quote of the day – kendra st. clair

By now, you all are probably aware of the story of the 12-year-old girl perforating the home-intruder through the bathroom closet door, but have you heard her response to the incident?

"When I had the gun, I didn’t think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it’s going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."

About the only way this situation could have been better was if this was not Kendra’s first time behind the trigger of a firearm. Thankfully, though, such tools are designed to be easily used by anyone from 12-year-old girls to 92-year-old war veterans, and that ease of use arguably saved this girl’s life.

And let us not mince words here – that young woman either saved her own life, saved herself from being raped, or saved herself from being abducted (and then probably murdered and/or raped). The various authorities and back-seat commentators are hypothesizing that her attacker was "homeless" and was "only looking for food", to which I say "bulldren"; you do not go looking for food in the bathroom closet. According to Kendra, she opened the blinds/shades on one of the windows to get a look at this person beating on her home’s front door, so we know the jackass was already aware of her presence in the house; couple that with the fact that he probably heard her on the phone with her mother and/or 911, and he knew more-or-less where she was hiding. He could have chosen to avoid that area and grab whatever food/valuables he was after if that was really his intent.

Apparently it was not, and when Kendra literally had nowhere else to run, she did what she had to in order to protect herself, as she had every right to do.

And let us take a look at that instance of self-defense. If Kendra’s mother, Debra, had followed the advice of "gun control" extremists, the Glock would have been locked up in a safe somewhere, with its ammunition and magazines locked in a separate safe. Debra was not home; what if she had the keys to the respective safes with her? What if she could not remember the combinations when her daughter’s life was on the line and she was not home? What if Kendra did not know how to operate a combination lock (I did not until high school), or fumbled it in the stress of the situation?

Or, worse still, what if Debra had taken the council of the true anti-rights cultists and simply not had a firearm in her house? What recourse would Kendra have had against an aggressor who was significantly larger, stronger, and more vicious than she could hope to be at 12 years of age?

So long as people like Kendra’s home invader exist and continue to try to prey on the weaker, the infirm, the older, the younger, the smaller, the slower, and anyone else they can get their despicable hands upon, "gun control" only serves to aid and abet violent criminals by disarming those potential victims and turning them into defenseless prey. I do not hold to that. Thugs who unlawfully break into other people’s home with any form of ill intent should be so lucky as to only receive what Kendra provided to her aggressor, and that particular dreg of humanity should be counting his lucky stars that she was unable to aim properly at his center of mass; something tells me she would not have hesitated to do so, and rightfully so.

how not to be a victim

We spend a lot of time talking about firearms and self-defense and rights and tactics and considerations and legalities and all the rest of that good nonsense on a regular basis here at "walls of the city", but the simple truth of the matter is that the most valuable, most important, and most capable tool for ensuring your own safety and that of your family resides behind your two eyes. You could be naked and unarmed and still successfully defend yourself from a stronger, armed aggressor so long as you keep your wits about you, do your best to think clearly, and maintain situational awareness. If, however, you are not paying attention to your surroundings… well, people who are paying attention to you will notice that, and may exploit it.

Thankfully, Laura declined the opportunity to be exploited:

Today, however, something was definitely off. Someone was following me around the store. He was a white male, about 6’2" tall, maybe 200 lbs. He apparently decided I was interesting, and decided to follow me around the store. The guy didn’t look at anything or anyone but me. By the time I was midway through the store, I was fed up – screamed at him to get the hell away from me. He took off running, and I completed my shopping. Turns out, the guy was waiting for me on his scooter outside the door. He waited until I exited the store to start his scooter. I screamed at him again and called the police – fortunately, at that point he took off.

declinetheroleDid Laura overreact? In this day and age, I think not. She describes herself as "short", and a man like the one she described probably would have had little trouble physically overpowering her, even if he was using nothing but his bare hands. However, that is exactly the situation she found herself in, and that is the situation the anti-rights cultists would have all women find themselves in – due to the laws of Maryland, she is unable to lawfully carry a firearm with her, and thus she only had a small knife with which to defend herself against a larger aggressor… again, not odds I would like to bet on myself, but better than bare hands.

However, that small knife was superseded by an even better tool – her situational awareness.

Thanks to her being mindful of the people and area around her, she was able to identify someone acting strangely, realize that he was acting strangely in a way directly relating to her, and do something about it before the opportunity for him to close to hand-to-hand distance ever presented itself.

Was the guy ever going to be a threat? We will (thankfully) never know. But she did nothing permanently damaging to him, and, from her description, the way he was acting was simply inappropriate. If you want something from someone, politely approach them and ask them about it – following them around while staring at them like a fox sizing up a hen is a surefire way to get a small, capable woman to loudly bitch you out in the middle of a crowded supermarket.

And lest you delude yourself into thinking this is nothing more than the paranoid rantings of an insecure woman, stories like this are far from uncommon:

I don’t know what the man’s intentions were*, but I do know that he did not purchase any groceries there. Nor did he browse anything other than me. When I presented myself as a harder target than he had assumed, he exited empty handed. I was lucky that he didn’t call my bluff because I was armed with nothing more than a hard stare**.

That will never happen again. That was one of the markers on the road to gun ownership for me. It could have played out very differently. I now carry tools that really do make me a hard target for someone over twice my size. If I square off today, I’m not bluffing. And I don’t go to that grocery store anymore.

*I also know that a woman of similar build to mine was abducted from that very same store later in the week. She was brutally raped by a man fitting the description of the guy that followed me.

**Exactly how the Brady Bunch would like me to be.

That first footnote is the important one – given the man’s actions, given that he did not purchase anything at the grocery store before he left, and given that someone of a similar description kidnapped, assaulted, and raped a woman at the same store later that week, we have almost no question whatsoever that Jennifer’s actions were the appropriate ones. However, those actions were born out of the awareness of the person and his actions; as before, that awareness is the key element in all of these stories.

The additionally key element, or rather question, is, "What if these women standing their ground had not been enough?" They were both disarmed – as Jennifer says, exactly like the Brady Campaign, CSGV, VPC, and all the rest of those bigoted, anti-rights organizations would have them be – so what recourses would they have against a larger, stronger man? I am not one to tell other people what to do, but I do believe Breda’s quote of, "Carry your gun – it is a lighter burden than regret," is all too valid.

Situational awareness is the key, but the willingness, and the ability, to do something about what you observe is the twist that opens the door to your safety.

(Image again borrowed from Oleg Volk.) 

the declining value of myths

A lot of anti-rights cultists seem to extract no end of entertainment blathering on about the myth of how “guns are ‘bad news’ for women“, complete with proffering a seemingly endless stream of anecdotes and news stories to support their narrow-minded bigotry.

Of course, using the media as their sole source of information was only the first of their mistakes, but perhaps one of the most egregious errors committed by those cultists is mindlessly parroting the belief that women should be forced to be victims, whether they want to be or not. Thankfully, Mrs. Borepatch more than exposes the fallacy of that thinking:

Then, back at the range in NH, we met a woman who had been violently assaulted and who had vowed never to let it happen again. She was scary and sexy all at the same time. She showed off her arsenal and handed me a card for the Second Amendment Sisters, and something clicked, the light bulb went on and I saw the light. I wanted to be her, minus the rape. It seems so obvious now, but at the time it was a real revelation to me. Criminals are willing to break all kinds of laws, and if we keep law abiding citizens from owning guns then only the bad guys have them. If only the bad guys have guns, then they win, and you are more likely to be a victim. Now, who is at greater risk of being attacked?

Women.

I personally have no interest in being a victim. I will never be as fast or strong as an assailant, but my pistol levels the playing field, as long as I know how to use it, and am ready and willing to use it. I know it is only one part of the equation and I have to be aware of my surroundings, but I am getting there. I hope I never find myself in a position to need my “pretty Sig” in an emergency. I hope I only end up using it at the range for fun, but I do enjoy shooting and take a fair amount of pride in my new found ability. I love showing off my good groupings and hearing what a good shot I am.

Females are, on average, smaller, lighter, weaker, and frailer than those particularly disgusting individuals who would prey on them. Thankfully, being the smart little monkeys we are, we humans have developed a piece of technology that allows small, light, weak, frail individuals to effectively defend themselves against larger, heavier, stronger, more durable adversaries, and the use of this technology is blissfully independent from strength, or even stamina – of course that technology is the modern cartridge-loaded firearm.

Even a “pocket” .380, when properly employed by someone who is willing to actually use it, will level the playing field between a 110-pound-soaking-wet co-ed and a 300-pounds-of-solid-muscle rapist looking for an easy target… and yet anti-rights cultists would deny women the right of self-defense on the basis that, in their minds, “guns are ‘bad news’ for women“? ORLY? And what would these hoplophobes have women do in the case of assault/rape/mugging/etc.? Call the cops. And when the cops show up, what are they carrying? Oh, right, firearms. And what would those police officers use to apprehend the rapist, if they were able to, and if the criminal in question exhibited an unwillingness to go along peacefully? Uh, firearms.

So what was that about an inanimate, incapable-of-thought-or-independent-action tool being “bad news” for females, again? How about we just get to the heart of the matter, cut out the middle-man, and respect women’s rights to own property, engage in commerce, and defend themselves from aggressors… especially since it is well-documented that such self-defense actually works.

Why do anti-rights cultists think a disarmed-and-raped woman is morally superior to an armed-and-safe woman? Why are “gun control” advocates actively aiding and abetting criminals by encouraging the disarming of women?

And speaking of rape:

Update: one of my coworkers came to me this afternoon and told me that the girl forced to perform oral sex on this loser was her brothers girlfriend. She came to ask me about CCW training and purchasing a gun for self defense. I gave her all the necessary information and have offered any of my guns for her class and told her I would be more than happy to take her to the range anytime she wants. She has a bit of resistance from her Mom and boyfriend but I have assured her it’s not their decision…it’s hers.

Thankfully, the body of the particular scumbag in question is now somewhere around room temperature (or lower – I assume morgues refrigerate corpses), but by his own hand, and only after victimizing three women. How much better would it have been for those women if they did not live in a culture that ridicules and demeans them for wanting to take responsibility for their own safety? How disgusting is it that certain people want to disarm women, if not all people, “for their own safety”, despite the fact that doing so tends to make people less safe?

To be certain, some people do misuse firearms, and some people target women while doing so. That is indeed unfortunate, and those individuals responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but attempting to punish all American citizens by way of additional “gun control” legislation just because some people cannot function in society is simultaneously farcical and unacceptable. We are not ants, we do not live in a colony, and we are not responsible for each others’ actions.

We are responsible, however, for acknowledging and respecting each others’ rights and choices, and it is high damned time for the “gun control” supporters to realize that.

(Courtesy of Dead Man Dance.)

expanding the dataset

About a week back, I demonstrated that there is a negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and the rate of crimes committed with the assistance of firearms, which completely precludes the possibility of there being a causal relationship between the former and the latter – in short, firearms do not cause crime. But that conclusion was based solely off information from here in the United States, where the number of firearms has been steadily increasing on a yearly basis… what about countries wherein firearms have been banned or otherwise nearly legislated out of existence? What is going on there?

Coincidentally, just this morning, I found a few examples.

First, by way of Jigsaw’s Thoughts, we have this crime report from Australia:

Comparisons of 2009 victim counts to data in prior years are based on actual movements, that is, excluding the business process impacts mentioned above and in the Technical Note. Compared to 2008, the number of victims decreased across all offence categories with the exception of murder (1% increase), attempted murder (1% increase) and blackmail/extortion (60% increase). The largest decrease between 2008 and 2009 in the number of victims was the 19% decrease in kidnapping/abduction victims, followed by a 9% decrease in motor vehicle theft.

There is a chart to go along with that text, and it would appear as though sexual assault decreased by about 2%, and robbery decreased by about 5%. In the same time period (2008-2009),the number of American murders decreased by 7.3%, our forcible rapes (The only thing I have to compare to the Australian crime of “sexual assault”, even though they are not equivalent.) decreased by 2.6%, America’s robberies decreased by 8.0%, and our aggravated assaults (Again, not equivalent to Australia’s “attempted murder”, since they do not break out assaults, but all I have.) decreased 4.2%.

In short, America’s violent crime numbers decreased significantly more than Australia’s, and yet the number of firearms in civilian circulation steadily increased in America, and we have significantly “looser” firearm-related laws. Cannot say as though I am surprised.

But, hey, what about rates? I mean, these countries have drastically different populations, right? Well, sure, so here we go:

Murder, 1.2 victims per 100,000 persons, no change from 2008
Attempted murder, 1.1 victims per 100,000 persons, no change from 2008
Sexual assault, 89 victims per 100,000 persons, a decrease from the 93 victims per 100,000 persons in 2008 [4.3% decrease – ed.]
Robbery, 72 victims per 100,000 persons, which was a decrease from the 77 victims per 100,000 persons recorded in 2008. [6.5% decrease – ed.]

On the other hand, here are the numbers for America’s equivalent crimes: murder – 5.0 victims per 100,000 person, 7.3% decrease; 262.8 per 100,000 persons, 4.2% decrease; forcible rape – 56.6 per 100,000 persons, 3.4% decrease; robbery – 133 per 100,000 persons, 8.8% decrease. To be certain, those are worse numbers across the board, but, again, look at the trending – universal decreases, with only one being smaller than its Australian not-really-equivalent crime, and yet we Americans just keep buying more and more guns… Again, I am not surprised.

Finally, as pro-rights activists have been maintaining for quite some time now, if criminals cannot use firearms, they will use other tools, even their bare hands:

A knife was the most common type of weapon used in committing these offences: 37% of attempted murder victims; 36% of murder victims; and 19% of robbery victims were subjected to an offence involving a knife. A firearm was involved in 18% of attempted murders, 12% of murders and 7% of robbery offences. A high proportion of sexual assault offences (98%), kidnapping/abduction offences (83%) and over half of robbery offences (57%) committed did not involve the use of a weapon.

People just keep getting murdered in Australia, despite all of the “gun control” legislation that particular country has – as Jigsaw says, the problem is not the weapons, but the people looking to “control” those weapons do not want you to know that.

Moving on, courtesy of commenter Chris Cook at The Smallest Minority, we have this news report from once-Great Britain, another country with nearly absolute bans on firearm ownership:

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms – more than one incident a day.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

Sorry, guys, but a one-year decrease does not a trend make.

At any rate, once-Great Britain’s last major firearm-related legislation was the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act of 1997 (banning pretty much all center-fire handguns), and since then, the number of firearm-related crimes has more-than-doubled, with a slight slacking-off in the most-recent year (which may not even exist, given British constabularies lie to make their crime numbers look better). In the same time frame, the number of firearms in American citizens’ hands has been steadily increasing, but our firearm-related crime numbers have actually decreased. Surprised? Me? Not really.

Time and time again, the facts, figures, and realities plainly show that the problems are not inanimate lumps of metal, but, time and time again, anti-rights nuts just keep vainly trying to shove that djinn back in its bottle. “Gun control” advocates are nothing more than streetconer charlatans, hawking content-free nostrums to those who do not know better… thankfully, learning the dangers of modern snake oil really is not all that hard any more.