The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
NY Times: Shooting First--and Missing the Target
The hyper-partisan New York Times never misses an opportunity to go after liberal right to carry laws. That goes without saying. But one would think that, when they do go to the trouble to assail another State's right to conduct their own affairs as they see fit, the least the Times could do is to identify the proper culprit when things go horribly wrong.
Just guessing, but I would imagine that if the woman writing that story were at home alone at four in the morning, and an enraged man was trying to break down her door--given the choice as to whether to allow herself to be possibly raped or killed, or to be allowed to have a way to prevent that, she just might just opt for the latter. And she would be justified in that belief. Yet it would seem that she and the NY Times would prefer to other citizens become latter day victims of the mean streets and a violent society, rather than to have the means to defend themselves.
I have seen Carter Albrecht perform--we operated in similar circles and I actually hung out at the beer joint where he and his roommate used to go back in my single days; he seemed to be a genuinely good guy. His death has definitely shaken the music community in Dallas. I am personally sorry he is no longer with us. He was universally well liked and universally respected for his superb musicianship. His death is tragic because in normal circumstances, he is unlikely to have done any serious harm to the elderly man in question. But we will never know for sure because his alleged frame of mind at the time clearly made him appear to be a threat to his neighbor's home and family in the dead of night.
But equally tragic--yet sadly, par for the course--is the NY Times use of Albrecht's untimely death to further its "Imagine there's no heaven"/"We Are the World" political agenda. Maybe John Lennon thought there was nothing to live or die for, but my guess is that many husbands and wives and fathers and mothers would beg to differ... Maybe one day, if enough people understand that to break into a home in the middle of the night is to put one's life in danger, there will be a lot more peace, and a lot fewer break-ins.
The biggest tragedy in this incident is that no one was able to save Carter Albrecht from his own demons that night. But I feel certain that the man on the other side of the door that Albrecht was trying to kick down thought that his terrified wife might just be worth saving, too. Mine sure as hell is, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect her. So I can't really fault the neighbor. And for the uppity leftist NY Times to do so on the back of this man's death is about as disgusting as it gets.
R.I.P., Carter. We'll miss you.
Just guessing, but I would imagine that if the woman writing that story were at home alone at four in the morning, and an enraged man was trying to break down her door--given the choice as to whether to allow herself to be possibly raped or killed, or to be allowed to have a way to prevent that, she just might just opt for the latter. And she would be justified in that belief. Yet it would seem that she and the NY Times would prefer to other citizens become latter day victims of the mean streets and a violent society, rather than to have the means to defend themselves.
I have seen Carter Albrecht perform--we operated in similar circles and I actually hung out at the beer joint where he and his roommate used to go back in my single days; he seemed to be a genuinely good guy. His death has definitely shaken the music community in Dallas. I am personally sorry he is no longer with us. He was universally well liked and universally respected for his superb musicianship. His death is tragic because in normal circumstances, he is unlikely to have done any serious harm to the elderly man in question. But we will never know for sure because his alleged frame of mind at the time clearly made him appear to be a threat to his neighbor's home and family in the dead of night.
But equally tragic--yet sadly, par for the course--is the NY Times use of Albrecht's untimely death to further its "Imagine there's no heaven"/"We Are the World" political agenda. Maybe John Lennon thought there was nothing to live or die for, but my guess is that many husbands and wives and fathers and mothers would beg to differ... Maybe one day, if enough people understand that to break into a home in the middle of the night is to put one's life in danger, there will be a lot more peace, and a lot fewer break-ins.
The biggest tragedy in this incident is that no one was able to save Carter Albrecht from his own demons that night. But I feel certain that the man on the other side of the door that Albrecht was trying to kick down thought that his terrified wife might just be worth saving, too. Mine sure as hell is, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect her. So I can't really fault the neighbor. And for the uppity leftist NY Times to do so on the back of this man's death is about as disgusting as it gets.
R.I.P., Carter. We'll miss you.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms
Monday, August 13, 2007
Yes, you CAN fight back
Resistance is not always futile. That is why carry laws are in place.
Labels: Carry Laws, Psychology
Saturday, June 09, 2007
The Castle Doctrine: a Law whose Time has Come
Glenn Reynolds points this morning to Jeff Soyer's post on the proposed Tennessee "Castle Doctrine": a law which would liability-proof any person who shoots an intruder breaking in to their home. Governor Rick Perry has signed into law a similar statute in Texas, effective September 1, and as a handgun owner, it is good to know that I cannot be sued or otherwise held liable for defending myself against the imminent danger of someone breaking into my home in the middle of the night, or against some thug attempting to carjack or mug me and/or my wife when we are away from home. The basics of the Texas Law:
I am thankful to be living in a State where the benefits of concealed carry-laws are not only recognized--they are encouraged. Let the criminal beware.
Here is a quote from Soyer, responding to a defense lawyer's criticism of a homeowner's right to defend his property and loved ones from imminent danger:- The bill would establish, in law, the presumption that a criminal who unlawfully enters or intrudes into your home, occupied vehicle, or place of business or employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and you may therefore use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
- The bill would explicitly state in law that you have no “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in a place where you have a right to be present, if you are not the original aggressor, and if you are not engaged in criminal activity.
- The bill would protect persons using force authorized by law from lawsuits filed by injured criminal attackers or their families.
Yeah, well, I’ll keep that in mind next October 31st, but if they’re six-foot-two, wearing a mask, coming in the back door with a crow-bar, and holding a firearm, I’ll assume they aren’t looking for the candied-apples.What the critics of an armed citizenry don't understand is just how well it works everywhere it has been tried; an extensive study of these benefits was conducted by John R. Lott, and published in his book More Guns, Less Crime--now in its Second Edition--and which is heavy on statistical study and remarkable findings:
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes ... If the rest of the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided ... Many commonly accepted notions are challenged by these findings. Urban areas tend to have the most restrictive gun-control rules and have fought the hardest against nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws, yet they are the very places that benefit most from nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws. Not only do urban areas tend to gain in their fight against crime, but reductions in crime rates are greatest in the urban areas that have the highest crime rates, largest and most dense populations, and greatest concentration of minorities. ...Below is an excerpt of the "enrolled text" of the Texas Law, which the Governor has signed. If you look at the language, it is pretty clearly and broadly protecting the law abiding citizen from repercussions of defending themselves, to wit, it provides the following test for reasonableness of using "deadly force":
The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they attack, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes that involve direct contact with victims. Citizens who have no intention of ever carrying concealed handguns in a sense get a "free ride" from the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. ...
The actor ’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:In Texas, it used to be the case that you could protect yourself under similar, but more restrictive circumstances, however this did not absolve you from a civil suit. This new law protects the citizen from criminal OR civil liability for protecting his/her self.
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor ’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor ’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
[...]
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
I am thankful to be living in a State where the benefits of concealed carry-laws are not only recognized--they are encouraged. Let the criminal beware.
Labels: Carry Laws, Castle Doctrine, Right to Bear Arms
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Colorado Sheriff: Gun Free Zone at VT might have cost lives
When law enforcement officials are joining the chorus of citizens--who believe that so called "Gun Free Zones" are an open invitation to killers and predators--the maybe, just maybe it is time for us to get over the utopian PC academics and the anti-Second Amendment politicians and allow people who are licensed to do so to protect themselves.
So how many more Virginia Techs have to happen before our "leaders" finally get off the schneid? (h/t Instapundit)
So how many more Virginia Techs have to happen before our "leaders" finally get off the schneid? (h/t Instapundit)
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
South Carolina Legislators want MORE Guns on Campus
I've always liked South Carolina; whenever I have visited it always seemed like a place where they "get it". I even have a "Palmetto Cap" which I wear quite frequently, and tonight I wear it proudly.
It would have been nice if something like this had been in place at Virginia Tech.
In case you are not up to date on the statistics of violent crime when carry laws are vs. are not present, go no further than John R. Lott, Jr.'s fine book More Guns, Less Crime. The numbers are very telling.
It would have been nice if something like this had been in place at Virginia Tech.
In case you are not up to date on the statistics of violent crime when carry laws are vs. are not present, go no further than John R. Lott, Jr.'s fine book More Guns, Less Crime. The numbers are very telling.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
UPDATED Tennessee Newspaper Declares War on Concealed Weapons Permit holders
If you are a thief wanting to steal some guns, Nashville is the place for you. The Nashville Tennesseean is publishing names and addresses of all concealed weapons holders. But they may have stirred up the hornet's nest.
This is taking journalistic responsibility to new lows, and is yet another example of how laden our newsrooms are with the disease of Stalinist Political Correctness.
UPDATE: Glenn serves up fresh crow for Andrew Sullivan to eat (emphasis mine):
This is taking journalistic responsibility to new lows, and is yet another example of how laden our newsrooms are with the disease of Stalinist Political Correctness.
UPDATE: Glenn serves up fresh crow for Andrew Sullivan to eat (emphasis mine):
Andrew Sullivan asks: "If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?"
I think the short answer is that gun rights are about security, and we'd rather keep the criminals guessing. In addition, doubt about who owns guns generates what economists call "positive externalities," meaning that if a substantial proportion of homeowners have guns, or if a nontrivial number of people out-and-about are carrying concealed guns, potential burglars or assailants have to allow for the possibility that a victim or someone in the neighborhood might be armed. That produces a deterrent effect that benefits even those who do not possess guns This is why, for example, we see fewer burglaries of occupied homes in the United States than in countries like Britain with strict gun controls -- breaking into an occupied home is dangerous. Meanwhile, on a more personal level, those who are armed would prefer to have the advantage of surprise. I should also note that there's a difference between owning guns (the "keep and bear" business) and carrying guns, which is what the whole CCW permit thing is about. That distinction is explained at some length here.But I'll turn the question around: If abortion is a civil right, why would anyone object to having a newspaper publish a searchable database of people who've had one?
I'm not ashamed! But some people might worry about prejudice from the "unenlightened and unsophisticated."
Labels: Carry Laws, Media Bias, PC, Right to Bear Arms, The Left
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Guaranteed Body Count: Courtesy of the PC Left
Cartoon by Scott Stantis (click to enlarge)
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Three Years on (post-Carry law) no gunbattles yet at U. of Utah
Dr. Helen found a real gem this week. Go figure that there has been no "Bowling for Colombine II" at the University of Utah...
Let's face it, if the Virginia Carry Bill had not been submarined by Democrats and Academic Lefties, there would likely be many fewer dead kids being mourned at Virginia Tech. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
For someone like Cho to get all of the publicity he was seeking, he needed a place where he could easily rack up a big body count--a "Gun Free" zone provided the perfect opportunity. If he did not have the "assurance" that most people in the building he entered would not be armed (for fear of being expelled from the University), he might not have so eagerly entered that situation. And--secondarily--even if he had still gone in, fewer lives may have been taken had some student in one of those classrooms had a weapon to defend his/her self.
So it begs the question: why are we offering the typical deranged publicity-seeking psycho so many "target rich" opportunities by creating all these "gun free" zones in Right-to-Carry states? I can understand not allowing weapons in bars, but I'm having a bit of a problem understanding why a responsible armed teacher--even in grade schools--cannot have the means to protect innocent children from predators.
The answer is not to ban guns on campus. The answer is to allow citizens (in this case, students and faculty) who have proven themselves to be responsible adults (after loopholes are closed) to have the means to protect themselves and society from those who do not belong in it. Only then in my view will mass murders like the Virginia Tech tragedy subside in this country. It looks like the folks in Salt Lake City have figured that out.
I think it is time we took a hard look at this, before more Virginia Techs or another Beslan occurs here.
UPDATE: Glenn (and Gov. Perry) agrees.
Let's face it, if the Virginia Carry Bill had not been submarined by Democrats and Academic Lefties, there would likely be many fewer dead kids being mourned at Virginia Tech. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
For someone like Cho to get all of the publicity he was seeking, he needed a place where he could easily rack up a big body count--a "Gun Free" zone provided the perfect opportunity. If he did not have the "assurance" that most people in the building he entered would not be armed (for fear of being expelled from the University), he might not have so eagerly entered that situation. And--secondarily--even if he had still gone in, fewer lives may have been taken had some student in one of those classrooms had a weapon to defend his/her self.
So it begs the question: why are we offering the typical deranged publicity-seeking psycho so many "target rich" opportunities by creating all these "gun free" zones in Right-to-Carry states? I can understand not allowing weapons in bars, but I'm having a bit of a problem understanding why a responsible armed teacher--even in grade schools--cannot have the means to protect innocent children from predators.
The answer is not to ban guns on campus. The answer is to allow citizens (in this case, students and faculty) who have proven themselves to be responsible adults (after loopholes are closed) to have the means to protect themselves and society from those who do not belong in it. Only then in my view will mass murders like the Virginia Tech tragedy subside in this country. It looks like the folks in Salt Lake City have figured that out.
I think it is time we took a hard look at this, before more Virginia Techs or another Beslan occurs here.
UPDATE: Glenn (and Gov. Perry) agrees.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
