Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation

25 06 2010

Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
by A.W.R. Hawkins
Human Events. com
June 3rd, 2010

Lucid students of the political sphere have certainly noticed that liberals are now using the phrase “human rights” even more than they once used their old standby, “civil liberties.” Of course they rarely define human rights, and even when they try, the definition varies depending on the goal of the person that’s using the phrase.

But this doesn’t stop them from having international conferences on human rights, dumping money into organizations like Human Rights Watch, and allowing surviving members of the Woodstock crowd to charge America’s military with violating human rights while simultaneously giving Iran a seat on the U.N.’s Women’s Rights Commission.

Perhaps the two clearest threads in all the human rights jargon are the focus on international law coupled with a potent strain of anti-Americanism. This is a combination that can be deadly when accurately aimed at national sovereignty or individual rights.

The most telling aspect of the left’s obsession with human rights is not so much what its proponents claim to defend but what they would be happy to sacrifice. And one thing all human rights activists are perpetually ready to jettison is the right Americans enjoy in keeping and bearing arms.

Ironically, this right, summarily stated in the 2nd Amendment, should be the lynchpin of any honest pursuit of human rights. Thomas Jefferson made this clear when he equated a government-backed prohibition against defending one’s self with a government-backed denial of “the most basic of nature’s rights.”

When one reads Jefferson’s statement in light of his many writings on nature’s laws and the benefits of private gun ownership, it’s clear he was implying that the denial of the right to self-defense with a firearm is essentially a denial of one of the core aspects of what it means to be human.

In other words, gun control actually steals part of our humanity.

How much worse of a human rights violation can exist than one that actually separates the “human” from the “rights”?

None of this is hard to understand if we just imagine a woman who lives alone, and is being stalked by a dangerous man. She goes to a gun store to buy a handgun with which to protect herself, but because she lives in Chicago, Mayor Daley will not allow her to purchase a gun.

Thus she goes home, and hopes the lock on her door will hold.

When he’s ready, the stalker becomes an intruder who breaks the door open, assaults the woman, and then leaves with a smile on his face. After reflecting on the matter he realizes the woman has no means with which to defend herself, so he goes back for more, and in time, as his callousness increases, he goes back more frequently. He knows the woman is helpless to stop him because she has been denied that “most basic of nature’s rights.”

In this scenario, how long would it be before the woman felt less and less like a woman and more and more like a dog?

How long would it be before she had a thorough understanding of what Jefferson meant when he coupled gun control with the denial of a core aspect of what it means to be human?

America remains a shining city on a hill in this dark world, partly because we still have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of our lives and property. In light of Jefferson’s writings, I don’t think I go too far in saying that this one freedom goes a long way in keeping our humanity intact.

If you ever doubt the degree to which private gun ownership and the freedom to use those guns for self-defense upholds our humanness, just head on down to El Paso, Tex., where the murder rate is around 23 victims annually.

Then lock up your gun in the United States and cross the border into Juarez, Mexico, where the natural right to keep and bear arms has long been suppressed and where the murder rate, at 2,500 to 3,000 annually, is startling.

Once you get to Juarez, it won’t be long till you feel like the woman who sat in her apartment staring at the door, hoping the lock would hold up under pressure because it was the only line of defense she had against her assailant.

Gun control could just be the ultimate human rights violation.

And if we ever give up our guns in this great nation, we will ultimately give up our humanity.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010.
Copyright © 2010 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserve
http://oneoldvet.com/?p=19921

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.” — Rush Limbaugh





Rules for Gunfighting

3 10 2009

half boy half man Rules for Gunfighting

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your
friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Your
life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast
enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and
diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a
friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or
tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and
running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more
dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

9.5 Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.kahr40a

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have
to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don’t drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep
your hands where I can see them).

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does
not start with a “.4”

 3966368852_90b6ec513b





Armed Women by Oleg Volk

18 05 2009

selfdefense_8257v2

Copy right Oleg Volk

http://volkstudio.com/





Empty holsters on Campus

7 04 2009

holster-daisy

Should you have less freedom and safety than anyone else simply because you go to college?

Should society trust you less than your brothers and sisters of equal age simply because you attend college and they don’t?

If you’re mature enough and responsible enough to cast a vote, fight a war, own a gun, carry a gun and exercise every other right of citizenship that every other adult citizen enjoys, then why should you be disarmed and defenseless at institutions of higher learning?

In the aftermath of last April’s massacre at Virginia Tech, in which an armed maniac killed 27 students and five faculty members before killing himself, more and more students are asking life-and-death questions like these of their politicians and professors.

It’s a new national movement that’s gathering momentum on college campuses across the country.

In late October, that movement took to the streets in the form of so-called “empty holster protests” at over 110 college campuses in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

Led by a group called “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus,” students wore empty holsters to protest state laws and student codes of conduct that prohibit them from exercising the Right to Carry on campus–even if they have Right-to-Carry permits.

While lawmakers delay, debate and defend the status quo–in which college students basically are accorded the status of second-class citizenship–too many of those students are becoming victims of crime.

“As a college student and a concealed handgun license holder, when I step onto campus I am left unable to defend myself,” group founder Chris Brown, a political science major at North Texas University, says on the organization’s website. “My state allows me to carry a handgun in public, but there is some imaginary line drawn around college campuses for silly reasons. And those silly reasons are getting people killed, raped and robbed.”

Or, as one of the group’s leaders notes in an e-mail signature evoking the tragedy at Virginia Tech, “Campus policies left students shooting back with camera phones. Life’s worth more than pictures.”

Yet many state legislatures and college administrators don’t seem to think that students’ lives–or the lives of faculty, staff and visitors–are worth as much as their own.

When Good Intentions Empower Bad Men

Even though 40 states have fair Right-to-Carry laws, 36 states ban carrying firearms at schools, while 20 of those specifically outlaw firearms on college campuses.

So far, only one state–Utah–specifically and expressly allows the Right to Carry on public college campuses, thanks to a 2004 law allowing the Right to Carry on all state property. Although the University of Utah challenged the law, the state Supreme Court upheld it last year.

Even before the shootings at Virginia Tech, many were calling for the Right to Carry to be restored on college campuses. Ironically, a bill that would have required colleges in Virginia to allow Right-to-Carry permit holders to exercise that right on campuses failed in committee not long before the Virginia Tech tragedy.

After that crime, four states proposed bills to allow concealed firearm license holders to carry on college campuses. Such bills failed in Alabama and South Carolina, but at this writing a bill is still pending in Michigan and Ohio.

Additionally, Louisiana’s legislature defeated a proposed ban on firearms in college dorms and Maine rejected legislation that would have allowed colleges to prohibit firearms.

While lawmakers delay, debate and defend the status quo–in which college students basically are accorded the status of second-class citizenship–too many of those students are becoming victims of crime.

In a one-week period in late September alone:

  • A Delaware State University freshman was arrested for shooting two fellow students;
  • An armed man on the University of Wisconsin campus “said he wished to commit suicide or be killed by police”;
  • A St. John’s University freshman was arrested while wearing a George Bush mask and carrying a rifle at the New York college;
  • An Ole Miss junior was shot to death;
  • A junior at Tufts University in Massachusetts was robbed at gunpoint;
  • And a University of Memphis junior was murdered.

Yet despite proclaiming their intention to stop “gun violence,” the gun-ban lobby doesn’t seem to have much sympathy for the victims of college campus disarmament. In response to a question regarding the empty holster protest, Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, mocked, “You don’t like the fact that you can’t have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school.”

Silent Protest Opens Debate

Not to be thwarted, however, some college students aren’t giving up the fight as easily as the gun-ban lobby would hope.

… a bill that would have required colleges in Virginia to allow Right-to-Carry permit holders to exercise that right on campuses died in committee not long before the Virginia Tech tragedy.

When a friend proposed the idea of carrying empty holsters to show how lawful students had been disarmed, Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old sophomore at the University of Cincinnati, says he took the idea and ran with it.

Soon dozens of students, and ultimately over 100 colleges, joined in the empty holster protest.

While drawing attention to the injustice of denying college students their constitutional rights, the protest also helped educate the public and open a constructive dialog on many campuses.

“People are under the impression that this is going to suddenly put guns in the hands of college students,” said Scott Lewis, a media coordinator for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. “We have to explain that, ‘No, this isn’t going to change the laws on who can get a gun, and it’s not going to make it legal to carry a gun while under the influence. It’s just going to give people on college campuses the same rights that they already have anywhere else.’”

“I had somebody tell me, ‘I’d just be terrified if I knew somebody was carrying a gun.’ So I asked them, ‘Why?’” said Jay Adkins, a senior at East Tennessee State University who helped organize the empty holster protest at his school.

“They had this idea that guns would just randomly go off, or that people would break out into gunfights all the time,” Adkins said. “But when you confront them with the facts that people do this in regular society every day, all the time, and nothing happens, they realize that college students can be just as responsible as any other adults.

“We’re all adults. We just want people to realize that we don’t suddenly become less responsible when we walk onto a campus.”

Even if the media are biased in their coverage–the protest did draw some very negative press comments–many involved believe the publicity helps their cause more than the bias hurts it.

“If it’s big enough to get the media’s attention and warrant a story,” said Flitcraft, “then it’s going to get the word out. And that can only help.”

The Siren Song of Security Schemes

In the wake of the mass murders at Virginia Tech, colleges have adopted various official responses while basically steering away from any serious, open-minded discussion of the firearms option.

Several schools now hold exercises akin to fire drills simulating a killer on campus. Some have fitted locks to classroom doors to keep killers at bay. New Jersey state Senator Barbara Buono plans legislation requiring a lock on every college and school classroom door in the state.

Virginia Tech installed sirens last spring that, ironically, got their first use on the day of the April 16 tragedy.

Technology companies are now selling schools mass notification systems based on e-mail, text-messaging, phone calls, RSS computer feeds, PA systems and digital billboards. One such company, Omnilert LLC, reported that the number of schools using its systems jumped from 25 to over 200 after the Virginia Tech tragedy.

For its part, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators–whose members bank on being the only armed presence on campus–has warned that allowing students who have Right-to-Carry permits to carry on college grounds “has the potential to dramatically increase violence on our college and university campuses.”

Indeed, despite assurances from some university authorities that everything is on the table when it comes to campus security, the options offered almost never include the only option that can even the odds by meeting force with equal force–good people carrying firearms to protect themselves against violent criminals.

Freedom Saves Lives on Campus

Though the gun-ban lobby will never admit it, and the anti-gun media are loath to report it, even though guns are banned at schools throughout most of the United States, firearms in the hands of peaceful, ordinary citizens have proven decisive in stopping some school shootings.

  • In January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., a 43-year-old former student walked into the offices of two faculty members and shot them to death. Hearing the gunfire, two students immediately and independently ran to their separate cars, retrieved their firearms and returned to confront the killer and hold him at gunpoint for police, preventing any further murders.
  • In Pearl, Miss., after stabbing his mother to death, a 16-year-old took a rifle to his high school, killed his former girlfriend and another girl, then began firing into the crowd. The killer was leaving to continue his rampage at a nearby school when the vice principal of his high school ran off campus to his parked vehicle, retrieved his Colt .45, stopped the rampage and held the murderer for police.
  • In Edinboro, Pa., after a 14-year-old shot a science teacher to death and wounded three others at a school dance in April 1998, a restaurant owner pointed a shotgun at the shooter, forced him to surrender and held the killer for 11 minutes until police arrived.

Of course, the gun-ban lobby loves to raise the specter of minor disagreements escalating into free-for-all shootouts among Right-to-Carry permit holders. But after crying “Wolf!” for so many years as state after state adopted Right to Carry–and seeing their dire predictions fall flat each and every time–the gun-ban lobby lost its credibility.

Consequently, gun haters shifted their story line from tragedy to comedy, ridiculing Right-to-Carry permit holders as juvenile would-be John Waynes or James Bonds, before suggesting, with infinite parental patience, that things don’t work like they do in the movies, and that armed good guys would never be able to shoot as well as armed bad guys.

… the options offered almost never include the only option that can even the odds by meeting force with equal force–good people carrying firearms to protect themselves against violent criminals.

What’s worse, though, is what such mockery and derision represent: an attempt to stifle the exchange of ideas and debate about a serious issue. In other words, hardly the kinds of things one would hope to “learn” at today’s “institutes for higher learning.”

As Scott Lewis pointed out in The Washington Times, “Whenever proponents of concealed carry point to its success throughout the nation, as well as studies showing that concealed handgun license holders are significantly less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes, they are answered with mockery, rather than intelligent discourse. In the world of academia and intellectual free expression, some issues are apparently not open for discussion.”

In the end, the issue isn’t so much whether the good guys prevail, or whether free speech is upheld. What really matters is whether the God-given right of self-defense is acknowledged and respected by the powers that be.

As Andrew Dysart, a senior at Virginia’s George Mason University who organized that school’s chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, argued, “There’s no guarantee to know either way whether the Right to Carry could have changed anything at Virginia Tech. But I believe those students should have been allowed at least the choice to have a chance of saving themselves. That’s what’s at issue here: whether or not students should have that option.”





Why I Carry a Gun

5 04 2009

Why I Carry a Gun

My old grandpa said to me son,’ there comes a time in every
man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts
bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to
take an ass whoopin’.

I don’t carry a gun to kill people…
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary
place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world..

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the
evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of
government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my
life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my
bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of
themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs,
I am Inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it
meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect
themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just
investigate the crime after it happens and then call
someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and
too old to take an ass whoopin’.





Act to survive gunman on a spree

16 03 2009

deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705290314,00.html?pg=1

By Jacob Hancock


Deseret News

Published: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:27 a.m. MDTNews of a 17-year-old student storming his Germany high school and killing 15 serves as a solemn reminder of the peril students everywhere still face in the classroom.

 

Experts say the danger from the increasing number of shooting attacks is so chaotic, that even before the first responding officer arrives, a person can take several actions to increase their odds of survival.

If you’re ever found in such a situation, law enforcement officials say there are steps you can take to help you live through an event such as the one Derek O’Dell almost didn’t survive.

Moments after O’Dell heard popping sounds down the hall, a gunman stepped inside his college German class at Virginia Tech, shot him and fired a barrage of 9mm slugs through most of his classmates.

In the 10 years leading up to the Virginia Tech massacre, 42 gunmen across the United States gunned down 210 students and faculty during school, killing 78, according to data compiled by the Deseret News.

And since the 2007 VT massacre, seven gunmen have shot 79 students and faculty at school, killing 43.

Obvious gang-related shootings were not included in the data, which is specifically intended to follow active-gunmen-type shooters.

Dave Grossman, a West Point professor and founder of Killology science, coined the “active” shooter neologism in the late 90s to distinguish modern killers, who actively and indiscriminately aim for the most possible bloodshed without concern for themselves, from the deal-striking, hostage-taking oriented type in the past who typically killed for gain.

“These killers are on a spree, out to kill as many people as possible, and ‘take no prisoners’ could well be their motto,” Grossman said.

The chances of meeting a gunman may be low but a student is 17.6 times more likely to die from a bullet at school than by a fire, according to a comparison of U.S Fire Administration statistics.

In perspective, school shooters kill more students each year than 93,500 school fires do in 17 years.

International codes, U.S. and state laws closely regulate fire safety; Utah elementary schools are supposed to drill monthly, high schools bimonthly.

But because laws do not mandate school officials to practice gunmen scenarios, besides perhaps a broad statement saying they must “drill for other emergencies” once a year, faculty and students are largely left to voluntarily or self-prepare for such a circumstance.

Law enforcement interviews, analysis from past gunmen behavior, and a ballistics test conducted by the Deseret News, BYU police and the Utah County Sheriffs Office, all reveal advice for someone in danger at each level of a an “active” threat: from hearing the ominous pops, to escaping, to barricading and finally to a face-to-face melee.

First, believe it

Before you can take a physical step from danger, though, authorities say you should make a mental one: Come to terms with the reality that a shooting is entirely possible today — right now.

Those who haven’t already ingested that bitter pill will likely psychologically “mis-frame the event as something more familiar — such as firecrackers, a prank, or the backfire of a car,” noted Dallas Drake, principal researcher at Homicide Prevention Research. It is this unprepared group of initial unbelievers who will surely break the next rule of survival: Do not investigate.

Dying to know

Curiosity has repeatedly proven to draw people toward abnormal sounds. Unsuspecting folks often saunter closer to danger, peering around corners, probing for answers.

Don’t.

Virginia Tech professor Kevin Granata saved 20 students by heroically funneling them into his locked office from their more-vulnerable classroom after he heard popping sounds.

But he just “couldn’t wait around,” students later told the Washington Post. He left the office, ventured toward the shots and was killed.

Distance, then cover

It may seem commonsensical for experts to suggest bolting to an exit, but too many in their panic automatically spring for close corners, nooks and crannies. Officials overwhelmingly stress distance as your No. 1 concern.

“You can’t get far enough,” said Richard Morman, Ohio State University police chief.

“Make an exit, break a window. Just go.”

Fifty-two Columbine High students didn’t. They had nine minutes to escape the second-floor library after initially hearing “popping sounds” outside, according to Jefferson County, Colo., sheriff’s reports, but they obeyed a teacher’s order to “get down” and to “stay on the floor,” as recorded in a 911 call. Students crouched defenselessly under wide-open tables in the school’s library and remained there for seven and a half minutes while two active gunmen blasted beneath their shoddy shields, killing 10 and injuring 12 before moving on.

In most cases, there’s an available exit — even if you have to make one and it’s framed by freshly broken glass, 12 feet above ground.

Doors: lock or block

Authorities know, however, that gaining distance or reaching outside can be out of reach no matter your Rambo-strength or MacGyver-mind, especially for students on higher floors. So, without an exit, find one of two types of doors: either one you can lock or one you can barricade.

Since students rarely have the means to lock doors, they’ll likely need to barricade, which is only practically possible by retreating to a room with an inward swinging door. Only inward opening doors have effectively been barricaded in past incidents with stacked furniture, body weight or wedged shoe soles. All have been reported to have saved lives during U.S. shootings.

Your chances of landing behind one of these more-protective doors are greater if you lunge into offices, lounges or smaller classrooms at the sound of gunshots.

That’s because, according to international building fire codes adopted by every U.S. school, large rooms — 50-person-capacity or more — are fitted with outward swinging doors, according to Warren Jones a longtime university architect in Utah. The task of keeping an outward swinging door shut with a tough, white-knuckle grip on a smooth knob is awkward and ineffective.

A 76-year-old Virginia Tech instructor understood the importance of barricading. He kept the gunman out by bravely propping himself against his inward swinging door. He eventually died from a few door-penetrating slugs, but his actions kept the gunman at bay and saved every one of his students, except for one.

Just down the hall, however, students left their door unchallenged. The gunman, 23, entered the classroom two times shooting 21 of his 25 frightened targets. By the time the gunman wandered back to the classroom to fire a third volley of shots at the few still surviving, he was stopped. O’Dell shut and wedged his shoes against the door and saved his peers. Door-penetrating bullets missed.

Take charge, not cover

When you can’t run, escape or take shelter behind an inward swinging door, you must be ready for when the doorknob rolls and clanks the mechanical sound of entry.

“At that very moment, that’s when you have little choice but to take action,” said BYU Police Lt. Arnold Lemmon, who has spent 28 years protecting students. “I wouldn’t have suggested that years ago, but it’s no longer hostage situations where you can just comply with their demands and live.”

Lemmon and other officials know that contrary to many students’ and teachers’ first instinct, just passively dodging bullets behind desks when a gunman enters is unwise — and has proven deadly. In fact, using desks hardly helps, according to several field ballistic tests conducted by police officials and the Deseret News.

One of the very weakest bullets, a regular .22 long-rifle caliber, tore through two different kinds of new BYU-donated school desks at 42 feet away — a shuddering fact when considering the average classroom depth is only between 26 and 30 feet. What may be more alarming, gunmen don’t commonly use the weakest bullets. Deseret News data shows they overwhelmingly wield 9mm or similar caliber ammunition during their shooting sprees that are packed with 320 percent more lead and hit with 270 percent more energy than the average .22 caliber bullet.

The next most common weapon of choice is the powerful, easy-to-aim 12-gauge shotgun, which again, when tested, gave further evidence for students not to depend on a ¾-inch-thick, composite-wood desk top for much protection. A common 12-gauge round fired at 40 feet blasted through the desk’s surface leaving a jagged 3-inch hole in the laminate-covered desktop.

Unsettling facts like these, coupled with such malicious and indiscriminate shooters as have been witnessed, are reasons why most officials say they have moved them from suggestions of passivity to more a modern and assertive view: “You’ll need to become more aggressive than you ever thought possible,” states the Center for Personal Protection & Safety, a Washington-based violence research think tank, in a survival training video. The center, staffed with former U.S. Department of Defense and FBI officials, added: “Throwing things, yelling, using improvised weapons can all be effective in this situation.”

Attack

The center instructs students and faculty to take charge against an active gunman by turning off the lights, spreading out (because shooters frequently aim at groups) and to quietly discuss a synchronized attack — queued at the gunman’s entrance. Then, solemnly, the center suggests, “Do the best you can.”

“But,” the center then warns, “total commitment and absolute resolve are critical.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson succinctly penned this same notion about challenging a much stronger foe when he wrote, “If you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

Active shooters won’t stop to negotiate, forgive your charge or give second chances. So, if he does enter, security professionals agree: strike with several and strike with strength.

Indecision or hesitation during your attack adds to your danger.

“At the least, (students) should remember the ‘three outs,’ ” Lemmon said in finality.
Get out, hide out or take out.





The Wild Wild West. (NOT)

19 02 2009

SF11363

John Pierce is a life-long gun rights advocate, an NRA certified instructor and co-founder of the nationwide gun rights group OpenCarry.org. John has an MBA from George Mason University and is a first-year law student at Hamline University.

Dispelling the myth of ‘The Wild West’

February 17, 8:48 AM
by John Pierce, Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner

The dime store novel image of the West

These are interesting times in the fight to protect and enhance our rights as gun owners. In Wisconsin, we stand on the eve of an historic court ruling regarding open carry. In Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas, local activists have succeeded in making their voices heard regarding restoring open carry to these otherwise gun-friendly states. With all of this pro-gun activity, it should come as little surprise that the anti-gun forces are out in-force repeating their aged mantra … “This isn’t the wild west.”

And this rhetoric is not limited to anti-gunners. Recently, I was quoted in a USA Today article about the open carry initiatives around the country and in that article, Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth (R), a supposedly pro-gun legislator denounced open carry saying “I think that’s harkening too far back to the Wild West.”

With all this talk of “The Wild West”, I thought it might be informative to look at the reality of crime in the “wild west” cattle towns and compare them to the peaceful streets of such eastern, gun-control paradises as DC, New York, Baltimore and Newark.

In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

* In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
* In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.

The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark.