A Gun-Less Britain makes Women Easy Prey for Domestic Abuse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

Liberal Democrats want to take away our guns.  In fact they’d like to repeal the Second Amendment.  For people having guns in the household leads to gun crime.  They like to point to Tucson, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.  Crimes they say would not have happened if there were no guns.  Take away the guns and you take away these crimes.  And you make our households safer.  For without guns in the home there is no chance for domestic violence.  There will be no women being shot by angry men.  And no children dying if a parent goes off in a fit of anger and shoots them.  For if there are no guns there can be no violence.  The left believes this.  At least they keep telling us this.

For guns make people kill.  And without guns there will be nothing to make people kill.  Luckily for the British they have no guns in their households.  And live a life of peace and serenity the Americans can only dream about (see Domestic violence puts 10,000 at high risk of death or serious injury by Sandra Laville posted 2/26/2014 on the guardian).

More than 10,000 women and children are at high risk of being murdered or seriously injured by current or former partners, according to police assessments obtained by the Guardian…

But the figures obtained are likely to be an underestimate as domestic violence is heavily under-reported and police forces appear to gather and collate the information in several different ways, despite demands for a national protocol on assessing the risk to victims. The snapshot obtained by the Guardian reveals the acute nature of the threat of domestic violence for thousands of women and children…

Last year a coroner in Derbyshire found that police failures had contributed to the deaths of Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son, who were stabbed to death by her estranged partner. Slack had also been assessed as at high risk of homicide, but officers failed to inform her.

Or maybe not.

The obvious response to stop this domestic violence is to take away knives from British households.  For apparently taking away their guns wasn’t enough.  Then they should probably take away rope from the home.  For they may make someone strangle someone.  Blunt instruments, too.  For they can make people kill, too.  And poisons.  Got to remove them from the home.  Of course a man can beat and choke someone with his bare hands.  So you better get those out of the household, too.

Of course, we have crossed over into the ridiculous.  For it’s not these things that are killing women and children.  It’s the people using them.  And when one is not available they will look for another.  So probably the best way to protect a woman and her children is to give that woman a gun.  For if she has a gun it doesn’t matter how big her attacker is or how big the knife is he is threatening her with.  Because all the strength she needs is that required to pull the trigger.  And the big man with the big knife will fall.  Even if he’s 200 pounds heavier.  And a foot and a half taller.  For there is nothing that empowers a woman more than a gun.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Lax Knife-Control Laws in Toronto results in Four Stabbings in One Night

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

International law restricts the kind of bullets we can use in war.  In general, they have to have a full metal jacket.  So they don’t flatten out in flight and make big holes in bodies.  Causing great suffering and trauma to anyone wounded.  Which is why today a lot of soldiers can survive from gunshot wounds.  Whereas the lead Minié balls of the American Civil War did horrific damage to tissue and bone.  Shattering bone such that any arm or leg wound typically resulted in an amputation.  And a belly wound meant death.  For it just did so much damage to the internal organs that there was no repairing them.  Much like another horrific belly wound.  From a bayonet.  As it made a long, wide wound.  Often running in one side of a man and out the other.  And doing irreparable damage.

Even today a knife wound can cause more damage than a bullet. Because it makes such a large hole through a body.  Making long and deep cuts in internal organs.  Also, a person has to be close to use a knife.  He can’t stab someone from a distance.  Like you can shoot someone with a gun from a distance.  So anyone willing to stab someone is pretty cold-blooded.  As you see, hear and feel a person’s death.  And anyone that can do that is a very dangerous person.  Especially with our lax knife-control laws (see Two dead, two wounded in separate GTA stabbings by Chris Doucette posted 2/13/2014 on the Toronto Sun).

TORONTO – Two men were killed and two others were wounded in three separate stabbings within hours of each other in the GTA [Greater Toronto Area].

The bloodshed began just after 9 p.m. Wednesday in Rexdale, Toronto Police said, and it kept emergency responders busy for several hours.

Every time there is a shooting in the United States the left calls for stricter gun-control legislation.  As if that would remove all violent crime in the country.  Because if a person can’t get a gun that person can’t shoot anyone with a gun.  And they would never think about picking up a knife to harm someone.  Which would leave the bad guys with nothing to do but to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Like they do in Canada.  Well, everyone in Canada but those picking up knives to stab people.  Funny how in Canada they don’t blame knives for these crimes.  Or demand more restrictive knife-control legislation in Canada every time someone gets stabbed.  Like some Americans blame guns for gun crimes in the United States.  And try to restrict gun ownership every chance they get.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Christmas Story, BB Gun, Psycho, Bonnie and Clyde, A Clockwork Orange, The Night Chicago Died, AFDC and Societal Decay

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 26th, 2013

Politics 101

(Originally published December 27th, 2012)

Kids playing with Toy Guns prior to the Sixties had a Moral Code and only Shot the Bad Guys

If you turned on the television on Christmas Eve you no doubt caught A Christmas Story.  The story of Ralphie’s quest for a BB gun.  Which wasn’t easy.  For the classic BB gun block was there at every turn.  From his mother.  His teacher.  Even from Santa Clause.  “You’ll shoot your eye out.”

This was everyone’s concern.  Not what the effect of playing with guns would do to Ralphie.  No one was saying playing with toy BB guns would make him take a real gun to school one day.  For that just didn’t happen back then.  When Ralphie fantasized about shooting people they were criminals.  Who he was protecting his family from.  And they were dressed up in classic criminal clothes.  Black knit cap.  Burglar’s mask.  Black and white striped shirt.  All comically exaggerated.  And when Ralphie shot them they ended up in a pile with an ‘x’ over each eye.  Almost cartoonish.

Before the Sixties this is how kids played with guns.  They pretended to shoot the bad guys.  Enemy soldiers.  Indians (back then it was okay to shoot them when playing make believe because they were threatening these kids’ families on the make-believe frontier).  Kids may have played with toy guns.  But they had a moral code.  Only shoot the bad guys.  Where the greatest concern of parents was voiced in A Christmas Story.  “You’ll shoot your eye out.”

Kids Playing with Toy Guns prior to the Sixties did not shoot Innocent Men, Women and Children

It was like that in the movies and on television, too.  That started changing in the Sixties.  Televising horrific war scenes from Vietnam into our living rooms.  Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) showing a brutal murder of a woman in the shower.  Bonnie and Clyde (1967) showed likeable bad guys unleashing horrific and graphic violence on innocent people as they robbed banks.  A Clockwork Orange (1971) showed young men in gangs having fun committing acts of ultra-violence including some very graphic and brutal rape scenes.

Contrast this to the earlier shoot-em up westerns.  On the lawless frontier.  Where everyone wore a sidearm.  And had a rifle on their horse.  When they drew their guns the lead flew.  A lot of people got shot.  And a lot of people died.  But throughout this violence it was always the good guys in their white hats fighting the bad guys in their black hats.  Their wounds were bloodless.  There were no squibs causing blood to fly to simulate real gunshot wounds.  And whenever these rough and tumble cowboys came into town and saw some lovely ladies what did they do?  They tipped their hats.

Kids grew up playing cowboys and Indians, soldier and cops & robbers.  But never did they shoot innocent men.  Or women and children.  They didn’t because no movies killed innocent women and children.  There were no video games where pimps shot prostitutes.  And there were no songs celebrating the shooting of cops.    The only song close to killing cops was Paper Lace’s The Night Chicago Died (1974).  A song about Al Capone’s gang wars and the cops fighting them.  But it’s from the point of view about a cop’s wife sick with worry until her husband comes home.

Gun Violence is a Product of Societal Decay created by the Political Left

While this rise in realistic graphic violence in movies was going on something else was happening.  We were losing our religion.  The Sixties had a catch phrase.  Sex, drugs and rock and roll.  It was the era of free love and expanding your mind with mind-expanding drugs.  Hallucinogens.   LSD.  Women started using birth control and abortion to facilitate that free love.  And did whatever felt good.  Abandoning the morality teachings of their parents.  And their church.  Turning on their religious past.

Radical elements of the feminist movement attacked marriage.  Calling all sex in marriage rape.  Demonizing men.  Encouraging women to raise their children without a man.  And the government stepped in to help.  With their Aide to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Having the government step in to be husband and father.  Filling housing projects with single mothers.  And crime.  Which spilled over into the schools these kids attended.  Kids in gangs with guns.  Who didn’t play cowboys and Indians, soldier or cops & robbers.  But shot people for looking at them wrong.

Today gun violence is a product of societal decay.  But guns did not cause this societal decay.  The political left did.  They have long been desensitizing our youth to graphic violence.  And they have been systemically attacking religion and the conventional family.  Removing moral absolutes.  And making our youth incapable of empathy, allowing them to hurt others.  This is why people today can shoot innocent men, women and children.  When once upon a time people laden with firearms tipped their hats to ladies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

 

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does rise in Knife crime call for Knife-Control Legislation?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 26th, 2013

Week in Review

Every time there is a killing involving a gun the left tries to revive the gun control debate.  But they say nothing about box cutters (see Teen ‘infatuated’ with murdered teacher by Bob Fredericks posted 10/24/2013 on the New York Post).

The 14-year old accused of fatally slashing pretty math teacher Colleen Ritzer may have been infatuated with her and snapped when she spurned his advances, according to a new report Thursday…

Chism confessed to cops that he slashed her throat with a box cutter after following her into a women’s restroom at the school, a Boston TV station reported Thursday.

Or knives (see 5 Dead in Brooklyn Stabbing by EMMA G. FITZSIMMONS posted 10/27/2013 on The New York Times).

Five people were killed in a stabbing in Brooklyn on Saturday night, officials said.

Does the left try to restrict box-cutter and knife ownership?  No.  Yet there were probably more knife deaths in New York this past week than gun deaths.  Of course they would say it wasn’t the box-cutter or the knife that killed these people.  It was the people using these implements that killed these people.  For the vast majority of box-cutter owners and knife owners use these cutting implements responsibly.  Just like gun owners.  But gun owners will never get that consideration.

If these victims had a gun these grisly murders might not have been.  For a gun takes away the advantage of a bigger and stronger assailant.  So someone of a smaller physical stature doesn’t have to be a victim.  And it lets them engage a person with a knife BEFORE the knife-wielding attacker can get close enough to use that knife.  Giving the advantage to the defender in a knife attack.  Which gun control legislation will take away.  Giving the advantage back to the bad guy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Chicago has a Gun Problem while Britain has a Knife Problem

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Gun violence is out of control in the US.  And knife violence is out of control in the UK (see Two teenagers arrested over stabbing murder of 17-year-old boy in Bristol by Rod Minchin posted 6/15/2013 on The Independent).

Two teenagers have been arrested on suspicion of murder following the death of a 17-year-old boy.

The victim was stabbed near the junction of Cossington Road and Newquay Road in the Knowle West area of Bristol shortly before midnight yesterday.

The youth was taken to Frenchay Hospital but died shortly afterwards, Avon and Somerset Police said.

Sad.  But not all that uncommon.  For the Sun reported in 2010 that six people a week are stabbed to death in the UK.  Or 312 each year.  With stabbings leading all homicide deaths.  It’s getting so bad that some are calling for automatic jail time for knife possession.

So how does this compare to a big American city?  Say Chicago?  In 2012 there were 443 homicides by firearms.  Their leading homicide weapon.  So the city of Chicago has more homicides than all of Britain.  Even though both have very strict gun laws.  But they also share something else in common.  They both have gang problems.

Gangs kill.  Whether with a gun.  Or a knife.  If you get a handle on the gangs you reduce the number of homicides.  Whether there are guns—or knives—on the street.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Is the Knife Violence in Britain cause for New Sweeping Knife Control Legislation?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Gun control advocates say Britain doesn’t allow anyone to own a gun.  And look how safe it is there (see Hereford stabbings: Two men hurt in attacks posted 4/2/2013 on BBC News Hereford & Worcester).

Two men have been treated in hospital following two “serious attacks” in Hereford.

West Mercia Police said the two victims were believed to have been stabbed in the Hunderton and Westfaling Street areas of the city…

Supt Ivan Powell said: “We would like to reassure local people that we believe that we have now accounted for all suspects connected with the incidents.

“We are in the very early stages of our investigation, but what I can say at this stage is that these appear to have been two separate, unprovoked assaults on members of the public.

“It is not thought that the victims are either known to each other or know their attackers.

Two separate, unprovoked and random knife attacks?  What, people are still assaulted even though there are no guns in Britain?  Is there a knife culture in Britain?  Do they need new knife control legislation?  To put an end to this knife violence?  Do they need to remove all knives from the people?  Including from the responsible knife owners?

Obviously it’s not the knives that are stabbing people.  People are stabbing people.  And I’m guessing that there are a lot of knife owners who never have stabbed anyone.  Just as there are a lot of gun owners in the United States that have never massacred unarmed men, women and children in theaters and schools.  Yet in the United States all we hear is about our gun culture.  And how we need to restrict gun ownership.

Of course the question that begs to be asked is this.  If we successfully prevent even the bad guys from owning a gun would they ever consider picking up another weapon?  Like a knife?  Or if we banned guns would that act simply make bad guys good?  Well, we can look to Britain and see the answer to that question.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Laws banning Alcohol and Drugs didn’t stop Alcohol Violence or Drug Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2013

Politics 101

Prohibition Violence spilled onto the Streets where Gangsters shot up each other with Thompson Submachine Guns

Men have always drunk in this country.  A lot.  After the working day was over they went to their corner saloon.  And drank away their pay.  Getting inebriated.  And making a lot of bad decisions.  Such as drinking away their pay.  Getting into fights.  Engaging the services of prostitutes hanging out at the saloons.  Catching a venereal disease or two.  Taking them home to the wife.  Worse, some of these drunken men were beating their wives.

Alcohol violence was taking a toll on the American family.  In particular on the women in those American families.  This alcohol violence was creating a war on women.  These drunken men were beating their wives.  And inflicting them with venereal diseases.  Causing great harm to their wives.  And destroying their families.  They needed to do something.  And that something led to the temperance movement.  Which ended in Prohibition.  An outright ban on alcoholic beverages.

And it worked.  Alcohol violence on women committed by their husbands decreased.  As did the rate of venereal disease infections on married women.  As Prohibition shut down the local saloons.  And all the problems they caused.  But it didn’t stop everyone from drinking.  There was such a large demand despite Prohibition that others stepped in to meet that demand.  Organized crime.  Prohibition violence spilled onto the streets where gangsters shot up each other, and innocent bystanders, with Thompson submachine guns.  As the profitability of the illicit alcohol trade erupted in violent gang wars.  Allowing crime bosses like Al Capone to take over cities.  And corrupting their police forces.  Causing even more trouble than the original alcohol violence on married women.  So they repealed Prohibition.  And the people could drink once again.  As they always wanted to.

The Illicit Drug Trade picked up where Prohibition left off in terms of Gun Violence

The British were addicted to Chinese tea.  They couldn’t get enough of it.  Or other Chinese luxuries like silk and porcelain.  The only problem was that the Chinese didn’t want anything from Britain.  So as the Chinese goods flowed to Britain silver flowed from Britain to China to pay for their goods.  Causing a huge trade imbalance.  Which the British corrected with the opium grown in India.  And being that opium was addictive more and more Chinese were using opium.  Which reversed the net silver flow.  Allowing the British to enjoy their tea, silk and porcelain.  Which they traded Indian opium for.  Causing an addiction problem in China.  And a destruction of Chinese society.  That the Chinese responded to with the Opium Wars.

Drug addiction has destroyed many families.  And societies.  Throughout the world.  Which is why hard drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal in most countries.  For they are very addictive.  Drug addicts lose their jobs.  Their wives.  Girlfriends.  And families.  As they sink into addiction without a job they often turn to crime to pay for their habit.  Become thieves.  Or prostitutes.  Where they often suffer abuse.  End up in jail.  Or catch AIDS from sharing needles with other intravenous drug users.  Cocaine use spread in more affluent circles.  While crack cocaine devastated poorer circles.  Which is why most of the world has criminalized these drugs.  Despite this demand remains high.  Cocaine use has fallen in the West.  But only because some users have switched to methamphetamine.  Which is cheaper.  More powerful.  And longer lasting.

Like with alcohol someone stepped in to meet this demand.  Organized crime.  And boy did they unleash drug violence onto the world.  From the street gangs shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to control turf.  To the cartels higher up the distribution channels.  The illicit drug trade is big money.  Very big money.  Picking up where prohibition left off.  For it is the criminal element that truly benefits from banning anything.  The drug trade is so lucrative that it is now even funding al Qaeda.  Even though Islam strictly forbids the use of drugs.  But they have no problem taking a percent of the drug trade that flows from South America through Africa on its way to Europe.  Where it can destroy European societies.  Something al Qaeda has no problem with.

People already Breaking the Law will not be Stopped by another New Law

There is an epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.  Committed not by people who support and defend their Second Amendment right to own a gun.  For wanting to do that is not helped by shooting lots of innocent people.  In fact if one is prone to conspiracy theories one could say that the rise in gun violence is oddly coincidental to the Obama administration’s pursuit of gun control regulation.  Especially following Fast and Furious.  A program used by the Obama administration to try and stir up anti-gun sentiment.  Like that the current epidemic of gun violence is stirring up.  Which the conspiracy theorist could find a little too coincidental.   But I digress.

The people committing these acts of gun violence are some pretty disturbed people.  They have mental health issues.  Or are extremely angry about something.  Perhaps because they can’t get a job in the worst economic recovery in U.S. history.  Thanks to President Obama’s economic policies designed more for politics and social justice than actual job creation.  Who knows?  The only thing for certain is that this rise in gun violence corresponds with President Obama’s time in office.  For he didn’t campaign on the need for new gun control legislation.  But like his position on gay marriage he evolved to this position.  After witnessing a rise in gun violence during his time in office.

Whatever the cause is will new gun control legislation change anything?  Well, if we can learn anything from Prohibition and the War on Drugs, yes.  It will change things.  It will give organized crime another lucrative illicit trade.  But unlike alcohol and drugs their customers will not be people just trying to get a drink or a high.  It will be hardened criminals.  Who are shooting each other on the streets to defend their turf.  And at all levels of the illicit drug trade going right up to the cartels at the top.  So the criminals will have their guns.  And there will be new gang wars as criminal elements fight each other to control the gun trade.  Which may even increase the gun violence in places like Chicago.  Which is already one of the deadliest U.S. cities.  Despite having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

So why do they have more gun deaths in Chicago than most cities?  Because there is a high demand for guns by the criminal element in Chicago.  Will a federal ban change that?  Will it put an end to gun violence?  Did it stop alcohol violence during Prohibition?  Does it stop drug violence now?  No.  A gun ban will not change what’s happening in Chicago.  For guns aren’t causing the gun deaths in Chicago.  It’s the people using the guns.  And people already breaking the law will not be stopped by another new law.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Gun Evens the Odds and Allows a Mother to Defend Herself and her Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2013

Week in Review

The advantage of a gun in self-defense is that you can engage the person attacking you at a distance.  Allowing you to fire multiple shots at an intruder before they get close enough to cause you personal harm.  For example, in a home invasion someone can retreat deep into the house while shouting out warnings that he or she has a gun and will fire if the intruder does not leave the house.  If the intruder disregards these warnings and pursues to cause unknown harm that person can begin firing that weapon.  Sending out a hail of lead in the hopes he or she can stop the intruder before he can advance far enough to apply lethal force.  Like this (see Mom shoots intruder 5 times by Effie Orfanides posted 1/5/2013 on the examiner).

An Atlanta, GA mom shot an intruder 5 times after he discovered the place where she and her children had been hiding. The woman, who remains unidentified, put her life on the line to protect her twins and her story has made national news. On Jan. 6, FOX 8 reported that a man broke into the woman’s house and was shot by the woman when he approached the crawlspace where she and her kids were hiding…

… The woman fired six shots, five of which struck Slater in the face and neck. The man fled the home and ran to a nearby home,” FOX 8 reported. His injuries sound serious but, according to the report, he did not die.

The intruder took five bullets to the face and neck before turning and fleeing.  Imagine if that mother only had a knife.  She would have had to wait until the intruder could physically touch her before she could apply lethal force with that knife.  And chances are that the intruder would have been able to wrestle that knife away and use it to inflict lethal force onto the mother.  If she had no weapon the intruder could have walked right up to her and apply lethal force with his bare hands.  And do likewise to her children.

Without a gun that mother would have been no match for that intruder.  It was the gun that made it possible for the mother to defend herself and her children from a superior attacking force.  A gun this intruder no doubt wished she didn’t have.  For if there were gun control laws prohibiting her from owning a firearm he would not have fled that home until he was good and ready to leave.  And he wouldn’t have five bullet wounds in the face and neck.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Taking Guns away from the People Least Likely to use them will not reduce Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2013

Week in Review

There’s a lot of talk about some kind of national gun control after Newtown.  Anything to take guns out of the hands of people.  Even the most law-abiding among us who have guns in their homes for self-defense.  The least likely among us to use that gun in a gun crime.  So you imagine they are going to get even tougher on those who may be more likely to use a gun in a gun crime (see A Question for Gun Control Liberals by David Frum 1/2/2013 on The Daily Beast).

How can you support gun control and oppose stop-and-frisk? Seriously, how otherwise do you imagine that get-tough rules on illegal handguns would ever be enforced?

Or not.

Apparently the safest place to hide a handgun is under your coat while walking the streets.  It may be profiling.  But if you’re in an area known for gun violence where people illegally carry handguns and sometimes use them in street altercations resulting in innocent bystanders getting shot then that intrusion on personal liberty may do more to protect people from gun violence than taking guns away from the homes of law-abiding citizens.

If we take guns away from people who aren’t using in gun crimes but do nothing to take them away from people carrying them illegally we unarm the good guys while leaving the bad guys armed.  It may stop someone from mass killing people in a theater with a gun.  But they may just find some other way to commit mass murder.  While those with illegal handguns will continue to fire their weapons indiscriminately in places like the south side of Chicago.  A place with some of the most restrictive gun laws.  And some of the worse gun violence.  But since a lot of it is black-on-black crime in a Democrat-controlled city the Left doesn’t like to talk about it.  So they don’t.  And instead propose legislation that won’t address the true problem.  Societal decay.

You can see it on television.  You can see it in the movies.  You can hear it in the music.  You can see or hear something that was shocking and scandalous in the Eighties and kids will scratch their head today and ask why?  And then go back to their videogame in the basement where they will kill people indiscriminately while snacking on a bag of Cheetos.  And washing those cheesy snacks down with some ice cold Mountain Dew.  When kids in the Eighties went to the arcade with other kids and tried to get a frog across a busy street.  Or tried to get an Italian plumber to hop over things a gorilla threw at him to save a damsel in distress.  While chowing down pizza slices.  And drinking ice cold Mountain Dew.  With their in-the-flesh friends.

Kids were still innocent in the Eighties.  Today television, movies, music and videogames have desensitized them to some of the most graphic violence.  And our electronic world has turned them away from human interaction.  Creating a lack of empathy for real people as their world consists of impersonal videogames and social media.  Throw in a breakdown of the family and a turning away from God and religion and it gets worse.  In short, societal decay.  Which is a far greater problem than guns in the home of law-abiding citizens.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FT151: “While rich liberals can hire armed body guards many ordinary Americans can only afford a gun for their protection.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Rich Celebrities don’t need Guns for they have People with Concealed Weapons protecting Them

Rich liberal celebrities are on the gun control bandwagon.  Again.  They want to ban guns from the general public.  Taking to the airwaves to exploit the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.  They want to do this because it makes them feel the smart, enlightened liberals they think they are.  Who know there is no need for a person to own a gun.  At least, not in their world.

These rich celebrities live in veritable fortresses in some of the most affluent areas in the country.  Once ensconced in their palatial homes they’re safe.  There may be horrible violence going on in the inner-cities but they’re safe and sound in their secured estates.  With state-of-the-art security systems.  The best that money can buy.  And when they go places they often have people.  That include security guards carrying a concealed weapon.  So in their world there is no need to own a gun.

It’s a different story for a family—or a young single woman—living in the best neighborhood they can afford.  Which may not be all that safe.  They may live in the proximity of that inner-city violence that doesn’t reach those rich celebrities living in their secured estates.  With the best security system that their immense wealth can buy.  Those living outside these gated fortresses have to fend for themselves.  And trust their lives to the locks on their doors.

If you don’t live in a Secured Estate with Private Security Guards you’re on your own when it comes to your Protection

When it comes to combat you want to engage your enemy at the greatest distance possible.  At the Siege of Khe Sanh in the Vietnam War the Americans used everything at their disposal to attack the enemy as far from their security perimeter as possible.  Allowing them to use artillery, mortars, gunships, tactical fighter aircraft and even B-52 strategic bombers flying tactical missions against the enemy without endangering their own troops.  For if the enemy got into their perimeter it removed all of these assets from the defense equation.  Leaving the Americans with little but small arms, bayonets, knives and blunt-force instruments to defend themselves.  Which does a poor job when waves of enemy soldiers are overwhelming your position.

When fighting from a standing position Navy SEALs practice their small arms firing while leaning forward towards their enemy.  Why?  If they get shot they will fall forward.  With their weapon still pointed towards the enemy.  So they can still engage the enemy if they are wounded and fall.  Even continue to advance if the wound is not too severe.  Because the enemy is doing the same thing.  Trying to advance on them.  Even if they take a bullet or two.  These walking wounded can still engage each other with lethal force.  Which is why you want to engage your enemy at the greatest distance possible in case it takes more than one shot to incapacitate the enemy.  Especially if it’s a superior force assaulting you.

If you don’t live in a secured estate with private security patrolling the grounds you’re on your own when it comes to your protection.  And in the case of a home evasion there is no time for heroics or gallantry in battle.  Especially for a young woman living by herself.  Grabbing a knife to defend herself may work but it will require her enemy to get within her security perimeter before she can apply lethal force.  And the odds are she will be facing a superior enemy force.  Violent criminals.  So her best chance of surviving is to engage the enemy at as great a distance as possible.  Long before they enter the last line of her security perimeter.  Her personal space.  To give her more than just one chance to save her life.  And only a gun will allow her to do that.

When it comes to Self Defense few things work as well as a Gun

It’s easy to be sanctimonious after a great tragedy where a disturbed individual with an assault weapon violently kills innocent kids.  Especially when you have the kind of money that can make your life safer than the ordinary American.  Particularly when you can have security people with concealed weapons to protect you.  People living in the real world don’t have that luxury.  They have to live in the world these rich celebrities use their wealth to escape.  And it isn’t fair for these rich celebrities to deny the rest of the country the ability to protect themselves.  Just because they aren’t rich like them.  For they can’t afford secured estates, state-of-the-art security systems and armed security guards.  All they may be able to afford is a gun.  And should someone try to harm them they will have to use that gun to do the dirty work of protecting their lives.  Not the hired help.

Yes, some disturbed individuals out there have used guns in horrific acts of violence.  But note the places they committed these acts of horrific violence.  An elementary school.  A mall.  A movie theater.  A college campus.  A high school.  What do all of these places have in common?  They’re all gun-free zones.  Because these shooters aren’t brave warriors.  They’re cowards who want to hurt those who can’t hurt them back.  And once someone arrives on the scene that can hurt them back (either a cop or someone else with a gun) they often quickly commit suicide.

When it comes to self defense few things work as well as a gun.  For it allows a person to engage their enemy from a distance.  Allowing them more than one chance to save their life.  Giving them a few chances to stop their attacker.  Before that attacker gets within their personal space.  Where this superior force can use a knife.  A blunt-force instrument.  Or simply their hands.  Giving these ordinary Americans a chance to survive.  Like the rich celebrities.  Only without the secured estates, state-of-the-art security systems and armed security guards.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries