criminals who prey upon the law abiding, peaceable populace and operate outside the law. They are one of the elements that the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from.
Another element the amendment was meant to protect us from is foreign invasion. And for the most part, it has worked quite well. Early in World War II, military commanders of the Japanese Empire seriously considered and began planning for an invasion of the U.S. mainland. The emperor himself ended that discussion when he said “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass!” The invasion of Alaska was a diversionary feint designed to draw U.S. troops and resources away from their main thrust in the Pacific.
Another problem the 2nd Amendment in particular and the whole Bill of Rights in general was designed to prevent is the usurpation of power by a tyrannical government, whether local, state or federal. Theoretically, if there are sufficient arms in the hands of the people, a tyrannical government can’t rise and usurp power and enslave or oppress them. But nowadays we’re subjected to a creeping form of tyranny called “nannyism” where government officeholders, including unelected bureaucrats, take it upon themselves to legislate, dictate, regulate and bureaucratize every aspect of human life in order to protect us from ourselves. As the current Speaker of the House has famously said, they do it “for the children”. The result is that all our liberties are infringed upon and abridged and the people are yoked with the ever increasing burden of supporting, sustaining, maintaining and complying with a burgeoning mountain of regulations, laws, requirements and covenants, to say nothing of the taxes required to support the administration of all this nonsense. And the problem this creates is that it promotes waste and corruption, because the administration of all this government requires a colossal budget that can’t possibly be meted out with adequate oversight. As a result, waste and corruption are rampant in the halls of Congress and the rest of Washington as well. Republicans have been vile and wicked in this respect, but the Democrats are proving to be every bit as corruptible.
Not that we aren’t already oppressed and enslaved in a very real sense. Don’t believe me? Just withhold your taxes from the state or federal government come next April, and see how long it takes them to seize your property and imprison you.
In spite of all the nonsense, the U.S.A. is still the greatest nation on earth. I mean, even the poor people are fat, for crying out loud. But we can’t get complacent, because if the nannies don’t get us the jihadis will.
Have a nice day.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Militia referred to in the amendment doesn’t refer to the Army or the National Guard. People in the military don’t have a Constitutional right to keep and bears arms as individuals. In fact, they don’t actually have all the same Constitutional rights as civilian citizens because they are under martial law and are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a private in Marine boot camp I literally slept with my rifle every night. It was locked to my rack (bunk), and when ordered to, I carried it in close-order drill along with everyone else in my platoon. But nobody had ammunition except while we were at the range, and every single round was monitored and accounted for with fanatical, obsessive ferocity by the Drill Instructors and Range Officers. My MOS was not a combat specialty and I served most of my enlistment in headquarters garrisons where I was rarely issued a weapon, and when one was, it was kept at the battalion armory and I wasn’t allowed to have it unless authorized by my commanding officer. We were only allowed to draw weapons from the armory when it was required for inspections, parades, or range qualification. If you want to see “gun control”, it is rampant and pervasive in the military. Only certain people get to carry guns, and even fewer get to carry ammo, too. That’s why the recently uncovered plot to attack Ft. Dix in New Jersey had such potential for death and destruction. Soldiers in garrison are usually not issued weapons and are almost never issued live ammo. Those six or 10 guys could have murdered hundreds of soldiers and wouldn’t have been stopped until they ran out of ammo.
The people are the Militia, the law abiding citizens of a community. Armed thieves, robbers and gang members don’t qualify as “the people” because they are criminals who prey upon the law abiding, peaceable populace and operate outside the law. They are one of the elements that the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from.
Another element the amendment was meant to protect us from is foreign invasion. And for the most part, it has worked quite well. Early in World War II, military commanders of the Japanese Empire seriously considered and began planning for an invasion of the U.S. mainland. The emperor himself ended that discussion when he said “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass!” The invasion of Alaska was a diversionary feint designed to draw U.S. troops and resources away from their main thrust in the Pacific.
Another problem the 2nd Amendment in particular and the whole Bill of Rights in general was designed to prevent is the usurpation of power by a tyrannical government, whether local, state or federal. Theoretically, if there are sufficient arms in the hands of the people, a tyrannical government can’t rise and usurp power and enslave or oppress them. But nowadays we’re subjected to a creeping form of tyranny called “nannyism” where government officeholders, including unelected bureaucrats, take it upon themselves to legislate, dictate, regulate and bureaucratize every aspect of human life in order to protect us from ourselves. As the current Speaker of the House has famously said, they do it “for the children”. The result is that all our liberties are infringed upon and abridged and the people are yoked with the ever increasing burden of supporting, sustaining, maintaining and complying with a burgeoning mountain of regulations, laws, requirements and covenants, to say nothing of the taxes required to support the administration of all this nonsense. And the problem this creates is that it promotes waste and corruption, because the administration of all this government requires a colossal budget that can’t possibly be meted out with adequate oversight. As a result, waste and corruption are rampant in the halls of Congress and the rest of Washington as well. Republicans have been vile and wicked in this respect, but the Democrats are proving to be every bit as corruptible.
Not that we aren’t already oppressed and enslaved in a very real sense. Don’t believe me? Just withhold your taxes from the state or federal government come next April, and see how long it takes them to seize your property and imprison you.
In spite of all the nonsense, the U.S.A. is still the greatest nation on earth. I mean, even the poor people are fat, for crying out loud. But we can’t get complacent, because if the nannies don’t get us the jihadis will.
Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
