Saturday, April 15, 2017

The media's been awfully quiet about this one

I've taken the liberty of editing a word I don't use here, but otherwise, I believe this fellow has nailed it.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Most Ridiculous Story Ever: Dead criminal’s family complains victim’s AR-15 made the fight unfair

There's a truly odd thing going in our society, and I think it's linked to making "Victim" the highest profile and most noble of categories.  It's completely ridiculous.  This story is the poster child for it:  Dead criminal’s family complains victim’s AR-15 made the fight unfair

The short version is that three young me broke into a home armed with knives and brass knuckles.  Note:  Those are deadly weapons.  The homeowner's son awoke to the noise of the break in and grabbed what he had on hand.  An AR-15 rifle.  In that position, any intruder should have fled the house.  These three didn't, meaning they were crazy, stupid, determined to hurt the resident or all three.  He shot them all dead.  Loss of life is always regrettable.  I wish criminals would choose some other path that didn't involve harming others and exposing themselves to harm.  Nevertheless, if the choice is between a lawful person being harmed or killed and their assailant being harmed and killed, I'd rather see the assailant stopped every time.

Now here's where it gets ridiculous:
Leroy Schumacher, grandfather of Jacob Redfearn, says his grandson made a bad choice but didn’t deserve to die. “What these three boys did was stupid,” said Leroy Schumacher to ABC News. “They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die.”

Schumacher complains that it wasn’t a fair fight and his grandson didn’t have a chance to defend himself… while breaking into another man’s home and attempting to rob him. “Brass knuckles against an AR-15, come on, who was afraid for their life,” he continued.
Grandpa is addled, but correct.  These boys didn't deserve to die for their poor choices, and had they stopped making them, they wouldn't have.  They could have never burglarized a home.  They could have run (as most burglars do) when they heard someone was home.  They could have run when they saw an AR-15.  They didn't.  They forced the resident to defend himself and as a result of their incredibly poor choices, that resident defended himself with what he had available.  They died as a result of their choices--choices that forced the lawful citizen into a horrible, unwanted position.  All the resident wanted was a nap, unmolested in his home.

Let's dispense with the idiotic notion of a "fair fight" during the commission of a crime.  If a criminal breaks into a home, there is no expectation of a fair fight.  The homeowner gets to defend himself or herself however he or she can.  There is no obligation to play by any gentlemanly rules of conduct, especially given 3 to 1 disparity of participants and knives and brass knuckles.  The criminals came in expecting to be the overwhelming force part of the equation.  They wanted an unfair fight.  They got one, just not the way they'd planned.  However, even if the home had been filled with a platoon of heavily armed marines when the criminals had broken in, those marines as the lawful residents have the absolute right to defend themselves by whatever means they have on hand. 

As for "Who was afraid for their life?" let's reiterate.  Outnumbered 3 to 1 against armed attackers, the resident was likely afraid even with an AR-15 in hand.  They had deadly weapons.  It wasn't a kung fu movie where a hero can disarm and disable 3 attackers, it was real life where the good guys sometimes get killed.  Fear is the normal condition to being awoken by 3 armed home invaders and defending oneself is an instinctive response.  If you doubt it, corner a rat in its nest.  See how it behaves.

If this were an isolated incident, it would just be an oddity.  It isn't. 
An armed elderly man in Dallas shot and killed a suspected burglar after finding him trying to break into his Dallas home this week. However, he was also forced to defend his actions after the would-be robber’s family showed up at his home.

The homeowner, a repeat burglary victim, found 33-year-old Deyfon Pipkins attempting to climb in the house through the window and fired at least one shot at the criminal, hitting his target.

Once police identified the suspect as Pipkins, officers notified his family. Some of those family members showed up at the house and expressed their anger at the homeowner for not issuing a “warning.”

“He could have used a warning,” Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins’ sister-in-law, said. “He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense.”

The suspect reportedly had a extensive criminal record and had served time in prison. He was previously convicted of theft, possession of a controlled substance and criminal trespassing.
Source here.

This is nigh unbelievable.  An elderly victim doesn't have any obligation to notify a criminal that he's armed.  That might give the criminal time to do something about it.  Showing up to protest the actions of a lawful homeowner defending himself should lead to some very satisfying arrests for trespassing. 

We have taught people, even criminals, that there is no consequence, nor should there be for wrong choices.  We've allowed people to characterize criminals as victims.  Neither of these things are true, and should be objected to strenuously by lawful people.

Monday, February 27, 2017

#BlueLivesMatter so let's save some

On, a story caught my eye.  After Another Cop Killed, LA County Lawmakers Demand Investigation Into Laws That Let Criminals on the Street
Some, like the police officer's union and Michael Rushford, the President of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, hold Governor Jerry Brown responsible for signing 2011's AB 109 which went into effect in 2014, for “realigning” hard core criminals from prisons to county jails and probation and parole...

KABC reports that there are two other voter-approved initiatives, Proposition 47, which stopped 'non violent' criminals from going to state prison, and Proposition 57 which will, when it’s fully implemented, accelerate prison sentences.

The suspected killer, Michael Mejia, is a convicted robber, car thief, meth abuser, and hard core gang member. He was arrested five times after being released from state custody, according to the LA Times. 
I understand the frustration.  The fact is, keeping criminals behind bars has done a lot to reduce crime across the US and in California in particular.  However, there's a reason Brown had to sign AB 109.  He was ordered to reduce prison population by a federal judge.  Personally, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to release prisoners into the panel's neighborhood.  I'm fine with razor wire, tents and bologna sandwiches for prisoners.  However, Brown had little choice, and the law's unlikely to change soon.

There is something LA county can do right now to save lives. 

Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop

Hero With A Gun Stops Murder Of Arizona Trooper

Those two stories were fairly high-profile, but there are a ton more (linked here).  Sacramento County, California is making it easier to get a CCW permit, and it's no wonder.  CCW holders are even more law-abiding than police officers.  Further, some statistics show that while the effect is not massive, more CCW permits seem to lead to lower crime rates.  To be fair, other sources do disagree, including Gary Kleck, who's been honest about all his research even when it doesn't support his own point of view. 

What we do know is that CCW holders are largely law-abiding and they save police officers.  And while most criminals don't think very far ahead when they commit crimes, they do fear armed citizens more than they fear the police. 

Issuing CCW permits may have a modest effect on crime.  CCW permit holders do save police officers.  Criminals worry about whether their victim may be armed where CCW permits are issued.  So, LA county, give it a shot.  What we know for sure is that issuing CCW permits doesn't hurt anything.  At worst, you'll give a few criminals pause and save the lives of a few police officers, all at very little expense to taxpayers, since CCW holders pay for their own training, firearms and permits.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Why Trump has the potential to be the greatest president in living memory

I've stated many times that I don't care for Trump.  This past week he's done some things that have me scratching my head, like proposing a 20% tariff on Mexican goods to pay for a border wall and claiming that will make Mexicans pay for the wall when the tax will be paid by Americans, not Mexicans. 

You may be wondering with that intro what impressed me this week.  It's a concept that Trump expressed in a position paper that many Americans don't know or have forgotten.  It's all but dead in American law schools.  It was expressed in September, but people seem to have discovered it more recently.

We'll get to his statements in just a bit, but let me introduce the concept, one we've discussed before in prior posts.  There are rights that were part of the colonist's heritage.  They were tradition, considered natural or inalienable rights.  They weren't granted by anyone, but governments were expected to respect them, as they weren't granted by governments, but rather by the very nature of being human.  These rights pre-existed the Constitution.  They weren't granted by it, but rather guaranteed by it.  That means they also can't be taken away by amending the Constitution.  I've heard historians say that the Bill of Rights was objected to by several of the founders not because the guarantees were bad, but because they felt all Americans understood these rights, and infringement upon them would result in another revolution.  I'm so happy they ratified the Bill of Rights anyway.  They had no idea how a hundred years of reeducation would affect the average American's understanding of her rights.

Benjamin Franklin commented on the freedom to express one's thoughts as a fundamental principle for any free country a half century before the 1st Amendment was introduced:

"This sacred privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own." The full letter is available here.

Once again, the right pre-existed the Constitution and was guaranteed by it.  You can repeal the words in the Constitution, but you can't change the natural law.  The right exists whether it's guaranteed on paper or not.

What Trump Said in his Position Paper
“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-existed both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right and therefore cannot take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

From Conservative Tribune
I confirmed with a second source, though many don't trust this one anymore:
On September 18 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump released a position paper on gun policy in which he stated, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…period.”

Trump explained that our Founding Fathers protected Second Amendment rights in this way because the sanctity of all other fundamental rights rests on the existence of a people who are free and therefore armed. To put it plainly, Trump said, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights.”

He used the position paper to remind Americans that the United States is “the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment”–the only country in the whole world in which the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a natural, individual right upon which the government cannot infringe. Trump echoes the sentiment of Founding Father James Madison here. It was Madison who used Federalist 46 to describe the “advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

It should also be noted that Trump understands that the Second Amendment does not create a right. Rather, that amendment recognizes pre-existing rights and protects them from government intrusion. In light of this view of the Second Amendment, it should come as no surprise that Trump’s entire gun policy rests on expanding the exercise of gun rights rather than expanding the presence of gun control.

From Breitbart
If Donald Trump truly understands and believes this, it is as he would put it, "Yuge."  This would mean he understands the Constitution's origin and intent, not just the words on the page.  I have a hard time believing this given how he's used the Kelo decision in private business, yet no president in my memory has expressed so clear an understanding of the sanctity of our rights.  I don't even recall President Reagan articulating this, though readers are welcome to correct me.

Looking at the bullet points of President Trump's expressed opinion is also encouraging:
* Nominate United States Supreme Court justices that will abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States that includes upholding the Second Amendment.

* Defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners:
  • Military bases and recruiting centers - to have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves
  • National right to carry – should be legal in all 50 states
  • Background checks - we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
  • Gun and magazine bans - the government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own
Once again, if he truly means this and understands it, it's very encouraging, and President Trump has the potential to be the best President in living memory.  I'm jaded enough politically not to get too excited, but I sure would love factory capacity magazines for my firearms and to see some of California's ridiculous restrictions stricken down.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Why the fuss over Betsy DeVos?

Full disclaimer:  I don't like Trump and didn't vote for him.  The only worse outcome for the 2016 presidential election would have been for Hillary Clinton to win.

President Trump's cabinet choices have really upset Democrats, and although I don't like President Trump, by and large I've found his choices for the posts of Secretary fairly good.  That's probably why they upset the Democrats so much.

This week, I was a bit stunned to see a friend complain about the nomination of Betsy DeVos for the post of Secretary of Education.  Part of my perplexity was the fact that people were claiming she was unqualified, but there are no real qualifications for the post.  Harambe could do a great job.  So could my 11 month old kitten (he's young, but very enthusiastic).  The Department of Education arose from smaller offices in 1980.  That's right, Darth Vader has been around longer than the Department of Education.  It has done very little besides throw around federal money for education loans and grants, with the unanticipated income being skyrocketing tuition costs for universities.  Where there is easy money, someone will sponge it up enthusiastically, even if it means years of repayment for American graduates.  The Department of Education hasn't done any real good for our education system, which seems to have functioned better when it was completely controlled by states and municipalities.  Funny how local control and accountability works better than distant bureaucracy.

So, the post of Secretary of Education really doesn't matter any more than instagram pictures of what your friend had for breakfast.  It's of passing interest, but has no impact on your life or mine.

To figure out what the excitement was about, I did a bit of searching.  It turns out the NEA really doesn't like her (now, for me that's a high recommendation that she's a great pick).  Here are their reasons, and I'll summarize:

Here's the very short version.  I will add letters to their objections contained in the initial paragraph but not explicitly expanded in the supporting paragraphs:
Last week, President-elect Donald Trump nominated as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a [A.] billionaire and [B.] conservative mega-donor who has [C.] no classroom experience, and [D.] whose work in public education consists mainly of efforts to privatize it.

1. Betsy DeVos has no training or experience in education.
2. Like Donald Trump, DeVos is an ardent supporter of “school choice” privatization schemes, despite a complete lack of evidence that privatizing public schools produces better education.
3. DeVos has invested millions lobbying for laws that drain resources from public schools.
4. DeVos has fought against the regulation of charter schools.
5. Betsy DeVos is not a good fit for a position overseeing the civil rights of all students.
I've added the orange letters.

Let's start with their enumerated objections.  Point 1. is that DeVos doesn't have any experience in education.  I'm not sure what they think a Secretary of a department does.  Secretaries of Departments take the President's overall policy and goals and translate it into high-level directives for their subordinates to carry out.  The subordinates are still working at a very high level.  They aren't going into classrooms and trying to teach anyone.  They aren't going to individual schools and trying to manage the site (a Principal's job).  They're working with very high-level policy.  So really, all you have to do to be the Secretary of Education is have ideas about education, or be able to follow the President's ideas and be able to run a bureaucracy or be able to hire capable people who can.  I was exaggerating above.  My cat couldn't do this despite his intense interest in classroom manipulatives.  Harambe is still a possibility.

Point 1. also encompasses objection C., which is that DeVos has no classroom experience.  To be Secretary of Defense, you need not have served as a private in the military.  To be Secretary of Agriculture, you need not have run a small farm.  The argument that a Secretary of Education must have classroom experience is designed to inflame idiots who don't think too deeply.  You know, useful idiots.

Point 2 is even more fun.  The NEA feels school choice is bad.  That's been the position of the Left because school choice takes money from school bureaucracy and directs it to private institutions or home school students.  Taking money from school districts means these fiefdoms, the outposts of the least intelligent and capable political administrators, a part of the new royal class (politicians) are deprived.  I digress.

The writer says there's "a complete lack of evidence that privatizing public schools produces better education."  That statement worded as it is, is true.  However, it doesn't address school choice.  There's plenty of evidence that works rather fabulously, and that's why the Left wants it shut down.  Let's have a look at one example that the Obama administration defunded in Washington DC over the objections of parents.  For the full article, please read here:

From that article:
The $20 million annual program which began under George W. Bush has proven extremely effective. Nearly 6,000 kids from lower-income families have benefited from these scholarships - which reach more than $8,300 a year for primary school and more than $12,500 a year for high school.

That's still about one-third lower overall than what it costs per pupil to educate' students in Washington, D.C.'s public schools. Almost all -- 97.4 percent -- of the students who get the money are blacks and Latinos.

The scholarships are popular with parents. Several years ago when President Obama tried to shut down the program, black and Hispanic parents locked arm to arm with Republicans in Congress who support the program and marched in front of the Capitol.

That was an amazing optic. In the 1960s and 1970s civil rights leaders and "community activists" fought against laws that prevent blacks from getting in to the public schools.

Now liberals refuse to let them out.

Research by Patrick Wolf at the University of Arkansas tracked how well these kids did over time. Graduation rates of voucher students were 21 percentage points higher compared with those who applied for the vouchers but didn't win (91% to 70%); and the graduation rate was 35 percentage points higher than the graduation rate for all D.C. public schools.
Oops.  This program did a far better job educating minority students than DC public schools at a 1/3 lower cost to taxpayers than public education.  That's really embarrassing.  No wonder it had to go.  All those Black and Latino students benefiting from it were getting in the way of the Left's agenda, so back to public school they went to get an inferior education and graduate at a much lower rate.  Nice work, Obama and Democrats.

In short, point 2 is a complete lie.  We can also throw out point 5. here because it's a restatement of point 2 but written in a vaguely inflammatory manner to insinuate DeVos is a racist.  It had to be written that way, because there's no evidence she is.  "Donald Trump’s nomination of DeVos is deeply concerning to many civil rights groups, because school choice schemes promote racial segregation and undercut civil rights enforcement that is routine in public schools."  Tell that the the 97.4% Black and Latino DC students who were doing better using vouchers but were forced back into public school by the Left's ideology.  Most voucher systems focus on performance, not race.  A result of disparate impact means not that there's a problem with the systems, but rather a problem with the outreach to and focus on education in disadvantaged neighborhoods.  This has to do with socioeconomic status, not race, but the Left likes to focus on skin color more because you can count heads a bit easier.  That approach suggests to me that the Left and this author are racists, not DeVos, who would like to see any student willing to work hard succeed regardless of skin color.

Point 3. isn't a problem for me.  In a year-end project for my Advanced Placement U.S. History class we studied funding in our district.  In leaner years, the district spent more wisely and more money was spent on classroom education.  In more heavily funded years, it spent money on refurbishing the district offices, including installing a $10,000 air curtain system over the front doors that didn't work properly and so was shut down.  A $10,000 paperweight was far more important to them than new books, or technology improvements in classrooms.  It was clear to me then and later during my 2 years as a classroom teacher that throwing money at education isn't effective.

What happens when money is taken from public education and given to higher performing private schools?  There's suddenly competition.  Public schools have to spend money on actual education instead of air curtains so they can compare favorably with private institutions.  Massive, ineffective, wasteful bureaucracies hate having their shortcomings so starkly exposed, and that's all Point 3. is about.

Point 4. made me laugh out loud.  Regulation doesn't equate to accountability or performance.  As California schools have had increased regulation and requirements for teachers, our performance has dropped.  We keep doing more of it, though, not because it works, but because the Left and the NEA believe it should.  Good for charter schools and DeVos for fighting ineffective rules and focusing on improving scores and graduation rates instead.

Let's cover the objections presented in the introductory paragraph of the article.  Here it is so you don't have to scroll up:  "President-elect Donald Trump nominated as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a [A.] billionaire and [B.] conservative mega-donor who has [C.] no classroom experience, and [D.] whose work in public education consists mainly of efforts to privatize it."

A.  Anybody appointed to the post of Secretary of a department is likely to be wealthy.  That's true under every president.  This is an objection for idiots.

B.  Oh, no.  DeVos is a conservative who puts her wealth into what she believes.  Kind of like liberal movie stars do.  It's evidently only bad when conservatives do it.  Once again, an objection for idiots.

We've covered C.

D. is only a good thing.  Competition makes complacent school administrators have to fight for their funding, as they should have to.  Choice is good (why does the Left only believe that regarding reproductive rights?).  Freedom is good.

Based on the Left's objections to DeVos, I've come to support her.  I appreciate their strident objections giving me the opportunity to review something I'd normally pay very little attention to.  If we could vote for the Secretary of Education, I'd vote for DeVos over anybody the NEA would find acceptable. Except Harambe.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Rigged Election?

Democrats have been taking losing poorly to a new level following Trump's election.  I get it, Hillary won the popular vote by the margin of the number of voters in New York City and Los Angeles.  There's some case to be made that we don't need an electoral college, and an even better one to be made that we do (i.e., how much worse would it be if candidates only campaigned in 4-5 large cities instead of several "battleground" states?).

Still, there's a limit to the tantrums anyone should throw.  First, Americans don't particularly like tantrums.  A blogger who goes by LawDog made great points about this in an entertaining post here:  Dear Trump protestors

So, protesters probably helped get Trump elected.  We also don't like sore losers.  Obama has now done things a sitting president probably shouldn't, including encouraging active duty troops to question the commander-in-chief (yes, they have a right to do that, but when they're not on duty) and ordering an investigation of Russian election hacking.  Allegations of election fraud should indeed be investigated, but Obama seems to be doing this to encourage the belief that the election was rigged.  Note that there's always been some election fraud, but that's actually something the electoral college helps mitigate.  The hypocritical part is that before the election, the Democrats told us all about how there was no election fraud at all.  It's entertaining to look at prominent Democrats' views pre and post election.  Here's a representative example.

Again, I'm all for investigating voter fraud.  I'm not okay with rank hypocrisy because a party isn't happy their candidate lost.  A bit of introspection would serve Democrats better than continued caterwauling.  Some Democrats are already doing thoughtful introspection about what caused this loss.  It's encouraging.

I hope Republicans do the same, because the truth is that there's no joy in a Trump win.  Ben Shapiro wrote a fantastic piece titled, "Trump Is Conservatism's Dunkirk."  It was dead on.  Both parties need to be looking into a way to prevent a fiasco like this from happening again.  This election has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

I was discussing time travel with a friend and I said it simply wasn't possible.  We'd have seen oddities in the timeline by now.  He said, "Like a Trump vs. Clinton election?"  Touché.

Let's investigate voter fraud but not pretend the election was rigged.  Let's make sure we work toward a smarter system.  Instead of fighting each other we should be looking at ways to get a better outcome for everyone in the future. 

Sunday, December 4, 2016

The Armed Citizen

You're never really too old to defend yourself. In Eastpointe, Michigan, a 91-year-old man was getting out of his car outside of a pharmacy when he noticed a man approaching him in a threatening manner. The armed citizen declared that he was a permit holder. He waited in his car until the stranger disappeared. But when he got out a little while later to enter the store, the assailant came toward him and raised a weapon over his head at the older man. Warning the miscreant that he was armed, the 91-year-old pulled his .38 Special-chambered revolver from his side and opened fire, striking the attacker in the neck. "It doesn't have to be a gun or a knife," said Eric Keiser, Eastpointe deputy police chief. "The suspect had a piece of metal fashioned as a weapon. [The armed citizen] felt his life was in danger." The suspect was transported to an area hospital and was later charged. (, Eastpointe, MI., 8/23/16)

An assailant in West Philadelphia, Pa., lost his life after attacking his ex-girlfriend. The man tried to enter the residence through a downstairs kitchen window. Not one to stand idly by, the woman's new boyfriend pushed the attacker back through the window and temporarily kept him at bay. Undeterred, the assailant made his way up to a second-floor bedroom window and successfully entered the home that way. The woman attempted to defend the home and got into an altercation with him. Her current boyfriend came to her defense, pulling a gun and firing a single shot at the intruder. Officers arrived, and the injured attacker was transported to a local hospital. where he later died. (ABC 6, West Philadelphia, PA, 8/25/16)

Sleeping on the job gave a store manager the element of surprise so he could take down a bad guy. As closing time was approaching, a manager at a local supermarket in Waterloo, Iowa, decided to take a short nap behind a counter in his store while another employee worked with customers. The manager was awakened by loud talking and heard repeated demands of "Give me money." Looking up, the manager saw a male intruder who was pointing a gun at the store clerk. "He didn't see me before. When he saw me, he pointed the gun to me and said, 'Don't move,'" the manager recalled in a news interview. As the gunman turned his attention back to the clerk, the manager reached for a 9 mm Luger semi-automatic he had stowed. The bad guy and the manager exchanged fire, with a bullet striking the troublemaker. The intruder then fled. Police later found and arrested the suspect. (, Waterloo, IA, 8/29/16)

In Oregon, a 15-year-old boy taught a home intruder a lesson. The boy was home alone when he heard someone enter the abode. The teen retrieved a shotgun. When he saw the intruder, he fired and shot the man in the leg. "The juvenile was in fear of his safety, my initial conclusion is that the shooting...was a justifiable use of force," said District Attorney Paul Frasier. (The World, Myrtle Point, OR., 8/6/16)

One criminal paid the price for messing with a mother's son after a recent attempted robbery in Augusta, Ga. One Sunday, two men with crowbars entered a Subway restaurant. When the two men began to act suspiciously, the employee behind the counter went to retrieve a firearm from her purse. After one of the alleged robbers struck her 14-year-old son, who was standing behind the counter, in the back of the head, the armed citizen opened fire and put two rounds into one of the assailants. The owner of the franchise said he supported his employee's right to carry a firearm for defensive purposes. The suspect who was shot died, and police later apprehended his alleged accomplice. (WRDW 12, Augusta, GA., 8/25/16)

A good Samaritan came to the aid of a neighbor during a domestic dispute that ended in the death of the aggressor. In Gonzales, La., a man in his home heard people arguing outside. He went to investigate. The neighbor approached the two people-a man and a woman-who were arguing and was accosted by the male. The instigator pointed a handgun at the good Samaritan, who in turn drew his own firearm and shot. When police officers arrived, they determined that the man who had been arguing with the woman was dead. The police said that charges would not be filed against the armed citizen, saying that he ended a dispute that might have led to the death of the woman. (ABC 2, Gonzales, LA, 8/20/16)

Want even more stories?
Breitbart is providing 2nd Amendment stories.
The Blaze is providing 2nd Amendment stories.
Visit The Armed Citizen blog for older stories (the blog seems abandoned).

Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,

Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work
A great personal account:  My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Knife Control?!
Protecting Children through Gun Control?
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy
A Contrast to VA Tech

Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.

CCW Holders are an especially lawful group.

Carrying a firearm is an inherently civilized act.

Right to Carry Statistics.

Does Violence Beget Violence?

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Armed Citizen

Instilling a respect for the principle of self-defense in her son is one reason why an 88-year-old Chicago woman survived a break-in. The elderly mother was awakened one night by the sound of a gunshot. Fortunately, it had come from her son, who fended off someone who was trying to enter the house through a window. Keeping guns around for self-defense is a practice the elderly woman has followed since her husband was shot and killed during a home invasion more than 50 years ago. "My son said he wasn't going to let that somebody come in that window. He knew those boys came in the house and killed his father. He wasn't going to let somebody come in the house and kill me," the mother told television reporters after the incident. The suspect was taken to a hospital and treated for his injuries. (, Chicago, Ill., 3/28/16)

Shots rang out in a suburb of Pittsburgh when a homeowner protected his property from four juveniles who were breaking into the home. The boys were trying to enter the home through a window that housed an air conditioner. The armed citizen grabbed his .380 ACP handgun and confronted the intruders. He fired multiple shots, wounding two of the teens. All four of the suspects fled. One of the wounded was found on a nearby bridge; the second was found at a relative's house. The two uninjured accomplices were also caught. All have been charged and placed in a juvenile detention facility. Officials said the homeowner was within his rights to defend his home. (Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh, Pa., 3/23/16)

Bad guys who think the elderly and disabled make an easy target better think twice. An elderly man in Missouri, who relies on an oxygen tank, got the better of two ruffians who broke into his home as part of an attempt to steal the man's prescription drugs. The armed citizen was acquainted with one of the would-be thieves, police said, but apparently the bad guy didn't know him well enough to know he kept a gun for defensive purposes. The two men, police said, approached the door and knocked. Since the homeowner recognized one, he opened the door. The suspects, one of whom had a mask over his face, bulled themselves in, pushed the resident aside and started to rifle through his belongings. The citizen grabbed his gun and shot one intruder in the abdomen. (, Park Hills, Mo., 4/1/16)

Police officers responding to a report of gunshots in Georgia learned that a disabled veteran used his Smith & Wesson M&P to save his life. The man said he was awakened early in the morning when two men, claiming to be police, tried to break into his mobile home. When he checked a video surveillance device, though, the resident had a good idea that they were not police officers. The two armed thugs allegedly fired at the homeowner first, who fired back. No one was injured, but bullet holes that pock-marked the man's trailer were visible for the real police to see. "My gun saved my life," the man told reporters afterward. (WTOC, Savannah, Ga., 3/30/16)

One of two men charged with murder after a friend of theirs was killed by an armed citizen during a robbery should have been in prison at the time of the alleged murder/robbery. The criminal was free on bond and awaiting a sentencing of up to five years for a previous assault. Instead of showing up at his February sentencing, he skipped out, and he and some friends allegedly went on a spree of home invasions. One turned deadly for his cohort after a homeowner shot him. The two surviving accomplices face murder charges because someone was killed during the commission of a felony. (The Columbus Dispatch, Columbus, Ohio, 4/8/16)

A West Virginia man was savvy enough to suspect that a young woman who knocked on his door and asked to use the phone might be up to no good. So before he opened the door, he armed himself. He was right. As soon as the door was ajar, two male suspects also hustled into the home. They threatened the resident and demanded that he hand over his valuables: The elderly homeowner instead pulled out a gun and fired multiple times, hitting each of the male intruders. The female accomplice escaped the fray. One of the shooting victims was pronounced dead at the scene. The other was treated for his wounds. He and the woman face charges. (, Fairmont, W.Va., 4/19/16)

Want even more stories?
Breitbart is providing 2nd Amendment stories.
The Blaze is providing 2nd Amendment stories.
Visit The Armed Citizen blog for older stories (the blog seems abandoned).

Other accounts of self-defense collected on this blog:
2nd Amendment Saves a Pregnant Woman,
2nd Amendment vs. a Serial Rapist,

Failures of Gun Control:
UK Government under reports gun violence to pretend their policies work
A great personal account:  My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Knife Control?!
Protecting Children through Gun Control?
Futility of the Gun Banning Philosophy
A Contrast to VA Tech

Thoughts on publicized shootings: Shootings early in 2009, Alabama Shootings, Finland School Shooting. Remember: The only proven method to mitigate the disaster of a rogue criminal shooter is to have more first responders, e.g. CCW permit holders lawfully armed and on scene. These criminals do not respect "gun free" zones, but simply view them as target-rich opposition-free areas in which to slaughter innocents.

CCW Holders are an especially lawful group.

Carrying a firearm is an inherently civilized act.

Right to Carry Statistics.

Does Violence Beget Violence?

Castro inspiring craziness in liberals

Fidel Castro died on Friday, and many Cubans are celebrating what they hope will be the beginning of a new era of freedom in their nation.  Meanwhile, the Left has been celebrating the life of this murderous dictator, and mourning his passing.  There's been some pithy commentary about this sick adoration of a very bad human being.

Why the Left will bend over backwards to justify the actions of failed communist regimes is beyond me.  My bias has always been in favor of human freedom, and both communism and socialism have only ever curtailed freedom, sometimes viciously and with tremendous bloodshed.  There is something wrong with any system that has to put up walls to keep its citizens in the country.  I do not understand how that's okay with anyone who supports freedom.

Brian Williams even made this idiotic statement:  “It’s still one of those nations where you see donkey carts alongside cars, trucks and buses in downtown Havana because that’s exactly what they’d rather have for transportation."

Uh, yeah, Brian.  They wouldn't rather be transporting their goods in a new Toyota Tundra.  They like the impoverished conditions caused by a dictator stealing the fruits of their labor to make himself rich.  So those donkey carts are okay!  

Let's think about his logic for a moment.  Donkey carts are so awesome some people would rather have them than automobiles.  This is a trend we see throughout the U.S., too.  Oh, wait.  No we don't.  Because cars are actually better, more comfortable and more efficient for transporting goods.  Brian Williams evidently thinks Cubans are so dumb that they prefer donkey carts to trucks.  If anyone on the right said anything like that, she'd be called a racist.

So, Brian Williams, congratulations:  you're a racist.

To the rest of the left, stop celebrating murderers.  Communist regimes and ideas caused the deaths of over 100 million fellow human beings last century.  Unless you really like murder, that's a failed ideology.

Friday, November 25, 2016