Nope.  The fisking of the anti isn’t here.  It’s here.

Noted quote:

He writes about “violence enacted by guns” as though the little suckers go gallivanting about of their own free will, just looking for someone to shoot. Guns do not kill people. Gun operators kill people. Whether out of malice or negligence, it takes human interaction for a gun to become lethal.

As they say, RTWT.  And comment.  Hubby enjoys the discussion.

This from someone in my office that has been afraid of guns for most of her life.

We need to schedule a time for you to show me how to shoot THE GUN.

THE GUN belongs to her husband, and I do not yet know what it is.   But he keeps it loaded on the nightstand for home defense.  She has come to the very reasonable conclusion that she needs to actually learn to use it rather than just know that it is there.

SCORE!

She was home alone recently and heard noises that frightened her.  She told herself that it was okay because she had her bat that she has been keeping close by and THE GUN was on the nightstand.  But wait.  She doesn’t know anything about THE GUN.  “Do I need to take it out of the holster?”  “Does it have a safety?”  “How do I pull the trigger?”  etc.

Yes, we are talking very elementary gun handling skills here.  So she asked me to show her how.

Understand that this is a woman that has been absolutely terrified of guns all of her life.  She has good reasons to be afraid too.  There was some childhood trauma that I won’t elaborate on.  This is enough fear that I’ve seen her become noticeably uncomfortable just looking at one of the holsters that Michael makes.

So to say that we are going to start slowly is an understatement.  You know what I’m not going to do?  Hand her my snub nosed revolver and 5 rounds of .38 special telling her that’s the perfect gun for a woman.  There has been a lot of talk about that lately, in case you haven’t noticed.  I happen to really like my snub and will even shoot .357 Magnum out of it from time to time.  (I like the fireball.)  But it is NOT A BEGINNERS GUN!

Not for women, men, cephalopods anyone.  Well, it might be okay for cephalopods, but I’m not exactly anxious to teach a squid to shoot.  Octopus maybe, but not a squid.

In fact, we aren’t even going to start with a gun at all.  I’m serious, this one must be done SLOWLY.  We started today with a book.

This is so she can feel familiar with terms and concepts without dealing with the anxiety I have already witnessed from her.  For this particular person, I want to break it up into more easily digestible pieces.  It would be a sensory overload to head her straight to the range and shout over hearing protection.  The last thing she needs to have fear and anxiety associated with the learning process.

Next, we’ll look at a dummy gun.  We’ll go over the 4 rules.  We’ll talk about stance and grip and sight alignment.  Once she feels comfortable with that, we’ll look at THE GUN.  I’ll show her the same basics on that as well as discussing any specific things about that particular firearm.

And then we will head down to the local range.  I will bring along a selection of things to try out and the range has an excellent selection of things to rent.  Yes, the DAO snubby will be in the bag, but it will not be thrust at her like it is what she must shoot.  I do not currently own a handgun in .22LR, but I will either rent or borrow one. Also in the bag will be my 627PC.  That revolver was my first gun.  It has a nice long sight radius and smooth trigger pull even when shot double action.  The big N frame soaks up recoil nicely.  She’ll also have the opportunity to try out my M&P9c that I carry every day.  I will have a variety so she won’t feel intimidated by anything that she may encounter in the future.

First thing I ever shot was a Model 629 loaded with .44 magnum.  Not what I recommend doing with any new shooter.  I’m a stubborn one though and decided that day that I would conquer that beast.  I shot it all of twice that day, but I have lost count at this point of how many rounds I’ve shot through hubby’s model 29.  Don’t underestimate what that petite woman will be able to handle.  But really, don’t start a new shooter on any kind of magnum.

We will work our way up to and around THE GUN.  My hope is that by the end of all of this, she will see it as another useful tool and not something she needs to refer to in all caps.  Maybe she’ll even want a firearm of her own.

I’ve found with new shooters and particularly women, that doubling up on the hearing protection in the indoor range makes the whole experience more pleasant and helps to reduce the dreaded flinch.  Heck, I double up my hearing protection most of the time.

This particular woman is a special case.  I would not normally drag the new shooter experience out to several days in such small chunks, but you have to cater the experience to the shooter.  Some will need the basic safety briefing then you show them how to load it tell them to point it that-a-way, others will need more sensitive instruction before that first shot.  The point where that hammer falls on that first round should be exhilarating, not frightening.

She has decided that I am the one she trusts to teach her, and I will not betray that trust by scaring her.  We should all remember that when someone asks us to teach them.  They are trusting us to be their guide into a new world.  We should commit to guiding them in gently and with all the knowledge we can impart.  I would love for her to decide that it is fun and something she wants to do regularly.  If it’s fun, she’ll practice.  Teaching someone to shoot is more than just showing them how to make a gun go bang.  Don’t teach them how to use a gun; teach them to be shooters.

As most of you know, we’ve got a kiddo heading into middle school this year.  It’ll be his first year riding the bus to school so we bought him his very own cell phone.  As expected, he couldn’t get his nose out of it the first couple of days.   I’ve gotten text messages including pictures of my parent’s cat.  He has played with it so much that he needed to charge it 3 times the first day.

And that’s okay.  It’s new.  He needs the opportunity to explore it and get to know the capabilities.  That said, now that he’s had a few days, we are coaching him on what is the appropriate way to use it.  Like so many other things, it is a useful tool and should be handled responsibly.

We took a walk down to the bus stop the other night so that he would know where it was.  On the way, we spotted different things and quizzed him about what he had seen.  Sure, that car was turning into a driveway, but it is still important that he notice it was there.  We also talked to him about the phone explaining that when he got off the bus, he needed to stick it in his pocket for his walk home.  We told him, “Keep your head up and pay attention.”  We don’t want him to be the type of person Tam is talking about here.  The received text message will still be there when you get home.

We are not training our son to live in any sort of fear, but only to be aware of what is going on around him.  You can’t react to something that you didn’t observe.  Too often, I watch people go about their lives in their little bubble.  Sometimes it’s the cell phone.  Sometimes it’s the ever present ear-buds.  And often it’s just some internal distraction that prevents observation.

Flipping open your cell phone so you can text your friends prevents you from seeing the man waiting on the corner.  Or seeing the unlatched gate where that aggressive dog lives.  Putting on your headphones prevents you from hearing that car screeching your direction.  Your eyes and ears and early warning devices.   Don’t let technology take them away from you.  What you miss may not be dangerous.  It could be a friendly greeting from a neighbor or the sight of kids in the park.

Maintaining an awareness of the world around you can certainly help in keeping you safe.  It is not the the only thing.  As Caleb points out, situations can change in the blink of an eye.  You need to be able to react quickly and appropriately.  Had he had his nose in his cell phone, that night could have played out far differently.

Our society with it’s instant contact and answer has ironically made many of us islands.  We will check that email or text the exact moment our pocket buzzes at the expense of missing that neighbor just waiting for acknowledgment.  We communicate with our thumbs and miss the waves and smiles that only real life can bring.  The text can wait.  It’s not worth missing the real life contact.  And it’s certainly not worth being oblivious to a potential threat.  Really, is your social media worth your life?

So we know there’s plenty of hand-wringing happening with the gun banners today.  We’ve even got Paul Helmke claiming victory with this decision.  Not really sure how he gets there, but whatever floats your boat.  It’s a win for the pro-freedom crowd.

But I want to ask another question of the gun-banners.

Do you really believe that psychopaths and sociopaths bent on violence could exist peacefully in society if only we took away all the guns?  Would the lack of an effective tool change the intent or motivation?

I’ve been known to hammer in nails using a wrench when a hammer isn’t available.  Sure a hammer would be a better tool for the job, but I can improvise to get the job done.  It doesn’t change my desire to hang a picture.  I just have to be a little more creative.

I think most people would agree that the last thing we need are more creative murderers.  Surely that isn’t the intent.

Is the gun-banner’s idea of utopia a world with with rampant bludgeoning deaths?  Because death by blunt force trauma is preferable to rapid onset lead poisoning.  Or will they then demonize baseball bats and anything else that could be used as a bludgeon?

And so then we would live in a world where drownings made front page news.  All water would then have to be contained in tamper proof containers in small enough quantities so as not to be used to bludgeon.  No more buckets or swimming pools.

And yet why is the rate of strangulation rising at such an alarming rate? Will mittens then be required?

This is the problem with the idea of demonizing a thing.  Things have no inherent goodness or malice; they just are.  It is the action of the person wielding the thing that deserves judgment.  Crimes are actions committed by people.  The object employed is neither good nor evil.  Working against actions is obvious.

Murder is bad.  This is an issue where Paul Helmke and I do not disagree.  Murder is an action.  I believe the best thing to do about murder is to equip people to defend themselves against murderers.  Paul Helke believes removing one object from their arsenal is going to have a profound effect on their desires.  It defies logic.

The gun banners have a warped view of the human race.  They simultaneously believe that an inanimate object will turn a law abiding citizen into a crazed maniac and that the crazed maniac could peacefully exist in a society without the same inanimate object.  Personally I do not believe that a person bent on violence will not be changed by a lack of tools.  Likewise, a normally peaceful person will not be changed by the presence of said tool.

*edited to fix typo.  Too many ‘nots’.

First they were going to call out the National Guard to deal with the rampant violence in Chicago.  Essentially, good men with guns to combat all the bad guys with guns.

But now Mayor Daley thinks he knows the solution.  More gun control.

“With the Guard coming in, it’s making a statement that your constitutional rights will be diminished,” he said. “They don’t have the training that Chicago police officers do.”

The mayor also sounded his familiar theme of needing more gun control laws and suggested Fritchey and Ford back him in those efforts.

“This is all about guns, and that’s why the crusade is on,” Daley said. “We hope to get their cooperation in Springfield.”

Funny that he pretends to be concerned about a person’s constitutional rights.

No, it is not all about the guns.  You are presiding over fish in a barrel.  Sitting ducks.  Easy targets.  The bad guys are always looking for the easiest mark.  A victim that poses them little to no risk.  A city with a disarmed population is just too tempting to pass up. The law abiding citizens are even following the stupid laws and are deprived of the most effective means of self defense.  It’s a criminal’s playground.

But I’m just certain that if you make it even more illegal for them to bring their illegally obtained handguns into the city where handguns are illegal they’ll suddenly stop committing the illegal act of murder.  Or maybe it’s that he realizes that gun control has nothing to do with preventing crime and everything to do with controlling the people.

In my office, we have an emergency response team.  Yes, I’m on it.  A co-worker just asked an interesting question.

“Are you willing to give mouth-to-mouth to anyone in this building?”

Willing?  Well I’m prepared to do it if that’s what you’re asking.  Do I want to?  No!  I really hope no one in this office is in a position to need it.

Sure, my mind immediately flashed to people that I’d prefer not to come into physical contact with and certainly not with my mouth.  But if it came down to it, yeah, I’m not going to let them die when I might be able to do something about it.  That’s the sort of thing that doesn’t really take my personal feelings into account.

When you take on a responsibility, you have to adopt a particular mindset.  You make the decision that you are going to act if the situation calls for it long before the situation arises.  This applies to emergency response just as it does to self-defense.  I don’t ever want to shoot anyone either.

Honestly, I don’t want to shoot a dog.  But just recently I almost did exactly that.

It all happened so fast, I didn’t even really process it until after the fact.  Two stray dogs wondered onto my front porch while we were sitting outside like the good rednecks we are.  One was a very friendly puppy seeking affection.  A timid chocolate lab crept behind with her head lowered.  Being the animal lover that I am, I crouched low presenting my hand palm up for the dog to sniff.  She was acting fearful and I assumed a tone that generally puts strange dogs at ease.  I was hoping to check her collar for tags that might indicate where she belonged.

She leaned in and sniffed my fingers as dogs tend to do.  Then she barked aggressively.  I immediately stood up so as not to be in a vulnerable position at which point she snarled and lunged at me.  I twisted to the right throwing my left elbow between my face and her teeth while my right hand seized the grip of my snubby holstered on my belt.  Thankfully, she must have sensed the aggressive change in my demeanor, backed down, and ran off.

It was then that I consciously realized that I had assumed a fighting stance.  As my fingers released from the little revolver, I realized that I was at the beginning of a draw stroke.  I became consciously aware that I had already judged the scene and determined a safe direction.  I had already made a plan of action in my mind and begun to execute it before I could have articulated it.  And it was right.  It was safe. And the plan terminated at the exact moment the threat disappeared.

Realizing that I was only seconds away from shooting someone’s family pet shook me up.  I wasn’t wrong.  If she had continued in her attack, I have no doubt that I would have shot her and likely killed her.  The gravity of the knowledge that I nearly ended a life in my own defense is heavy. Even if it was only a dog.

Instincts are funny. We’re born with many of them. And many more are things we develop along the way. I personally strive to do the right thing when the situation calls for it. Whether that means defending myself or my loved ones or performing mouth-to-mouth and chest compressions.

I heard this story on my way home from work yesterday.  Yeah, it’s on NPR.  Don’t judge the source.  This is a good one.

I just love stories where someone refuses to be victimized.  She turned the tables on her attacker.

So many in law enforcement tell us to just comply when a criminal does what criminals do.  I’m not inclined to just roll over.  Do something.

2 people do the deed and make a baby.  They meant to do the deed; they didn’t mean to make the baby.

1 person wants the baby, the other does not.

Baby is aborted without the consent of the other party.

It happens.  Women are not burdened with the responsibility of gaining the consent of the baby-daddy before eliminating the baby.  They can either abort on their own or have the baby and saddle daddy with child support payments.

But what happens when the man makes the decision without the woman’s consent?  Via Cassy, we find this harrowing tale.

Sayre police on Wednesday charged Orbin Eeli Tercero, 38, with criminal homicide of an unborn child, first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggra vated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault, hindering apprehension or prosecution, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.

Tercero, of Williamson Terrace, was arrested Thursday by state police in Bath as a fugitive from justice.

He was arraigned in Bath Village Court and remanded to Steuben County Jail, pending a hearing on extradition to Pennsylvania.

The charges are based on the following events, according to police:

The victim, a 36-year-old woman from Sayre and a pharmacist at a Wegmans Market, said she had a two-year physical relationship with Tercero, also a Wegmans pharmacist.

Tercero was engaged to another woman at the time.

The victim, whose name is being withheld by this newspaper, told Tercero she was pregnant in mid-January.

Tercero told the woman he could use the drug misoprostol to induce a miscarriage. The victim told Tercero she would get an abortion instead.

The victim, however, made a Feb. 24 appointment for an abortion but changed her mind. She called Tercero to tell him she would keep the baby.

In late February, on the victim’s birthday, Tercero visited her at home and used misoprostol he allegedly stole from Wegmans pharmacy to cause the miscarriage.

Without her knowing it, Tercero put one pill in her vagina, one in her juice and one in her water. She was 13 weeks pregnant at the time.

When the victim began to miscarry, she found a partially dissolved misoprostol tablet among the discharge.

Tercero drove the victim to Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, where she miscarried.

Now in my opinion, dude is lower than slime and deserves to have the book thrown at him.  They should put him someplace where they have to pump air to him.

But is that equal treatment under the law?  Is this not blatant sexual discrimination?  Or are they saying that the desires of the mother determine whether or not the fetus is a life?  That’s a pretty big responsibility there.  I’m a woman and a mother.   Does that give me the right to state that anyone capable of drugging his mistress in order to cause a miscarriage is no human at all and thus has no right to life?  Absolutely not.  As a woman, I am physiologically capable of incubating a human.  I am not capable of granting life.  When I was pregnant with my son, my desire for him to be born did not make him any more a baby than those disposed of in so much medical waste.

So I come back to the case at hand.  Did this man commit assault?  Most definitely.  Murder?  Well that gets a bit complicated now doesn’t it?  It was clearly premeditated.  But doesn’t the victim of a homicide have to be a person?  It is really only a woman’s right to choose?  If a right is truly a right, it shouldn’t hinge on a person’s gender. Feminists?  Are you really pushing for equality?  Or are some people more equal than others?

Personally, I find abortion abhorrent.  It’s a barbaric practice.  But that’s not the issue at hand here.  The issue here is where is the justice under the law?  Where is that line?

Or maybe this is about the morality of abortion, but only in a small way.  I think the real question here is how do you pass judgment under a law that runs contrary to morality?  If the law is in opposition to your basic belief in right and wrong, how is justice rendered?  What is the appropriate relationship of law, morality, and justice?  And yes, the three must exist in a balance.

The question goes far beyond the abortion question.  I would argue that gun control legislation is morally wrong due to the fact that it is in opposition to my right to defend myself.  It does nothing more than to grant additional rights and privileges to criminals.  I’m just glad I don’t live in a place like Chicago where a rapist/murderer has more of a right to life than I do.