Because self-defense is a universal human right, but it's also one of the most damaged by many governments.
My dad was in law enforcement for many years. One of the things I picked up as a kid was that on the occasions we ate out, he'd generally try to sit where he could see either the whole place or the register. I took it as a given that he'd often carry a sidearm when off-duty, and it didn't surprise me that many people did. If he and the other local authorities had arrested everyone who had a handgun in the car, pocket or purse, at some point they'd have arrested most of the people in the county I think. Generally it wasn't considered a problem; bad guys with any weapon were a problem. Rarely did anyone have to use them, because the knowledge that breaking into someone's home, or trying to grab them at their car, would get you shot kept that to a rare occurance.
Years later, it was really a surprise to me how many cops were very hostile to the idea of citazens carrying for self-defense. It still bothers me. The honest people are not a threat, and the bad guys are often unable to legally touch a firearm for any reason. But a lot of them REALLY don't like it. Even in the home.
Occasionally some agency will raid the wrong house and wind up shooting, sometimes killing, someone who lives there. And one of their excuses for the shooting is usually something like, "He came down the stairs/out of the room with a gun". Hell yes, he did. You smashed in his door in the middle of the night, he's scared for his family and himself, he sees someone in black with a gun and acts to protect his home. And you not only shot him, if he lives the prosecutor just might try to charge him with something. And then the chief and/or some jerk from the Brady group will speak sadly of how this points out the dangers of people having guns, and the department usually says something like 'they were following normal procedures, so no action will be taken against the officers'. And there damn well should be against someone, folks, you hit the wrong place and shot/killed an innocent! And every time it's excused, it makes more people mutter something about 'damn cops' and trust them that much less.
Yes, this is a bit of a rant. This is my place for it. I think a lot of agencies need to post Robert Peel's Principles of Policing, and make everybody read the damn things.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Mark Steyn says it very well
"That this most basic right should be something for which he has to organise a campaign is disgraceful."
He's speaking of self-defense, of course, in the wake of another victim being stabbed to death when he opened the door. Apparently this is a common method of home-invasion burglary in Britain right now. And why, even without a gun, do so few fight back?
'Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." '
One of the worst indicators I can think of for a society is people fearing to protect themselves because the government might charge them with a crime. It is also flat disgusting.
Found at Tim Blair's place.
He's speaking of self-defense, of course, in the wake of another victim being stabbed to death when he opened the door. Apparently this is a common method of home-invasion burglary in Britain right now. And why, even without a gun, do so few fight back?
'Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." '
One of the worst indicators I can think of for a society is people fearing to protect themselves because the government might charge them with a crime. It is also flat disgusting.
Found at Tim Blair's place.
Monday, December 06, 2004
More on hate crime laws
at Captains Quarters. As a commenter says, "When Mr. Bean is the voice of reason..."
More on self-defense in Britain
over at Smallest Minority. One of the key quotes;
At a lunch the other day a very senior member of the Civil Service said to me: "Your campaign will never succeed. It goes against the entire administrative culture in this country."
And God know you can't go against the 'aministrative culture' just because people are murdered in their homes.
Another thing; from some of the letters to the paper, people recognize that the most effective way for people to protect themselves is a gun, but no, can't have that! Someone might get hurt!
Read it all.
At a lunch the other day a very senior member of the Civil Service said to me: "Your campaign will never succeed. It goes against the entire administrative culture in this country."
And God know you can't go against the 'aministrative culture' just because people are murdered in their homes.
Another thing; from some of the letters to the paper, people recognize that the most effective way for people to protect themselves is a gun, but no, can't have that! Someone might get hurt!
Read it all.
Note to Senator McCain
WILL YOU SHUT THE HELL UP?!?
This clown sees ANYTHING any more, he wants right in the middle of it so he can propose some new law.
AZ needs to start that recall petition back up.
This clown sees ANYTHING any more, he wants right in the middle of it so he can propose some new law.
AZ needs to start that recall petition back up.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
And by the way...
I wrote earlier about attitudes toward firearms, and there's something I've never understood.
I used to play in the Society for Creative Anachronism a lot, did both heavy-weapons and light. I knew people who kept axes, swords and/or knives by the bed in case of burglars. One of the most popular stories was about a guy in Houston who met a group of burglars with a katana and cut them up. But many of these people professed to dislike (loathe, in many cases) guns.
I've never understood the apparent (to them) moral distinction between sharp steel and a bullet. Slice someones guts open with a sharp edge? Stick a point through them? Hey, no problem! But shoot them?!?! How could you hold such disgusting ideas? How could you do that?
Partly it was due to lots of people in the SCA being very PC in many ways, but it also seemed to be rooted in the ideal of 'honorable combat' and distance weapons being 'less honorable'. Which I thought was idiotic then, and still do. Honorable combat in a duel has not one damn thing to do with dealing with an attacker in your home. But it really seemed to be important to those who insisted on it. Myself, I reiterate; anyone who deliberately lets an attacker within arms-reach of themselves, when they have a choice in the matter, is a fool. Especially when you have others to protect.
I used to play in the Society for Creative Anachronism a lot, did both heavy-weapons and light. I knew people who kept axes, swords and/or knives by the bed in case of burglars. One of the most popular stories was about a guy in Houston who met a group of burglars with a katana and cut them up. But many of these people professed to dislike (loathe, in many cases) guns.
I've never understood the apparent (to them) moral distinction between sharp steel and a bullet. Slice someones guts open with a sharp edge? Stick a point through them? Hey, no problem! But shoot them?!?! How could you hold such disgusting ideas? How could you do that?
Partly it was due to lots of people in the SCA being very PC in many ways, but it also seemed to be rooted in the ideal of 'honorable combat' and distance weapons being 'less honorable'. Which I thought was idiotic then, and still do. Honorable combat in a duel has not one damn thing to do with dealing with an attacker in your home. But it really seemed to be important to those who insisted on it. Myself, I reiterate; anyone who deliberately lets an attacker within arms-reach of themselves, when they have a choice in the matter, is a fool. Especially when you have others to protect.
More on self defense in Britain; changes coming?
Clayton Cramer links to an ar
ticle in the Telegraph on proposed changes to give homeowners an 'unqualified right of self-defense'.
It's a good start for a major paper to be pushing for this, but at best they've got an uphill fight with the brakes on. The British government is mostly headed by people who don't think individuals should do much of anything without government approval, and they don't approve of the peasants taking such action.
And they have a further problem. As I mentioned before, all the BS aside, the best weapon for most people for self-defense is a gun; and the British government has spent years making it damn near impossible for anyone to own them. Especially when it is wanted for self-defense.
But at least it is a start. With the way the British crime rate keeps going, and with home-invasion burglaries at better than 50 percent guaranteeing more people injured, crippled and dead, there should be more pressure to make some changes.
IF they can force their government to make the changes.
ticle in the Telegraph on proposed changes to give homeowners an 'unqualified right of self-defense'.
It's a good start for a major paper to be pushing for this, but at best they've got an uphill fight with the brakes on. The British government is mostly headed by people who don't think individuals should do much of anything without government approval, and they don't approve of the peasants taking such action.
And they have a further problem. As I mentioned before, all the BS aside, the best weapon for most people for self-defense is a gun; and the British government has spent years making it damn near impossible for anyone to own them. Especially when it is wanted for self-defense.
But at least it is a start. With the way the British crime rate keeps going, and with home-invasion burglaries at better than 50 percent guaranteeing more people injured, crippled and dead, there should be more pressure to make some changes.
IF they can force their government to make the changes.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Ways things change
I've been thinking about some of the ways things change, and the things that drive the changes.
Right at the moment, firearms are in mind. Lots of people get hung up on the 'guns are bad' idea and either cannot or won't see it any other way.
Once, armies were a core of nobles and attendants, supported by lots of peasants and slaves. When going to war they often took a lot of peasant levies along, but they were mostly for work parties and to get in the way of the enemy.
Then the gun arrived.
When they stopped being clumsy, unreliable toys, they became essential. First cannon, then individual arms. And they changed armies, and the society they were supported by/created by. It takes years to learn to use a sword and shield well; add in a horse and lance, longer, it's best to grow up learning it(nobles). The bow is the same, years of practice to become skilled enough to be useful. And able to handle a bow strong enough to be really useful in a fight. Think Welsh, and Mongol, growing up with stronger bows every year. /side note: it would be interesting to find out how many people wound up with repetitive-stress injuries; sword and bow and axe practice means a lot of the same motions/
But you can train someone to the point of useful skill with a musket in a few weeks. You don't need untrained peasants to wave sticks now, you need people who can take and follow orders and train to be steady under fire. Long term, that means more than changes in an army, it means changes in the society as well.
A gun means you don't have to be big and strong, or spend at least an hour a day practicing, to be able to protect yourself. Yes, bad guys used guns; they've always used the weapons available. Now you had a weapon that made you able to fight a big bad guy even if you were small. /side note: I don't care what people say about empty-hand martial arts, and stun guns, and batons; anyone who lets a bad guy get within reach, if you don't have to, is a fool. The idea is to protect yourself; leave ideas like 'honorable combat' where they belong, which is not in your head when someone attacks you in your home, or a parking lot, or wherever/
Much has been made of the Japanese being the people 'who gave up the gun' because it didn't suit their warrior ethic. Horsecrap. The Samurai used guns, and very effectively, when it suited them. Where the gun did not suit them was in the hands of peasants; it's hard to be a noble samurai, lopping the heads off insolent peasants, if the peasant can shoot you before you're in reach of your sword. They had already banned peasants having weapons of war, firearms were just included in the ban.
Especially as guns became more generally useful, you could tell more about the relative freedom, and respect for the individual, in a society by the attitude toward them. Many places, only military/police/nobles were allowed them most of the time(peasants; Britain, in contrast, pretty much integrated them as more of the arms a subject was supposed to have/know how to use in time of need (yes, I know they did have some restrictions, especially as to religeon of owners; it was still generally expected that a loyal subject of the crown had the right to arms and self-defense. It wasn't until the 1900's that British law began restricting the ownership of arms from honest subjects)
For a lot of people who emigrated to North America, it was a given that you would possess arms, and practice with them. It was considered important enough that when the 2nd Amendment was first proposed, most states though it unnecessary; the right of free men to arms seemed so basic to them that they thought it didn't even need to be mentioned. A couple of states insisted they would not ratify the Constitution unless it was, and so- thank you, founders- we have the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise we might well have gone the way of Britain and Canada and Australia.
This is a short & dirty bit of thought on the matter, but I think it holds true.
I may add to it later.
Right at the moment, firearms are in mind. Lots of people get hung up on the 'guns are bad' idea and either cannot or won't see it any other way.
Once, armies were a core of nobles and attendants, supported by lots of peasants and slaves. When going to war they often took a lot of peasant levies along, but they were mostly for work parties and to get in the way of the enemy.
Then the gun arrived.
When they stopped being clumsy, unreliable toys, they became essential. First cannon, then individual arms. And they changed armies, and the society they were supported by/created by. It takes years to learn to use a sword and shield well; add in a horse and lance, longer, it's best to grow up learning it(nobles). The bow is the same, years of practice to become skilled enough to be useful. And able to handle a bow strong enough to be really useful in a fight. Think Welsh, and Mongol, growing up with stronger bows every year. /side note: it would be interesting to find out how many people wound up with repetitive-stress injuries; sword and bow and axe practice means a lot of the same motions/
But you can train someone to the point of useful skill with a musket in a few weeks. You don't need untrained peasants to wave sticks now, you need people who can take and follow orders and train to be steady under fire. Long term, that means more than changes in an army, it means changes in the society as well.
A gun means you don't have to be big and strong, or spend at least an hour a day practicing, to be able to protect yourself. Yes, bad guys used guns; they've always used the weapons available. Now you had a weapon that made you able to fight a big bad guy even if you were small. /side note: I don't care what people say about empty-hand martial arts, and stun guns, and batons; anyone who lets a bad guy get within reach, if you don't have to, is a fool. The idea is to protect yourself; leave ideas like 'honorable combat' where they belong, which is not in your head when someone attacks you in your home, or a parking lot, or wherever/
Much has been made of the Japanese being the people 'who gave up the gun' because it didn't suit their warrior ethic. Horsecrap. The Samurai used guns, and very effectively, when it suited them. Where the gun did not suit them was in the hands of peasants; it's hard to be a noble samurai, lopping the heads off insolent peasants, if the peasant can shoot you before you're in reach of your sword. They had already banned peasants having weapons of war, firearms were just included in the ban.
Especially as guns became more generally useful, you could tell more about the relative freedom, and respect for the individual, in a society by the attitude toward them. Many places, only military/police/nobles were allowed them most of the time(peasants; Britain, in contrast, pretty much integrated them as more of the arms a subject was supposed to have/know how to use in time of need (yes, I know they did have some restrictions, especially as to religeon of owners; it was still generally expected that a loyal subject of the crown had the right to arms and self-defense. It wasn't until the 1900's that British law began restricting the ownership of arms from honest subjects)
For a lot of people who emigrated to North America, it was a given that you would possess arms, and practice with them. It was considered important enough that when the 2nd Amendment was first proposed, most states though it unnecessary; the right of free men to arms seemed so basic to them that they thought it didn't even need to be mentioned. A couple of states insisted they would not ratify the Constitution unless it was, and so- thank you, founders- we have the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise we might well have gone the way of Britain and Canada and Australia.
This is a short & dirty bit of thought on the matter, but I think it holds true.
I may add to it later.
Status of the world
Well, Bambi is still in the forest, little bugger evaded me this time. (But wait 'till next time, hahahahahhaa)
We've now had several days of below-freezing lows, so hopefully I won't have to mow again. This does mean getting some gas stabilizer to keep the carb in the mower from gumming up over the winter. I may add some to the bike also, just to be on the safe side.
Interesting thing about Oklahoma, in the middle of winter you can get days where, with jacket & gloves, you can ride comfortably; sometimes chaps help. So I don't like to take it out of commission for the season, since I may get some chances to ride.
Cats are insane (see TwoLumps) A dog might decide "I'm gonna go check out the other room" and wander off to do it. A cat jumps up and screams "I've gotta be somewhere else RIGHT NOW!!!" and takes off like you just stuck a stun gun to their tail.
I wrote about the baby-killing in the Netherlands. There's probably no country more steadfastly opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, than the Netherlands. But they can quite calmly write a protocol for how to kill infants and children. Oh, those sophisticated Europeans, why can't we be like them?
The U.N. is trying to push new rules ordering /ORDERING, I SAY!/ that no country can take any kind of military action, no matter what, without U.N. approval. This from an organization that won't take action to stop actual genocides. "We won't do anything about the murder of your citazens, but we won't approve you doing anything, either!" This is one of the reasons why any U.S. politician who says we should subordinate ourselves to the U.N. should be thrown out of office- possibly at the end of a rope.
Further on this, the U.N. has been trying for years to totally ban the ownership of 'small arms' by private citazens of any country. They include all handguns, rifles and shotguns in that category. A big part of their reasoning is that this would keep insurgents from acting against existing governments.
Think about that; no matter how corrupt, cruel, oppressive a government is, the U.N. would rather have it 'stable' than see people have a chance to rebel against it. Oh, no, you have to to through the U.N. to do something about it! We won't act, especially if there's money in not acting, but they damn sure don't want the peasants to do anything about it.
Personal opinion, you have two things at work here. One is the attitude of an organization to gather power to itself no matter the consequences to anyone else. And I think the other is the carryover from a lot of European/royalist/communist attitudes that you cannot let the commoners do anything without approval. The mess in Bosnia was one demonstration of this, I think; remember all the countries that wanted someone(else) to do something, but at the mention of giving arms to people to protect themselves they practically gave birth to purple cows? They'd rather have seen that go on for years than actually 'allow' anyone arms with which to defend themselves. The U.N. has that attitude and is continually trying to make it impossible for anyone to do anything without their approval.
Screw the U.N.
I've got a big holly bush at each front corner of the house, practically covered with berries. I need to prune them back, but I'll wait 'till spring; the berries make the birds happy.
Have you ever actually moved through a house with a sword, seeing how you'd use one in the event of a burglar? I'll take firearms, thank you.
We've now had several days of below-freezing lows, so hopefully I won't have to mow again. This does mean getting some gas stabilizer to keep the carb in the mower from gumming up over the winter. I may add some to the bike also, just to be on the safe side.
Interesting thing about Oklahoma, in the middle of winter you can get days where, with jacket & gloves, you can ride comfortably; sometimes chaps help. So I don't like to take it out of commission for the season, since I may get some chances to ride.
Cats are insane (see TwoLumps) A dog might decide "I'm gonna go check out the other room" and wander off to do it. A cat jumps up and screams "I've gotta be somewhere else RIGHT NOW!!!" and takes off like you just stuck a stun gun to their tail.
I wrote about the baby-killing in the Netherlands. There's probably no country more steadfastly opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, than the Netherlands. But they can quite calmly write a protocol for how to kill infants and children. Oh, those sophisticated Europeans, why can't we be like them?
The U.N. is trying to push new rules ordering /ORDERING, I SAY!/ that no country can take any kind of military action, no matter what, without U.N. approval. This from an organization that won't take action to stop actual genocides. "We won't do anything about the murder of your citazens, but we won't approve you doing anything, either!" This is one of the reasons why any U.S. politician who says we should subordinate ourselves to the U.N. should be thrown out of office- possibly at the end of a rope.
Further on this, the U.N. has been trying for years to totally ban the ownership of 'small arms' by private citazens of any country. They include all handguns, rifles and shotguns in that category. A big part of their reasoning is that this would keep insurgents from acting against existing governments.
Think about that; no matter how corrupt, cruel, oppressive a government is, the U.N. would rather have it 'stable' than see people have a chance to rebel against it. Oh, no, you have to to through the U.N. to do something about it! We won't act, especially if there's money in not acting, but they damn sure don't want the peasants to do anything about it.
Personal opinion, you have two things at work here. One is the attitude of an organization to gather power to itself no matter the consequences to anyone else. And I think the other is the carryover from a lot of European/royalist/communist attitudes that you cannot let the commoners do anything without approval. The mess in Bosnia was one demonstration of this, I think; remember all the countries that wanted someone(else) to do something, but at the mention of giving arms to people to protect themselves they practically gave birth to purple cows? They'd rather have seen that go on for years than actually 'allow' anyone arms with which to defend themselves. The U.N. has that attitude and is continually trying to make it impossible for anyone to do anything without their approval.
Screw the U.N.
I've got a big holly bush at each front corner of the house, practically covered with berries. I need to prune them back, but I'll wait 'till spring; the berries make the birds happy.
Have you ever actually moved through a house with a sword, seeing how you'd use one in the event of a burglar? I'll take firearms, thank you.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Stick that fork in Britain again
Check out Nanny Knows Best, for the latest in how the all-knowing minions of government are making sure the British subject is properly controlled- er, taken care of.
Can't trust peasants to change their own light bulbs, you know.
Can't trust peasants to change their own light bulbs, you know.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Up-to-date European Healthcare
At Wizbang, found this.
I am at a loss. That a society can slide to this and simply take it in stride...
Both my kids were premature. Both of them might well have been murdered by these 'doctors' because of their health problems. They are 22 and 20 now, and doing quite well.
If some doctor had informed me that he killed my child because 'their health problems would have kept them from having a proper life', or I found out about it later, said doctor better have his will made out. Because I would have killed him. No question.
Someone once pointed out that if a government does not/refuses to protect citazens from crime, the citazens have a right to take the law into their own hands. Well, if doctors/government decide they can kill your child and you have no say because
"A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors"
then a parent has the right to take what actions are necessary to protect their children. And other's children.
Yes I'm writing this in the heat of the moment. I hope I never lose that heat at the idea of such things being done.
I am at a loss. That a society can slide to this and simply take it in stride...
Both my kids were premature. Both of them might well have been murdered by these 'doctors' because of their health problems. They are 22 and 20 now, and doing quite well.
If some doctor had informed me that he killed my child because 'their health problems would have kept them from having a proper life', or I found out about it later, said doctor better have his will made out. Because I would have killed him. No question.
Someone once pointed out that if a government does not/refuses to protect citazens from crime, the citazens have a right to take the law into their own hands. Well, if doctors/government decide they can kill your child and you have no say because
"A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors"
then a parent has the right to take what actions are necessary to protect their children. And other's children.
Yes I'm writing this in the heat of the moment. I hope I never lose that heat at the idea of such things being done.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Life do keep things busy
The weather has now dried out a bit, no rain for a few days, but with temperatures bouncing between 20's-30's for lows and 40's & 50's for highs, alternating dry north winds and humid southerly winds, the ground isn't going to dry out anytime soon. This means, among other things, that the grass will keep growing /I may have to mow again/ and the ground will remain soft, making it hard to mow in some places. Most of the time I could get out to chase deer, it was wet enough, or another front coming through, that the critters were bedded down and not moving. And the jacket that feels so nice in the morning may be damn hot in the afternoon.
I have a niece who in the past has had liver trouble. She's now basically in liver failure, as I understand it, and they're setting up to transfer her to Pittsburg. There's a world-class transplant center here in town, but the doctor they want to use is in Pittsburg, so...
So far, grocery shopping hasn't been too bad; either I've been there before/after the crowd, or the crowd is at the other end of the store. It won't last, but it's nice while it does.
I was going to send in a target for Neanderpundit's postal match, but with the above stuff combined with work, there won't be time/weather to get to the range. Dammit.
At least Day by Day is back up.
I have a niece who in the past has had liver trouble. She's now basically in liver failure, as I understand it, and they're setting up to transfer her to Pittsburg. There's a world-class transplant center here in town, but the doctor they want to use is in Pittsburg, so...
So far, grocery shopping hasn't been too bad; either I've been there before/after the crowd, or the crowd is at the other end of the store. It won't last, but it's nice while it does.
I was going to send in a target for Neanderpundit's postal match, but with the above stuff combined with work, there won't be time/weather to get to the range. Dammit.
At least Day by Day is back up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)