21 October 2010

Women With Guns . . .

. . . are a good thing!

At least so I believe! I met Paxton Quigley several years ago at an event and was quite taken by her book. When I was teaching personal safety classes it was one of the books we recommended that people pick up. It was, and still is, a valueable tool for everyone, but was written with women in mind.

The Washington Post (of all publications) has a guest blogging column in its "Political Bookworm" section this week. In a nutshell, she makes a compelling argument for why women should be armed. The sidearm was in the old days, and remains today, "the great equalizer."

Her observations are many. Here are three favorites of mine from the guest blog she has penned:

People who fight back should be celebrated for their prowess – and many women are quietly learning to defend themselves. But in our culture it is considered unwomanly to pursue a self defense plan that gives you some peace of mind. That attitude only empowers men who commit crimes against women because the criminals recognize that women are easy targets.


(regarding interviews with prisoners).... They said if they knew women were armed, they would think twice. Consider what happened in Orlando when women began buying guns after a wave of violent assaults. The police gave training sessions which were publicized in the papers. Rapes plummeted in Orlando while increasing in the surrounding cities.

and finally....

It is difficult to admit that our free country is also prone to predatory violence. But when we leave the survival of women to chance, we sell them out. Perhaps this explains why many women enjoy seeing Nikita blast a bad guy with her AK 47. For once, a woman is celebrated for taking control.

Read the full story by clicking here.

19 October 2010

Medical Journals Continue To Mimic Medieval Barber Logic

Or at least the editors of the leading medical journals continue to show off their irrational phobias about inanimate objects.

The latest, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, makes about as strong a case as the idea that if someone is washing their dog, and a shooting across the street occurs, the dog should never be washed again. Because, of course following that twisted logic, that every time the dog is washed someone will get shot.

Anyway, the article posits that background checks should be extended to private party sales of firearms because it will reduce shootings. Only, they provide no evidence to support their already weak argument.

Hmmm...and these people call themselves physicians? One step away from being scientists? You know, medieval barbers bled people to cure sickness because it would rid the patient of evil humours. The argument in the latest journal argument holds just about as much water as the argument for leeches in the 16th century.

09 October 2010

Burden of Proof and ALLEGEDLY Dangerous or Mentally Infirm

Attorney Eugene Volokh asks a very good question:

... What burden of proof is constitutionally required for denying gun rights to the allegedly dangerous and mentally infirm?

Some states, among the most notorious being California, can take away an individual's constitutionally protected firearms rights for a period of time simply because they were "observed" at a mental facility. There might have been a worry that they were a danger to others, or they might have wanted some psychiatric counseling. Either way, IMHO, their constitutional rights are being trampled upon.

Volokh explores the issue further. A very good read. Take a look and pass it on.

04 October 2010

Chicago Home To U.S. Most Dangerous Neighborhood

In one sentence . . . because the powers-that-be have for decades kept the city's law-abiding population forcibly disarmed.

And that, my friends, is a perfect example of unintended consequences. The anti-self defense crowd has turned the Windy City into a shooting gallery.

And they have the gall to defend their actions, too. Unbelieveable.

01 October 2010

Celebs And Their Gun Permits

It used to be that the vast majority of celebrities would rail against guns. But quietly, it would come out, many of them carried themselves because of their "unique" station in life -- being in the public spotlight.

As if being notorious . . . er um I mean notable . . . made you more equal than others.

These days, not many celebs talk down guns. But more and more evidence points out that the folks we see on TV and in the movies (and some radio folks) are carrying for their personal protection.

People magazine has a story on permits issued by New York City, among other places. In the Big Apple, for example, you have to show that you are in some danger or that you carry large amounts of money.

Thankfully, I live in a state where the only thing you have to do is get training and pass a criminal background check, although the latter shouldn't be a factor IMHO. The only requirement should be that you are making a choice not to be a victim of crime.

At least in Ohio, regular moms, grandmothers and other adults don't need to prove to some uncaring bureaucrat how "needy" they are based on their 15 minutes or more of fame.

Click here to read the People story.