guns : Duthie On...

Here's why:

A California woman was shot to death as she pleaded with emergency dispatchers to come and help her. Her death will not make the network news programs this evening, but this is the latest reminder that we must take responsibility for our own safety and not rely on the police.

This post shows the difference that owning and knowing how to use a gun in self-defense can make. While I'm sure the woman in that 911 call was traumatized by the experience, thanks to being armed, she is still alive.

I don't think anyone should take lightly the notion of killing another human being, even in self-defense. But given the alternatives, defending oneself with a firearm seems a much better option than just hoping the police will arrive in time.

Cato-at-liberty » Victim Shot While Calling 911

...at least one woman would now be dead, rather than her attacker:

Just remember that the next time someone tells you that restrictive gun laws save lives.

This is just plain outrageous:

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.

The idea that the AAP has any business routinely interfering in the relationship between parents and their kids, much less suggesting that doctors should put kids in the position of reporting on their parents perfectly legal behavior is breathtakingly arrogant. Unless there's some evidence of abuse or problematic behavior reported by the child, a doctor simply has no business asking such questions.

Any doctor who showed such a blatant disregard for proper boundaries would no longer be mine, or my child's. It's one thing to make an effort to protect children where there's some evidence of a threat. It's quite another to treat parents as though they are criminal threats until proven otherwise.

Doc, what’s up with snooping? - BostonHerald.com

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty on the decision to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling overturning the D.C. handgun ban:

"We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents," Fenty said in a press release. "Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

Someone should remind Mayor Fenty of a couple of things...one, the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, making an outright ban rather difficult to defend, despite Fenty's assertion to the contrary, and two, the District's rather sorry record of protecting the city's residents from being murdered by...three guesses, and the first two don't count...handguns!

Of course, the timing of the appeal makes one wonder even more about the veracity of the recent Washington Post story I blogged about in which an upscale dinner party defended itself from an armed attacker with wine, cheese, and hugs.

Mayor To Appeal Gun Ban Ruling - News Story - WRC | Washington

This may be one of the most bizarre things I've ever read:

A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.

"Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.

Ah, but thankfully, there's a happy ending...after offering the would-be robber some of their fine wine ("Damn, that's good wine," the intruder is quoted as saying...who knew that armed thugs could also be wine connoisseurs?):

[t]he girl's father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.

Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants.

"I think I may have come to the wrong house," he said, looking around the patio of the home in the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue NE.

"I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"

Rowan, who lives in Falls Church and works part time at her children's school, stood up and wrapped her arms around him. Then it was Rabdau's turn. Then his wife's. The other two guests complied.

"That's really good wine," the man said, taking another sip. He had a final request: "Can we have a group hug?"

The five adults surrounded him, arms out.

With that, the man walked out with a crystal wine glass in hand, filled with Chateau Malescot. No one was hurt, and nothing was stolen.

Just makes you want to sing kumbaya, doesn't it?

While it's wonderful that the family made it through this safe and sound, it's also just plain lucky. The idea, supported by many on the comments thread of the article, that all the would-be robber needed was a little love, and that this incident somehow "proves" that nonviolence is a better answer than violence in the face of such an incident is naive at best, even assuming that the incident actually occurred as reported (several readers expressed skepticism, given the timing of this article and the ongoing debate on gun rights in the District of Columbia).

Of course, individuals are entitled to their own opinions as to the proper response to crime, but I believe that if someone points a gun at you or your loved one, you should respond as though that person fully intends to use it. To my mind, that means subduing or disarming that person by whatever means necessary. To do otherwise is to rely on the charity of someone who, by the very act of threatening you with a deadly weapon, has demonstrated that they are distinctly lacking in that grace.

In the end, these folks made it through safely, and they seem to have done the best they could with the situation, given that they were clearly unarmed (as they must be, if they were following DC law). But it could have turned out very differently...unless, of course, you're one of the folks who believe that inside every robber or killer is a little kid who just needs a hug.

A Gate-Crasher's Change of Heart - washingtonpost.com

Excerpt: 

Not only do I believe that trying to take the wildness out of boys is a doomed social experiment, but I'm certain that genetic scientists will eventually discover that males carry the Cowboy Gene. That's my name for whatever is responsible for all the wrestling in my house, and the dunking during bath time, and my 5-year-old's insistence on wearing his silver six-shooters to Wal-Mart in order to protect our grocery cart. I only pray that when the Cowboy Gene is discovered, some well-meaning utopian doesn't try to transform it into a Tea Party Gene.

Read the whole thing...it's wonderful.

Source: OpinionJournal - Taste

Does the death penalty act as a deterrent? That's a hotly debated question, but a number of studies suggest that the answer is "yes":

Among the conclusions:

Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

Of course, opponents of the death penalty are bound and determined to discredit the findings, but what's so surprising about this? It's a simple fact that people modify their behavior based on incentives, both positive and negative. Unless you believe that all (or even most) murderers are completely unhinged (in which case they would not be subject to the death penalty anyway), they would respond to incentives, and the death penalty represents a pretty strong negative incentive towards murder. Another conclusion:

Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

And this makes perfect sense, when viewed from the perspective of incentives. The greater the likelihood of being caught and quickly brought to justice, the greater the disincentive towards murder. It's the same sort of calculation that results in drops in violent crime in states that enact concealed carry laws. When the potential cost of trying to carjack or mug someone may be your life, you're going to think twice about whether it's worth the risk.

Source: Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say, Hotly Debated Academic Analyses Claim Up To 18 Lives Saved Per Execution - CBS News via The Corner

Want to protect yourself when the cops can't? Here's what the mayor of New Haven, CT thinks of the idea: 

"In response to proposed armed civilian patrols, I believe that individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing their view of appropriate behavior in the neighborhood is a recipe for disaster."

This, in response to a local Rabbi organizing a neighborhood watch including members who will carry registered, concealed weapons. The arrogance of city officials in response is breathtaking, particularly since they've apparently already demonstrated that even with beefed up foot patrols by police, they are unable to prevent crime. But heaven forbid citizens should use their Constitutional rights to protect themselves and their neighbors...no, that's "a recipe for disaster."

Source: New Haven Independent: Edgewood's Packing via Instapundit