Just one person.
No....
Just. One. Person.
As I think more and more about the events of Monday, April 16, I can’t get that thought out of my head.
We are often told how “just one person can make a difference” to the environment or in our community. We are told that “just one person’s vote can make a difference.”
We all know it’s hogwash. It takes thousands of “just one person” so make a difference globally, nationally, or even locally.
But in those classrooms and residence halls in Blacksburg, Virginia, Just. One. Person. legally licensed to carry a pistol could have made all the difference in the world to 32 people.
Just. One. Person.
In Omaha over the weekend, two armed gremlins abducted a woman, took her to a park, raped her, and then set the car on fire with her in it. Who was there to protect her from these thugs? Not the police. Not her husband/boyfriend/girlfriend. Not her father. Not her city councilman.
Just. One. Person.
In Kentucky over the weekend, an 82-year-old former Miss America balanced herself on a walker with one hand and defended herself with her .38 with the other hand. (HT: John Lott). What on earth was this 82-year-old woman doing challenging these thugs? What was she thinking?
Just. One. Person.
Since the attacks at VA Tech last Monday, the collective testicular fortitude of the modern American has been challenged. At what point, many columnists and bloggers have asked, did the United States turn into a nation of cowards? When did we become so afraid of offending someone or of standing up to someone that it became acceptable to roll over and accept death at the hands of a madman?
What has this once great nation of pioneers, cowboys, adventurers, explorers..... warriors.... become?
I thought we had seen the light in the post-Sept. 11 accounts of the heroics on United Flight 93. Instead of placidly sitting there, afraid of getting cut, passengers stormed the terrorists. In the end, the sacrifice of these brave souls saved countless lives as that flight's intended target was likely either the White House or Congress.
I thought, mistakenly apparently, that this nation had learned its lesson and would "never forget" the spirit behind "Let's Roll."
I, as was many, very, very wrong.
We have been told far too many times that the best thing to do when attacked is to instantly surrender. We have been told when a rapist strikes, to give in or offer a condom. We are told when faced with our own death, the best action is inaction.
Enough.
From here on out we must commit to a policy of action not inaction. We must realize, understand, then accept that no one is responsible for our safety but ourselves. The police do incredible work, but they are a response and recovery unit there to pick up the pieces after the crime. I am always looking out for my wife's safety, but I am not with her 24/7. She is almost 100 miles away right now. All I can do is try to help her be prepared to protect herself.
Who is ultimately responsible for our safety?
Just. One. Person.
Read that. Retain that. Remember that. Repeat that.
Just. One. Person.
When you are contacting business owners about their "gun-free" stores, let them know the power of Just. One. Person. Remind them of the evil that could be prevented by Just. One. Person. Ask them to imagine themselves in a VA Tech classroom or a NASA office or a Texas cafeteria as a madman with a gun is shooting the unarmed. Ask those business owners if, in that situation, they would still be as nervous if Just. One. Person had a firearm with which to fight back.
When your political leaders are trying to further restrict and deny your right to a firearm, you tell them about Just. One. Person. Remember the power of Just. One. Person. Don't expect others to battle back against unjust laws. Don't rely on the NRA or the RKBA or the GOA to protect your rights. Just as with the rapist, murder, or terrorist, no one can protect you from the politicos but you. If everyone remembers the power of Just. One. Person and takes on oppression, then we become a very, very powerful force.
Just. One. Person.
Three fairly small words. One massively important concept.
Repeat these words as a mantra. Instill these word into your vocabulary. Find strength and inspiration from these words. Use these words as motivation, as response, as a touchstone, as power. Spread this words as one would spread a gospel. Share these words as one would share joy.
Go out to the world today with a fresh outlook. Enter the world as Just. One. Person.
Stop relying on others. Stop being soft. Stop giving in. Stop hoping a problem will become someone else's.
Start being Just. One. Person.
Say it out loud. Right now, where ever you are.
Just. One. Person.
Say it again.
Just. One. Person.
Now say it again, but this time mean it. Feel the power that the words give you.
Just. One. Person.
Now.... Live it. Share it. Spread it. Practice it. Be it.
Be strong and proud to say "I am Just. One. Person.!"
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Last week, as this concept was taking shape, I sent out several invitations to firearms instructors, law enforcement officers, journalists, bloggers, and other various Freedom Fiends asking them to share their thoughts, stories, experiences, and opinions on what Just. One. Person. means to them. I have already heard from several and hope others will share their opinions as well. As I receive these essays, I will either post them here or provide links to the author's site (or both).
If you would like to share your thoughts, experiences, stories, or opinions on what Just. One. Person. means to you, please feel free to use the comments link provided below. You can also e-mail me essays or links at the addy provided in the profile link.
It is my most sincere wish that this concept become an idea of strength, unity, motivation and resolve among we, the freedom loving. Please help me achieve this goal. Be Just. One. Person.
Stay safe.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Become Just. One. Person.
xxxJM24xxx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Before we had the concealed carry law here in Nebraska, I read the law as allowing me to go armed unobtrusively under the reasonable man affirmative defense. Over about 30 years of doing so, it fell my lot to be just.one.person in less than a half-dozen incidents.
Sometimes it was a firearm, sometimes a knife, but in every case no one was injured by my weapon. No one even got arrested, although the police did show up for one such incident, a bar fight in Lincoln.
Only one of these just.one.person experiences was purely self-defense, a 'road rager' sent to get back in his car at a stop light in Bellevue. I can remember him saying, "You wouldn't be so tough without that knife." No kidding. I would have gotten a beating. He got back into his car and I didn't even have to reach for the .45 under the seat.
The other times my inner reasonable man felt justified in offering deadly force, it was to prevent injury to another. The offer was always refused, nobody got hurt, no arrests.
Be just.one.person: its the no muss, no fuss, no bother way to deal with the Cho Seung-Huis and loco drunks that threaten you and your friends.
Just.One.Person
Just.One.Person today should affirm that victims are those that refuse to help themselves by any means necessary. A victim chooses inaction. "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees
" should be accepted by Just.One.Person.
Great post!
I share your views. I did a blog post of my own along similar lines discussing active resistance to attack. My full post is here.
Feel free to excerpt from my posts (or any other on my blog) as you see fit with proper attribution.
www.innocentsbetrayed.com
"Only the police and military should have guns; private citizens don't need them." Innocents Betrayed shows what happens when the government alone has all power.
"It's sensible to license guns and register their owners." Innocents Betrayed shows how licensing and registration were key elements to disarming populations, leaving them vulnerable to methodical slaughter.
"America should follow the lead of the rest of the world— strict 'gun control.'" Innocents Betrayed shows how the "rest of the world" lost 170,000,000 innocent, non-combatant men, women and children.
"It can't happen here." It already has. Innocents Betrayed documents mass murders and vicious brutality in the US as a result of gun control. The victims left disarmed and powerless, by law. See with your own eyes the facts that the mainstream media has ignored and concealed for decades.
Hi, I'm a school student in Melbourne in Australia. For school I have to do a project on the shootings in Virginia and I found your site in the search. I did some research on guns and murders and heres what I came up with:
We had 302 murders last year and 59 of them were from firearms, which is about 0.015 firearm murders per 1000 people.
You had 12,658 murders last year and 8,259 of them were from firearms, which is about 0.028 firearm murders per 1000 people.
So America had more murders per capita and almost double the murders from firearms per capita than we did.
Im just trying to understand the just.one.person idea. I can't help thinking that if we (Australia) allowed everyone to have guns, would our murders by firearms rate go down or up?
Australia and America are pretty similar countries I think. We enjoy luxurys, good quality food and medicine and have the same interests in sport and entertainment. So we are very similar people - you arent more violent than us or the other way round. Why is your deaths by firearms rate higher than ours?
If I need a gun to defend myself against other gun owners, then I'd rather not have the guns in the first place.
A study by Monash University (where my dad works) said that "dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform." This reform came after the Port Arthur massacre where over 30 people were shot by Martyn Bryant using semi-automatic weapons.
I think if you get rid of your guns or control them better, youd have less problems with gun deaths.
Thanks, claireb.
Claire,
I'm not the best versed in these matters--I'm sure there are others who can give proper citations and references. But I can tell you a few things I've seen and learned over the years since I left Uni and entered the real world.
First, remember that gun laws aren't uniform across America. I live just outside Washington, DC. Our city used to be rather nice, with no outstanding crime statistics. And then they decided to have the most restrictive gun laws in our country. The reseult was not a decrease in crime, but rather a violent upsurge in violent crime and murder, and my fair city has, for most of my life now, been the "Murder Capital of the World" more often than not.
Likewise, our dear friends the British decided to outlaw all private ownership of guns. The result was very similar to what happened here in Washington, DC. A violent upsurge in violent crime--Home invasions, rape, murder.
The point of logic at work here, which your research may not have come across yet, is this very simple point: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Think on that for a moment. If a man's going to kill you, or rape you, or. . . whatever horrible thing he has in mind, the legalities of gun ownership are not likely to concern him. The only people who would care, in fact, are the very people who would never do something like that in the first place. For instance, VT is a "gun-free zone", meaning that only good, decent, law abiding people are without guns, while the psychotic lunatic with a grudge doesn't care, and kills all those good, decent, law abiding people.
That said, do remember to include in your paper the several attempted mass murders that were stopped because good citizens had their own guns to stop the murderers with. Here are some links to check out:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Tower_shootings (Check the note about the civilian shooters)
I'm sure other's can identify better links for you.
claire b.
Visit Innocents Betrayed to understand the horrors when self defense is made illegal.
Re: America. What you also must understand about the difference between America and Australia is something you will not hear about on the regular media.
Illegal immigration.
Illegal immigrants are responsible for the murder of approx 14 Americans a day. They also are active in violent crime, drug smuggling etc.
It's a little harder to cross the border when your border is the Indian/Pacific.
Claire,
It is too difficult to compare across nations because our cultures and sources of crimes are too different. America does, unfortunately, tend to be a bit more violent than many other nations.
We have a lot more gang violence, and a lot more illegal immigration. If you look at the statistics, a lot of our crimes are from illegal immigrants who are here to traffic drugs, not work.
Australia is fortunate in that it is shielded from a lot of illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the border, since oceans divide you from the sources.
To make an adequate comparison, you have to look at each nation on its own. If I understand correctly, Australia's stricter gun laws have been relatively recent. You could compare the crime rates from before and after. You could compare crime rates between similar US cities where gun laws are stricter and where they are more lenient. You cannot compare Virginia to Victoria. It isn't a fair comparison.
It's extremely tough to compare firearm-related crime in Australia and the US. The differences in population numbers, population density - as well as other social issues such and poverty, drug-use, homelessness make it the classic challenge of comparing apples to oranges because our countries differ so much.
Australia is a very peaceful place when looked at through it's gun laws.
As posted above, generally when a populace is disarmed, violent crime increases - Australia is the exception to the rule.
Some examples of Just One Person making a difference.
Hugh Dunne
When mass killers meet armed resistance.
It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.
It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me". The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.
Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.
Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked, but Odighizuwa was now disarmed.
The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
You wouldn't know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn't get a mention.
James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: "A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed." This 2002 article noted "This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage, but the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree".
He also mentioned a second incident. While I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn't know the full story.
Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.
He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.
What Woodham hadn't planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn't have a handgun in the school, but he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.
As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
So you didn't know about that? Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were "687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived."
Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.
It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared "gun free zone" forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn't worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn't defend themselves.
He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.
What he didn't know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day, and could have easily left his firearm secured at home that day.
It's a good thing he didn't. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.
Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall's gun free policy.
What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.
Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed madman enters a "gun free zone". He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. All of the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the "no gun" policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! When he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.
There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.
Doug Boltd
VP PAFOA
Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%
Posted: March 3, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.
Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.
According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."
And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.
Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.
"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."
Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.
Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."
Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"
Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."
Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.
Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.
"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.
Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.
"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."
Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.
"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.
Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.
"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."
In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.
Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.
The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.
"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."
Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."
In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.
Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.
Jon E. Dougherty, a policy analyst with Freedom Alliance, a group founded by Lt. Col. Oliver North, is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."
One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, to be destroyed in a government program costing over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
The latest crime statistics reveal a dramatic increase in criminal activity. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
Unfortunately, the ban has made the Australian criminal safer now.
OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
* The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
* The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."
Keith Tidswell
Sporting Shooter's Association
9/29/99 UPDATE: Data from the Australian government publication
Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms...
Notice the steady decrease until the gun ban?
Notice the upswing from 1997 on?
"...there has been a decline in firearm-related deaths in 1997, mostly due to a decline in the rate of suicides and accidents... There is also preliminary evidence that in some cases, for example suicide and armed robbery, firearms may be being displaced by other methods or weapons..."
-- Summary from Report Main Page
Does this sound like effective Crime Control?
10/12/99 - BBC News reports: Crime is doing GREAT in the UK!
Highlights from the BBC News Article
* "...The crime rate is expected to soar for the first rise in five years when official figures are published this week..."
* "...The new figures will also show an overall rise in violence and street crime, particularly in London, where violent crimes rose by more than 160%..."
* "...In some areas of the capital, street crime has risen by more than 20%..."
* "... One of the highest increases in recorded crime will be in the Dyfed Powys police area in Wales, where the new figures show an increase in robberies of 27% and a 43% rise in car thefts..."
* "...violent crime has also risen by more than 60% in Kent..."
* "...mainly due to a new method of counting crimes ... However... the figures produced by the old method... will also show a rise in crime..."
This issue is making me so angry! I don't understand how people can not see the ridiculous stand they are taking.
I am tired of being anxious and afraid any time that I'm alone in a parking lot, or anywhere really, especially when I'm distracted by my 2 young children and can't be as aware of my surroundings as I know I should be.
The VT shooting and the ensuing gun debate has been the tip of the balance for me; I've always said eventually I would get a gun (I like them, anyway), but now I've decided to go and do it sooner rather than later.
I hate feeling like a target as a woman, I want to even the odds in my favor for once. I've been lucky so far and I haven't had to defend my life, my honor, or that of my children. But if I do have to, I want to be ABLE to with the right tools and education and practice. (No one should have a gun if they don't plan on learning how to shoot it in a variety of situations.)
And now, in a shameless plug of my little obscure blog, here are URLs to 2 posts I made about this issue. :)
http://because-i-say-so.blogspot.com/2007/04/one-more-right-for-you-one-less-for-me.html#links
http://because-i-say-so.blogspot.com/2007/04/wanted-culture-of-self-defense.html#links
So, any excuse to shoot "niggers" right?
I don't understand the comment made by "LC". You must be a liberal as you're playing the race card. No where in the comments or the blog entry did I read anything regarding race.
A few thoughts...
E.D., good for you. The decision to protect yourself and your family is a very important one.
If you are unfamiliar with handguns, I recommend taking an NRA Basic Pistol course before any CCW training. That way, instead of learning about the gun and carry, you can focus on each seperately.
L.C. I'm leaving your race comment up, because that's your opinion.
But let me ask you a question. Nothing I've ever written involves race. What makes you assume I'm not African-American? Is it the fact that I own a firearm? Am I white? Who knows.
Your automatic assumption based on my Pro-2A stance is racist and insulting to African-Americans. The latest research shows very little difference in race of gun owners. Blacks own firearms at about the same rate as whites.
The bigger difference between gun owners and non-gun owners is salary. Guess who, on average, makes more? Gun owners.
Race and gun control is an infuriating topic for me. What to know why?
Concealed carry bans and gun control laws were put into place by white bigots in order to maintain their control over the minority populations in the early 20th century. As minorities began to start shooting back at the Klan members, the white bigots made it illegal for them to have guns.
That's why I get spitting mad when the NAACP speak out against the Second Amendment.
Something about failing to learn history and repeating it.
After 47 years on this planet I too had something happen to me after Virginia Tech. Not only did I purchase a pocket handgun but am also in the process of obtaining my concealed weapon permit. I will not go quietly into the night. I will become Just. One. Person.
Claire et al,
Others have covered the same thing quite eloquently on this post, but I tried to put folks "in the driver's seat" as it were on my post at Bang!.
You might also be interested in ,Gun-Free Zones of Death. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if there's a single University in America that specifically ALLOWS guns on its campus.
TD
I wish you allowed trackbacks. My post "If you read nothing else for the rest of the year, read this: Just. One. Person.
Thanks for a great post!
Blogger doesn't allow trackbacks...it isn't Joe's fault. Frustrating for all of us over here who want them, I think. We have to use stand alone trackback things to send them, too. Highly irritating. Now I'm way off topic.
GREAT POST JOE. Wow, it really blew me away and I linked to you from my place.
TD, Utah State allows concealed carry on campus, not because they want to but because the Utah Supreme court has told them they have to.
Post a Comment