republished from July 30, 2012
I carry a gun. All the time, just about everywhere I go except to bed and the shower. Even then, a gun is within a foot or so of my hand all the time. An occasional trip into the disarmed victim zone of the post office, and my last (and I do mean last) trip to California to visit family are the extreme and very temporary exceptions.
So, why do I carry it? I’m asked frequently, so much that I printed up cards to hand out to the curious. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to explain the most important reason:
I own my life and am the only one responsible for that life and my safety. I can, and do, work with others – including the local sheriff’s dept. – for mutual defense, but in the end it is the responsibility of each person to guard their own safety and that of their legitimate dependents.
No, I’m not paranoid or afraid.
The fact that there is little crime where I live is not relevant because there is no place where the risk of attack is zero. So a gun is simply insurance. But, unlike an auto policy, it can’t do me any good in an emergency if it is locked up and unloaded. It has to be instantly available, in my hand to be effective. And, just as with my auto insurance, I sincerely hope I never have to use it.
Of course, free lance criminals and maniacs are not the only, or even the most dangerous threats. The entire history of the world demonstrates clearly that those who desire to own other people and control their lives never cease their efforts to render them weak, helpless and unarmed in every way.
Genocide examples from all over the world: Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda, Rwanda and more. Examples showing how disarmed people in America have suffered persecution, mass murder, slavery, and terrorist attacks.
A fast-moving, modern production, Innocents Betrayed presents the entirely true accounts of how civilian disarmament made possible the killing of millions. The point is made sharply, clearly, unforgettably. It’s the factual counterpoint to the lies in Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine.”
Then there is the endless mantra of those who think they should decide who, where and how a person prepares to defend themselves, if at all. They can’t seem to get past the rather obvious fact that anyone who actually cannot be trusted with the ordinary tools of life should not be loose in the first place. Anyone who can’t or won’t use a gun (or a knife, matches, a car, etc.) without deliberately harming others needs to be in a cage or a padded room – or dead at the hands of their intended victim.
Unfortunately, often it’s impossible to know who those people are before they hurt others, and most of the time they are left free to harm others again and again even when they are apprehended. The insanity of passing preemptive “laws,” attempting to restrain the vast majority of peaceful people in a vain hope of preventing these crimes, is obvious to anyone who gives it any rational thought.
Politicians and “authorized journalists,” among others, don’t seem to be capable of much rational thought, of course.
But, in the end, I live and therefore I am. I don’t need any other person’s permission to live or defend myself. I don’t need anyone’s vetting of my intentions or sanity, nor approval for the self defense tool I choose or how I carry it.
I don’t NEED to explain myself. I don’t NEED any reasons at all.
The Price of Liberty 
School shooting – Most complete story so far
The most complete and balanced story so far I’ve found is in Business Insider.
In going through it, I see some points of interest:
(1) Who/what was the mysterious second suspect/shooter: shadow or smoke? Why was someone seen and arrested and then the story changed?
(2) The heroism of some of the teachers: obvious – too bad they were not armed. By the way, I do not consider it “heroism” to hide in a bathroom with your students: it is just that your cowardice was not so total that you didn’t remember at least SOME of your responsibilities.
(3) The possible heroism of the school principal and the school – too bad they were not armed: if the psychologist is not stable and responsible enough to be armed, then why is he or she allowed to be in contact with students? Maybe the same could be said for the principal.
(4) What were the possible causes and influences on the killer’s actions – what is “developmentally disabled” (the story says “autistic” but that is pretty broad) and why was he supposedly not allowed to buy a weapon because of his condition, when he was underage? And what were the impacts of living in a broken family? Obviously his mother, as the first victim, was part of his problem.
(5) Why was there a “welfare check” at the killer’s father’s house? Why not just call? Did the cops expect to find him dead also?
(6) How did he steal the weapon from his mother – who was his first victim, apparently? Is this an excuse to demand ALL weapons be given up either by (a) any relations of a “developmentally disabled” person, or – anyone?
(7) The media goes gaga over an assault rifle that wasn’t even used. Unless it was talking to the killer…
(8) Why did he bother with a “bullet-proof” vest? Did he intend to kill himself, and DID he really kill himself?
(9) Why isn’t there any outrage over the failure of the school to keep a 20-year-0ld, autistic person (even if the son of one of the teachers, who obviously had NOT shown up for work that day) OUT of the school? Where was their security?
(10) The failure of the laws to “prevent” this is obvious: all the mandatory signs were posted but the killer didn’t obey them – was it because he was “developmentally disabled”? Or because lawbreakers break the law?
(11) Does the “something” that must be done, according to Obama, mean adopting the Israeli model and arming teachers and staff and getting rid of the “gun-free zones” that obviously are not? I am pretty certain it does not.
(12) Or does it mean ending the mass incarceration of students – putting children in large numbers (700, 1000, whatever) in well-marked and unprotected targets together with “responsible adults” who are not responsible enough to protect and defend themselves. let alone the children they are in charge of?
(13) What kind of coincidences are we expected to hear about as far as this timing? Elections, new calls for gun control, UN treaties, approaching holidays, sudden upsurges in gun purchases?? All these things can be (and will be) rolled into the analysis by all sides.
I am sure that there are many more questions to ask than this baker’s dozen- and that most of them will NOT be answered. I suspect that other than the killer himself, the person most responsible for this was the very first victim. Well, except that Congress, a series of presidents, the Connecticut legislature and a series of governors, a school board and administration are all responsible for the fact that the precious lives of children (foolishly placed in their hands by parents who refuse to understand the dangers) were unprotected in multiple ways.
We have created a nation of sociopaths and psychopaths, of which this 20-year-old is the latest to show his colors. There are tens of thousands more wandering around out there. And then there are tens or hundreds of thousands of murderous people of other types, from Islamic terrorists hoping for the next Bloody Tuesday to “rogue” cops who want to kill and eat young women or just gun down a jaywalker or taser a woman complaining about a store’s selling policy – to people who want to gun down abortionists or the abortionists themselves!
As society falls apart, the need for people to be able to defend themselves, their families, their friends and neighbors, their students, their employees, their employers, grows daily. As in the case of Columbine, the Aurora theatre, Virginia Tech, Casper College, and now Sandy Hook, the immorality of their actions is the major reason: these people WANTED to kill. Society and their own families may be part of the reason that they committed these immoral acts (including those who killed themselves), but they – even if “developmentally disabled” – are responsible for their actions.
Government, on the other hand, is responsible for creating the conditions (primarily the No-Gun Zones and the prevention of self-defense) that allowed these people to kill and kill and kill. Yet, as usual, government and too much of society refuses to see that, and instead blames the weapons. As the attack on a Chinese school shows, and as the worst attack on American schools shows, guns are not the only tools that can be and ARE used to kill and wound people.