"Our view: Arming civilians an unwise move," reads the Norwich Bulletin editorial headline. "No one is safer when more weapons are allowed on the streets."
Thing is, they're not even protesting firearms. They're against "allowing" you to carry a stun gun. Even with a permit.
That permits don't automatically stop all violent crime seems to surprise them—they've evidently not extrapolated that licensing drivers and registering vehicles has stopped neither mishaps nor those who choose to ignore the law.
Never mind, they say, that the "Connecticut Police Chiefs Association is supportive of the idea." They worry that weapons can hurt assailants (no, duh!), and that we ordinary folks aren't "Only Ones."
Their "solution"?
The number of incidents of domestic violence is alarming. We should make an effort to enhance the safety of those who might be a victim to it. But arming people with guns, real or stun, isn’t the answer.
OK, how do you "enhance safety"? What is the answer? Quick—the attack is happening NOW...
Seeing how much "domestic violence" takes place in the...uh...domicile, I guess we can assume the Norwich Bulletin doesn't want us keeping guns there either—whether abuse takes place in our homes or not?
They could have saved a lot of words, because their childish philosophy is summed up perfectly by a comment poster, who concludes:
Meeting violence with violence is wrong. Simply wrong.
Allow me to share just a few of the news accounts greeting me in my inbox this morning involving some folks the bleaters at the Norwich Bulletin would have us believe acted wrongly and unwisely:
"Deerfield convenience store clerk shoots would-be robber":
A masked gunman who tried to rob a convenience store Friday night had the tables turned on him when the clerk shot the aspiring crook in the jaw, deputies said...
"He put the gun in his face," Al-Madi's father, Fares, said Saturday at the store. "He did not come to rob, he came to kill."
"Clerk Fires Shots At Robbers":
San Antonio police said two men who tried to rob a convenience store were stopped by a clerk who had a gun...
Police said one of the robbers was armed with a shotgun...
"Knife-Wielding Attacker Shot Dead":
Witnesses at the store near Delano and North Watkins say the attacker picked the wrong victim.
"He got what he deserved," says one woman. "It's as simple as that."
"Victim shoots, kills robbers":
A man shot and killed two men who were trying to rob him on Durban’s Point in the early hours of Saturday morning.
And these are just a few of the stories—ones where shots were fired and that made the news. Most DGUs (defensive gun uses)—up to 92%—end with the mere display of a firearm.
Still, perhaps the personal defenselessness advocates are right, and meeting violence with violence is wrong.
But it feels so right.
UPDATE: Mr. Workman also noticed our friends at the Norwich Bulletin, among others...
NRA's The Armed Citizen
The Armed Citizen Blog
"The Best Defense, True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves with a Firearm"
------------
Reminder: No Sheriff Left Behind
Sheriff Richard Mack's Ohio tour is this week. Here's his calendar. Click the links for details:
-
Tuesday, March 9 Findlay, OH - sponsored by The Findlay 912 Project
-
Wednesday, March 10 Columbus, OH - sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Foundation
-
Thursday, March 11 Cincinnati, OH - sponsored by the Cincinnati 912 Project
-
Friday, March 12 Marietta, OH - sponsored by The Marietta OH 9-12 Project
-
Saturday, March 13 Akron, OH - sponsored by The Ohio Second Amendment Group
Comments
A great essay on this topic here: Can violence solve violence?
by Larken Rose www.libertyforall.net/?p=3905
A violent response cannot stop, heal or change the cause of the evil, but it can prevent further evil acts from being done. Very different concepts.
"And these are just a few of the stories—ones where shots were fired and that made the news. Most DGUs (defensive gun uses)—up to 92%—end with the mere display of a firearm."
I'm sure that what I'm about to post will horrify some people but so be it. I'm not in favor of brandishing a firearm to scare off a thug. Put yourself in the bad guys head for a moment. When an intended victim pulls a gun on you you must assume the worst case scenario and act accordingly: i.e. the gun is loaded and your intended victim it is prepared to kill you with it. As the intended victim, you have just escallated the situation in the mind of your assailant. As a result of your escallation, he or she is about to do something very drastic very quickly, either run or try to kill you. Therefore, the bad guy shouldn't even know that you are armed until you have already evaluated the situation and decided they need to be very dead.
Dead criminals commit no crimes.
RE "DDS -- NRA Life member says:
" As a result of your escallation, he or she is about to do something very drastic very quickly, either run or try to kill you. Therefore, the bad guy shouldn't even know that you are armed until you have already evaluated the situation and decided they need to be very dead. "
Never had to fire, but in close to a dozen instances over the years, RUN is what they did.
Sometimes violence is the only proper response to violence, as much as the brainwashed "Fluffies" might wish otherwise.
I think using violence to defend against and deter violence is wrong. But I think it is also the best, most responsible way to defend myself, my family, and my community.
If the Norwich beanie bunch want to curb domestic violence, why not ban domestic dwellings? Why ban the brooms, or lamps, or knives, or guns, or flailing of hands and legs, when simply banning domestic relationships would take care of the problem. In a generation, no one would remember Norwich, and the problem would be solved, there.
I heartily suggest that all who cringe at the thought of using violence to stop violence against them, don't use it. That way, you will soon be out of the gene pool, and the stench of your cowardice will cease offending those of us who have the guts to not be a victim. And I also suggest they stop harping about it, as it's like listening to someone in a cannibal pot talk about how warm the water is.
Maybe we should all be defenseless, just like in England, where violent crime has skyrocketed since the handgun banned. 28 handgun crimes are committed everyday in England and Wales, and the criminals are running around with machine guns, but the authorities tell their citizens that it is never necessary to carry a weapon for self defense, and doing so is illegal.
"No one is safer when more weapons are allowed on the streets"
Oh, how cute...look at that, someone thinks that weapons only go where they're "allowed".
Sadly, ain't gonna be the last time this needs to be said: humans are the only species in the history of life on the planet dumb enough to consider the idea of NOT fighting to ensure their survival.
And what of the bottomless irony in the idea that it is always the state which is uniquely deemed worthy to prevent violence by (forcibly) disarming others? The same state which is responsible for more aggression, murder and mayhem than any private entity in history--the same state which views violence or the threat thereof as the answer to EVERY problem?
Do the over-syphilized* have an answer to that?
______________
* I'd offer apologies to Edward Abbey for that, but I suspect he'd actually agree in this case.
Even the way he frames the question reveals his ignorance. "Arming the public" like, if it WERE a good idea, there would be a federal Bureau of Handing Out Guns
"I heartily suggest that all who cringe at the thought of using violence to stop violence against them, don't use it."
Also, don't bother to call 911 to summon a public servant to come and use it on your behalf, as that would be completely hypocritical.
Meeting violence with violence is a confused perspective. The issue is meeting violence with force. Violence violates, destroys, and intrudes. Force resists and preserves order. It is time for citizens to understand that the only way to stop a violator is by force. It may be forceful language, it may be forceful actions. It is setting a boundary whose violation will not be tolerated. The force needs to be proportionate to the violence offered, and, in some cases, must escalate to deadly force.
The Norwich "Bull"etin would prefer that we all be sheep, to be sheared by the gov't, or slaughtered by the wolves.
A police man/woman pointing a gun at some is violence. They pull there guns to stop someone from committing a crime. They threaten violence with a gun if you don't stop. It is ALL violence!! Good, Bad,, and Self Defense. The police stop bad people with violence and so should we all!
A Jeff Cooper Quote:
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
--Jeff Cooper - Cooper vs. Terrorism
Social comments from places like the Norwich Bulletin are editorials and should not be considered as facts or news.
Would their opinion on the use of weapons including stun guns change if we were to promote the complete disarmament of everyone in the US. That would include LEO, military not in service abroad, security, etc (everyone). We could instead train law enforcement to "talk down" violent individuals or run the other way to avoid being victims. Such a thing is not a realistic strategy and would endanger our society, same goes for their point of view on individual carry.
What are you going to do? If Someone is threating or using Violence against you. Talk them to Death? Turn the Other Cheek?
Cry for Momma? Let me suggest you defend yourself with violence if you like staying uninjured or living. But to the Sheeple and Cowards of this Nation, it is unacceptable.....
Baning self-defense and the means to do so, in the face of an immediate danger that not even police officers can predict before they are killed?
This is what passes for logical thought? The gene pool is thin in some areas of the country and evidently among the "educated elite".
Don't allow your life to end as chalk outline in an alley somewhere.
As the CEO of the IM-SAFE Institute our stated mission is "keeping women and those they love safe". Workshop attendees and those attending our keynote presentations will ask what is the best defense.
Defending yourself is never easy. Taking a human life is even harder and for some ...even police officers taking a human life is not possible. While armed response can be an answer, immediate access to any type of weapon may not be practical.
In that case women must know how to defend themselves against an attacker using her most powerful weapons along combined with an understanding on how to use the defense pyramid
Incomplete as it it is, there’s some evidence to suggest the writers of the following declaration of a specifically-enumerated ’Right’ of Every citizen viewed themselves and members of the Citizenry as OTDA. (Other Than Dumb Animals.)
Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
(Had the provision been written for, or by, those at the Bulletin, it might well have been expressed more along the lines of-- “Every flockmember has the right to animated hoof-waving and excessive bleating”…and the words 'arms’ and ‘defense’ omitted entirely.
While I’m personally uncomfortable with the fact that some of the sheep in human clothing at the Bulletin have had their otherwise blissful grazing disturbed, I do take some solace in knowing their current state of anxiety is really only temporary.
Soon enough they’ll revert to their natural posture as victims-in-waiting, butts-up and their heads in the grass.
"Meeting violence with violence is wrong. Simply wrong."
LOL, so they better fire all their police then.
I just would like to say something. David, I really like your articles, they are smart and genuine. Thank you.
I know some of the things I may say will seem harsh or extreme. I do not believe so myself. People are being killed out there, even by our "protectors". Our government has turned on us and want to enslave us in a giant prison called USA. I believe the time of talking and being nice has been over for a long time. They rely on us just sitting around complaining about it, or just using the rules they wrote to fight them...that never works.
I say, draw the line in the sand...they will come. Then you defend yourselves. When the mask comes off fully, everyone will see, and the storm troopers who come to kill you, will be met by ambush.
I have seen to much maybe, that is why I am way past where alot of americans are with these criminals. There is no recourse with them. It is time for action..all you got to do is say NO!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!