When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human

Hi-res	Since some division of labor is necessary, some people choose to delegate the task of assuring personal safety to others. Such view is akin to saying: "I won't brush my teeth. That's what my dentist is for." When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence." Right. Sometimes avoiding a criminal attack is not possible. Fortunately, elementary precautions enable us not to become helpless victims of such attacks. Consider being armed a form of immunization. Hi-res In the event that you do manage to ask for help, your savior may be too long in coming. When the source of danger is right next to you and the police cruiser starts from ten miles away, it isn't likely that the cops would do more than take in evidence. Counting on your neighbors is far from certain, either. Kitty Genovese and many others have learned the hard way that bystanders dislike getting involved in confrontations between strangers. Police officers know that they cannot protect us at all times. That is why most of them recommend that people get the training and the tools for protecting their own lives.
Hi-res	Hi-res You do have a first aid kit in the house, don't you?
Reasonable people have smoke alarms, wear seat belts, buy insurance. They plan against the eventualities of life. No one looks forward to calamities, even if they would validate the necessity of the preparations. Likewise, people who get arms and training wish to avoid situations in which they would become necessary.
Hi-res	Hi-res
Hi-res	Some people wouldn't pick up arms to defend themselves even if presented with such a choice in the hour of need. They do not wish to use force because they feel that it makes them into barbarians just like the attackers. In my view, they are missing the difference between initiation of violence and using force to stop violence. Some of the people who would be willing to perish rather than fight change their minds when the lives of other innocents are at stake. Parents have an obligation to their children, spouses and friends to each other. Yet efforts to protect family members are likely to fail if the protectors have neither tools nor training with which to save lives.
Hi-res	Some say: "I would not use a weapon even to protect my family." These same people have no problem with calling in police officers who carry guns; and who would shoot criminals to terminate attacks against innocent people. For some reason, they have no objection to deadly force so long as it is used by a uniformed agent of the state.
Hi-res	Hi-res How many times have you heard: "If accosted by criminals, give them what they want and be a good witness"? Do you think you can be an observant, impassive witness if your family or friends are under attack? Wouldn't you rather have an option to render assistance?
Hi-res	Hi-res
Hi-res	Ironically, some people who loudly proclaim their self-sufficiency deliberately avoid being able to protect themselves. They regard that ability as a trait peculiar to their oppressors, weapons as a hallmark of uncivilized savages. Some even state that they consider being a mangled, abused corpse a more dignified state than resisting with a gun. Do you think that is a logical position? Giving up, surrendering to evil is not a guarantee of safety. On the contrary, it encourages criminals to attack again. It is like throwing hamburger into shark-infested waters: conditioning predators to expect easy pickings at your expense.

Why people own guns

Fight, flight or surrender : Depending on others : Wearing arms : Homedefense : Real guns? : Martial Arts

Technology of firearms

Long guns : Handguns : Becoming a gun owner : My Garand : Art of the Arms : Image library

Politics of self-defense

Gun control : Stay Safe : Effective guns : Necessary Evil : Media Bias : Aesthetics : Get active

A fable : FAQ : Support this site : My forum : Newest posters

"A man's home is his castle" stated English Common Law.

Hi-res	"A man's home is his castle" stated English Common Law. The tradition of respect of safety in our own homes is all the more enduring for our ability to reinforce it. Americans have less concern than citizens in other countries about suffering a forcible home invasion. The reason for that is simple: predators who would break into an occupied home are very likely to be shot by the residents. In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.
Hi-res	Again, the inability of the predators to divine which house would be easy pickings and which would be defended effectively improves the safety even of those who would not keep arms for protection. An invader can't tell if you, your neighbor, both of you or neither of you would be equipped to end his criminal career on the spot. For that reason, burglars generally try to avoid contact with their victims.
Hi-res	Many lawful people say that they would not shoot even a criminal in order to protect their posessions. However, we have no way of reading the minds of those who break into homes of other people. They may be after loot, or they may be intent on doing damage to any people they encounter. Some predators rely on surprise and superior numbers to effect home invasions. Such perpetrators must be repelled, as they often combine burglary with diversions such as rape and murder. Reasoning with them, pleading, appealing to their better side does not work.
Hi-res	Hi-res Breaking into somebody's home is not an accidental act. A burglar who has no regard for the sanctity of your home would likely have no more regard for your physical well-being. With that in mind, please place your own safety first and foremost in your mind.
Hi-res	Hi-res Your goal is to survive the invasion until cops show up in strength. Going to look for the intruder would not be safe. Make sure that you have accounted for all family members, then stay put in the safe room and cover the door with your weapon. Any damage visited upon the intruder would be his own fault.
Hi-res	Hi-res Situations like this are one of the reasons why having more than one trained person in the family is helpful. You might be on the phone with police and distracted, but your spouse would cover you. Hopefully, the 911 emergency dispatch system would work well when you need it. In a city, police response may be rapid, but out in the country you may wait for an hour before help can get to you.
Hi-res	Hi-res
Hi-res	Hi-res Pointing a gun at somebody is not very nice but neither is breaking into people's homes. Furthermore, use of any less effective means of self-defense plays into the hands of the criminal. That isn't noble, merely stupid. Fortunately, most burglars won't dare to loiter once they realize that they have been spotted. They are in for the easy pickings and not for ending up between armed homeowners on one side and police on the other. On the other hand, if they suspect that the residents are not armed, they would attack at once to prevent a call for help.
Hi-res	Hi-res
Hi-res	Hi-res "But how can you set yourself as jury, judge and executioner?" some would say. "Even criminals deserve a fair trial." If a person must fire on an intruder, she would be doing so only in order to protect lives of self and dependents. Not to punish, not to discourage criminal behavior but to save lives from a predator. As a side effect, being shot in the process of committing a crime provides potent Pavlovian conditioning to the perpetrator

Why have real guns?

Why have real guns?

For the first sixteen years of my life, my experience with shooting was limited to single-shot pellet guns at arcades. The USSR, my former country of detention, did not permit mere subjects to have arms. New York City, my family's first residence in the United States was scarcely better in that respect. Although I always had an interest in military history, the idea of having weapons of my own was quite foreign to me at the time. In 1990, a year after my arrival to the United States, I lived in Urbana, IL. My neighbor, an elderly Jewish gentleman, let me fire about thirty rounds from his Marlin 60 and I was hooked. That man, by the way, came from Russia in 1905 with his grandfather. His family wanted to escape pogroms. It did not register in my mind until later that a shotgun and an autoloading rifle were always in his den, both loaded. The next day my father and I went to the local Fleet Farm and bought me the cheapest BB gun they sold. It cost $24.95 and represented a very lavish purchase given the state of our finances at the time. Later that day I found out that nowhere except on our friend's property can I legally shoot the BB gun. Not knowing the laws all that well and afraid of consequences, I returned the BB gun to the store.
Hi-res	The next few years passed with me reading about guns but never considering owning them. While in high school in Minnesota, I parroted the local pravda's assertions that guns and gun nuts were bad even as I had photos of myself with other people's guns. I sent those photos to relatives in Russia so they could see how free I was. When I was sixteen, a police instructor taught me and my parents the basics of firearms safety. I enjoyed the learning tremendously but came away thinking that guns were noisy, expensive, too complex to re-assemble after cleaning. Moreover, I did not know of shooting ranges and thought that I'd have to know people with land in order to practice.
Somewhat later, I started getting concerned about gun control. If history was any indication, unarmed populations generally fared very poorly in the face of any adversity. Knowing myself to be a lousy shot, I started this web site, a single page entitled "Life Insurance" back then. The purpose was to convince others to get armed and trained. In 1997, my girlfriend was being stalked. At that time, I had borrowed a .22 pistol from a friend and practiced with it. That gun became our only defensive weapon. Some time later, I was riding to work with another designer and she asked me if I heard the news about the import ban. Turns out that the availability of weapons was about to decrease further yet. That evening I came home with an SKS rifle, a bag of stripper clips and all of the 7.62x39 ammunition that the store had, about 320 rounds in all. What I would have much preferred at the time was a single-shot arcade style pellet gun. I was no fan of the noise, the recoil, the range fees, the cleaning involved in the ownership of a real rifle. Add to that the lousy accuracy that a tyro like me had and the abject pain I felt parting with my hard-earned and scarce money...I would have preferred a cheap BB gun.
So why did I buy a weapon instead of a toy for sport? The motivator was the realization that I may not have the choice of getting armed soon. The knowledge that people who wished me disarmed would have no trouble taking an air gun. I knew that my rifle skills were poor but hoped to do well enough at ranges not exceeding the length of the hallway. Other guns followed later. It was only after I acquired combat weapons that I allocated money for sport, mainly with training youngsters in mind. I now own the same cheap BB gun that I had once wanted. I fired it once, for sentimental reasons. The point of this long-winded story is that I would not have become a gun owner had it not been for the people pushing gun control. They can be proud of themselves for they supplied the motivation for yet another American to get armed and trained. I do not think they quite understand that once armed, a free man cannot be disarmed, only defeated.
I do not hunt. I do not compete. I do not collect for the sake of having interesting objects in my posession. The only reason why I own guns is, according to the BATF, not sporting. Self-defense is the one use that our government does not view as legitimate...an attitude that is quite disturbing in the people who are supposedely employed by the taxpayers. I can only wonder what they are up to that they prefer people around them to be unequipped to resist aggression. Over time, I have introduced quite a few people to firearm basics. I have given guns as gifts to people whose lives were especially precious to me. Back in Russia, I was born too late to make much difference. Here, in the land of the free, I hope to influence the outcome of the population control end-game one training session, one web page or, in an emergency, one round at a time. Hi-res I was asked once why I put so much importance on pieces of metal and wood. My friend Dennis Bateman answered that question very eloquently. The artifacts we use do not much matter: the values for which they stand matter

weapons ownership a necessity for the rest

I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. (J.R.R.Tolkien, The Two Towers) The first question many people ask is: "Why guns?" Some ask more generally, "Why advocate ownership of weapons?" The answer is far from simple but it is logical. Read on.
	We, humans, have the enviable position at the top of the food chain. Although individuals occasionally fall prey to wild beasts, as a species we are safe, except from ourselves. Being an omnivore of modest size, we got to this privileged position through our use of tools. Tools we use are not limited to guns: as a species, we are defined as tool makers and tool users. It is also fortunate that most humans are disposed to cooperate with each other. However, the exceptions to that "most" are sufficient to make weapons ownership a necessity for the rest. Human aggression happens on two levels: individual and organized. Let's consider them separately.
Becoming an adult involves learning to respect others and to take responsibility for our own actions. Most people learn those skills and appreciate the values on which peaceful coexistence is predicated. Unfortunately, a minority of people, fewer than 2%, decline to behave in a civilized manner. Civilized behavior, for the purpose of our discussion, could be described as acting humanely towards others even if no punishment would be incurred by acting meanly.
Hi-res Hi-res	Some of the mean humans are not deterred from harming others by any considerations. Such people are, thankfully, very rare and generally make the news eventually. However, most mean individuals, including those we might consider crazy, behave rationally even if in pursuit of irrational goals. Such people weigh the costs and benefits of their actions and so try to pick victims who cannot fight back. Here we come to the first benefit of weapons ownership. You may not be armed, but those who would harm you for wanton gratification or for profit have no way of knowing that. Over time, they run a real risk of accidentally attacking an armed person. In that way, general tradition of being able to resist evil affords you some protection by protective mimicry. In nature, a harmless animal would imitate a more formidable species and thus give pause to the would-be predators.
Hi-res | Wear this poster!	Similarly, predators who select victims based on the expected inability to resist, often desist when even a small number of the expected easy marks give them trouble. For example, where even a few women are known to be armed, all women benefit from the reduction in attempted rapes and other violent crimes. That no external differences indicate which person is defenseless and which isn't makes all of us safer. No one in their right mind, be they peaceful humans or predators, would enjoy a firefight. Safety of the humans is much improved whenever the predators have to endure combat in order to get what they want, with no guarantee of victory but with a serious risk to their hides. The concept of peace through ability to win a war might sound flippant, but the sentiment is based on reason.
Hi-res | Wear this poster!	Just as individual predators act in their self-interest, so do organizations and states. Historically, government actions against minority groups have been motivated by greed, religious or ethnic bigotry, need to find scapegoats and many other, equally unsavory reasons. Consequences to civilians who could not protect themselves, such as the Parisian Hugenots in 1572 or the Polish Jews in 1939 or the Cambodian intelligencia in 1975, have been invariably catastrophic. Considering the frequency and the increasing efficiency of genocides, outbreeding the casualties is impractical.
Hi-res	Hi-res Some say that by the mere ability to resist evil we become the same evil we fight. That view equates initiation of aggression with defense of self and family. In my humble opinion, the two are not equal. Protection of innocents is a noble cause. Failure to plan or failure to act when necessary is not noble, merely irresponsible. It leads to extinction and encourages predators to victimize others besides us.
Hi-res	Being safe does not mean that we should all string barbed wire around our homes, mine the front lawn and sit behind sandbagged windows in anticipation of hostile hordes. Leading righteous, peaceful lives, being good to others, working to improve ourselves and the world would do much to improve our safety. Yet, just as good health doesn't depend on plenty of excercise or a good diet, safety does not depend only on being armed or on being a decent human. Each is an essential component of the whole. Being armed doesn't mean that we fear our environment. Simply put, being prepared reduces criminal predation to a solved problem. After all, having soap in a bathroom doesn't indicate a paranoid fear of germs, only the recognition of a problem and a ready solution to it. Similarly, carrying a handgun just in case is reasonable. Towing cannon behind your car would be excessive effort relative to the moderate risks we face.
Hi-res	In some minds, guns are linked to murder and other unlawful uses. Yet, they seldom view gasoline, matches, wire, kitchen knives or hobnailed boots as tools of violence. People are familiar with those everyday objects and know that they are not evil magic. The will to kill is the paramount ingredient in homicides. Absent that will, no weapon would lift itself to harm a human. Conditioning by television or newspapers makes some view every gun as a tragedy in the making. Evening news often show a picture of a gun even when talking about a beating which involved feet and fists. Without a real-world basis for comparison, it is easy to assume that firearms are possessed of supernatural powers. After all, if our understanding of computers was based on Hollywood, wouldn't we all live in fear of killer robots and rogue mainframes? Judicious use of complex tools separates humans from all other species. To throw away one of our main evolutionary accomplishments out of misguided fear would be akin to wishing away the well-developed brain to make births easier. The loss of functionality to us as human beings would far exceed any potential gain from such a trade.

Small Business Bailout Plan

Small Business Bailout Plan

The Economic Viruses

I think it's fair to say our world economy has caught somewhat of a Virus. In true F&J style, here's a brief description of the many forms of economic viruses affecting the markets... and while you're at it why don't you make up your own virus in the comments section.

Islam, Terrorism and WMD Archives

Inventing Moderate Islam

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
www.nationalreview.com
Andrew C. McCarthy
August 24, 2010
Inventing Moderate Islam
It can’t be done without confronting mainstream Islam and its sharia agenda.
‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.

Liberals December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001

December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, and from time-to-time since then, it has been said that the day was akin to the one about which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke: December 7, 1941. The comparison is apt, but not completely. Despite the similarities, the differences in what followed each of those days are profound and the aftermath of September 11, 2001, may well portend far worse consequences than did World War II for the United States of America.