Tag: Self Defense

Apple’s Response to the UK Riots

Let’s say you’re a store owner in a town that is being ravaged by riots, what do you do? If you’re Apple you move all of your inventory out of the store and close it down. That’s the best response a company could make in a place where violent criminals are attacking and looting private businesses. You’re far less of a target if you have nothing to take.

This is something that would also be smart for average people to learn. During times of civil unrest those who appear to have something worth stealing are more likely to be targets for the roving masses. Although a large number of random acts of violence will still make self-defense necessary, making yourself appears as poor as possible is one way to reduce the chances of you being directly targeted. Riots can often be kicked off by people angry with the actions of their government but it’s guaranteed that the rage of rioters will not be logically directed. As more and more people join the riots any possible message is lost as a large number of people will join in simply to loot and steal hoping they won’t get caught as there are so many people committing crimes. These thieves will target those who they perceive to have something worth taking so it’s smart to make it appear as though you have nothing worth their time.

Appearing as though you have nothing isn’t a fool proof way of voiding violence but it’s one additional step you can take in reducing your risk.

But According to the Anti-Gunners This Never Happens

Get this, a man used a firearm to prevent two would be invaders from invading his home. According to the anti-gunners this kind of thing never really happens but alas it did:

Jerry Bowen didn’t run and hide when two Hickory men kicked in his door at his Warwick Court home in eastern Lincoln County, according to law enforcement. Instead the 42-year-old grabbed his gun and took charge of the situation.

Bowen fired a warning shot and ordered the men to the ground, according to Lincoln County Sheriff David Carpenter.

James David Rubenstahl and his nephew, Robert Ray Rubenstahl, did as they were told. They dropped to the ground and waited for police to arrive, said Carpenter who mentioned that Bowen searched the men and even used their cell phone to call 911.

I’m not the biggest fan of firing warning shots. North Carolina has castle doctrine which includes using any means necessary to prevent intruders from entering the home so I don’t think Mr. Bowen will have to face charges for firing the warning shot. Firing a warning shot in Minnesota could land you in hot water since we lack castle doctrine (thanks “representatives” for refusing to vote on the bill until the session ended, fuckers) so the only way you can use a firearm in self-defense is if your life is in immediate danger, even if you’re at home. Firing a warning shot can make the defense of feeling your life was in immediate danger a bit shaky which is why we need castle doctrine here (and in every other state) desperately. By firing a warning shot Mr. Bowen was able to defuse the situation without harming anybody which most people would consider a good thing.

I also want to give some style points to Mr. Bowen for using the would be invader’s cell phone to call the police. That right there is humiliation you simply can’t buy. These kinds of scenarios play out fairly often which is why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, especially when the criminals are literally kicking down your front door and the police are minutes away.

When Second Matter

When seconds matter the police are only minutes away. You’ve likely heard that statement from gunnies numerous times but it’s true. Take for instance this story:

A missing Minnesota woman repeatedly called police in the hours before she disappeared to tell them her estranged husband had violated a restraining order.

[…]

An FBI affidavit says witnesses saw Caskey grab his wife and throw her into a pickup truck. She struggled while two people tried to intervene, but Caskey fought them off and fled with her in the truck.

Although the now missing woman called the police it didn’t matter. When her estranged husband finally arrived he picked her up, tossed her in his truck, and drove off all in a matter of seconds. There is no way the police would be able to respond to such a situation in time unless one were nearby or the police found a way to violate the laws of physics. If you find yourself in such an unfortunate scenario the only person you can depend on helping you is you.

This is why the right to self-defense is so important to uphold. Had this woman had a means of defending herself against her estranged husband she may not be missing how. Instead our society promotes the idea that we should simply cooperate with those who bring violence against us and that resorting to violence in our defense is not acceptable. This attitude is bullshit because you don’t know how far an assailant will take their misdeeds. We’re not even sure if the missing woman is still alive.

Having a means to fight back may not save your life but not having a means certainly won’t. Being able to defend yourself gives you options when a piece of shit decides you look like a good target and in those situations options are what you want.

German Ships Traversing Somali Waters Can Now Hire Private Security

Traversing the waters around Somali can be a pretty risky endeavor. Nothing will ruin your day more thoroughly than a bunch of pirates boarding your ship, holding you a gun point, and demanding a random for your release. The biggest problem has been in the fact most ships have been barred from having means of self-defense by the very governments that have been pretending to protest ships. Well Germany has finally admitted that they are incapable of protecting their ships and have authorized their serfs on the seas to hire private security:

State secretary in the economics ministry responsible for maritime affairs, Hans-Joachim Otto, said on Thursday that he could not answer the repeated calls from shipping companies for soldiers or armed police officers to accompany their boats.

Of course the government is going to allow any private security firms that itself hasn’t explicitly blessed:

“We don’t want desperadoes, so we are looking into a certification,” said Otto. He said security firms offering protection would have to meet certain standards. The government had until now always rejected such a solution, unwilling to give up the state’s monopoly on the use of legitimate force.

Being able to defend yourself shouldn’t require government’s permission. Government like to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in all situations and get kind of testy when us peasants decide to take measures to defend our own lives. If most of the ships traversing Somali waters were armed to the teeth the pirates would likely think twice about hijacking ships. Deterring all crime is impossible but if you raise the risk of criminal activity high enough it will deter many criminals. By raising the risks I’m not talking about increasing jail sentences either, I’m talking about people being able to defend themselves against assailants.

It’s good to see German ships will finally be allowed to hire security forces to keep the pirates at bay, but this entire problem could have been mostly avoided had no rule against ships being able to hire security been passed.

How it Should Be Done

I am in no way an advocate of initiation violence but I am an advocate of self-defense. In my opinion anybody storming into your home without at least identifying themselves first has initiated violence against your person by first violating your property rights and then by making an implied threat against your life. My biggest problem with no-knock entries is the simply fact that they create a situation where violence is almost guaranteed as the homeowner, unaware of the identities of those breaking into his home, takes measures to defend himself.

Although I feel a homeowner in such a situation should be free of legal repercussions in such situations that’s now how the state sees it. Thankfully some grant juries are better than others because on in Texas recently declined to indict a man who go caught up in this type of scenario:

A grand jury has declined to indict Steven Ray Jones after he was accused of intentionally shooting at Dallas police officers last month at a Pleasant Grove apartment complex.

At the time of the shooting, Jones, 27, was on the phone begging a 911 operator to quickly send the police as men tried to kick in the door. Jones said he believed attackers who critically injured his cousin had returned to the apartment.

[…]

On the night of the incident, a brawl broke out and Jones’ cousin was shot by an unidentified gunman. Jones and his cousin fled into his cousin’s apartment. Jones called 911 to say his cousin was shot and told the operator that attackers were beating on the door.

Moments later, Jones told the operator that someone was kicking the door. The operator, unaware that police were on the scene, told him officers were on the way. Jones then yelled to the people kicking at the door that police were coming.

The officers, believing that someone lay inside bleeding and possibly dying, had decided to kick in the door. But they did not let the dispatcher know that they were doing so.

In this case the no-knock entry wasn’t for the execution of a warrant but notification was still not provided when they busted in the door. Considering this situation the police were in error busting down the door without first announcing themselves or alerting the 911 operator to inform Mr. Jones that police had arrived. Obviously the police department saw things differently:

The Police Department instead arrested Jones on three counts of aggravated assault on a public servant. He has been in jail since the incident June 13.

“Although the person was not indicted, we still believe it was the right course of action because three Dallas police officers were injured during the course of this incident,” said Deputy Chief Craig Miller.

What is left out by Mr. Miller is that the police were injured because of errors in how the situation was handled by the Police Department. Since Mr. Jones was in a situation where an attacker was beating on the door of the apartment he was occupying it was very reasonable for him to assume the person who finally kicked in the door was the attacker. The 911 operator did not forward information to the officers that the attacker was beating down the door, this was the first error. The police apparently didn’t announce themselves before kicking in the door, this was the second error. The police apparently didn’t inform the 911 operator that they had arrived at the scene, this was the third error.

I wouldn’t even say Mr. Jones made a mistake in this case, he took steps necessary to defend himself but wasn’t given all the information to make an informed decision. His actions, based on the information he had available, was completely justified. Thankfully the area Assistant Chief sees the situation different than the Deputy Chief:

“She leaves out some critical information,” said Assistant Chief Vince Golbeck, who oversees the city’s seven patrol stations.

Seconds later, the door flew open and Jones fired two shots as three officers rushed inside. Jones apologized to the officers and begged them not to shoot him.

Golbeck acknowledged that the incident reveals a communications breakdown. The department is now considering requiring that officers notify the dispatcher when they’ve decided to kick in a door.

“We’re not trying to point fingers, but we’re just saying, ‘Folks, this is how we can do better next time,’” he said.

The error was entirely with the Police Department in this case. I’m glad that the second grand jury understood this and decided not to indite Mr. Jones as it would have created an expensive legal battle for him to fight.

You’re Not Defending Your Stuff

Oftentimes conversations about defending your stuff crop up when talking about self-defense. Some advocate the use of lethal force to defend their property while others are completely against it. I think Weerd did a good jobs of puttings the concept of defending your stuff into perspective:

Thug Presents a weapon or implied weapon and in-so-many-words presents this offering point: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.”

Now lets assume he’s not bluffing. There’s no way to tell, and the antis LOVE to give violent and dangerous people the benefit of the doubt. I think any rational person should see the error in that. I don’t associate with anybody who rob somebody or so much as THREATEN violence to get something they wish to take. The people willing to do something so dastardly are not the best and brightest of the world. They are not the people you should EVER trust, or give the benefit of the doubt.

As a general rule unless its some snot-nosed Ritalin-kid mouthing off, I’m going to assume they do indeed mean to kill me over something as trivial as my wallet.

It’s not about the stuff, it’s about the fact that somebody has a weapon pointed at you and is claiming a willingness to kill you if you don’t surrender whatever they’re after. In this case you’re not shooting the thug over your wallet, you’re shooting him over your life which is the whole point of self-defense. I’ve said this time and time again but it bears repeating, you can’t trust a person’s word when that person has made a threat against your life.

Maybe they will simply run away when you hand over your wallet or maybe they’ll decide to kill you and rid themselves of the only witness to their robbery. Perhaps your assailant is isn’t mentally stable (likely as they’re willing to kill for money) and thus logic can’t be applied. Your attacker may simply not believe you when you toss over you wallet and they want more. The point is you can’t give an assailant the benefit of the doubt because doing so may end up with your face down in a gutter hoping the paramedics arrive before your blood pressure drops to zero.

The Police Will Not Protect You

Those of us who advocate self-defense say it time and time again, the police won’t protect you. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled multiple times that the police have no duty to protect you but often time when called the police either show up well after the crime has completed, and that’s if they show up at all. The people of Alto, Texas are getting a real taste of this fact since the city laid off it’s entire police force:

Alto, Texas is preparing for a crime wave, after the small East Texas town put its entire police force on furlough, the Wall Street Journal reports today.

In an effort to save money, the city has laid off its police chief and four police officers for six months — longer if Alto’s finances don’t improve.

OK, it’s not quite as serious as it sounds because a nearby sheriff’s department is going to take over:

In the meantime, the county sheriff’s department will take over law enforcement duties for the town of 1,200, according to the AP. The sheriff’s department is already responsible for policing the nearby city of Wells, which laid off its sole police officer last year.

This still means that the town is going to have longer police response times since the sheriff’s department are likely spread thin already. Either way this is another classic example of why you should have a means of defense around your home (and on your person if possible). Not only are the police not required to assist you but they may go away on a whim because some town can’t balance its budget.

Having a firearm around the home is a good idea plain and simple.

In Wyoming Permitless Carry Takes Effect Tomorrow

If anybody living in Wyoming is reading this blog note that starting Friday you’ll be able to exercise your right to self-defense by carrying a firearm without first having to beg the state for permission:

Starting Friday, Wyoming will join three other states in allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

Anyone who meets the same requirements to obtain a Wyoming concealed weapons permit can legally carry a firearm in any place that is not specifically prohibited.

Put Wyoming down as another state that actually respects its citizens’ right to have the best means of self-defense available to them.

You Keep Saying These Things

Wisconsin is on the verge of passing right to carry legislation into law which means the anti-gunners are out screaming that blood will flow through the streets and other such nonsense. As I said before these people are harmless and will lose interest quickly as people stop listening to their prophesies that never come to fruition. Until they lose interest though we’re going to have to listen to the ramblings of crazy people such as this dumb ass:

After the bill was approved by most Republicans and some Democrats, the Assembly will send the bill to Walker to become the law of the land. The move is being hailed as a major victory by those who believe concealed carry provides a much-needed safety net for law-abiding citizens who can now feel free to summon up their inner Clint Eastwood on demand to defend their loved ones.

Of course, that’s a crock.

Many law enforcement officers will tell you how difficult it would be for a regular citizen – even with the required training – to use a handgun in a confrontation with a criminal. No matter how many action movies you may have watched, it’s just not that simple.

More often than not, people would face more danger of having the weapon taken and used against them during an unexpected encounter with a criminal.

The anti-gunners toss around so many lies that it’s almost impossible to keep track of them all. One of them is the myth that you’re more likely to have your gun taken from you and used against your person than to use it to successfully defend yourself. He’s the thing though, every time the anti-gunners make this claim that are unable to back it up with any examples. It’s basically a non-issue. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but the frequency is so rare that the anti-gunners can’t even pull out examples of it happening.

Also I like how he states that law enforcement officers like to tell people how difficult it is to defend yourself with a firearm. You know what’s even more difficult? Getting raped in a back alley while waiting 15 minutes for the police to not arrive because they have no legal obligation to protect you. Anybody who has participated in a shooting sport knows how difficult it become to property utilize a firearm when your adrenaline begins pumping but that’s why we advocate training so strongly. On top of that having a gun, regardless of your capability with the device during a self-defense situation, is still going to increase your odds of surviving much more than not being armed at all.

The bottom line though is the simple fact that none of the claims made by anti-gunners have been proven true. No blood has been flowing through the streets because every street corner turned into a Hollywood version of the Wild West (because the real Wild West wasn’t so wild [PDF]). Violent crime hasn’t gone up, in fact just the opposite has happened. This is why nobody really pays much attention to what the anti-gunners are saying, none of their boogeymen have come out from under their beds to reign terror down upon us.

Wisconsin Assembly Passed Right to Carry Legislation

Things are looking good in Wisconsin. Both chambers of the state legislature have voted in favor of the current carry legislation which means all that’s left is for Governor Walker to sign it into law (which he’s expected to do).

I appears as though Wisconsin will be joining the majority of the Union in allowing its citizens to have a means of self-defense outside of the home. The only state remaining with a complete prohibition against carry is Illinois which will likely take quite some time. Anyways those of you living in Wisconsin please note that the anti-gunners are going to be crying about blood in the streets and other such nonsense but they’ll lose interest very quickly so you can safely continue to ignore them.