Guns for Fun, Protection & Liberty

[John Dailey]

~ Surprise has chronically been to the attacker's advantage, granted; unless the defender has some surprises. If one's a childless homeowner, such can obviously be set up in a thought-out tailor-made way. Unfortunately, most people have the probs of not being so (single, but apt-dwelling, or, homeowner-with-rugrats.) This complicates advice.

~ Many books have been written on the pros-cons (and, how-to's and why-not's) of being (armed and 'un-armed') defense-oriented in our present day for both spectrum-ends mentioned above and the continuum implied. --- Unfortunately I no longer have the book, and don't remember the name or author, but I was most impressed by one written by an Israeli a decade (or two) ago. One thing I remember apart from gun tips is: keep a dog (if allowable where you live) around; preferably 2 dogs; most preferably, Akitas. Then, there's the whole 'house-security' thing as well as weapons-carrying. --- Point here is: don't advertise (beyond your dogs) your 'defense'-capability. Let 'em find out "...the old fashioned way: they must 'earn'"...the knowledge.

LLAP

J:D

[Judith]

Point here is: don't advertise (beyond your dogs) your 'defense'-capability. Let 'em find out "...the old fashioned way: they must 'earn'"...the knowledge.

Yeah, I've always thought that those "Protected by Smith and Wesson" signs that people post in their windows are the height of stupidity. In addition to warning burglars to come armed and to shoot first, I can't begin to imagine the liability implications....

On the other hand, putting out signs saying that you have an alarm system has been proven to be a deterrent to casual burglars.

Judith

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ Yes. It's the 'casual' ones the signs are good for...usually/aka-'most'. (The 'exceptions' aka druggies will always throw a monkey-wrench in the plans, of course.) Statistics, statistics; is one in a 'high' crime-rate area or not? Even if not...the roulette ball can still land on 00, against you. No 'guarantee' whichever way one slices the probabilities and chances re preparations. But, cutting down chances is worth doing; the signs, like dogs, have their advertisable use.

~ I've finally come to think that there is no 'back-up' plan to ever 'count' on, as itself NOT needing one to work on a back-up to IT. This sounds like a 'never-ending' concern, and, I'd agree, it is and should be! B-U-T, after a 2nd-level 'back-up' is established (how/what ever one sees such as), it then need not be a TOP-priority...merely...'a' priority; a priority as part of one's living in this world in terms of 'preparedness.' (Ye olde Boy Scout motto...in a different context.)

LLAP

J:D

[Danneskjold]

As far as the question goes on where we limit arms, I'd say that you draw the line where people can defend themselves with the weapon. A nuke can't be used for self defense, nor can chemical weaponry, nor can a ballistic missile or warhead. Anything bigger/more explosive than a grenade really can't be used for self defense.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Judith]

As far as the question goes on where we limit arms, I'd say that you draw the line where people can defend themselves with the weapon. A nuke can't be used for self defense, nor can chemical weaponry, nor can a ballistic missile or warhead. Anything bigger/more explosive than a grenade really can't be used for self defense.

If we're speaking in real-world terms, and not in the theoretical terms in which I was speaking, that's actually pretty good, and it's an arms control compromise I could probably live with without kicking and screaming.

Theoretically, explosives have other uses than self-defense. For example, they're useful in construction and demolition, and are now available to other than the military for those purposes. If we're getting into a theoretical discussion, where do we draw the line regarding who is allowed to possess what, and who has the RIGHT to say so?

At the risk of getting off topic, I don't approve of drug laws. I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they put in their bodies, and I'm not willing to have my tax dollars spent enforcing laws that try to tell other people what they may or may not put in their bodies. Accordingly, I think that the prescription laws should be abolished. People, if they're smart, will take a physician's advice regarding what drugs they take, but if they're willing to take chances, or if they're simply poor, they can read up on stuff and simply buy the drugs themselves and caveat emptor. I don't approve of a nanny state holding people by the hand protecting them from themselves.

The ONE exception I would make would be for antibiotics. Why? Because with every parent shoving antibiotics down Little Darling's throat at the first sign of an elevated fever or an earache, we would have antibiotic-resistant bacteria rampant in the world far faster than we can invent antibiotics, and it would kill all of us. I don't want to die.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

As far as the question goes on where we limit arms, I'd say that you draw the line where people can defend themselves with the weapon. A nuke can't be used for self defense, nor can chemical weaponry, nor can a ballistic missile or warhead. Anything bigger/more explosive than a grenade really can't be used for self defense.

If we're speaking in real-world terms, and not in the theoretical terms in which I was speaking, that's actually pretty good, and it's an arms control compromise I could probably live with without kicking and screaming.

Theoretically, explosives have other uses than self-defense. For example, they're useful in construction and demolition, and are now available to other than the military for those purposes. If we're getting into a theoretical discussion, where do we draw the line regarding who is allowed to possess what, and who has the RIGHT to say so?

At the risk of getting off topic, I don't approve of drug laws. I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they put in their bodies, and I'm not willing to have my tax dollars spent enforcing laws that try to tell other people what they may or may not put in their bodies. Accordingly, I think that the prescription laws should be abolished. People, if they're smart, will take a physician's advice regarding what drugs they take, but if they're willing to take chances, or if they're simply poor, they can read up on stuff and simply buy the drugs themselves and caveat emptor. I don't approve of a nanny state holding people by the hand protecting them from themselves.

The ONE exception I would make would be for antibiotics. Why? Because with every parent shoving antibiotics down Little Darling's throat at the first sign of an elevated fever or an earache, we would have antibiotic-resistant bacteria rampant in the world far faster than we can invent antibiotics, and it would kill all of us. I don't want to die.

Judith

Judith; We are in complete agreement about drug laws There are problems with drugs but many more problems because of the laws. On the question of firearms another problem is the increasing militarization of police departments. Swat teams are being increasingly used for arrests in non felony situations. A 88 year old woman was killed in Atlanta in a drug raid on her home. An optermist in Fairfax County Virginia who running a minor bookie operation was killed by the swat team.

[Judith]

Judith; We are in complete agreement about drug laws There are problems with drugs but many more problems because of the laws. On the question of firearms another problem is the increasing militarization of police departments. Swat teams are being increasingly used for arrests in non felony situations. A 88 year old woman was killed in Atlanta in a drug raid on her home. An optermist in Fairfax County Virginia who running a minor bookie operation was killed by the swat team.

Yeah, I've heard horror stories about police SWAT teams making unannounced break-ins in the middle of the night. The home-owner pulls out a legally owned gun. (Duh; so would I if someone or a group of someones came bursting into my home unannounced in the middle of the night.) The police, seeing the homeowner sitting in bed with a gun, shoot the homeowner. Then they find out that the suspected drug-owner actually lives next door or across the street. All this fuss because of a SUBSTANCE???? Jesus Christ.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; Radley Belko who works for Reason used to work for Cato has completed a state by state record of wrong raids by Swat teams. I believe the link is www.agitator.com. I believe he has found an example in every state but check it out. Googling his name also works.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Judith]

Judith; Radley Belko who works for Reason used to work for Cato has completed a state by state record of wrong raids by Swat teams. I believe the link is www.agitator.com. I believe he has found an example in every state but check it out. Googling his name also works.

Holy smoke. Thanks for the tip, Chris.

Check this out, guys:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139458/

A few relevant quotes from this article by Radly Balko:

"As the name indicates, a "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs."

. . .

"In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine" from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they've targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals.

"But Wilson didn't eliminate no-knocks. In the same decision, the court recognized three broad exceptions, called "exigent circumstances," to the announcement requirement. The most pertinent of these state that if police believe announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing their presence."

. . .

"In the real world, the exigent-circumstances exceptions have been so broadly interpreted since Wilson, they've overwhelmed the rule. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!), or that the mere presence of indoor plumbing could be enough to trigger the "destruction of evidence" exception.

"In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect's constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: 'We do bang on the door and make an announcement—"It's the police"—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down.'

"That comment came in a story about a mistaken raid in which Mario Paz, an innocent man, was shot dead by a raiding SWAT team when he mistook them for criminal intruders and reached for a gun to defend himself.

Some more commentary:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/25/Columns/...s_looseni.shtml

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/441/co...raldamage.shtml

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Knock/no knock is basically an offshoot on the war on drugs. Without addressing the propriety of this war swat teams will continue their dastardly ways. Why, they don't want not just the destruction of evidence, they don't want to get shot.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; No Objectivist or lover of liberty should talk about the "war on drugs". It is a war on PEOPLE who use drugs and distribute drugs. Drugs are substances that are on some list composed by the government of which the government wants to control. I think if Objectivist or lover of liberty calls it a war on people others may begin to think of it that way.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant; No Objectivist or lover of liberty should talk about the "war on drugs". It is a war on PEOPLE who use drugs and distribute drugs. Drugs are substances that are on some list composed by the government of which the government wants to control. I think if Objectivist or lover of liberty calls it a war on people others may begin to think of it that way.

Interesting.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; It's more than interesting it's right. Stop using the language of people who are taking the liberty of our fellow citizens. Stop buying into their language. Don't let them set the rules of the debate.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Judith]

Brant; It's more than interesting it's right. Stop using the language of people who are taking the liberty of our fellow citizens. Stop buying into their language. Don't let them set the rules of the debate.

Love to see your passion on this issue, Chris. It infuriates me to see people in prison for huge terms for minor drug offenses when people get short terms for violent offenses.

Whoever invented the term "War on Drugs" got local police forces thinking in terms of actual war. It's about a bit more than destruction of evidence; boys like to play war. It's fun. I as a girl like it too. That's why every now and then I go out to the desert and play with guns loaded with paintball. There's a time and a place and a way to play war, and it's not with guns loaded with real ammo.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; Part of the problems with Brant's "interesting" was I found it so smug. I'm pretty sure he isn't but lets not forget that there are a large number of people serving time because they got up in this war. The worst fact it that the problem is getting worse.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

Brant; It's more than interesting it's right. Stop using the language of people who are taking the liberty of our fellow citizens. Stop buying into their language. Don't let them set the rules of the debate.

Over 30 years ago when I was in therapy with Nathaniel Branden (about 24 clients one weekend a month in NYC) I mentioned apropos of what I don't remember something about 1950s Tijuana, a place I had never been to (but I had had experience in Nogales, Sonora, another border town) and Nathaniel said something to the effect that it was a cesspool. I said that I had heard it had much improved since then, but Nathaniel said it was still a cesspool. (My memory as to his actual language is inexact, but it was strong) That's when I knew in a way I hadn't before, almost a tactile way, that he had a strong moral center. Generally in such a situation the therapist keeps his lips zipped, but we weren't doing any therapy. I wondered at the differences in our reactions and attitudes to such a place, full of whores, pimps, drug dealers, liquor stores and sailors and Marines and thugs, thugs, thugs. I simply was matter of fact about it. I knew there were even worse places, especially in the Caribbean. I figured he had had a bad experience there many years previously, but still wondered at the difference in our response. The only thing I could figure was that my combat experiences in Vietnam had inured me to a lot of crap and nonsense, but I know there was something more involved. I am perhaps too self-accepting of what environments I am in. Like an anthropologist I tend to observe and study, but not interact with places I don't naturally belong to to the extent possible. Starting in 1955 and the Hungarian Revolution and the Soviet response to that and the lack of United States response I have become more and more alienated from America and the stupidity of the body politic and evil intellectuals and their lackeys in the media. That Ronald Reagan was the best President in the last century brought me little joy, not when he had tried to take the nomination away from Ford in 1976, probably dooming us to Jimmy Carter, our worst President, not when his wife went ape with keeping busy with her own "war on drugs," not when he gave us Presidents Bush and Bush (and, frankly, Clinton [and Clinton?]), not when he let the budget balloon. I am trying to get my brain around brainlessness to help do something about it, one of the reasons I am here. So far I've come up with people aren't stupid, they just don't have to be smart. But I am vexed by whatever impedimenta there are, inside and out, to actions I might take to make America less foreign to myself and my sensibilities.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ Gotta go with Chris on this, but, lemme go one better: The 'War on Drugs' has segued (intentionally? pre-plannedly?) into a war on U.S. citizens. The 'no-knock' policy illustrates this most, and, the stories Judith heard I've already read in too many news reports over the last 2 decades re SWAT teams attacking the wrong address...with no newsworthy consequences on them, their dept, nor the whole policy about the 'war.'

LLAP

J:D

[Chris Grieb]

Yesterday the DC Court of Appeals throw out the draconian DC gun control laws. The Washington Post had a cow today on their editorial page saying that if the descension were upheld gun control laws would go everywhere. Wouldn't that be a nice precedent. A 5 to 4 descension would be loved.

[Judith]

Yesterday the DC Court of Appeals throw out the draconian DC gun control laws. The Washington Post had a cow today on their editorial page saying that if the descension were upheld gun control laws would go everywhere. Wouldn't that be a nice precedent. A 5 to 4 descension would be loved.

Wooo Hooo!

Here are the links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030901794.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030902416.html

Note that according to the article, the opinion states: "We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." News articles are notoriously bad about reporting legal decisions accurately, but that's a pretty clear quote. "Yesterday's majority opinion said that the District has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the D.C. law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks, saying that would render the weapons useless."

In her dissent, Henderson wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." She also said that because the District is not a state, the Second Amendment does not apply." Hmmm; I suppose the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply in DC, either.

Judith

[John Dailey]

~ I think that there SHOULD be some mandatedly required/enforced 'limitations'/regulations re gun (flamethrower, etc) weapon use by 'private' citizens. Fer Pete's sakes, think about 'NO limits' on the subject!

~ Ntl, the fact that even now there're still debates about pure 'banning'...from the Fed level, nm from the State (in name only; we really no longer have a 'Republic')...of handguns from non-criminalized (nm 'criminalizing' has itself become a nomenclatured farce) CITIZENS of the U.S. bodes not at all well for us or our next generation. I've become extremely pessimistic about the future of those kids we have. They'll have to learn how to 'fend for their own'...without being able to learn how to...unless they join (and pass) the military.

LLAP

J:D

[Chris Grieb]

There is an article about Robert Levy of the Cato Institute and one of the prime movers in the DC gun control law case in today's (March 18th) Washington Post. The Post has been extremely irrational on the whole subject in its editorial page but this news story is fairly balanced. The only sad thing is that the laws remain in effect until the Supreme Court decides to review the case. For further information Cato will have a forum at 4pm EST, March 22nd on the topic with Bob Levy and the lead attorney on the case.

[Chris Grieb]

Everyone take warning! We can expect a fire storm in support of gun control with the shootings and killings at Virginia Tech. I suspect that it is already against the law to have a firearm on campus in Virginia. Virginia is a gun rights state but hold on to your hats.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Backlighting]

For me the choice of a home defense firearm is clear.

A 40 or 45 ca. handgun. Both calibers offer a heavy blow, between 800 and 1000 feet per second.

Penetration into neighboring areas is minimized.

Much better 1 shot stopping power than a 9mm or 38 or 357.

Rifles are too cumbersome in close quarter defensive situations and with their high velocity at 2,000+fps, offer the greatest chance of penetration through neighboring structures. Shotguns are lower velocity weapons but like all rifles, still cumbersome, particularly in hallways, up and down steps and in small rooms. Additionally, rifles, because of their weight, necessitate a 2 handed hold for accurate shooting.

[Robert Jones]

Everyone take warning! We can expect a fire storm in support of gun control with the shootings and killings at Virginia Tech. I suspect that it is already against the law to have a firearm on campus in Virginia. Virginia is a gun rights state but hold on to your hats.

If only but ONE of the students had a conceal/carry permit and weapon at his side. It wasn't lack of gun control that mainly contributed to the high death toll, but the fact that the campus police let classes go on FOR OVER TWO HOURS after the initial attacks, trying to hunt him down as though he stole somebody's bicycle, letting the students sit there unaware of the situation and like SITTING DUCKS!

They should fire the university president. As much as I hate slip and fall lawyers, if I were one of the dead's parents or spouse, I would be -- rightfully -- suing the hell out of that college!

THIS WAS AVOIDABLE!

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; If there were justice there would be two university presidents seeking other employment. Brodhead of Duke and the president of Virginia Tech.