What do you call a disarmed populace?
Answer: easy prey, as I previously answered in an earlier entry's title. That entry was about a man who knifed a woman and her boyfriend in the middle of a subway car. Being disarmed and cowardly (which is not entirely their fault since it largely stems from being disarmed), the rest of the passengers fled to the other side of the car and didn't even try to help. They didn't even try to chase after the attacker, though the wounded boyfriend did.
Let's look at some news for additional examples. On Tuesday, a man was robbed and slashed by four muggers right in the middle of a crowded Bronx subway station. Like any other criminals with a modicum of competence, the thugs knew that NYC gun control laws permit them to attack with virtual impunity.
On Monday, a carjacker walked up to a taxi, brandished a kitchen knife, ordered the cabbie out, then took off in the car.
Last Friday night, a teenager went on a rampage at Berlin's new rail station, stabbing 26 people. With no means to defend against a stab-and-run attacker, the crowd had no choice but to depend on the police to arrest him.
On May 15th, a homeless pervert broke into a Lower East Side apartment, then jumped into bed with one of the tenants and began touching her. The woman, who speaks poor English, called 9/11, but the molester kept shouting that she picked him up in a bar. The operator said the police couldn't help her, since she brought him home. But wait a minute, even were it true, he was trespassing once he lost permission to stay. So if the NYPD couldn't come get rid of him, then what the hell good are they? Had the woman or her roommate possessed a firearm, the situation would have been different.
Since mid-April, there have been a lot of attacks in Brooklyn's Prospect Park. Typically five to eight thugs would surround a person before knocking him down and robbing him. Again, it would be different if the victims had carried firearms, but New York City law makes it a criminal offense for people to bear the means to defend themselves.
Last June, a North Salem (the Westchester town adjacent to me) teenager was raped and murdered by her older boyfriend. He was convicted Wednesday of murder, but he faces a mere 20 years to life. I think the only sentencing decision should be, "How shall we put the ****** to death?" Now, had the girl carried even a small pistol and learned how to use it, then circumstances permitting, perhaps she'd be the one alive today. My aunt knows the girl's parents, and she told me the other day that the mother is still waiting for her daughter to come home.
All these situations could have well turned out in the opposite way, with injured or preferably dead criminals instead of victims. A small firearm allows the most physically diminutive of people to stand an equal chance against attackers, because not everyone has the strength and training of, for example, Thomas Autry. Five attackers definitely picked on the wrong Marine on Monday night: Autry stabbed two with his pocketknife, killing one and seriously wounding the other. Call me cold-hearted, but even though the one he killed was a 17-year-old girl, I say, "Good riddance." That saved society the trouble of trying, convicting and housing an apparent career criminal, and saved future victims from being robbed by her or worse.
Most criminals aren't that brave. When confronted by an armed victim, many will run. When considering the possibility a mark is armed, many won't dare try anything. Throughout last summer, several gangs committed a series of burglaries in some Long Island neighborhoods. Police made some arrests, but I think a more significant reason the robberies mostly stopped was that residents started buying out the local gun stores. The most amusing anecdote was a man who was stark naked when he grabbed his gun and chased out the burglars.
How about non-human attackers? A Long Island woman was attacked by two pit bulls Monday night, suffering serious but not life-threatening injuries to her face and neck. Had either been carrying a pistol, being elderly wouldn't have mattered. The husband could have fired a couple of bullets into each dog's head, which might have reduced his wife's injuries, not to mention ridding society of two dangerous "pets" that apparently were allowed to roam free. Similarly, I blogged last June about a woman who was attacked by wild dogs, then initiated a lawsuit against New York City. She claimed that the city didn't do enough to control wild animals and "prevent" the attack, which is ludicrous. But the city did prevent her from defending herself, through gun control.
I wonder if Sarah Brady sleeps well at night, because the news from gun-restricted jurisdictions routinely proves that her anti-gun agenda allows criminals to prey on "law-abiding" people. I suspect she knows that to be true but just won't admit it, in the same way that "The devils also believe, and tremble" in the knowledge of God.
There is also the single most important reason for an armed citizenry: to prevent tyranny in government. That's a topic for another night, but suffice to say for now that the American people's freedom ultimately rests on how well the Second Amendment is honored.
Let's look at some news for additional examples. On Tuesday, a man was robbed and slashed by four muggers right in the middle of a crowded Bronx subway station. Like any other criminals with a modicum of competence, the thugs knew that NYC gun control laws permit them to attack with virtual impunity.
On Monday, a carjacker walked up to a taxi, brandished a kitchen knife, ordered the cabbie out, then took off in the car.
Last Friday night, a teenager went on a rampage at Berlin's new rail station, stabbing 26 people. With no means to defend against a stab-and-run attacker, the crowd had no choice but to depend on the police to arrest him.
On May 15th, a homeless pervert broke into a Lower East Side apartment, then jumped into bed with one of the tenants and began touching her. The woman, who speaks poor English, called 9/11, but the molester kept shouting that she picked him up in a bar. The operator said the police couldn't help her, since she brought him home. But wait a minute, even were it true, he was trespassing once he lost permission to stay. So if the NYPD couldn't come get rid of him, then what the hell good are they? Had the woman or her roommate possessed a firearm, the situation would have been different.
Since mid-April, there have been a lot of attacks in Brooklyn's Prospect Park. Typically five to eight thugs would surround a person before knocking him down and robbing him. Again, it would be different if the victims had carried firearms, but New York City law makes it a criminal offense for people to bear the means to defend themselves.
Last June, a North Salem (the Westchester town adjacent to me) teenager was raped and murdered by her older boyfriend. He was convicted Wednesday of murder, but he faces a mere 20 years to life. I think the only sentencing decision should be, "How shall we put the ****** to death?" Now, had the girl carried even a small pistol and learned how to use it, then circumstances permitting, perhaps she'd be the one alive today. My aunt knows the girl's parents, and she told me the other day that the mother is still waiting for her daughter to come home.
All these situations could have well turned out in the opposite way, with injured or preferably dead criminals instead of victims. A small firearm allows the most physically diminutive of people to stand an equal chance against attackers, because not everyone has the strength and training of, for example, Thomas Autry. Five attackers definitely picked on the wrong Marine on Monday night: Autry stabbed two with his pocketknife, killing one and seriously wounding the other. Call me cold-hearted, but even though the one he killed was a 17-year-old girl, I say, "Good riddance." That saved society the trouble of trying, convicting and housing an apparent career criminal, and saved future victims from being robbed by her or worse.
Most criminals aren't that brave. When confronted by an armed victim, many will run. When considering the possibility a mark is armed, many won't dare try anything. Throughout last summer, several gangs committed a series of burglaries in some Long Island neighborhoods. Police made some arrests, but I think a more significant reason the robberies mostly stopped was that residents started buying out the local gun stores. The most amusing anecdote was a man who was stark naked when he grabbed his gun and chased out the burglars.
How about non-human attackers? A Long Island woman was attacked by two pit bulls Monday night, suffering serious but not life-threatening injuries to her face and neck. Had either been carrying a pistol, being elderly wouldn't have mattered. The husband could have fired a couple of bullets into each dog's head, which might have reduced his wife's injuries, not to mention ridding society of two dangerous "pets" that apparently were allowed to roam free. Similarly, I blogged last June about a woman who was attacked by wild dogs, then initiated a lawsuit against New York City. She claimed that the city didn't do enough to control wild animals and "prevent" the attack, which is ludicrous. But the city did prevent her from defending herself, through gun control.
I wonder if Sarah Brady sleeps well at night, because the news from gun-restricted jurisdictions routinely proves that her anti-gun agenda allows criminals to prey on "law-abiding" people. I suspect she knows that to be true but just won't admit it, in the same way that "The devils also believe, and tremble" in the knowledge of God.
There is also the single most important reason for an armed citizenry: to prevent tyranny in government. That's a topic for another night, but suffice to say for now that the American people's freedom ultimately rests on how well the Second Amendment is honored.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
2:36 AM
1 Comments:
unarmed = subjects
armed = citizens
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home