Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

I say good on the people of Detroit for defending themselves. Detroit suffered from massive economic collapse due to their over reliance on the automobile industry and when the economy goes bad crime rises. When the crime rises the police are usually the first to run and hide in the safer parts of town leaving those living in the poorer parts of down in a position where they must defend themselves. The anti-gunners would rather these people be dead than have a means of defending themselves against criminals.

A thorough review of the available literature has led us to some surprising conclusions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-rape advice. Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault (Storaska, 1975; Channing L. Bete Co., What every woman should know about rape, 1989; Channing L. Bete Co., What women and men should know about date rape, 1989). Research suggests that this is poor advice. According to one study (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993), women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, such as crying or pleading with the assailant, were raped about 96% of the time. In the same study, women who did nothing to protect themselves were raped about 93% of the time.

“Passive” resistance actually slightly increased a woman’s chance of being raped. To me this makes sense as rape is about power, not sex. By crying and pleading you’re giving the rapist what he wants, which is to break your will and force you to submit to him. On the other hand bullet holes, stab woulds, and/or a collapse trachea are great at stopping a rapist. In fact forceful physical resistance has the best chance of stopping a rapist:

Forceful physical resistance was an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape rate dropped to between 45% and 14% when the rapist’s attempt was met with violent physical force (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1992; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985). Physical resistance also appears to be more effective when assault occurs outdoors (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985).

That’s a pretty large drop from the 96% of completed rapes followed by passive verbal resistance. On top of that women who forcefully resist a rapist stand little chance of additional injury:

Second, this argument overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotional and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a completed rape would have been (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1991). Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as severe as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstrable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether (Kleck and Sayles, 1990).

The last sentence is most telling, while a woman’s chance of injury goes up negligibly her chance of getting raped dropped dramatically. In addition the physical and emotional damage done by rape is almost always going to be far greater than damage received during forceful resistance. Did I mention woman who used firearms or knives stood a phenomenal chance of avoiding a rape:

Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance (Kleck and Sayles, 1990).

As I said bullet holes and stab wounds are very good deterrents.

Self-defense classes are invaluable not just for the training in proper fighting methods but for mentally preparing people for self-defense situations. Many people do freeze up when they’re being attacked because they’ve never been taught the proper actions to take in such a scenario. Being able to fight back is only one part of the battle, you must also be willing to fight back.

If you’re one of those unfortunate people who believes passive resistance is the best way to handle a rape situation please do yourself a favor and read the linked paper.

Two young couples were watching TV Saturday afternoon at the Bloomington house they share when they heard a dog bark, and then a woman scream.

Suddenly, a desperate-looking stranger burst into their house.

The man, later identified by police as a suspected bank robber and fugitive on a crack binge, bounded up the stairs into their living room. Brandishing a screwdriver and claiming he had a gun, he ordered them onto the living room floor.

“Everything happened so fast,” one of the victims said later.

Then the intruder demanded a car. For 15 long minutes, the victims tried to appease him.

The families could have saved themselves 15 agonizing minutes, minutes where they were at the mercy of their assailant. How? Easy, they could have had a gun and shot the bastard as he burst into their home. Instead the two families remained entirely defenseless while the police didn’t respond:

In the upstairs living room, the three others were calling police.

When you have a crack addict taking a hostage waiting for the police is not a viable option if you want to ensure your continued existence. In this case the crack addiction slipped up and gave his would be hostage a window to find a weapon and defend himself but that isn’t always the case. While it’s good that nobody important was hurt (sorry but a piece of shit who breaks into somebody’s home ceases to be important in my book) the situation would have been much quicker resolved had one of the family members been able to shoot the bastard. Remember when you call the police it will take them minutes to arrive if they decide to come at all.

The parents of an eighth grader who was fatally shot by police inside his South Texas school are demanding to know why officers took lethal action, but police said the boy was brandishing — and refused to drop — what appeared to be a handgun and that the officers acted correctly.

The weapon turned out to be a pellet gun that closely resembled the real thing, police said late Wednesday, several hours after 15-year-old Jaime Gonzalez was repeatedly shot in a hallway at Cummings Middle School in Brownsville. No one else was injured.

A picture of the gun can be found at the link and from a distance I can see how an officer would mistake it for a real handgun. Some may say this is a valid case of using violence while others will claim it wasn’t. Others have also questioned the amount of force used by the officer, which I will address in a bit.

So far the story is mostly he-said-she-said. The officer is claiming the kid was pointing the gun at him. Without any way of knowing the weapon was fake that certainly qualifies as immediate threat to life. When I read about these kinds of situations I try to put myself in the shoes of the shooter. What did the cop see? Did the kid point the pellet gun at the officer? Was anything said during the altercation? In this case I have no answers and desire more data. Unfortunately more data isn’t always available and we may find ourselves in these kinds of situations. This reality must be acknowledge by anybody who carries a gun and should be given, at least, a cursory consideration. Most of self-defense is mental preparation and state of mind.

Now let us return to the amount of force that was used:

“Why was so much excess force used on a minor?” the boy’s father, Jaime Gonzalez Sr., asked The Associated Press outside the family’s home Wednesday night. “Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?”

Let’s consider the use of a firearm. A firearm is a lethal weapon designed to kill, we shouldn’t kid ourselves otherwise. Employing a firearm should only be done when you have decided the situation requires the use of lethal force. Therefore it is safe to say when a firearm is drawn the amount of force necessary to end the situation becomes whatever is necessary.

Any self-defense class and, I’m assuming, police training class will teach you to shoot until the threat has stopped. If the threat stops at the presentation of the firearm you shouldn’t shoot, if it stops after a non-lethal wound you stop, if it stops only after the assailant is dead then that is what you must do. We must also realize that handgun cartridges are anemic and overall poor man stoppers. To overcome this limitation standard procedure is to fire two shots immediately at center mass. If the threat has not ceased after two shots you must take more, possibly even attempting to shoot the attacker in the head. Needless to say the round count is likely to start at two and escalate from there so three shots in this situation shouldn’t be surprising.

In the end the kid may have simply committed suicide by cop. While I’m not willing to pass final judgement in this case I am leaning towards this conclusion unless further data becomes available. Beyond the situation there is something else to take into consideration:

About 20 minutes elapsed between police receiving a call about an armed student and shots being fired, according to police and student accounts. Authorities declined to share what the boy said before he was shot.

Had the kid been in possession of a real weapon and malicious intent he would have had 20 minutes to do whatever he please. Schools, being gun-free zones, don’t allow for lawful self-defense. Teachers and faculty with valid carry permits are not allowed to carry in a elementary or high school so the only solution that really exists for stopping a violence individual is to wait for the police. A lot can happen in 20 minutes and the state prohibits use mere serfs from defending ourselves inside of these gun-free zones. This situation could have been far worse because of government decree.

Oklahoma news media have the compelling story of a shotgun-toting 18-year-old mother who killed an intruder on New Year’s Eve after a 911 operator told her, “Do what you have to do to protect your baby.”

[...]

The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.

21 minutes, that’s how long the call laster and the police had not arrive. This story, along with many like it, demonstrate the fallacy of state provided protection. How horrible is it that the government not only maintains a monopoly on police protection but has also ruled that it has no obligation to actually provide you the promised services.

Let’s look at where police protection in this country currently sits. In almost all cases the state maintains a monopoly on armed protective services and even if a private alternative exists customers are unable to cease paying the government for it’s ill-provided protection service. See those who seek alternative protection and thus no longer desire to utilize the government provided police will be kidnapped by those very officer and tossed into a cage unless they begin paying again.

Even protecting yourself is burdensome if not impossible because of government laws. Many countries and individual states in the United States have strong laws against self-defense. Some states don’t allow individuals to carry firearms on their person, many states don’t have any form of stand your ground of castle doctrine laws on the books, and other states have strong restrictions on who can even own a gun. The lack of stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are perhaps the most egregious because it assumes guilt on behalf of the defender, and in the case of missing castle doctrine that guilt is still assumed in the defender’s own home.

Firearms are hands down the best tools available for person defense but access to them is strictly controlled. In the United States any person charged with a felony, even a non-violent felony, is prohibited from owning firearms. If the mother in this story had been in possession of enough marijuana to be charged with felony possession she likely wouldn’t have had that firearm available to her and she and her child would likely be dead now. Outside of the United States firearm possession is even more strictly controlled with complete prohibition existing in some countries. Were this mother in England she and her child would likely be dead. Thus self-protection has been taken from the state and is only granted to those it deems worthy.

This story only ended happily because the woman lived in a place that “allows” people to defend themselves, own a firearm, and she wasn’t an “undesirable” person. Even though she has paid for police protection and will have to continue paying she has no recourse for the fact a squad car hadn’t arrive after 21 minutes. Were she able to seek a private provider a contractual agreement could have been made requiring protection to arrive within a specified span of time or the mother would no longer be made to continue paying for services.

State provide protection is a fallacy because they don’t actually offer protection. If you call the state protection service they may or may not send somebody to help, it’s a crap shoot.

A 77-year-old Minneapolis man was determined to fight off four armed robbers recently. He was so determined that he fended off the criminals with a sledgehammer.

[...]

“I grabbed this sledge but he didn’t know I grabbed it because I acted like I was going into my pocket. I slipped it over I turned it around and I knocked the gun out of his hand,” Krier said.

He said he used his combat training from 1958 to fend off the attackers. Krier said the sledge hammer hit the robber in the hand.

“The gun went in the alley and the guy hollered,” said Krier.

Krier then chased the men.

“Then I grabbed another sledge and I went out the door and they ran out the alley,” Krier said.

One 77 year-old man fending off four men with a sledge hammer is nothing but pure badass. I’m proud of the fact that men like this live in my state.

I carry a gun for the same reason I keep a jump pack in my truck, wear a seatbelt, carry a Swiss Army Knife, have a stockpile of food, have extra batteries for my equipment, and backup data on my system regularly: I like being prepared. Thankfully I live in an area where violent crime is low but, like an auto accident, a violent crime can happen anywhere so it’s good to have a means of self-defense available. My firearm is another tool in my toolbox that gives me a better chance of a satisfactory result in a specific scenario.

When I first obtained my carry permit I didn’t do so because I was living in a state of fear, I did it because I believe having a firearm would enhance my capabilities in specific situations. While I was never in the Boy Scouts I do live by the mantra of always being prepared. My daily footwear are waterproof boots because boots in general have far more utility than shoes and I absolutely hate wet feet. Granted as a person who works in an office all day it’s unlikely I’ll be in a situation where waterproof boots are useful but there is no detriment if I wear boots and there are advantages so that’s what I do. Having four-wheel drive on my truck isn’t a feature I need every day but when a really bad snowstorm hits it’s nice to know I can get to where I need to go.

For most of us carrying a firearm means nothing more than having the right tool for the right job on hand.

Hundreds of people packed a meeting room Monday night to listen to Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright, teachers and officials discuss protection tips, including everything from cutting back bushes around homes to carrying guns.

When Brenda Thornton walked up to a meeting room at the Spartanburg County government office building Monday night, she had to stand outside of the door.

“When I got in here, we couldn’t get in,” she said.

She and others stood outside, but they listened closely to tips about protecting themselves.

“I have always really wanted to have a gun in my car because I travel a lot by myself,” she said.

And when Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright walked in, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

“I still believe women get your CWP, if that’s what you choose to do, but train yourselves with it,” Wright said.

I’m giving him points not just for recommending people get carry permits but also emphasizing the necessity to train with a the firearm you plan to carry. While carrying a firearm is smart it won’t serve much use if you don’t know how to properly utilize the weapon. Propert utilization requires a great deal of training so that all operations with the firearm are muscle memory. Being in a high-stress situation where your life is on the line is not the time to wonder how to reload the firearm or disengage the manual safety.

More police officers need to follow Sheriff Wright’s lead and properly education people on self-defense. Too many officers seem to believe only trained cops have the ability to defend a life and that attitude needs to be extinguished.

A business owner near the Occupy Wall Street encampment claims she has been repeatedly harassed and threatened with bodily harm by protesters after she and her employees refused to give in to their outlandish demands.

“I’ve been told, ‘Watch your back!’ 10 times,” Stacey Tzortzatos, owner of Panini & Co. Breads, located across from Zuccotti Park, told The Post yesterday.

She and her employees are terrified by the constant threats, which she said began after she demanded the protesters stop using her shop’s restroom as a place to bathe every day.

The final straw came about two weeks ago, when the demonstrators broke a bathroom sink, flooding the shop, and clogged the toilet — setting her back $3,000 in damages.

[...]

And on Friday, she said, a crazed squatter burst into the shop and demanded that workers fill a 10-gallon container of water.

When they refused, “he banged it on the ground and started yelling” and threatened the staff, she said.

“He said he was entitled to have it for free.”

As I’ve said before rioters are severely allergic to shotgun pellets. Although I realize getting a shotgun in New York is likely difficult I would urge Ms. Tzortzatos to arm herself. She will be amazed how quickly a violent thugs turns into a fleeing coward at the sight of a shotgun. And if the sight of the shotgun isn’t enough to scare them away the bark will certainly take care of the violent offender before the offender has a chance to harm or kill store employees or patrons.

“We had people who attempted to break into our building,” the landmark Rotunda Building on Frank Ogawa Plaza outside City Hall, Tagami said Thursday. He grabbed a shotgun that he usually keeps at home, went down to the ground floor and “discouraged them,” he said.

“I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it – I didn’t point it – I just held it in my hands,” Tagami said. “And I just racked it, and they ran.”

Rioters are so severely allergic to shotgun pellets just the sight of a shotgun will often send them running in fear. Trying to be ballsy the rioters did do some graffiti work on the outside of the building:

Although they didn’t get inside the building – Tagami, 46, oversaw its $50 million renovation and has an office there – vandals did scrawl graffiti on the outside walls during the post-midnight riot that broke out after Occupy Oakland’s daylong general strike.

I’m sure this could have been solved by placing a few people with shotguns around the outside of the build though.

While I make light of the situation the story does bring up a example of why having a means of self-defense is a good thing. Although I don’t advocate the possession of firearms as a mere deterrent the fact of the matter is an assailant is less likely to attack you or yours if they know you’re in possession of a firearm. As the economy continues to crumble the rate of crime, both violent and property, is likely to increase. Knowing this I think it’s a good idea to obtain a means of self-defense less things turn to total shit in your area and you remain completely unarmed as rioters decide your home or business is a good target for looting.