Archive for the ‘Self-Defensive Gun Use’ Category

I almost bought an AR.

I guess the H&K MR556 or SIG516 are AR-15 variants.

So, number one deterrent was price. The SIG is the less expensive of the two, but still in the four figure range. We are talking a price of US$ 1400+. Ouch. Toss in that I am leaning toward the H&K compared to the Sig.

And that’s the price if you can find one.

Assault Rifles and guns in general are a hot commodity these days. For good reason given the chaos of the past week. Some people have seen it on TV. Other people have lived it.

And people want to protect themselves. And what better way than with a weapon that was designed for the battlefield and proven in mass shootings across the country. Las Vegas was a good advertisement. The chaos of the past week are the perfect advertisement for a weapon like this.

I may not like it, but it is hard to say that people shouldn’t be able to own these weapons when the cities are under siege. That makes me different from a lot of people on the left, but I am also much more pragmatic than a lot of people on the left.FireShot Capture 012 - Why are some US police forces equipped like military units_ - World n_ - www.theguardian.com

Those are the ones who are moaning about the militarisation of the police, like this article in the Guardian. But it misses something that this post is pointing out. Civilians can buy the 5.56 Assault Rifle with no problem. Shouldn’t the cops be as well armed as the civilians if they are going to keep the peace?

Toss in there is a movement to defund the police:

Defunding, said activist Jeralynn Blueford, is the logical response from leaders in this moment of unprecedented unrest. “If police had been serious about reform and policy change, then guess what? People would not be this angry.”

What The Fuck? Serious What the Fuck?

3d25106b37We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.

While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.

It’s the image in this Tommy Gun ad from the days when they were freely available.  The ability to protect your home against marauding bands of evil doers.

And the do gooders (I can’t really say the left since there are some of us who get what needs to be done) who would defund the police and try to make assault rifles illegal. The argument that “no one needs one of these in a civilian world” rings hollow these days.

The chaos of the past week ISN’T the civilian world and toleration of those who are destroying US cities is wrong. It’s turning the “silence is consent” argument back at them. Even worse, it’s not silence, but outright appeasement.

Black Lives Matters lost any relevance the moment the fires and violence broke out. They could have salvaged their effort if they stood down and denounced the violence. But allowing violence on either side is wrong.

I don’t really like that I have to accept that assault rifles are an undeniable fact of US life, but there needs to be some feeling of safety and security until people stand down: especially the rioters and looters. Violence isn’t the answer. Especially if you are not the body authorised by law to keep the peace. Breaking the law really isn’t the answer.

There are options other than violence and chaos, however, there is a misguided belief that is what is necessary. That is costing the Black Lives Matters its legitimacy even amongst the people it claims to represent.

Because the people buying guns aren’t just white.

Reality versus gun rights

It’s really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I’m going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let’s add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, “couldn’t you get out of their way, or leave town?” Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN’T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type’s question: “shouldn’t the person be allowed to defend themselves?” To which “Fuck, yeah!” seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is “justified” or “understandable” should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.

While I don’t like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don’t support “gun rights” or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn’t ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Gun Control Irony

Yeah, yeah. I try not to post this stuff on my blog, but this one is pretty important.  It was posted on Penigma, but I want my other post to get a few more views before this shows up again on that blog.

On the other hand, this needs to get out there.  That said:

It would be really ironic if instead of all the mass shootings the US has suffered (my condolences to the victims and their families of those), that the incident that caused people to realise the US needs gun control is an out of control suburban mother fighting over a notebook in a suburban Wal-Mart.

No, pulling a gun in this situation is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination.  No one was fearing death or serious bodily injury which would justify even the threat of deadly force.

The woman pulling the gun is committing Felony Assault under Michigan law, Section 750.82.

The offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW), is also known as Felonious Assault in Michigan. ADW is felony which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. ADW is a crime which involves an assault with a deadly weapon (such as a gun or knife) or any other instrumentality which is fashioned or used as a weapon (car, club, bottle) which is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. A criminal charge or conviction does not require actual physical contact or an injury. The offense is considered complete upon placing another in fear of an assault by a person who possesses a deadly weapon

Michigan law requires that the defendant “must have honestly and reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted” in order to use deadly force.  Additionally, the defendant “may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time to protect himself or herself.”

While a person may believe he or she had acted in self-defense, the police, prosecutor, judge and jury may disagree.

No shots need to be fired for her to be found guilty.

I’m not sure how the “pro-gun” crowd can defend this action.  I know responsible gun owners don’t, but it’s time they stepped up to the plate and admitted this shit happens too often with the relaxing of concealed carry law for it to be condoned.

It’s time to give Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) yet another plug.

One of the many failings of the Heller-McDonald bullshit is that those cases were not cases of first impression, but that post is coming in the future.

See also:

What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…

A Simple Question about Melanie Hain.

Would she be dead if there were not firearms in her house?

She wasn’t killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.

SHE WAS KILLED BY A GUN

So, why do the gun cretins try to hide that point?

Precisely because their arguments are based upon lies. Actual defensive gun use is a very rare event, as opposed to the anecdotal incidents provided by the gun cretins.

Kleck and Lott are discredited surveys. In fact, John Lott makes Michael Bellesiles look positively honest, yet there are few screams from the lynch mob who went after Bellesiles for Lott’s position. Google Mary Rosh next time you feel the urge to use “More Guns, More Crime” as a source when you try to argue with someone knowledgable about the issue.

The problem is that the better statistics that exist are on the side of gun control. Those being that a gun in the home will more likely harm a family member, Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed, defensive gun use is rare, and a woman is more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in a domestic situtation.

Sorry, but the numbers were against her.

But the gun cretin crowd wants to keep it so that it appears there aren’t valid reasons for gun control. You can’t show that most crime guns are purchased “legally” if gun trace data isn’t available courtesy of the Tiahrt Amendment. You can’t show gun laws work if you can’t show the links between the legal sources of crime guns. You can’t argue that people are more likely to be killed with their own guns with inflated numbers like those provided by Kleck’s surveys. It’s easier to hide under false statistics such as Kleck and Lott when there isn’t a source of valid data to contradict those studies.

But, it’s pretty obvious that the gun cretin crowd wants to hide from the simple fact that Melanie Hain was killed by a gun she hoped would provide her with protection.

Also another sorry, but the guns could have been taken from the home under the current weak gun laws. There was no reason for those firearms to be in her home other than her perceived “Second Amendment” (Actually it is under Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned) and her belief that her gun would be used to defend herself from unknown assailants.

Sorry, but you can’t hide from reality for too long.

Because you are mentally ill if you do and you have made yourself a disqualified person.

I only rejoice that someone who was a fool has been removed from this earth and I wish that the rest of you idiots would see sense, no matter how foolish that hope might be.

Self-Defensive Gun Use by Crime Victims

Timothy C. Hart; Terance D. Miethe: Self-Defensive Gun Use by Crime Victims: A Conjunctive Analysis of Its Situational Contexts, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume:25 Issue:1 Dated:February 2009 Pages:6-19
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=248399

Abstract:

The study found results similar to other research; after examining self-defensive gun use with National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data analysis revealed that victims of violence rarely used a firearm self-defensively during a criminal incident. It was found that only 1 percent of the over 20,000 violent offenses in the sample involved self-defensive gun use. The average level of self-defensive gun use was also infrequent (2 percent) when the unit of analysis was the 42 situational contexts observed in this study (situational contexts include such crimes as assault, rape, robbery, time of day or night, etc.). Even in the most prevalent context for defensive gun use, rape, only 17 percent of the victims in these situations said that they used a gun for self-protection. The likelihood of defensive gun use varies widely across contexts and is most often effective at helping the victim rather than hurting them in those situational contexts in which self-defensive gun use occurs. However, because NCVS data do not include homicide victims and may be susceptible to various types of social desirability factors that minimize the expression of negative feelings about one’s self-protective actions in general, it is suggested that these results be viewed as tentative until confirmed through other data sources. Data were collected from 20,631 respondents who experienced nonfatal violent victimization.

Posted 10/10/2009 by lacithedog in Self-Defensive Gun Use