WEATHER »

Guns for Defense


Saturday, June 7, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

How to respond to a deranged person with a gun: Only a courageous good person with a gun can stop them. Guns are the gold standard for defense.

Natural wholesome instinct urges us to defend ourselves and loved ones from violent attack. Restricting mentally ill persons from purchasing guns is good, but restrictions and laws don’t end crime. Laws establish consequences; they don’t guarantee criminal compliance. Criminals steal or get black market guns.

Criminals and mentally ill people twist guns’ defensive purpose. Worldwide, politicians recognize guns as good defensively, even ideal. Countries procure guns for their armies. Righteous justifications for using guns to protect are obvious: responding to Hitler’s forcibly conquering Europe, retrieving 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped for unknown slavery. The right of self-defense from criminals with guns requires and completely justifies possession of a gun in the first place.

To legislate the United States disarming militarily invites doom. Why would anyone not trust good citizens and legislate disarming good people? That enables criminals to attack without risk or fear, leaving you helpless to evade them or protect your loved ones.

Civilian means being civil: respectful of good citizens and their rights.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

In a situation such as the in a mass shooting situation like the one recently in IV, another nonpeace officer with a gun would also be shot and/or arrested. In addition, how many more innocent people die in the crossfire?
And how would you know if the person you shot was the killer or just another you trying to save the day?
Sorry your scenario is a recipe for greater chaos and death.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow that's the last time I eat a cupcake while trying to post.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is Mr. Schaffer's simplistic credo: "Guns are the gold standard for defense." Deep, very deep, and as another poster wrote, it's "a recipe for greater chaos and death." Wyatt Earp died long ago, and so did the frontier society he inhabited.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is anyone in favor of: "To legislate the United States disarming militarily invites doom. ?" Aside from the shocking grammar, I think that means taking guns away from the military. I think that the poster thinks that means taking away military type guns from citizens which is a good idea. We need to give up on the fairy tale idea that somehow citizens with their private weapons are going to defeat tyranny. Even in the American Revolutionary war, the citizen militias were no match for professional soldiers. The French intervention was the deciding factor. Today the mismatch between the pros and the people is much greater.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Paul.....because if we all had guns that 30,000 annual gun death number would plummet.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" .. United States disarming militarily ..."

Huh? Gun nut. Literally.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People in "The West" didn't want gunslingers in their town.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pentagon document lays out battle plan against zombies:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/politic...

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Finally Paul writes a letter on this subject. I know Paul, he's a peaceful guy, sort of an "Old Hippie" type, wouldn't hurt a fly, He's a Chiropractor, teaches self-defense classed to women.

There was an article about him a number of years ago in the News-Press about how when he lived in Missouri, he was very anti-gun, and was accosted by some bad guys, who were intent on doing serious physical harm, but the situation was resolved when an older man with a gun happened upon the scene. That changed his perspective.

Paul is a good guy, he's been around for a long time, he's proven himself among those who know him, and in no way does he fit the description of a "gun nut". He's just a person with more hands-on life experience than those who are convinced that banning guns will solve the problem of violence in our country.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: Paul wasn't anti-gun before the incident, but indifferent to the issue. The incident however, changed his views.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen ... Your argument that Paul Schaffer has more legitimate or correct views because he feels his skin was saved by someone with a gun is illogical. Personal experiences *may* inform. But they also *may* create bias.

You don't need to have been raped to know that rape is wrong. You don't need to go to war to understand the consequences of it.

Schaffer may be a nice guy, but all we can make of him is based on what he writes. And that writing is nutty.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How is the writing nutty? And once again, why is our society so much more violent today than a few decades ago?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The police are well trained and qualified in using firearms, and practice to keep their edge. Nevertheless, even with their training and practice, police officers have been known to gun down innocent bystanders in the heat of exchanging shots against the bad guys. If experts can hit the wrong targets, how much more is the collateral damage going to be when you have well-meaning but untrained folks blasting away?

SFGiants (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this is NUTTY writing, & incomprehensible: "To legislate the United States disarming militarily invites doom. Why would anyone not trust good citizens and legislate disarming good people? " Eh? The man makes little sense, but we know he sincerely believes "Only a courageous good person with a gun can stop them." [the bad guys]. Oh, that it were only this simple!

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen: "And once again, why is our society so much more violent today than a few decades ago?"

It's not.

There are more random acts of extreme violence (and more media attention to those acts), but generally our society has become far less violent than it was a few decades ago.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's good to know. That means we don't need more gun control.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thats cool, eattherich, U make billclausen a happy boy.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am willing to bet a huge amount that not one opinion will be changed by these comments. I would be delighted to be proved wrong and if you were on one side of the issue but changed your mind as a result of some comment here or elsewhere please let us all know but I tend to doubt it.

Noletaman (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People should be more concerned about police violence and all of the unnecessary gang violence caused by the war on drugs.

Warning: Graphic depiction of police violence

http://i.imgur.com/yP6SdeY.png

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2014 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

good pt, loon!

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Only a courageous good person with a gun can stop them. Guns are the gold standard for defense". Not at all. I own and carry but won't shoot fleeing shooters that head into a crowd of people, won't shoot in a crowded room, won't shoot in a classroom full of children, or any other place where others around, my defense tool is for me; I'm not the Law, and I must account for every bullet I unleash onto the population. The Author's view of, "Natural wholesome instinct urges us to defend ourselves and loved ones from violent attack", is really by any means necessary and by that it means to include non-lethal weapons. The shooter who was foiled in killing more innocents Friday, was reloading and a Pepper spray disarmed him. Secret Service Agents use their bodies as a last resort to stop or slow a bullet to protect the POTUS and police have used themselves as shields to stop a life from being taken due to many (and should all of them) wear a bullet resistant vests with a steel/ ceramic plate for bullet reflection. The Gun is really only ever to be used as a last resort and only when there is a clear shot. Did you know that NO sniper in Law Enforcement who is on the SWAT/SERT team to Kill a suspect? They are to stop a threat, not to kill; also anyone who uses a gun in defense of themselves or another are to render lifesaving service to the shot person if they are trained or able to. I spent 15 years training every six months with my Duty three gun ac-compliment (Pistol, Shotgun, and Assault-Rifle), renewed my First-aid, CPR and AED training card. every year and trained/retrained as a First Responder to Emergency's. I wore and wear a bullet resistant vest and carry the plate for quick attachment then and today. Where I work now, I don't carry at my work (even concealed) because there those who do carry, that are paid to and to protect the personnel but outside of work, I am armed but not necessarily with my pistol, shotgun or rifle. I carry Pepper spray and/or an ASP; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASP,_Inc. These can be deadly but I have to account for their use also both legal and illegal use.
It's not just about the Gun that is a protector, there are other means to, "defend ourselves and loved ones from violent attack".

dou4now (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@dou4now ... what kind of screening do armed security personnel go through to get their positions? Are there any standards for screening, or is it handled on a per organization basis? Do you think they're effective? Is there any kind of state or national registry?

I only mentioned registries because in a different industry (nursing) there have been serious issues with "bad" nurses floating from state-to-state (documented by Pro Publica research). One safeguard that's been put in place is to have state registries that can be shared from state-to-state.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's a tremendous amount of disinformation on this issue.

I posted this piece at the 'Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition,' responding to Mayor Schneider's 2 June piece on the 'Coalition Against Gun Control (CAGC)' website:

'2nd Amendment (#2): response to CAGV's Bloomberg ballyhoo'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

The main piece mostly regards the new astroturf groups that are being rolled out on an emergency basis by the mentally ill megalomaniac oligarch Michael "NYPD is my army" Bloomberg, in order to replace his failed and widely ridiculed group, 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG)'.

Just above the four-panel cartoon at the bottom is a link to a piece I posted on 16 February, which includes REAL gun statistics, debunking all the lies coming from the hoplophobes [ http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia-Gu... ]. < Click this link, and do a page search for 'Feinstein.' Senator Feinstein is thought to be suffering from hoplophobia due to having discovered Harvey Milk's body.

A sampling of sources for my information there:

• the US Dept of Justice
• the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
• the Pew Research Center
• the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
• Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law

One of the biggest deceptions by the citizen disarmament movement is that they *ignore defensive gun use statistics.* I cover that, via a direct link to a comment in a Randy Alcorn piece at Noozhawk. That link is about 2/5 down the second page, and is entitled:

'ignore defensive gun use statistics'

Those who are frightened at the thought of law-abiding and responsible citizens defending themselves with a firearm, both inside or outside the home, might consider watching this very short public service announcement, which features a home not unlike many in our community:

'MB Studio Productions High Capacity Magazine PSA'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

I also posted a piece two days ago that features a [01:16] video of a 13-year old girl, an NRA member, at a shooting exhibition.

The best part of that piece is a [03:00] video of a US army veteran / current law enforcement officer blowing away (pun intended) the nonsense coming from Obama and the citizen disarmament movement. With all due respect, I suggest EVERYONE should spend 3 minutes on that one.

That piece is entitled:

're: Marian Shapiro: Gandhi; 13-year old badass; US army vet'
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/S...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some interesting statistics about guns in the world. There is a pulldown upper left, to view 3 different maps showing different values.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datab...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2014 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, an article in the Indy that actually speaks truth? I love the point that nobody can seem to answer: Why disarm good citizens? Can ANYONE honestly make any sense of that? No.

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2014 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I find interesting is the contradictions of the anti-gun crowd. (To Wit: My snarky response to EatTheRich) On one hand, they say crime is down in an attempt to justify the success of gun control, on the other hand, they say gun violence is an epidemic so we need more gun control.

Which is it?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2014 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Bill...it's both, didn't you know that? The anti-gunners have no logic or truth behind their emotional claims so they switch the blame game to whatever fits their opinion that minute. Yet they like more cops roaming the streets with guns on their hips, they just don't trust their fellow law abiding citizen to have a gun.

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2014 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen: "On one hand, they say crime is down in an attempt to justify the success of gun control, on the other hand, they say gun violence is an epidemic so we need more gun control. "

Unfortunately, your lack of sophistication means that you fail to understand that these two things are not mutually exclusive. I asked you to stop posting stupid comments, but I guess you're not heeding my advice.

Bluegrass805: "...they just don't trust their fellow law abiding citizen to have a gun."

You mean like the idiots in Texas carrying AR-15s to a Chipotle? Or the drunk in Kalamazoo wandering the street with an automatic rifle while still in his pajamas? Perhaps I'd have less of an 'emotional reaction' to guns if gun advocates weren't so stupid? After all, if you arm one moron, you have to arm them all - otherwise, it's not fair sport.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After all, if you arm one moron, you have to arm them all - otherwise, it's not fair sport.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 5:31 a.m.

...kinda like debating you. You tell me to learn Spanish, typecasting me as a parochial White Guy, then I post a whole paragraph in Spanish. Then you say I know nothing about music, then I reveal a little bit more about myself. You see, you keep coming after me with all this hostility, then I keep proving you wrong, but you persist. I have no quarrel with you, but if you keep posting B.S. about me, I will keep having to refute it, even if it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I think it's time for me to post this song, in tribute to you--the lyrics sum up how I feel about you, you can dance to it, I love the bassline, and it's a catchy tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3ouU...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That little B-minor/E-minor interlude in 3/4 is a nice effect too, rather Lennonesque with the interchangable time signatures a la Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, and the very complex Good Morning Good Morning.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen: "You tell me to learn Spanish, typecasting me as a parochial White Guy, then I post a whole paragraph in Spanish. Then you say I know nothing about music, then I reveal a little bit more about myself. "

I love how, when you're pegged down, you go on these 'poor poor pitiful me' rants instead of addressing the actual topics of conversation. Yes, we get it, you're a misunderstood white guy who thinks everyone else should stop talking about race because it makes you 'uncomfortable'... just like every other self-proclaimed misunderstood white guy.

I didn't say that you knew 'nothing about music'. I said you were ignorant about music. Playing the banjo hardly qualifies you as an expert in hip-hop... but certainly doesn't prevent you from rattling on ad nauseum...

@billclausen: "That little B-minor/E-minor interlude in 3/4 is a nice effect too, rather Lennonesque with the interchangable time signatures a la Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, and the very complex Good Morning Good Morning."

So what you're saying is that The Beatles were one-trick ponies who abused the same song structures and time signatures over and over again (when they weren't stealing ideas from better musicians). Hey, WE AGREE!!

And that George Harrison song is CRAP. You listen to this stuff? No wonder you don't make any sense.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill-stop countering an idiot; if you feed the animals they only persist and multiply.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Awww... look at that. Bill made a friend.

Maybe Bill could teach 'nomoresanity' a few Beatles songs on the banjo and the three Spanish sentences he knows. Or maybe you two could get together, grab a spritzer, and discuss how little you know about the world. I'm sure it would be a LONG conversation.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EatTheRich - so because there's a few idiots who like to carry AR's into a Chipotle, that means the rest of the country shouldn't be allowed to carry? Where is the logic in that? Ok...well there are DUI's all over the country so the state should take away everyone's DL and if you have a car, leave it at home because it scares people. And your take on this subject shows you have zero true understanding of history and human nature.

Bill - Rock on and good luck with this one....not the sharpest knife...

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, though, what's with you guys and banjos and bluegrass? I hate to ruin your day, but Deliverance was not a documentary

@Bluegrass805: "so because there's a few idiots who like to carry AR's into a Chipotle, that means the rest of the country shouldn't be allowed to carry? Where is the logic in that? Ok...well there are DUI's all over the country so the state should take away everyone's DL and if you have a car, leave it at home because it scares people."

Those idiots were just your fellow 'law abiding citizens', so I don't know why you're so anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment. Clearly, you're a commie. Go back to Berkeley, you commie!!

It never ceases to amaze me how insecure you people are...

NOTE: They should definitely take away *your* gun and *your* car... to think someone as dense as you could actually be on the road with a firearm.

States have enacted HUGE reforms to driving laws - THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE - because of drinking and driving. You know who the laws do not impact? People who don't drink and drive. I have no problem with my 'right to carry' being revoked, because I'm not a insecure prat who erroneously believes that problems can be solved at the barrel of a gun.

@Bluegrass805: "Rock on and good luck with this one....not the sharpest knife..."

I don't think you know what a sharp knife looks like. Don't they keep those away from you?

Fighting a three front battle against the brain drained nitwit conservatives of Santa Barbara is an honorable fight. I'm happy to do it. Who's next?

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Banjos and bluegrass", I LIKE that.

So ETR, what do you think of Obama and Lois Capps?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ETR: Greetings, famished fanatic. Here are three groups that dispel stereotypes about gun owners. By the way, has it occurred to you that guns have always been easily available in America but only recently did we start hearing about schoolyard shootings? Do you also think there is a connection between these shootings and the spike in teen suicides?

http://jpfo.org/

http://www.2asisters.org/

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Seriously, though, what's with you guys and banjos"

A very good question etr. As U know, there are many here who R convinced that armed government agents will show up at their doorsteps and take their guns, and are stocking up on other weapons. This video will show you how a guitar can be used as a weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=010aaw...

While a guitar is effective, as seen in the video, a banjo has more mass concentrated into a smaller area. and its narrower design makes it much more effective in terms of pounds per square inch when a person is struck with it.

Weaponry doesn't end with musical instruments, as this video shows, fresh fruit can be used to assault people as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gqIL...

Its rumoured that bluegrass, clausen, and nomoresanity are taking "banjo" lessons to increase their musical ability, but don't let that fool U., they are learning to use them as weapons, as they prepare for the Great Apocalypse.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2014 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Seriously, though, what's with you guys and banjos and bluegrass? I hate to ruin your day, but Deliverance was not a documentary" -EatTheRich-

We already knew that; we know that Deliverance is a love story.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2014 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@ETR - By your previous comment, you're obviously not aware you haven't "won" any argument and you can't take on Bill, let alone this supposed SB conservative group you seem to fear. And you completely missed my point with the DL and gun comparison. But that's ok...you're a sharp spoon.

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know Bluegrass, it depends on how you define winning an argument.

If you define it by the standards of people such as ETR (And seriously, what's with the handle "Eat The RIch") all they have to do is call someone a racist--either directly or by inference--and in their minds, they win..

Calling people "morons" or "intellectually dishonest" go a long way with them as well.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2014 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: