A family in Oakland just suffered a horrific crime in their home -- one similar to but far worse than one I had recently -- and deserves much help in recovering.
I have a question, and even though I already addressed this issue, it got no feedback since other aspects of this article were more under discussion. True, these people in Oakland endured a great deal from their home invasion, and in no way do I want to be dismissive of what happened to them, nor am I unaware of how terrifying it was, but what you experienced was also scary as hell, and my sense is that you are being rather dismissive of your own experience. You're doing this by comparing the two, and my doing that you are playing down the significance of what happened to you, and how traumatic it was. I hope you'll consider what I'm saying.
Fran, I couldn’t agree more. This was a traumatic experience. If Glenn’s children had been there, it would have been even more traumatic, but their absence does not mitigate the impact.
I have PTSD and I know from experience that you can feel fine right after an incident, only to experience a delayed impact. Best to keep an eye out for symptoms of post traumatic stress.
Yes, but as a parent (but any human could understand), I can understand GG's connection, which he related: He will forever remember that, thank goodness, his children were not there.
I understand that, but anyone who invades your home at gun point, threatens your life, and if I remember correctly, shoves a gun in your mouth, well, it's traumatic with or without your children present. Look what happened to the police officer. As far as his dogs being quiet, well dogs get frightened too.
First, thank the Lord you are safe and your kids were not there. As I type this, a Colt 6920 and 1911 are within reach. Multiple shotguns and pistols around house. I don’t respond to my dogs barking un- armed. I’ve trained with firearms for decades. Was raised to have the tools to defend my family.
You took reasonable steps with hiring a cop as Brazil is what it is and what we are becoming. I pray I never need my guns or am forced to harm another.
You husband has pull. Likely he can get you guns and training the Brazilian peasants are priced out of and legally prohibited.
First, I hope people focus on that family and not me. I'm fine. I'm not saying that to be humble or whatever. I super appreciate the well wishes and sentiments - genuinely - but I hope it's clear I didn't write it for that. Second, there's only so much you can - we usually have two security officers there (our home has more). But there were 5 armed guys who invaded. That family had 4. If that cop had tried using his gun, or if we had two there, there's a good chance it would have ended much worse. I agree guns can be effective in self-defense and people should have the right to have them in their homes, but sometimes, it's just true that they can be either useless or worse. It's hard to react calmly and rationally because your biological systems try to generate panic and fight-or-flight responses that you have to suppress.
Yes, agreed. They're a tool, not a solution; real life is not an action movie. I don't think any intelligent supporter of the 2nd amendment would disagree. I don't think that having a gun would have given you magical protection on that night, and I am very glad that it did not come to violence. Your calm and collected state of mind was far more protective than a rifle or a pistol could have ever been.
However, as the left-center group-think continues to consolidate under the Biden administration, it's clear that the 2nd amendment is in their sights. I am historically someone who is quite liberal on most political topics, but have also long been a supporter of the right to bear arms, particularly in the context of self-defense. I think that the recent concerted effort to deprive Americans of that right, especially in the setting of rising violent crime across the US, should alarm voters of all stripe. If there is one thing that has been made clear in the past year, you cannot count on the government or law enforcement to be there to keep you safe.
"I am historically someone who is quite liberal on most political topics, but have also long been a supporter of the right to bear arms, particularly in the context of self-defense."
There's actually a name for this group. People who support the entire Bill of Rights.
It's a shrinking group in America as people increasingly care deeply about some parts of the Bill of Rights while showing disdain for others. Very few people seem willing to embrace all of them for people other than themselves.
You're so right about guns. Too many people either fetishize them or fear them. Not many people simply see them as a tool even though that is what they are. I feel if you own a gun as I do not only do you need to actually practice shooting it on a regular basis, but I it's irresponsible to have a gun as your only security tool.
When people ask me if they should buy a gun, I ask what else they plan to do to be safe and if they will actually practice shooting it. If the answer is no to both those questions I think they are better off not getting a gun at all.
The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. Its funny the DNC which claims to be all about rights, wants to pick and choose Constitutionally protected rights to strip.
Maybe the DNC will stop letting women or minorities vote too because those are constitutionally protected. Since they hate such protections, you know.
While I agree it's silly to be only about some rights, I know plenty of Republicans that would like to see everyone but the cops disarmed as well.
I also know lots of Republicans and Democrats who only discuss the 1st amendment in terms of the authoritarian "shouting fire in a crowded building" limitation on speech.
Who believe we can never hire too many cops and build too many prisons despite the spirit of the 3rd amendment clearly intended to prevent a standing domestic army like the one we now have.
That if the cops show up at your door, only a criminal with "something to hide" would not let them in without a warrant.
That taking the fifth is essentially the admission of guilt
That despite the 6th amendment guarantee the accused a jury trial and the ability to face their accuser we are perfectly comfortable with the mandatory minimum driven system with a 95% plea bargain rate that denies people a trial by jury as well as the state declaring themselves "the victim" of lifestyle crimes from drugs or prostitution to meet the Constitutional Right that you "face your accuser."
That despite the 7th prohibition against double jeopardy, it's common for someone to prove their innocence in a State Court only to have the Feds step in with new charges to litigate the crime a second time.
That despite a the 8th amendment prohibiting excessive bail we regularly incarcerate people pre-trial for a bail amount they cannot possibly afford even with a bail bond let along without one. That despite a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment we run a horrendous incarceration system that is recognized as a form of torture by most of the developed world and have civil internment and sex offender lists that are by there very design cruel and unusual despite being ineffective as well.
That despite the 9th amendment, the argument "well you are not guaranteed that right within the Constitution" is common explanation why a person cannot do something.
Do I really need to point out how we have eviscerated the 10th?
Tyrants don't overturn Rights. They simply create a set of new laws that entirely invalidate Rights by making them exotic and symbolic so the state can ignore them at the same time they claim "the Bill of Rights is one of our most cherished documents."
I support the 2nd amendment, but there seems to be an entire faction out their from both parties that only support that one Right.
The strongest human urge is not money of even sex. It's the urge to use violence to control other people and I find it's bipartisan. Everyone tells me the support the Bill of Rights until it is actually read to them. Then I wait for the inevitable "but.........."
I have read it, how in today's time how can we determine what is excessive bail? Is it based on a percent of the person's income? Also the only issue I have with this is say for example a serial killer, how do you deal with that? I have an issue with this because in today's world the criminal has more rights than the victims, the next time you watch the news notice how little the you hear about the victim but how overwhelmingly you hear about the person that commits' the crime. Maybe the founder fathers did not think or understand the level of violence a human was capable of as far as rape, dismemberment and other violent crimes. I am not interested in limiting a person rights but I am interested in our cities, states, and streets safer for our families.
I completely agree. As the "gun guy" in my personal sphere, I am often approached by people who are interested in buying a gun for self defense.
My counsel to them is very much the same - if they are not serious about learning responsible ownership and building at least some proficiency with the gun, then I generally recommend they look into other means of improving their personal security (camera and home security systems, etc).
People who buy firearms out of fear and not at least some level of interest often do so for their totemic value. I think this is very dangerous, as they are less inclined to take the responsibility seriously. I strongly respect those who consider a gun for self-defense, but have the self-knowledge to recognize they aren't well suited for the responsibility.
I certainly understand why you want to be able to have an adequate weapon of defense. Unfortunately when guns are readily available to criminals you are up against whatever they are carrying. So restricting weapons lowers both the escalation of the situation and the arms race. Because if the criminal has a semi automatic weapon they can meet your defense with a greater offense. With so many bullets flying someone is bound to get hurt. I think all automatic weapons should be banned. The police would feel safer and perhaps not overreact as frequently and the criminals wouldn’t have access to massive firepower. I still remember when cops carried heavy revolvers where it took an effort to pull the trigger and load a second round. I would like to return to those days wouldn’t you?
Respectfully, we had a federal assault weapons ban for 10 years, so we actually know quite well what the effect of this type of law has on violent crime.
The two studies commissioned by the Dept of Justice to study the effect of the 1994 AWB (Roth et al 1994 and Koper et al 2004) both found that there was little if any effect on violent crime, which they determined was already declining for reasons unrelated to the new laws.
They also found that the firearms that were predominantly used in violent crime (that is, handguns - used in over 85% of all gun homicides) were not meaningfully restricted by the law, beyond the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds.
Your comments about the police revolver which "took an effort to pull the trigger and load a second round" reveal to me that you likely have very little firsthand experience with firearms. I don't say this as a slander, but merely an observation. I feel this probably heavily colors your view of firearms. Again, I pass no judgment here.
I would strongly encourage you to seek professional instruction in their use. I think this might change your views, or at least give them additional nuance. In reality, there are lots of reasons that revolvers are no longer the sidearm of choice for LEOs, and the "heavy trigger" you refer to really is not substantially changed vs. modern semi-automatic duty handguns. This would be easier for you to appreciate with some firsthand experience.
Even if your opinions are ultimately unchanged, I still recommend it so that you can feel confident in the safe handling of a firearm. I liken this skill to knowing how to swim. There are a lot of guns in America - you may never be Michael Phelps (so to speak), but at least some rudimentary experience would inform your worldview and give you the skills to safely handle them should the need arise - even if it's something as simple as knowing how to make it safe.
Appreciate your thoughtful and non-confrontational rebuttal, my friend.
"Assault weapons" in and of itself is propaganda. Just like "hate crime" is. Both of those phrases are meant to paint the subjects unfavorably by the media.
99.99999% of real violence is done due to hate. The laws are really just posturing because only one group in America ISN'T a protected class and that is white males between 18-40.
Just like the phrase "assault weapons". All "Weapons" are meant to assault so the phrasing is done for no reason other than to paint the imagery in the readers mind's unfavorably.
Don't leave us colored folks who "if you don't vote for Biden, then you ain't black" out either. If you are black and are one of the 72 who get shot regularly over a weekend in Chicago, then it's not a "hate crime" either. You must have gotten shot because of "summer of love". It's only a "hate crime" if it fits the establishment political agenda.
Though you are right about the white males part. They have pretty much become a punching bag now a days for whatever they wanna blame things on.
I think it is unfortunate that you believe I must have personal experience with shooting guns to have an opinion about their use. I think one Newtown incident is enough for any rational person to oppose the ready availability of semi-automatic weapons. And I want you to understand something about where you are coming from. You believe violence is a solution to violence. Perhaps you could look at other solutions. Once you take death into your hands and misuse that power you will have blood on your hands and your conscience for the rest of your life.
You are perfectly allowed to have whatever opinions you choose, but I think even you will acknwoledge that an informed opinion is worth more than an uninformed one.
For example, the way you use the term "semi automatic" makes it clear that you don't actually understand what this term means. It is simply the way to describe the operating characteristic of a large family of firearms - a technology over a century old.
So, yes, when you say you are concerned about "the ready availability of semi automatic weapons", it does in fact reinforce to me that you'd benefit from firsthand experience with firearms. This is because it clearly show you do not understand the term, and it is hard for me to understand why you would deliberately avoid learning information that would help inform your view.
Secondly, in my professional capacity, I have directly participated in the resuscitation and acute care of many, many people who have been traumatically injured, including from gunshot wounds. Shame on you for your assumptions. The blood you refer to is not abstract in the slightest to me. Take your moralistic browbeating elsewhere. Having actually shouldered the burden of gun violence in my professional life, your efforts to shame me ring hollow and pathetic.
So you have gone from wanting to ban fully automatic weapons, which are already banned, to banning semi-automatic weapons which make up over 90% of guns owned by Americans.
When you don’t even know the difference between the two and what is already banned then your opinions on the topic should be ignored.
Uhhhh yup you need personal experience. As WL said you can have whatever opinion you want, but if you don't understand how handling a gun "works" your "opinion" is uninformed. Go buy a 9mm Glock 19 or M&P Shield or Compact. Go take 20 hours (probably 5-7 classes) in how to handle, shoot and draw the weapon. Take a Concealed Carry or LTC class in your state and take and pass the written and shooting parts. In 6 months or a year, come back and tell us what your experience was like and what you learned about guns and yourself.
SInce I can't edit, let me add, I don't know anyone that takes owning a gun seriously that wants to be in a shooting confrontation much less have "blood on their hands". That is the last thing you want.
"I think it is unfortunate that you believe I must have personal experience with shooting guns to have an opinion about their use."
Is that your attitude about gun knowledge only or anything else? That is, for example, you don't have to have personal experience of being a surgeon to have an opinion about the use of surgical instruments? And so on?
Peter, you are missing a big part of the point; banning things doesn’t just remove them from existence. How many years has heroine been illegal? Look how many overdoses we have. Will more Mexican border security or police raids stop that? Rednecks are hurting pretty bad right now as it is, do you want them to be the next target of the prison industrial complex? Do you really think guns won’t just come across the Mexican border or have a black market manufacturing like drugs do now? Lots of people know how to make guns... except if they make their own they will be less safe for the users not just when used in violent crime. Do you really think that with more guns than people in our country, it’s even going to be possible to confiscate the guns? With all of the street violence we have had over the last year between BLM and and the capital riots, do you really think this is even a remotely proper time to rile up the anarchists and the right even more? Do you think the guns that still exist after the ban are going to be mostly in the hands of your average self defense enthusiast or sportsman and not the violent criminals? Looking at the post you replied to, can you not see that banning certain types of guns hasn’t changed the crime rate? Since most of the perpetrators are mentally ill, don’t you think a focus on mental health and not a ban (that likely won’t keep them off the black market) makes more sense? Im certainly all for stronger background checks and improved public access to mental health facilities, but a war on guns isn’t going to end any better than the war on drugs, prostitution, or terror have...
Nope! I can tell you have little knowledge of firearms. Semiautomatic firearms have been around for well over a century. They were even around in that Leave it to Beaver period of America that never really existed. Automatic weapons require a class III license and are heavily restricted. Keep me out of your fantasy land where somehow if you ban guns they will magically go away. Finally, I do not want police to have guns with excessive trigger pulls. They can drastically impact accuracy and increase the danger to the public, particularly in a high stress situation.
Ummmm they already are banned. Respectfully, I don’t think you are educated at all on this topic.
Disarming law abiding citizens isn’t going to prevent criminals from getting them. Glenn’s experience itself should prove that to you considering the criminals were armed. Same thing in Mexico and India. Guns are restricted but criminals get guns when they need them.
Also as of 2009 study, there are 500k-3 million defensive uses of guns every year. Now it’s going to be much higher. What do you propose those people should do? Do you care for a wife/daughter/sister/female friend/elderly/handicapped person etc? Do you want them to be able to defend themselves? What do you propose they should do?
I am more right leaning and against abortion. But it's not something I care enough about to ban it. I just want consistency in laws and thought process. Lefties and blacks simply cannot talk about racism if they are okay with over 25 million aborted black babies since it became legal. I think that anyone who's super pro abortion without thinking deep enough is most likely a racist or at least contributing heavily towards it.
Nor do I want tax payer money to go towards funding Planned Parenthood. Aborting babies has become a fucking industry now a days. It's a dream come true for real actual racists - not the WOKE definition ones.
Imo a decent limit would be until the 5-6 week as that's when the heart beat can be detected.
But again, I don't care enough about it to ban it. But no tax payer money towards it.
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to Glenn’s case in that way. I meant to show to OP that just because guns are banned or restricted doesn’t mean criminals can’t get them as was the case in Glenn’s case.
I’m fairly certain automatic weapons are illegal in almost all cases. The exceptions are if you either A) get an FFL, a special permit from the feds that is both extremely expensive and extremely difficult for a private citizen to get or b) if the gun was made prior to like 1986 or something. Even then, you have to register it in a federal database and pass a very stringent background check. On top of all that, many states ban automatic weapons outright no matter what kind of permit you have. So they are effectively illegal in all but very specific circumstances.
2008 study by National Academy of Sciences showed 500,000 to more than 3 million "Defensive Use of Guns". Simply having the gun on your or brandishing it prevented crimes from happening. How do you think these people protect themselves? Especially at the border nor considering US is facing the highest illegal immigration in 2 decades as reported by LEFTIST media. And how about the minorities whom liberals care so much about and claim are being hunted down. How do you think those minorities should protect themselves?
Page 15 of the study talks about the defensive use part. You can download the PDF by using the "guest" option and entering any random email (doesn't have to be real).
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
"In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results."
"One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique."
Every Democrat narrative on gun control is a lie. Every single one. They want us defenseless. The people naive enough to believe them are the same people that believe politicians “care” about them.
"Unfortunately when guns are readily available to criminals you are up against whatever they are carrying."
No! You are up against ILLEGAL guns, with which you, mere citizen, are not trusted. The criminals will have the best guns, illegal or not, so the same guns criminals can get their hands on should be the same I can get my hands on. And I, and you, and our good friends will always outnumber the criminals. Why do you disarm us?! Why do you restrict the 99% of the population who are GOOD, and would use their firearm to defend even you, who would allow only criminals access to firearms?
This is exactly where the "common arms of the day" protection established in the 17th century Rex v Knight comes from, to whit: the right to keep and bear arms of the common citizen automatically keeps pace with the common arms used by the criminal threats +against+ common citizens. Semi-autos have been in circulation since just shy of 1900: they are not going away in the hands of criminals; it is not legitimate to take them away from common citizens.
Your answer shows you know little about guns. Almost all guns are semi automatic. That just means one pull one shot. Doesn’t matter if it is a pistol or a rifle. I suspect you were trying to sound knowledgeable. Perhaps you meant to say automatic, which almost no one has access to. Vast majority of crimes are carried out with a simple handgun.
When the end comes for gun ownership in the US, it will be because of the irresponsible gun owners in the US. By which I mean, of course, all the gun owners in the US. With rights come duties. Neglecting the latter ensures the death of the former.
There are medications for the sort of irrational anxiety you feel. Seek therapy.
The average gun owner should wise up. There are crazy people buying the same weapons you are and they are engaging in mass murder. You guys just howl about your guns as if they are something precious. How about facing up to the responsibility that comes with owning them and coming up with a way to keep them out of the hands of madmen? Not a single post here about that. Just whining about liberals wanting to take away your guns!
The vague platitudes are nice, but ultimately I doubt you have any real understanding of what "rights" or "duties" you're taking about. You seem like the anxious one - I sleep quite well at night.
"Otherwise the US is in a league of its own with Brazil, Mexico, and probably Somalia."
So, the US isn't in a league of its own? It's interesting that you cite that Brazil, Mexico and Somalia are less civilized than predominantly white countries. That makes me wonder if gun control is just another form of white supremacy. That is how that works, right?
Well, the Western Hemisphere is a hell of a lot younger that Western Civilization. Our trajectory is similar: we'll become more "civilized," i.e. old and slow like Europe some day soon (a couple centuries maybe?).
The only thing I can think of is Wow! You are a very cynical person and I cannot see how you make such comments, when most murders are committed by people that usually have illegal weapons, which I assure you is not all of the US. I am so glad that you have such and open mind and do not generalize all people, Oh, I am sorry that is exactly what you just did. Based on your user name, do I need to make false assumptions about you? If not stop making assumptions about an entire country of people you have even met, maybe you are the one who needs therapy.
Unfortunately Chui's black and white perspective on gun owners, is a way of thinking that has become all too prevalent in today's world, and it has been been greatly influenced, in my opinion, by the so called "liberal" media they read who in the past maintained a sense of objectivity which they surrendered once Trump arrived on the scene. Now it seems it is too difficult for them to be nuanced in their perspective on things, so shades of grey have all but disappeared.
Thank you for getting this back on track. It's not about guns, it's about violence-induced trauma. That can take a lifetime to overcome, and there's no weakness in taking longer than someone else. When we moved into our first house in Bogota our children were five and 1.5 years old. Day one was a routine kidnapping of a neighbor's kid for ransom. The earthquakes were tolerable; it was unnerving to see that in shoe stores the shoehorns were bolted to the floor to prevent theft.
My brief tenure as a hostage of FARC was tolerable, and they weren't violent. Some groups were, and my wife's boss had his house bombed. I was shot at during a mob storming of the Embassy where I had command of one corner; I fired back and am confident I shot him between the eyes. I sleep fine. None of us carries the aftermath of violence-induced trauma. Our girls have little memory of it. As my mind spends more time degenerating than thinking, I, too, have little memory. You and your family were fortunate, and no one appears to have been seriously injured.
Best of luck. Raising a sane child to adulthood is life's greatest gift.
Bill thank you for sharing I would love to one day hear of your hostage tenure with FARC especially now given the changes they have seen with their status.
It was a non-event. In 1979, while driving my Embassy Staff-plated car between Barrancabermeja and Bogota in a rural area, I was stopped by a group of armed men, who ordered me out of my car. My response broke the expected pattern: "How can I help you?" At the time my Spanish was so good I was often mistaken for a native speaker, and did not sound at all like a gringo. This was inconsistent with the license plates, and the otherwise-friendly men were curious.
We stood talking for two or three hours, during which time they identified themselves as FARC, meaning they belonged to a group with whom I occasionally agreed on objectives, never agreed on methods. After a while the guns came down, eventually we were all trading jokes and witticisms. My best line, I think, was "Ay, que linda su amatrelladora," or "My, what an attractive machine gun."
At the end I gave them a thousand pesos (about $25 at the time) to help them feed the poor (something on which we all agreed), we shook hands, and I drove off. It could have gone in many different directions, and only a combination of luck and good will nudged it in favor of handshakes. A non-event.
I guess by "non-event" you mean "one not of lasting significance or importance in the events of the time/locale." But, wow, I wouldn't say it was anything the average American can even imagine happening to them. That "non-event" would have affected me!
I was far more fearful on a small island, part of a tropical atoll, when chased up a tree by a feral pig. The island had two settlements, on on each end, about a mile apart and the tree marked the midway point. The residents never came close to the tree because they were in armed conflict for reasons no one recalled. In South America I was confident I could eventually talk my way out of the situation.
In addition to Spanish I speak multiple other Western European languages, plus a bit of Arabic, Urdu, Hindi and Pohnpeian. Unfortunately, I never learned Oinkish.
This type of story is far more common in Oakland than you might believe. Over the last year robberies are up a huge amount because the police have stopped doing ANYTHING since the Oakland mayor did all the anti-ICE tweets.
Understood, it was not lost on me that you wrote this more for that family in San Fran and only co-incidentally for yourself. Otherwise you would have posted your story at the time.
I think you've put it so well there's no slightest impression it was self-serving in any way. Only a malicious person would imply or argue that. With that said, I think it can be a good argument for the importance of the 2nd Amendment. These are the kinds of things responsible gun ownership (including training/awareness/etc) can be helpful against. Not against the government - forget that original justification, it's been laughable for a while now - but to ensure safety of oneself and family.
In fact, in certain circumstances it can be argued it's a responsibility to make sure one is equipped to do that - when there is something of value (in the most general sense) to protect and preserve. As an adult with a more or less healthy psyche one can recover, but for a child that's a lifelong trauma.
And so for those who feel they are able they should at least put themselves in a position where they have a choice whether to engage or not so that indeed the situation would not turn into "it's just true that they can be either useless or worse".
I disagree with the "not against the government, it's been laughable for a while now".
I have heard that argument many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons:
1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose.
2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago.
Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam.
In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo.
Let’s not forget their own country was also founded by a bunch of citizens taking up private arms against the government with the most powerful military in the world and winning.
400 million guns in the hands of 325 million freedom lovers will too defeat ANY military ANYwhere ANYtime, given time. Militaries anywhere cannot outlast the will to freedom of individual human beings. Hell, I doubt we even need the guns, but I sure like the respect they give me.
Don't kid yourself. Small arms are no match for heavy artillery, air strikes, mortars, RPG's, Armored vehicles, Loitering munitions and drones. Some belief that 2nd Amendment types have of battling the American Security establishment is fantasy with a huge body count. Know how to really stop the American system from threatening your freedoms? Vote for third parties like a passion without loophole, always.
This is an interesting argument and I think you're right on that point. I don't believe we will ever pose a serious threat to our own government with small arms, but I do support gun ownership for other reasons.
Let me start by admitting I have sympathy for those who want to decrease violence by decreasing guns. I think that's a mistake, but I don't necessarily think it's an evil idea. Hell, we all want a safer, less violent country and if this was easy we would have solved it years ago.
Let me make my best argument for gun ownership and hear your best response. If nothing else we will better understand each other.
During the civil rights movement in the 1960's, black people in the South (to include Condaleeza Rice's own parents in Alabama) faced a police department that was closely aligned with the local KKK. For her parents and many others, the very people charged with protecting them from violence were also the people most likely to lynch them. In such a scenario, is disarming such people ethical? This is not a one off, but something that comes up repeatedly in marginalized communities that not only can't depend on the State for protection, but often rightly see the State as a direct, violent threat.
Most of the civil rights leaders of the 1960's, to include Martin Luther King were armed to the teeth. Of course, that did not stop his tragic death by a gunman, but I suspect he and his followers would have been entirely wiped out much sooner without guns. Civil disobedience is only effective while the camera's are rolling and your enemies are worried about public shame so pull back. There were plenty of times when there were no cameras around and guns were the only thing keeping them alive in the deep South as they fought for civil rights.
In fact, did you know that the very first restrictions on guns in the US was backed by the NRA and directed at black people in California? The Black Panthers would follow the local police around when they stopped black people to ensure those they stopped knew their civil rights. They would carry long arms with them as a show of force when they did this, which is not an odd thought given how endemic violence against black people by the police was at that time.
"The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group."
This is where Dave Chappelle ( who half jokes that he supports the 2nd amendment in case the 1st doesn't work out) get's his joke "If we want all guns banned in America tomorrow, all that would need to happen is for every black man to registering for a gun today."
Also, while you are right that armed citizens will never be able to challenge the army, sometimes killing a single tyrant is enough. The Roman Senate did not need to kill the entire Roman army with daggers, they only needed enough daggers to kill Julius Cesar. Think how different history would have been if the same had happened to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
Finally, I am a life long advocate for reducing our prison population. You cannot look at deinceration without looking at the draconian gun laws that have fallen heaviest on already marginalized communities. We have really ramped up the sentencing involving guns (Particularly through the VAWA portion of the 1994 Crime Bill) to the point where if you have a gun on you in the commission of a crime you are pretty much looking at dying in prison with little chance of parole even if no shot is fired and no one is hurt. Despite such draconian sentencing, it had little impact on decreasing gun violence, but it has filled our prisons primarily with minorities who believe they cannot depend on the police for protection.
Even in the best neighborhood the police will not get there in time to stop a criminal, but in the inner cities of places like Cleveland and Detroit the police response time is so long that they might as well not come at all.
These are all different parts of the same argument. I am white and live in an affluent neighborhood where city services are dependable. I would prefer to own a gun, but it would not be life and death if I did not. That is not the case for the most vulnerable parts of society where city services are corrupt, inefficient and in some cases actively hostile. During Katrina more than a few cops formed their own criminal gangs in the chaos of the flood. In such a situation owning a gun would be invaluable.
How do we make guns illegal while also reducing incarceration?
But I am NOT saying "small arms" are going to defeat the military might in a pitched WWII-type battle. 300,000,000 people armed with sidearms WILL eventually defeat any modern military that relies for its long-term viability on SUPPLY from those same people. And that is IF (a very big if) U.S. military can EVER be made to effectively fire on those same people. There would defections galore.
But the importance of an armed populace, is in the real fear Authoritarians have for popular sentiment/uprising. This is always underplayed, but so, so important.
Third parties, when handed the reins of State power, will act just like the two parties we have now. The ONLY check on runaway State power and Autoritarian Socialism is an armed, free people who will not stand for it. With the 2nd Amendment, we win every time in the long run. Lose the right, the State will run over us before we know it.
I don't know whether it's "logically flawed" but it's true in practice. I think you're a Canadian working on moving to the US. When you succeed, stop by your local PD or attend some public event in your town. See what kind of armored vehicles are present. Then think about how you're going to protect your home with all your arsenal when they show up.
To your points:
1. - that's already done - freedom of speech, really?
2. - you confuse invasion of foreign forces and guerilla resistance to those with support from outside powers with domestic affairs.
I think you are missing the part where there are over 100 million armed families in the US and even the most adventurous of the cops are scared to enter houses if they are aware of armed people inside.
Sure, the government could just decide to drop a Nuke on its own people. If that happens, then obviously there's nothing left to do. But until then, would you prefer to stay armed and actually try your best to defeat them or just be a coward loser and admit defeat at the first instance?
No, the cops are not afraid of you in your house, armed or not. Test it any time you want.
That you see your only path in life as warring on your neighbors or considering yourself a defeated coward is the root of the issue that is ruining your life.
The US is one of the worst countries in Western Civilization to try to treat mental health issues (and yes, cognitive distortions are mental health issues), but the only responsible path lies through getting yourself healthy before ever considering having a family, or owning a weapon.
I'm sorry but these are all idealistic musings. I'm looking for some practical examples of where the 2nd Amendment can nowadays help defeat the proverbial government. I claim that when needed the govt will trample all over you despite your most up-to-date arsenal and skills.
Superior forces win the fight between their ears. This includes the ability to think critically think. This includes the notion of responsibility and obligation, without which the notion of rights are illusory.
It doesn't matter if you stand up. It matters if you have done the work. The number in the US that have are diminishingly small.
No, you have never faced the force that would be applied with restraint and competence against you during your insurrection, your fan fiction Ruby Ridge standoff, or any mighty sovereign citizen uprising.
Not to glamorize them or anything, but Waco held out for quite a while and they were just a bunch of cultish nuts, women, and children. It’s possible to last, and it would (hypothetically of course, not advocating in any way) be possible to win if the government was to go full tyrant and enough people rose up.
Waco went on as long as it did because the forces arrayed against them were under restraint.
You are not possessed of enough people, and never will be. This is rather the point. Even if you were, you would be moving from a state of civilization to a state of nature where all war on all. Hardly an improvement.
Waco was an "organization". And still, if govt wanted to wipe them out instantly they could have, easily. To think that the whole citizenry can somehow be organized to act up in a coordinated way - really?
The 2nd Amendment debate was had and resolved in the US over 200 years ago. There is a reason civics and history is no longer taught to our children. If it was taught we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today.
As the meme goes, if the government wants to disarm citizens after 243 years it is because they want to do something you would shoot them for.
What I'm trying to get at is this - the government does not need to disarm its citizens since it is not afraid of them. Citizens need their guns to protect themselves against the scum the topic is about.
Unfortunately our government does not base their actions on what they “need to” do. They base their actions on what will increase their power over us. We must retain a deterrent to this at all costs or liberty will cease to exist.
Sure, but tragically, freedom has to be protected. Being able to protect yourself from the agents of chaos and destruction(criminals set loose directly or indirectly by politicians) is a necessary side affect. In other words, you can’t be free if you are dead.
The most likely use in the US for your weapon is suicide of yourself of others.
Training/awareness/etc prevents none of it.
There is no notion of "responsibility" in the US possible for weapon owners. A responsible individual would move to a country that isn't failing, that doesn't fetishist deregulation for the sake of deregulation, and that doesn't shirk that duties and obligations that come with rights.
In the US, which has been downgraded to 'partial democracy', where the life expectancy is falling, where maternal and infant mortality is climbing, where health and safety are political wedges, no weapon owner can call themselves responsible.
The only responsible action in the US for weapons is to not be possessed of them until such time as the fetish culture and the causes of it are understood and resolved. That includes the health care system, which is captive, the mental health care system, which pretty much doesn't exist, the socio-economic factors that enshrine poverty and wealth disparity, and that make the US one of the worst countries in Western Civilization for economic mobility.
It is probably not possible to redeem the US, as the problem as with all societies is with the populace. It may well be true that the US will not be a failed state. It is undeniable that it is in decline on most fronts, and inevitable that this decline will end in a failed state if left interrupted.
I was curious about something in regards to Brazil gun laws. I remember hearing that Bolsonaro relaxed some restrictions on firearm purchases. Can many Brazilians obtain firearms legally or are the relaxed restrictions just limited to upper middle class citizens (Bolsonaro voters) who cannot quite afford professional armed security?
On another note, can you tell me a bit more about the BOPE? I have heard opinions on them ranging from fascist, jackbooted thugs to the only thing still keeping order. I do know they are ruthless, do not care much for due process, and have one hell of an unsubtle logo. They are usually associated with right leaning politics in Brazil. Of course "right" and "left" are a lot different there than in the United States.
Fellow 2A supporter. Given the changes in our society over last 12 months, have increasingly kept my SBR'd 11.5" AR-15 near my person. The Glock 19 no longer feels quite sufficient in this day and age. Fortunately, I have many options.
Glad I stocked up a long time ago. The importance of the 2nd amendment has never been more obvious to me than now.
Sorry you feel differently, but your pearl-clutching is a little bit silly. I'd ask you to elaborate on what you think is "irresponsible," but I doubt you actually know yourself.
M. Chui, I am sympathetic to your criticism of gun-owner "bravado" and what could legitimately be described as "right-wing virtue signaling" in today's parlance. Personally, I would like to see gun owners continue to do what most already do: walk SOFTLY and carry a big stick, to quote a POTUS out of context, but I think it is what you are saying. However, the time has passed, imo, to worry about further restriction. It seems obvious that the State, not to mention the criminal element, has nowhere enough fear of the law-abiding citizen, armed or not. We argue, and they laugh. Get a gun, while you can. Exercise your right to crow about it, or not. Sacrafice one right, endanger them all.
A gentleman who once owned several businesses in Venezuela is doing landscaping work at my home. He moved in with his adult son in Tennessee because the racketeers in Venezuela have made it too dangerous and expensive to run a business in that country. He is convinced that the USA is fast becoming the next Venezuela/Brazil/failed nation and I believe he is right.
He is! I hope I am dead before it fully comes to pass, and I weep for my children and grandchildren, people say I am crazy but look how crazy I will be when it happens.
Gee, Frank. I've come into possession of a 1939-vintage shot gun. (My Italian granddad owned it.) It's a beautiful, well-maintained thing, manufactured in Belgium. I wish we were neighbors so you give me your impression of the viability of this thing. I don't really know guns, but I've found myself doing research.
I recommend finding a shotgun hobbyist forum and posting photographs to ask about identification. A reputable gunsmith will be able to tell you if it is in a condition that is safe to fire. Shop around - there is a lot of smoke and mirrors with gunsmiths.
Generally, it is safer to default to a shop located in an upscale part of your area. If they are willing to pay for good commercial real estate, they are likely to at least care about their reputation too. I would give preference to any shops that cater specifically to the shotgun sports. Look around for upscale trap/skeet ranges - they can probably point you in the right direction.
Most importantly please learn the 3 rules of gun safety (Google this, not hard to find) and consider buying a gun security cabinet of some kind from your local big box store. One sized to fit a single long arm will not cost you very much and they can be bolted to a wall stud, providing an effective deterant from theft or access by unauthorized persons (kids, party guests, etc).
The beast was designed by the man, Browning, himself. The story is that he couldn't organize production in the US. (Why?) But he got a Belgian outfit to do it. Of course. These things go for $400 - $1,500 on auctions. It's so beautiful, I'd thought it'd go for more than that. Not that I'd sell it...
These two examples are tragic and scary. But there’s a distinct difference. In America you can easily acquire a firearm for protection. People need to get over their unreasonable fear of owning a firearm. It’s not paranoid to remain vigilant and aware that the world harbors evil. And vigilance isn’t a self fulfilling prophecy, anymore than using seatbelt means that you will have an accident. You can’t rely on the police to stop a crime, even before the defund movement. They can’t be everywhere all the time. But small things like exterior lights, locked windows and doors, and for you ladies, being very cautious about opening doors when you see unknown, I uniformed dudes outside. All this backed up by a firearm that you know how to use. All this is double important if you live in a failed state or failed cities. It is what it is, and our founders understood that tyranny comes in many forms, not just those dressed as the government.
More important then ever. As systemic racism is definitively turned on whites and Asians you can expect more deranged violence directed at those groups.
Another distinct difference is that in countries with extreme inequality, the people with the best stuff to steal can afford to hire 24/7 security, or at least an overnight guard and a driver during the day.
SF is not there yet, but getting there. Most Democrat politicians and tech oligarchs are already unequal enough, hence, "what do you peasants want guns for? Civilian gun ownership makes about as much sense as 'Woolite.' It's so unrealistic. Life is not an action movie. In real life others handle guns for you, and you leave your woollen items with the doorman for the cleaner to pick up."
Yes indeed. There’s a massive disconnect between the real lives of most Americans and those with power, money and fame. They will always have rights that their power, money or fame provide them. This is the beauty of the constitution. The constitution says, we’re all entitled to these human rights, and it restricts the elites from creating these divided societies. It’s been pretty successful in that regard to be honest. The threat now resonates from private but ultra powerful entities that share the ideological end goals of a political party and can basically achieve change that the constitution wouldn’t allow government to attempt. It’s up to us. Vote - both in elections and with your wallet. And like Bari has stated in some of her previous pieces, be bold in your life. Speak truth through reasoned discourse and don’t shy away from challenging woke scolds: say it with me - “I don’t think that’s obvious, ‘insert cogent argument here.’” And by all means, leave SM.
I would go as far as to say "embrace the mean words". When someone calls you mean words for not being woke, embrace is and say "Yes, I am a XXX. Now fuck off." Never apologize, always attack.
This. 100% this. Whenever I hear anti-2A arguments, I always find them to be super smug and elitists. "What do you plebs want guns for" comes from elites, out of touch politicians, Hollywood elites, billionaires etc while they sit behind gated walled gardens with armed security guards. Reminder than while the politicians are trying to destroy 2A, they are sitting in Washington behind military troops, checkpoints and fences. They are willing to let the poor innocent people get killed, send their citizens to foreign lands to kill people but they themselves always stay protected.
Hello from the Peoples Republic of California. You are so right. You can have a gun in your home, but legally it has to be kept locked up. And your ammo too. Separately! Kind of defeats the self defense purpose of owning it. Unless, of course, your home invader is kind enough to give you the time to unlock then load. Or you can decide to break the law and keep you gun loaded and accessible. What a state (spoken as a 64 year old native who will retire elsewhere).
Any sane person who can read the constitution will conclude that the keeping ammo and gun separate is unconstitutional since it defeats the purpose of self defence. But I have zero faith in the judicial system including the SCOTUS.
Well as a California resident let me say groups like the NRA are worthless pieces of shit.
But we knew this when they put people like illegal gun running Ollie North in charge.
When the medical cannabis laws were changed to recreational, medical patients still had to give up their firearms due to federal law. However, recreational customers using the exact same product in the exact same manner did not have to.
This state and the DNC are not about rights, they are about power and control and they will tell you anything to keep their grip on it.
Can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if many comply, except for making sure guns are not accessible to kids. Otherwise, why bother having a weapon.
Yeah, and we parents don't need the State, at any level, telling us to "make sure guns are not accessible to kids." What the hell? Tell you what, I think I speak for the vast majority of parents when I say, "My children are a hell of a lot important to me than any government jurisdiction telling me how to protect them!"
Come to think of it, and on the other hand, and conversely, I have NO problem with a certain private-sector group running all the gun safety ads they can.
What defense? You were so quick to unlock both places, ram that magazine in and point it at the thief he just stood there in astonishment knowing full well it's loaded as it happened right in front of him in a flash!
I heard a really funny response to the whole “you shouldn’t value property over lives” argument: the gun owner isn’t the one who values property over lives - the one who breaks into a home that could have an armed citizen is. Because the bottom line is you can never be sure home invaders will stop at just taking stuff and leaving, and I’m not sure I’d be willing to personally take that chance of my husband and son were in danger.
I think what's meant by "property over lives" is you cannot use lethal force to defend your property. As in - when somebody is taking your car from your driveway you cannot shoot them since they "assault" your property and not your person.
However, when they invade your home over your objection they necessarily force themselves over you physically and there's no "property" argument here to speak of.
Oh my, so well said. All that advice is SO in hindsight. In the moment, you have NO idea what is gonig to happen. Of COURSE, you are going to keep coming back to, "what is possible, what is likely, and what should I do to save what is most important."
Don't forget Mexico. They have only 1 gun store and guns are restricted and yet obviously gun crime is through the roof. And establishment cronies will obviously blame that on illegal guns from the US while also claiming illegal immigration isn't a problem at all.....
"The Democrats just hate the US and want to be like any other country other than the US even if it's shittier than the US."
Likewise the elites seek and find political power under ANY polico-economic system. And, elites prosper more under Authoritarian Socialism than under even a watered-down Capitalism (the roughly 50/50 mixed economy we have now), so it really is not surprising that they pine and endeavor for ever more Statism.
Back in the late 70's early 80's I was an investigator for the prosecutor's office in KC. I dealt w/ too many victims who experienced what you and the family in Oakland experienced. They were amateurs and that made them much more dangerous. The testosterone level increases dramatically when a man holds a gun. Pros can handle that surge in "power" but amateurs often cannot. I am donating to the family and thank you for sharing their and your story. As a PTSD survivor, I can tell you there is often a delay in its onset. I have had a shotgun pointed at me and shot @ twice. Once, my wife and friends were in the car and that was the scariest, as my wife's window was shattered. This happened 40 years ago and I still remember blowing through a red light and looking through her hair for blood. I won't lecture you on the signs of PTSD. You are a smart person. Just please be aware of them. My prayers for the Oakland family and you and your family.
Can anyone explain why so many blacks have it in for Asian (here Vietnamese) folks? My guess is it's mainly just their rep as easy targets likely to store money at home. It also doesn't help to be considered "white-adjacent" in a rabidly woke left city like Oakland whose mayor, btw, recently decided to gift non-white poor citizens with $500/mo payments. Probably to keep them from storming the Oakland Hills, which is the tony part of town.
You're one of the most courageous public figures of our time and this story further demonstrates that; despite being subjected to something so horrifying, you manage to stay compassionate and humble in recounting what happened. I am so so grateful your children weren't there. Thank you for linking to the GoFundMe, the young girl in Oakland deserves all necessary resources to help her work through this and find peace.
Knowing about the level of crime in Brazil, I have morbid thoughts from time to time that you might fall victim to run-of-the-mill criminals. A Brazilian student I knew lost his father in a holdup. The robbers shot and killed him without pretext. Your situation is further compounded by your political enemies some of whom are prone to violence. I'm relieved as I'm sure many others are that this episode ended without bodily harm. Wishing you all the best.
My biggest surprise is that you have security guards. Glad you survived and I hope the writing of this was cathartic.
As for the dogs, they don't think - they act/react. You may think they are there to protect you, but they are there to be fed, sheltered and obey their pack values. You may be the pack leader (to them you are a dog that makes odd noises and walks upright), but with 12 dogs they have their own pack hierarchy. Once the robbers were in charge, if I may borrow a phrase, the pack did not have a dog in the fight.
If you want dogs to defend you, you need to buy "man" dogs and train them, have them live apart and never be petted. They will still need to be given commands, and they could just as easily obey the commands of an alpha invader and attack you. I'm not sure that would work for you and yours...
The trauma is going to be with you (and the Oakland family) for life. It is happening to thousands of people, unreported, every hour of every day. Take a look at the slaughter of white farmers in South Africa, the young Latina girls being shipped in across the southern border or the Chinese girls being trafficked to "massage" parlors worldwide - beaten, raped, threatened and beaten again into compliance.
We need borders - your fence, your front door, your walls, your country. And we need the will to defend our homes and families, because our politicians are not going to do it for us.
Insecurity at home is going to be much more common as the 0.1% destroy our economic independence with their global reset. For the crooks covered in your article, the virus is just an excuse: they are not Robin Hood and his Merry Men. They are smart enough to play victim, just like the journalists you have been writing about.
Glenn, what a wonderful article. Tomorrow is Easter Sunday and I will contribute to the fund then. But I have 2 others short comments.
First, let me offer my sympathy to you for your ordeal. I know you knew when you moved to Brazil that it wasn't the safest place in the world. But no of us thinks it will ever happen to us. Like you I am thankful your children were not there. A true blessing. I hope you and the security guard overcome this incident quickly.
Second, I was raised a a child in SW Mississippi and I have had dogs all my life. I know you will understand this when I say I much prefer the company of a dog(s) to most human beings. They are truly God's gift to mankind and I believe all my dogs are in Heaven waiting to cross the Rainbow Bridge with me when I meet St Peter. God bless you Glenn from a true Southern conservative.
"For whatever reasons, I recovered fairly quickly".
Either you have nerves of steel or it hasn't really sunk in yet. What a horrifying ordeal. To not only have a gun pointed at you, but to have it put into your mouth. Whew, my Depends would've been sagging. Plus like you said, "you only need one to be sufficiently unhinged or impetuous for real violence to start." This might be more traumatic for a child or parent to process, but, thank goodness, you're fucking lucky, man.
Am I weird in looking for confirmation to a story before sending money? I know home invasions occur, but hearing from the police in Oaklad would be useful. People can make up a story and collect $100k. Very sorry to hear about Glenn's ordeal.
I'm familiar with this reporter's work. I have several friends who are journalists in the Bay Area who vouched for the reporting. And a network affiliate there has extensively reported on it.
Someone broke into my home years ago. I wasn't there. The house was empty. I remember how totally naked I felt walking around the house and observing the places the robber had been. A/he went to the fridge, pulled out some leftover KFC, walked to my desk. Sat down, read some letters, ate the chicken and rummaged through some desk drawers. It's like I could see a glowing path around the house. It left me feeling like there were no safe places.
So. I hope your family and the other family recover emotionally from your experiences, not today or tomorrow, but soon.
Thank God that you and your family are safe. Has anyone started a GoFundMe to help the police officer?
We're helping him.
I have a question, and even though I already addressed this issue, it got no feedback since other aspects of this article were more under discussion. True, these people in Oakland endured a great deal from their home invasion, and in no way do I want to be dismissive of what happened to them, nor am I unaware of how terrifying it was, but what you experienced was also scary as hell, and my sense is that you are being rather dismissive of your own experience. You're doing this by comparing the two, and my doing that you are playing down the significance of what happened to you, and how traumatic it was. I hope you'll consider what I'm saying.
Fran, I couldn’t agree more. This was a traumatic experience. If Glenn’s children had been there, it would have been even more traumatic, but their absence does not mitigate the impact.
I have PTSD and I know from experience that you can feel fine right after an incident, only to experience a delayed impact. Best to keep an eye out for symptoms of post traumatic stress.
I have had PTSD and know what your saying is absolutely true.
Yes, but as a parent (but any human could understand), I can understand GG's connection, which he related: He will forever remember that, thank goodness, his children were not there.
I understand that, but anyone who invades your home at gun point, threatens your life, and if I remember correctly, shoves a gun in your mouth, well, it's traumatic with or without your children present. Look what happened to the police officer. As far as his dogs being quiet, well dogs get frightened too.
Oh, yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. as you and M. Rachel both point out, GG will need to address the PTSD that is/will be inevitable.
Excellent. You’re true menschen.
Well, it doesn’t work that way !!!! Oops.
First, thank the Lord you are safe and your kids were not there. As I type this, a Colt 6920 and 1911 are within reach. Multiple shotguns and pistols around house. I don’t respond to my dogs barking un- armed. I’ve trained with firearms for decades. Was raised to have the tools to defend my family.
You took reasonable steps with hiring a cop as Brazil is what it is and what we are becoming. I pray I never need my guns or am forced to harm another.
You husband has pull. Likely he can get you guns and training the Brazilian peasants are priced out of and legally prohibited.
May God bless you and your family.
Frank
First, I hope people focus on that family and not me. I'm fine. I'm not saying that to be humble or whatever. I super appreciate the well wishes and sentiments - genuinely - but I hope it's clear I didn't write it for that. Second, there's only so much you can - we usually have two security officers there (our home has more). But there were 5 armed guys who invaded. That family had 4. If that cop had tried using his gun, or if we had two there, there's a good chance it would have ended much worse. I agree guns can be effective in self-defense and people should have the right to have them in their homes, but sometimes, it's just true that they can be either useless or worse. It's hard to react calmly and rationally because your biological systems try to generate panic and fight-or-flight responses that you have to suppress.
Yes, agreed. They're a tool, not a solution; real life is not an action movie. I don't think any intelligent supporter of the 2nd amendment would disagree. I don't think that having a gun would have given you magical protection on that night, and I am very glad that it did not come to violence. Your calm and collected state of mind was far more protective than a rifle or a pistol could have ever been.
However, as the left-center group-think continues to consolidate under the Biden administration, it's clear that the 2nd amendment is in their sights. I am historically someone who is quite liberal on most political topics, but have also long been a supporter of the right to bear arms, particularly in the context of self-defense. I think that the recent concerted effort to deprive Americans of that right, especially in the setting of rising violent crime across the US, should alarm voters of all stripe. If there is one thing that has been made clear in the past year, you cannot count on the government or law enforcement to be there to keep you safe.
"I am historically someone who is quite liberal on most political topics, but have also long been a supporter of the right to bear arms, particularly in the context of self-defense."
There's actually a name for this group. People who support the entire Bill of Rights.
It's a shrinking group in America as people increasingly care deeply about some parts of the Bill of Rights while showing disdain for others. Very few people seem willing to embrace all of them for people other than themselves.
You're so right about guns. Too many people either fetishize them or fear them. Not many people simply see them as a tool even though that is what they are. I feel if you own a gun as I do not only do you need to actually practice shooting it on a regular basis, but I it's irresponsible to have a gun as your only security tool.
When people ask me if they should buy a gun, I ask what else they plan to do to be safe and if they will actually practice shooting it. If the answer is no to both those questions I think they are better off not getting a gun at all.
The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. Its funny the DNC which claims to be all about rights, wants to pick and choose Constitutionally protected rights to strip.
Maybe the DNC will stop letting women or minorities vote too because those are constitutionally protected. Since they hate such protections, you know.
While I agree it's silly to be only about some rights, I know plenty of Republicans that would like to see everyone but the cops disarmed as well.
I also know lots of Republicans and Democrats who only discuss the 1st amendment in terms of the authoritarian "shouting fire in a crowded building" limitation on speech.
Who believe we can never hire too many cops and build too many prisons despite the spirit of the 3rd amendment clearly intended to prevent a standing domestic army like the one we now have.
That if the cops show up at your door, only a criminal with "something to hide" would not let them in without a warrant.
That taking the fifth is essentially the admission of guilt
That despite the 6th amendment guarantee the accused a jury trial and the ability to face their accuser we are perfectly comfortable with the mandatory minimum driven system with a 95% plea bargain rate that denies people a trial by jury as well as the state declaring themselves "the victim" of lifestyle crimes from drugs or prostitution to meet the Constitutional Right that you "face your accuser."
That despite the 7th prohibition against double jeopardy, it's common for someone to prove their innocence in a State Court only to have the Feds step in with new charges to litigate the crime a second time.
That despite a the 8th amendment prohibiting excessive bail we regularly incarcerate people pre-trial for a bail amount they cannot possibly afford even with a bail bond let along without one. That despite a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment we run a horrendous incarceration system that is recognized as a form of torture by most of the developed world and have civil internment and sex offender lists that are by there very design cruel and unusual despite being ineffective as well.
That despite the 9th amendment, the argument "well you are not guaranteed that right within the Constitution" is common explanation why a person cannot do something.
Do I really need to point out how we have eviscerated the 10th?
Tyrants don't overturn Rights. They simply create a set of new laws that entirely invalidate Rights by making them exotic and symbolic so the state can ignore them at the same time they claim "the Bill of Rights is one of our most cherished documents."
I support the 2nd amendment, but there seems to be an entire faction out their from both parties that only support that one Right.
The strongest human urge is not money of even sex. It's the urge to use violence to control other people and I find it's bipartisan. Everyone tells me the support the Bill of Rights until it is actually read to them. Then I wait for the inevitable "but.........."
I think you are confusing the politicians with the constituents. Right wingers often don’t want what the politicians keep doing.
There is no two party system. It’s a uni party and the establishment cronies hate the average American.
Nice misdirection attempt to tie Republicans to this issue with the entirety of your post.
The issue revolves around the DNC wanting to eviscerate gun ownership, please stay and try on subject.
I have read it, how in today's time how can we determine what is excessive bail? Is it based on a percent of the person's income? Also the only issue I have with this is say for example a serial killer, how do you deal with that? I have an issue with this because in today's world the criminal has more rights than the victims, the next time you watch the news notice how little the you hear about the victim but how overwhelmingly you hear about the person that commits' the crime. Maybe the founder fathers did not think or understand the level of violence a human was capable of as far as rape, dismemberment and other violent crimes. I am not interested in limiting a person rights but I am interested in our cities, states, and streets safer for our families.
I completely agree. As the "gun guy" in my personal sphere, I am often approached by people who are interested in buying a gun for self defense.
My counsel to them is very much the same - if they are not serious about learning responsible ownership and building at least some proficiency with the gun, then I generally recommend they look into other means of improving their personal security (camera and home security systems, etc).
People who buy firearms out of fear and not at least some level of interest often do so for their totemic value. I think this is very dangerous, as they are less inclined to take the responsibility seriously. I strongly respect those who consider a gun for self-defense, but have the self-knowledge to recognize they aren't well suited for the responsibility.
I know some folks who realize a gun is not for them. The problem is with those of those who automatically start preaching a gun is not for anybody.
I certainly understand why you want to be able to have an adequate weapon of defense. Unfortunately when guns are readily available to criminals you are up against whatever they are carrying. So restricting weapons lowers both the escalation of the situation and the arms race. Because if the criminal has a semi automatic weapon they can meet your defense with a greater offense. With so many bullets flying someone is bound to get hurt. I think all automatic weapons should be banned. The police would feel safer and perhaps not overreact as frequently and the criminals wouldn’t have access to massive firepower. I still remember when cops carried heavy revolvers where it took an effort to pull the trigger and load a second round. I would like to return to those days wouldn’t you?
Respectfully, we had a federal assault weapons ban for 10 years, so we actually know quite well what the effect of this type of law has on violent crime.
The two studies commissioned by the Dept of Justice to study the effect of the 1994 AWB (Roth et al 1994 and Koper et al 2004) both found that there was little if any effect on violent crime, which they determined was already declining for reasons unrelated to the new laws.
They also found that the firearms that were predominantly used in violent crime (that is, handguns - used in over 85% of all gun homicides) were not meaningfully restricted by the law, beyond the magazine capacity restriction of 10 rounds.
Your comments about the police revolver which "took an effort to pull the trigger and load a second round" reveal to me that you likely have very little firsthand experience with firearms. I don't say this as a slander, but merely an observation. I feel this probably heavily colors your view of firearms. Again, I pass no judgment here.
I would strongly encourage you to seek professional instruction in their use. I think this might change your views, or at least give them additional nuance. In reality, there are lots of reasons that revolvers are no longer the sidearm of choice for LEOs, and the "heavy trigger" you refer to really is not substantially changed vs. modern semi-automatic duty handguns. This would be easier for you to appreciate with some firsthand experience.
Even if your opinions are ultimately unchanged, I still recommend it so that you can feel confident in the safe handling of a firearm. I liken this skill to knowing how to swim. There are a lot of guns in America - you may never be Michael Phelps (so to speak), but at least some rudimentary experience would inform your worldview and give you the skills to safely handle them should the need arise - even if it's something as simple as knowing how to make it safe.
Appreciate your thoughtful and non-confrontational rebuttal, my friend.
"Assault weapons" in and of itself is propaganda. Just like "hate crime" is. Both of those phrases are meant to paint the subjects unfavorably by the media.
99.99999% of real violence is done due to hate. The laws are really just posturing because only one group in America ISN'T a protected class and that is white males between 18-40.
Just like the phrase "assault weapons". All "Weapons" are meant to assault so the phrasing is done for no reason other than to paint the imagery in the readers mind's unfavorably.
Don't leave us colored folks who "if you don't vote for Biden, then you ain't black" out either. If you are black and are one of the 72 who get shot regularly over a weekend in Chicago, then it's not a "hate crime" either. You must have gotten shot because of "summer of love". It's only a "hate crime" if it fits the establishment political agenda.
Though you are right about the white males part. They have pretty much become a punching bag now a days for whatever they wanna blame things on.
Quick correction: the first DoJ study I mentioned is actually Koper et al 1999, can be found here among other places: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
Similarly, the 2004 study I reference can be found here: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
I think it is unfortunate that you believe I must have personal experience with shooting guns to have an opinion about their use. I think one Newtown incident is enough for any rational person to oppose the ready availability of semi-automatic weapons. And I want you to understand something about where you are coming from. You believe violence is a solution to violence. Perhaps you could look at other solutions. Once you take death into your hands and misuse that power you will have blood on your hands and your conscience for the rest of your life.
You are perfectly allowed to have whatever opinions you choose, but I think even you will acknwoledge that an informed opinion is worth more than an uninformed one.
For example, the way you use the term "semi automatic" makes it clear that you don't actually understand what this term means. It is simply the way to describe the operating characteristic of a large family of firearms - a technology over a century old.
So, yes, when you say you are concerned about "the ready availability of semi automatic weapons", it does in fact reinforce to me that you'd benefit from firsthand experience with firearms. This is because it clearly show you do not understand the term, and it is hard for me to understand why you would deliberately avoid learning information that would help inform your view.
Secondly, in my professional capacity, I have directly participated in the resuscitation and acute care of many, many people who have been traumatically injured, including from gunshot wounds. Shame on you for your assumptions. The blood you refer to is not abstract in the slightest to me. Take your moralistic browbeating elsewhere. Having actually shouldered the burden of gun violence in my professional life, your efforts to shame me ring hollow and pathetic.
So you have gone from wanting to ban fully automatic weapons, which are already banned, to banning semi-automatic weapons which make up over 90% of guns owned by Americans.
When you don’t even know the difference between the two and what is already banned then your opinions on the topic should be ignored.
Your name seems apropos here. Without guns you'd be speaking German and wondering where all the Jews went.
As long as the wicked walk the earth, the just and the righteous should arm and protect themselves from them.
Uhhhh yup you need personal experience. As WL said you can have whatever opinion you want, but if you don't understand how handling a gun "works" your "opinion" is uninformed. Go buy a 9mm Glock 19 or M&P Shield or Compact. Go take 20 hours (probably 5-7 classes) in how to handle, shoot and draw the weapon. Take a Concealed Carry or LTC class in your state and take and pass the written and shooting parts. In 6 months or a year, come back and tell us what your experience was like and what you learned about guns and yourself.
SInce I can't edit, let me add, I don't know anyone that takes owning a gun seriously that wants to be in a shooting confrontation much less have "blood on their hands". That is the last thing you want.
"I think it is unfortunate that you believe I must have personal experience with shooting guns to have an opinion about their use."
Is that your attitude about gun knowledge only or anything else? That is, for example, you don't have to have personal experience of being a surgeon to have an opinion about the use of surgical instruments? And so on?
And if it's just about guns then why?
Peter, you are missing a big part of the point; banning things doesn’t just remove them from existence. How many years has heroine been illegal? Look how many overdoses we have. Will more Mexican border security or police raids stop that? Rednecks are hurting pretty bad right now as it is, do you want them to be the next target of the prison industrial complex? Do you really think guns won’t just come across the Mexican border or have a black market manufacturing like drugs do now? Lots of people know how to make guns... except if they make their own they will be less safe for the users not just when used in violent crime. Do you really think that with more guns than people in our country, it’s even going to be possible to confiscate the guns? With all of the street violence we have had over the last year between BLM and and the capital riots, do you really think this is even a remotely proper time to rile up the anarchists and the right even more? Do you think the guns that still exist after the ban are going to be mostly in the hands of your average self defense enthusiast or sportsman and not the violent criminals? Looking at the post you replied to, can you not see that banning certain types of guns hasn’t changed the crime rate? Since most of the perpetrators are mentally ill, don’t you think a focus on mental health and not a ban (that likely won’t keep them off the black market) makes more sense? Im certainly all for stronger background checks and improved public access to mental health facilities, but a war on guns isn’t going to end any better than the war on drugs, prostitution, or terror have...
Stop letting them use gun control to ignore the underlying issues in your community.
ME: Chicago has strict gun control but high gun violence.
THEM: They get guns from states with loose gun control.
ME: But those states don't have the same gun violence
THEM: Places in Chicago are poor & neglected so there's more violence.
ME: BINGO, it's a socioeconomic issue not a gun issue!
Correct!!
Nope! I can tell you have little knowledge of firearms. Semiautomatic firearms have been around for well over a century. They were even around in that Leave it to Beaver period of America that never really existed. Automatic weapons require a class III license and are heavily restricted. Keep me out of your fantasy land where somehow if you ban guns they will magically go away. Finally, I do not want police to have guns with excessive trigger pulls. They can drastically impact accuracy and increase the danger to the public, particularly in a high stress situation.
Most criminals make the same rational choices as everyone else. If they think they might encounter dangerous force they will move to the next victim
“I think all automatic weapons should be banned.”
Ummmm they already are banned. Respectfully, I don’t think you are educated at all on this topic.
Disarming law abiding citizens isn’t going to prevent criminals from getting them. Glenn’s experience itself should prove that to you considering the criminals were armed. Same thing in Mexico and India. Guns are restricted but criminals get guns when they need them.
Also as of 2009 study, there are 500k-3 million defensive uses of guns every year. Now it’s going to be much higher. What do you propose those people should do? Do you care for a wife/daughter/sister/female friend/elderly/handicapped person etc? Do you want them to be able to defend themselves? What do you propose they should do?
You can always tell the tolerant on both sides of the aisle because they constantly want to ban shit they dont like.
Righties who hate abortion....BAN IT!
Lefties who hate guns....BAN THEM!
You know because thats what the government should be doing is banning stuff people disagree with.
I am more right leaning and against abortion. But it's not something I care enough about to ban it. I just want consistency in laws and thought process. Lefties and blacks simply cannot talk about racism if they are okay with over 25 million aborted black babies since it became legal. I think that anyone who's super pro abortion without thinking deep enough is most likely a racist or at least contributing heavily towards it.
Nor do I want tax payer money to go towards funding Planned Parenthood. Aborting babies has become a fucking industry now a days. It's a dream come true for real actual racists - not the WOKE definition ones.
Imo a decent limit would be until the 5-6 week as that's when the heart beat can be detected.
But again, I don't care enough about it to ban it. But no tax payer money towards it.
You keep forgetting that Glenn wasn’t interested in escalating the situation and had a policeman that was overpowered.
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to Glenn’s case in that way. I meant to show to OP that just because guns are banned or restricted doesn’t mean criminals can’t get them as was the case in Glenn’s case.
I’m fairly certain automatic weapons are illegal in almost all cases. The exceptions are if you either A) get an FFL, a special permit from the feds that is both extremely expensive and extremely difficult for a private citizen to get or b) if the gun was made prior to like 1986 or something. Even then, you have to register it in a federal database and pass a very stringent background check. On top of all that, many states ban automatic weapons outright no matter what kind of permit you have. So they are effectively illegal in all but very specific circumstances.
2008 study by National Academy of Sciences showed 500,000 to more than 3 million "Defensive Use of Guns". Simply having the gun on your or brandishing it prevented crimes from happening. How do you think these people protect themselves? Especially at the border nor considering US is facing the highest illegal immigration in 2 decades as reported by LEFTIST media. And how about the minorities whom liberals care so much about and claim are being hunted down. How do you think those minorities should protect themselves?
Source:
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
Page 15 of the study talks about the defensive use part. You can download the PDF by using the "guest" option and entering any random email (doesn't have to be real).
Another related source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#7880e35d299a
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
"In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results."
"One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique."
Every Democrat narrative on gun control is a lie. Every single one. They want us defenseless. The people naive enough to believe them are the same people that believe politicians “care” about them.
Great links, thanks.
"Unfortunately when guns are readily available to criminals you are up against whatever they are carrying."
No! You are up against ILLEGAL guns, with which you, mere citizen, are not trusted. The criminals will have the best guns, illegal or not, so the same guns criminals can get their hands on should be the same I can get my hands on. And I, and you, and our good friends will always outnumber the criminals. Why do you disarm us?! Why do you restrict the 99% of the population who are GOOD, and would use their firearm to defend even you, who would allow only criminals access to firearms?
This is exactly where the "common arms of the day" protection established in the 17th century Rex v Knight comes from, to whit: the right to keep and bear arms of the common citizen automatically keeps pace with the common arms used by the criminal threats +against+ common citizens. Semi-autos have been in circulation since just shy of 1900: they are not going away in the hands of criminals; it is not legitimate to take them away from common citizens.
Your answer shows you know little about guns. Almost all guns are semi automatic. That just means one pull one shot. Doesn’t matter if it is a pistol or a rifle. I suspect you were trying to sound knowledgeable. Perhaps you meant to say automatic, which almost no one has access to. Vast majority of crimes are carried out with a simple handgun.
When the end comes for gun ownership in the US, it will be because of the irresponsible gun owners in the US. By which I mean, of course, all the gun owners in the US. With rights come duties. Neglecting the latter ensures the death of the former.
There are medications for the sort of irrational anxiety you feel. Seek therapy.
You obviously know nothing about how responsible the average gun owner is in America.
Those of us that hope to never put a hole in anything other than paper are not a danger to anyone.
Exactly. I want the ability to defend myself, but I hope to God I never have to.
(Well, other than bad guys.)
I agree. Those paper targets are the best for practice.
The average gun owner should wise up. There are crazy people buying the same weapons you are and they are engaging in mass murder. You guys just howl about your guns as if they are something precious. How about facing up to the responsibility that comes with owning them and coming up with a way to keep them out of the hands of madmen? Not a single post here about that. Just whining about liberals wanting to take away your guns!
What a thoroughly researched and knowledgeable comment. Bravo, you have changed my mind. I will now go cut my dick off to prevent all rapes too.
Cui, you went on a verbal attack, all gun owners are irresponsible, and it was totally unnecessary to do do! What a prejudicial remark.
The vague platitudes are nice, but ultimately I doubt you have any real understanding of what "rights" or "duties" you're taking about. You seem like the anxious one - I sleep quite well at night.
The vague platitudes are deadly.
Because they are so open to State interpretation. The "specific, well-designed platitudes" (i.e. the Bill of Rights) are quite literally life-saving.
"Otherwise the US is in a league of its own with Brazil, Mexico, and probably Somalia."
So, the US isn't in a league of its own? It's interesting that you cite that Brazil, Mexico and Somalia are less civilized than predominantly white countries. That makes me wonder if gun control is just another form of white supremacy. That is how that works, right?
Well, the Western Hemisphere is a hell of a lot younger that Western Civilization. Our trajectory is similar: we'll become more "civilized," i.e. old and slow like Europe some day soon (a couple centuries maybe?).
"By which I mean, of course, all the gun owners in the US" - you must not be from the US.
All the gun owners? What an asinine statement. People of all ages, races, sexual orientation and genders own guns for self defense. Educate yourself.
He's quoting actual leftist talking points word for word I suspect he may be employed by our good friend Mr. Brock.
"The end comes for gun ownership"....lolfuckingl man thats the funniest shit I heard today.
Next thing you will tell me is the government is going to stop handing out money?
lol haven't had a laugh this hard all day, thanks
"With rights come duties. Neglecting the latter ensures the death of the former."
Sweet Fascist justification.
Very well sourced, thoughtful and insightful comment. You must be a “journalist”.
The only thing I can think of is Wow! You are a very cynical person and I cannot see how you make such comments, when most murders are committed by people that usually have illegal weapons, which I assure you is not all of the US. I am so glad that you have such and open mind and do not generalize all people, Oh, I am sorry that is exactly what you just did. Based on your user name, do I need to make false assumptions about you? If not stop making assumptions about an entire country of people you have even met, maybe you are the one who needs therapy.
Unfortunately Chui's black and white perspective on gun owners, is a way of thinking that has become all too prevalent in today's world, and it has been been greatly influenced, in my opinion, by the so called "liberal" media they read who in the past maintained a sense of objectivity which they surrendered once Trump arrived on the scene. Now it seems it is too difficult for them to be nuanced in their perspective on things, so shades of grey have all but disappeared.
That you have NOT met!
I can’t take seriously anyone who can’t correctly spell their own name. CHUY—!!!
Well, said.
At the least they are MINUTES away. Those minutes might as well be centuries, in the moment.
Thank you for getting this back on track. It's not about guns, it's about violence-induced trauma. That can take a lifetime to overcome, and there's no weakness in taking longer than someone else. When we moved into our first house in Bogota our children were five and 1.5 years old. Day one was a routine kidnapping of a neighbor's kid for ransom. The earthquakes were tolerable; it was unnerving to see that in shoe stores the shoehorns were bolted to the floor to prevent theft.
My brief tenure as a hostage of FARC was tolerable, and they weren't violent. Some groups were, and my wife's boss had his house bombed. I was shot at during a mob storming of the Embassy where I had command of one corner; I fired back and am confident I shot him between the eyes. I sleep fine. None of us carries the aftermath of violence-induced trauma. Our girls have little memory of it. As my mind spends more time degenerating than thinking, I, too, have little memory. You and your family were fortunate, and no one appears to have been seriously injured.
Best of luck. Raising a sane child to adulthood is life's greatest gift.
Bill thank you for sharing I would love to one day hear of your hostage tenure with FARC especially now given the changes they have seen with their status.
It was a non-event. In 1979, while driving my Embassy Staff-plated car between Barrancabermeja and Bogota in a rural area, I was stopped by a group of armed men, who ordered me out of my car. My response broke the expected pattern: "How can I help you?" At the time my Spanish was so good I was often mistaken for a native speaker, and did not sound at all like a gringo. This was inconsistent with the license plates, and the otherwise-friendly men were curious.
We stood talking for two or three hours, during which time they identified themselves as FARC, meaning they belonged to a group with whom I occasionally agreed on objectives, never agreed on methods. After a while the guns came down, eventually we were all trading jokes and witticisms. My best line, I think, was "Ay, que linda su amatrelladora," or "My, what an attractive machine gun."
At the end I gave them a thousand pesos (about $25 at the time) to help them feed the poor (something on which we all agreed), we shook hands, and I drove off. It could have gone in many different directions, and only a combination of luck and good will nudged it in favor of handshakes. A non-event.
Thank you for sharing, what a great statement, I may agree with their objectives sometimes, but never their methods.
I guess by "non-event" you mean "one not of lasting significance or importance in the events of the time/locale." But, wow, I wouldn't say it was anything the average American can even imagine happening to them. That "non-event" would have affected me!
I was far more fearful on a small island, part of a tropical atoll, when chased up a tree by a feral pig. The island had two settlements, on on each end, about a mile apart and the tree marked the midway point. The residents never came close to the tree because they were in armed conflict for reasons no one recalled. In South America I was confident I could eventually talk my way out of the situation.
In addition to Spanish I speak multiple other Western European languages, plus a bit of Arabic, Urdu, Hindi and Pohnpeian. Unfortunately, I never learned Oinkish.
This type of story is far more common in Oakland than you might believe. Over the last year robberies are up a huge amount because the police have stopped doing ANYTHING since the Oakland mayor did all the anti-ICE tweets.
Thanks - any statistics to confirm your comment?
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/violent-crime-in-oakland-prompts-community-groups-to-get-involved/
https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/opd-has-recovered-nearly-540-guns-related-to-crimes-this-year-a-20-increase-over-the-same-time-last-year-still-violent-crime-is-on-the-rise
https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/with-violent-crime-increase-two-public-meetings-this-week-focus-on-public-safety-in-oakland
"34 homicides so far this year in Oakland — up 230%."
But they weren't asian americans so the media didnt give a shit until they could fold it into a bigger narrative.
Just donated to the Oakland family.
Understood, it was not lost on me that you wrote this more for that family in San Fran and only co-incidentally for yourself. Otherwise you would have posted your story at the time.
God bless you, sir.
I think you've put it so well there's no slightest impression it was self-serving in any way. Only a malicious person would imply or argue that. With that said, I think it can be a good argument for the importance of the 2nd Amendment. These are the kinds of things responsible gun ownership (including training/awareness/etc) can be helpful against. Not against the government - forget that original justification, it's been laughable for a while now - but to ensure safety of oneself and family.
In fact, in certain circumstances it can be argued it's a responsibility to make sure one is equipped to do that - when there is something of value (in the most general sense) to protect and preserve. As an adult with a more or less healthy psyche one can recover, but for a child that's a lifelong trauma.
And so for those who feel they are able they should at least put themselves in a position where they have a choice whether to engage or not so that indeed the situation would not turn into "it's just true that they can be either useless or worse".
I disagree with the "not against the government, it's been laughable for a while now".
I have heard that argument many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons:
1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose.
2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago.
Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam.
In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo.
Let’s not forget their own country was also founded by a bunch of citizens taking up private arms against the government with the most powerful military in the world and winning.
400 million guns in the hands of 325 million freedom lovers will too defeat ANY military ANYwhere ANYtime, given time. Militaries anywhere cannot outlast the will to freedom of individual human beings. Hell, I doubt we even need the guns, but I sure like the respect they give me.
Don't kid yourself. Small arms are no match for heavy artillery, air strikes, mortars, RPG's, Armored vehicles, Loitering munitions and drones. Some belief that 2nd Amendment types have of battling the American Security establishment is fantasy with a huge body count. Know how to really stop the American system from threatening your freedoms? Vote for third parties like a passion without loophole, always.
This is an interesting argument and I think you're right on that point. I don't believe we will ever pose a serious threat to our own government with small arms, but I do support gun ownership for other reasons.
Let me start by admitting I have sympathy for those who want to decrease violence by decreasing guns. I think that's a mistake, but I don't necessarily think it's an evil idea. Hell, we all want a safer, less violent country and if this was easy we would have solved it years ago.
Let me make my best argument for gun ownership and hear your best response. If nothing else we will better understand each other.
During the civil rights movement in the 1960's, black people in the South (to include Condaleeza Rice's own parents in Alabama) faced a police department that was closely aligned with the local KKK. For her parents and many others, the very people charged with protecting them from violence were also the people most likely to lynch them. In such a scenario, is disarming such people ethical? This is not a one off, but something that comes up repeatedly in marginalized communities that not only can't depend on the State for protection, but often rightly see the State as a direct, violent threat.
Most of the civil rights leaders of the 1960's, to include Martin Luther King were armed to the teeth. Of course, that did not stop his tragic death by a gunman, but I suspect he and his followers would have been entirely wiped out much sooner without guns. Civil disobedience is only effective while the camera's are rolling and your enemies are worried about public shame so pull back. There were plenty of times when there were no cameras around and guns were the only thing keeping them alive in the deep South as they fought for civil rights.
In fact, did you know that the very first restrictions on guns in the US was backed by the NRA and directed at black people in California? The Black Panthers would follow the local police around when they stopped black people to ensure those they stopped knew their civil rights. They would carry long arms with them as a show of force when they did this, which is not an odd thought given how endemic violence against black people by the police was at that time.
"The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group."
THAD MORGAN
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
This is where Dave Chappelle ( who half jokes that he supports the 2nd amendment in case the 1st doesn't work out) get's his joke "If we want all guns banned in America tomorrow, all that would need to happen is for every black man to registering for a gun today."
Also, while you are right that armed citizens will never be able to challenge the army, sometimes killing a single tyrant is enough. The Roman Senate did not need to kill the entire Roman army with daggers, they only needed enough daggers to kill Julius Cesar. Think how different history would have been if the same had happened to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
Finally, I am a life long advocate for reducing our prison population. You cannot look at deinceration without looking at the draconian gun laws that have fallen heaviest on already marginalized communities. We have really ramped up the sentencing involving guns (Particularly through the VAWA portion of the 1994 Crime Bill) to the point where if you have a gun on you in the commission of a crime you are pretty much looking at dying in prison with little chance of parole even if no shot is fired and no one is hurt. Despite such draconian sentencing, it had little impact on decreasing gun violence, but it has filled our prisons primarily with minorities who believe they cannot depend on the police for protection.
Even in the best neighborhood the police will not get there in time to stop a criminal, but in the inner cities of places like Cleveland and Detroit the police response time is so long that they might as well not come at all.
These are all different parts of the same argument. I am white and live in an affluent neighborhood where city services are dependable. I would prefer to own a gun, but it would not be life and death if I did not. That is not the case for the most vulnerable parts of society where city services are corrupt, inefficient and in some cases actively hostile. During Katrina more than a few cops formed their own criminal gangs in the chaos of the flood. In such a situation owning a gun would be invaluable.
How do we make guns illegal while also reducing incarceration?
But I am NOT saying "small arms" are going to defeat the military might in a pitched WWII-type battle. 300,000,000 people armed with sidearms WILL eventually defeat any modern military that relies for its long-term viability on SUPPLY from those same people. And that is IF (a very big if) U.S. military can EVER be made to effectively fire on those same people. There would defections galore.
But the importance of an armed populace, is in the real fear Authoritarians have for popular sentiment/uprising. This is always underplayed, but so, so important.
Third parties, when handed the reins of State power, will act just like the two parties we have now. The ONLY check on runaway State power and Autoritarian Socialism is an armed, free people who will not stand for it. With the 2nd Amendment, we win every time in the long run. Lose the right, the State will run over us before we know it.
I don't know whether it's "logically flawed" but it's true in practice. I think you're a Canadian working on moving to the US. When you succeed, stop by your local PD or attend some public event in your town. See what kind of armored vehicles are present. Then think about how you're going to protect your home with all your arsenal when they show up.
To your points:
1. - that's already done - freedom of speech, really?
2. - you confuse invasion of foreign forces and guerilla resistance to those with support from outside powers with domestic affairs.
I think you are missing the part where there are over 100 million armed families in the US and even the most adventurous of the cops are scared to enter houses if they are aware of armed people inside.
Sure, the government could just decide to drop a Nuke on its own people. If that happens, then obviously there's nothing left to do. But until then, would you prefer to stay armed and actually try your best to defeat them or just be a coward loser and admit defeat at the first instance?
Something is better than nothing.
No, the cops are not afraid of you in your house, armed or not. Test it any time you want.
That you see your only path in life as warring on your neighbors or considering yourself a defeated coward is the root of the issue that is ruining your life.
The US is one of the worst countries in Western Civilization to try to treat mental health issues (and yes, cognitive distortions are mental health issues), but the only responsible path lies through getting yourself healthy before ever considering having a family, or owning a weapon.
I'm sorry but these are all idealistic musings. I'm looking for some practical examples of where the 2nd Amendment can nowadays help defeat the proverbial government. I claim that when needed the govt will trample all over you despite your most up-to-date arsenal and skills.
I think you should read up on Ruby Ridge if you think Americans always lay down when approached by superior forces in government.
While that was a horrible tragedy that led to even more, history is full of inferior forces defeating militarily superior ones.
The key though is you need guns ;)
Yep. And if inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere.
And numbers.
Superior forces win the fight between their ears. This includes the ability to think critically think. This includes the notion of responsibility and obligation, without which the notion of rights are illusory.
It doesn't matter if you stand up. It matters if you have done the work. The number in the US that have are diminishingly small.
No, you have never faced the force that would be applied with restraint and competence against you during your insurrection, your fan fiction Ruby Ridge standoff, or any mighty sovereign citizen uprising.
You are not formidable. You already know this.
Not to glamorize them or anything, but Waco held out for quite a while and they were just a bunch of cultish nuts, women, and children. It’s possible to last, and it would (hypothetically of course, not advocating in any way) be possible to win if the government was to go full tyrant and enough people rose up.
Waco went on as long as it did because the forces arrayed against them were under restraint.
You are not possessed of enough people, and never will be. This is rather the point. Even if you were, you would be moving from a state of civilization to a state of nature where all war on all. Hardly an improvement.
Waco was an "organization". And still, if govt wanted to wipe them out instantly they could have, easily. To think that the whole citizenry can somehow be organized to act up in a coordinated way - really?
The 2nd Amendment debate was had and resolved in the US over 200 years ago. There is a reason civics and history is no longer taught to our children. If it was taught we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today.
As the meme goes, if the government wants to disarm citizens after 243 years it is because they want to do something you would shoot them for.
What I'm trying to get at is this - the government does not need to disarm its citizens since it is not afraid of them. Citizens need their guns to protect themselves against the scum the topic is about.
Unfortunately our government does not base their actions on what they “need to” do. They base their actions on what will increase their power over us. We must retain a deterrent to this at all costs or liberty will cease to exist.
It's not about protection. It's about control vs. freedom of the individual.
Sure, but tragically, freedom has to be protected. Being able to protect yourself from the agents of chaos and destruction(criminals set loose directly or indirectly by politicians) is a necessary side affect. In other words, you can’t be free if you are dead.
I meant to say, "It's not just about...." and "It's also about...", repectively.
Any of it is long-since debunked, though.
The most likely use in the US for your weapon is suicide of yourself of others.
Training/awareness/etc prevents none of it.
There is no notion of "responsibility" in the US possible for weapon owners. A responsible individual would move to a country that isn't failing, that doesn't fetishist deregulation for the sake of deregulation, and that doesn't shirk that duties and obligations that come with rights.
In the US, which has been downgraded to 'partial democracy', where the life expectancy is falling, where maternal and infant mortality is climbing, where health and safety are political wedges, no weapon owner can call themselves responsible.
The only responsible action in the US for weapons is to not be possessed of them until such time as the fetish culture and the causes of it are understood and resolved. That includes the health care system, which is captive, the mental health care system, which pretty much doesn't exist, the socio-economic factors that enshrine poverty and wealth disparity, and that make the US one of the worst countries in Western Civilization for economic mobility.
It is probably not possible to redeem the US, as the problem as with all societies is with the populace. It may well be true that the US will not be a failed state. It is undeniable that it is in decline on most fronts, and inevitable that this decline will end in a failed state if left interrupted.
What country do you live in?
Xi? That you?
Sometimes more guns aren’t the solution. Indeed!
But freedom to decide for yourself what is best for you and your family is always part of the solution.
I was curious about something in regards to Brazil gun laws. I remember hearing that Bolsonaro relaxed some restrictions on firearm purchases. Can many Brazilians obtain firearms legally or are the relaxed restrictions just limited to upper middle class citizens (Bolsonaro voters) who cannot quite afford professional armed security?
On another note, can you tell me a bit more about the BOPE? I have heard opinions on them ranging from fascist, jackbooted thugs to the only thing still keeping order. I do know they are ruthless, do not care much for due process, and have one hell of an unsubtle logo. They are usually associated with right leaning politics in Brazil. Of course "right" and "left" are a lot different there than in the United States.
Here is a documentary I watched 😂
https://www.amazon.com/Elite-Squad-Wagner-Moura/dp/B007WCZJF0/ref=nodl_
Your article was definitely received in the way you intended it.
The family's coffers are filling quite nicely.
Your article takes meat off the bones about *a good guy with a gun.*
Though.
Don't it?
What do you want, a guarantee or a better chance? says the good guy with a gun.
Fellow 2A supporter. Given the changes in our society over last 12 months, have increasingly kept my SBR'd 11.5" AR-15 near my person. The Glock 19 no longer feels quite sufficient in this day and age. Fortunately, I have many options.
Glad I stocked up a long time ago. The importance of the 2nd amendment has never been more obvious to me than now.
and you have never imperiled it more than with this irresponsible position.
Sorry you feel differently, but your pearl-clutching is a little bit silly. I'd ask you to elaborate on what you think is "irresponsible," but I doubt you actually know yourself.
M. Chui, I am sympathetic to your criticism of gun-owner "bravado" and what could legitimately be described as "right-wing virtue signaling" in today's parlance. Personally, I would like to see gun owners continue to do what most already do: walk SOFTLY and carry a big stick, to quote a POTUS out of context, but I think it is what you are saying. However, the time has passed, imo, to worry about further restriction. It seems obvious that the State, not to mention the criminal element, has nowhere enough fear of the law-abiding citizen, armed or not. We argue, and they laugh. Get a gun, while you can. Exercise your right to crow about it, or not. Sacrafice one right, endanger them all.
A gentleman who once owned several businesses in Venezuela is doing landscaping work at my home. He moved in with his adult son in Tennessee because the racketeers in Venezuela have made it too dangerous and expensive to run a business in that country. He is convinced that the USA is fast becoming the next Venezuela/Brazil/failed nation and I believe he is right.
He is! I hope I am dead before it fully comes to pass, and I weep for my children and grandchildren, people say I am crazy but look how crazy I will be when it happens.
Gee, Frank. I've come into possession of a 1939-vintage shot gun. (My Italian granddad owned it.) It's a beautiful, well-maintained thing, manufactured in Belgium. I wish we were neighbors so you give me your impression of the viability of this thing. I don't really know guns, but I've found myself doing research.
I recommend finding a shotgun hobbyist forum and posting photographs to ask about identification. A reputable gunsmith will be able to tell you if it is in a condition that is safe to fire. Shop around - there is a lot of smoke and mirrors with gunsmiths.
Generally, it is safer to default to a shop located in an upscale part of your area. If they are willing to pay for good commercial real estate, they are likely to at least care about their reputation too. I would give preference to any shops that cater specifically to the shotgun sports. Look around for upscale trap/skeet ranges - they can probably point you in the right direction.
Most importantly please learn the 3 rules of gun safety (Google this, not hard to find) and consider buying a gun security cabinet of some kind from your local big box store. One sized to fit a single long arm will not cost you very much and they can be bolted to a wall stud, providing an effective deterant from theft or access by unauthorized persons (kids, party guests, etc).
The beast was designed by the man, Browning, himself. The story is that he couldn't organize production in the US. (Why?) But he got a Belgian outfit to do it. Of course. These things go for $400 - $1,500 on auctions. It's so beautiful, I'd thought it'd go for more than that. Not that I'd sell it...
Thanks for the tips. I will.
It sounds beautiful. Can you post a picture of it?
These two examples are tragic and scary. But there’s a distinct difference. In America you can easily acquire a firearm for protection. People need to get over their unreasonable fear of owning a firearm. It’s not paranoid to remain vigilant and aware that the world harbors evil. And vigilance isn’t a self fulfilling prophecy, anymore than using seatbelt means that you will have an accident. You can’t rely on the police to stop a crime, even before the defund movement. They can’t be everywhere all the time. But small things like exterior lights, locked windows and doors, and for you ladies, being very cautious about opening doors when you see unknown, I uniformed dudes outside. All this backed up by a firearm that you know how to use. All this is double important if you live in a failed state or failed cities. It is what it is, and our founders understood that tyranny comes in many forms, not just those dressed as the government.
More important then ever. As systemic racism is definitively turned on whites and Asians you can expect more deranged violence directed at those groups.
Another distinct difference is that in countries with extreme inequality, the people with the best stuff to steal can afford to hire 24/7 security, or at least an overnight guard and a driver during the day.
SF is not there yet, but getting there. Most Democrat politicians and tech oligarchs are already unequal enough, hence, "what do you peasants want guns for? Civilian gun ownership makes about as much sense as 'Woolite.' It's so unrealistic. Life is not an action movie. In real life others handle guns for you, and you leave your woollen items with the doorman for the cleaner to pick up."
Yes indeed. There’s a massive disconnect between the real lives of most Americans and those with power, money and fame. They will always have rights that their power, money or fame provide them. This is the beauty of the constitution. The constitution says, we’re all entitled to these human rights, and it restricts the elites from creating these divided societies. It’s been pretty successful in that regard to be honest. The threat now resonates from private but ultra powerful entities that share the ideological end goals of a political party and can basically achieve change that the constitution wouldn’t allow government to attempt. It’s up to us. Vote - both in elections and with your wallet. And like Bari has stated in some of her previous pieces, be bold in your life. Speak truth through reasoned discourse and don’t shy away from challenging woke scolds: say it with me - “I don’t think that’s obvious, ‘insert cogent argument here.’” And by all means, leave SM.
I would go as far as to say "embrace the mean words". When someone calls you mean words for not being woke, embrace is and say "Yes, I am a XXX. Now fuck off." Never apologize, always attack.
This. 100% this. Whenever I hear anti-2A arguments, I always find them to be super smug and elitists. "What do you plebs want guns for" comes from elites, out of touch politicians, Hollywood elites, billionaires etc while they sit behind gated walled gardens with armed security guards. Reminder than while the politicians are trying to destroy 2A, they are sitting in Washington behind military troops, checkpoints and fences. They are willing to let the poor innocent people get killed, send their citizens to foreign lands to kill people but they themselves always stay protected.
“Shall NOT be infringed”
Democrats: We aren’t sure what this means but we are sure we disagree with it.
Add cameras to the list, some of them include audio features and can scare the crap out of an intruder before they get in.
Glenn, I'm so sorry you had to go through that, and so glad you weren't hurt. Peace and healing to you.
Good thing California has some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation.
Hello from the Peoples Republic of California. You are so right. You can have a gun in your home, but legally it has to be kept locked up. And your ammo too. Separately! Kind of defeats the self defense purpose of owning it. Unless, of course, your home invader is kind enough to give you the time to unlock then load. Or you can decide to break the law and keep you gun loaded and accessible. What a state (spoken as a 64 year old native who will retire elsewhere).
Any sane person who can read the constitution will conclude that the keeping ammo and gun separate is unconstitutional since it defeats the purpose of self defence. But I have zero faith in the judicial system including the SCOTUS.
Meanwhile, repeated child rapists get slaps on the wrist.
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2021/apr/1/eureka-man-sentenced-five-years-prison-after-plead/
CA lets you knowingly infect another person with HIV AIDS too. Very progressive.
Luckily I'm not in CA and that nonsense doesn't apply to me but I wonder how many reasonable Californians comply with that crap.
Well as a California resident let me say groups like the NRA are worthless pieces of shit.
But we knew this when they put people like illegal gun running Ollie North in charge.
When the medical cannabis laws were changed to recreational, medical patients still had to give up their firearms due to federal law. However, recreational customers using the exact same product in the exact same manner did not have to.
This state and the DNC are not about rights, they are about power and control and they will tell you anything to keep their grip on it.
Can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if many comply, except for making sure guns are not accessible to kids. Otherwise, why bother having a weapon.
Yeah, and we parents don't need the State, at any level, telling us to "make sure guns are not accessible to kids." What the hell? Tell you what, I think I speak for the vast majority of parents when I say, "My children are a hell of a lot important to me than any government jurisdiction telling me how to protect them!"
Come to think of it, and on the other hand, and conversely, I have NO problem with a certain private-sector group running all the gun safety ads they can.
You and me both
What defense? You were so quick to unlock both places, ram that magazine in and point it at the thief he just stood there in astonishment knowing full well it's loaded as it happened right in front of him in a flash!
I think she meant defense to criminal charges for not having her weapon locked up.
I'm sorry the humor doesn't come through easily.
Of course I meant her legal defense - she won't need any as she'd have done everything by the book :)
Got it.
That’s the risk one takes when they break into a private residence if the resident is so inclined.
I heard a really funny response to the whole “you shouldn’t value property over lives” argument: the gun owner isn’t the one who values property over lives - the one who breaks into a home that could have an armed citizen is. Because the bottom line is you can never be sure home invaders will stop at just taking stuff and leaving, and I’m not sure I’d be willing to personally take that chance of my husband and son were in danger.
I think what's meant by "property over lives" is you cannot use lethal force to defend your property. As in - when somebody is taking your car from your driveway you cannot shoot them since they "assault" your property and not your person.
However, when they invade your home over your objection they necessarily force themselves over you physically and there's no "property" argument here to speak of.
Oh my, so well said. All that advice is SO in hindsight. In the moment, you have NO idea what is gonig to happen. Of COURSE, you are going to keep coming back to, "what is possible, what is likely, and what should I do to save what is most important."
Exactly! And I was specifically referring to AmyY's actions in her CA exile. I have full confidence in her abilities.
lolz
Humboldt Co. resident here who left the Bay and have to agree.
Bay area is in "Commiefornia" isn't it? And you have two guns? Commiefornia Castle Law? I'm confused now.
I was only kidding - mostly to stress that at least here in the US we can, if we want and are able, try to equip ourselves to be prepared.
Don't forget Mexico. They have only 1 gun store and guns are restricted and yet obviously gun crime is through the roof. And establishment cronies will obviously blame that on illegal guns from the US while also claiming illegal immigration isn't a problem at all.....
"The Democrats just hate the US and want to be like any other country other than the US even if it's shittier than the US."
Likewise the elites seek and find political power under ANY polico-economic system. And, elites prosper more under Authoritarian Socialism than under even a watered-down Capitalism (the roughly 50/50 mixed economy we have now), so it really is not surprising that they pine and endeavor for ever more Statism.
Yup. Ronald Reagan was governor in 1969. But the legislature was Dem.
Different CA Democratic Party then, 50 some years ago.
Good video on what JFK would think of current Democrats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLACjd6mGZ0
But they, in fact, DO own guns. The worst kind, hired.
Stay, M. AmyY. I need you to help me rebuild California.
Certainly the trauma caused by these home invasions by gun wielding criminals pales in comparison to that experienced by Taylor Lorenz.
Seriously though, glad to hear you came through the attack physically unscathed - your voice is one that cannot afford to be lost.
Perhaps someone could point out to Ms. Lorenz and her cohorts that this is an example of real violence.
I don't think she is capable of understanding the difference.
Back in the late 70's early 80's I was an investigator for the prosecutor's office in KC. I dealt w/ too many victims who experienced what you and the family in Oakland experienced. They were amateurs and that made them much more dangerous. The testosterone level increases dramatically when a man holds a gun. Pros can handle that surge in "power" but amateurs often cannot. I am donating to the family and thank you for sharing their and your story. As a PTSD survivor, I can tell you there is often a delay in its onset. I have had a shotgun pointed at me and shot @ twice. Once, my wife and friends were in the car and that was the scariest, as my wife's window was shattered. This happened 40 years ago and I still remember blowing through a red light and looking through her hair for blood. I won't lecture you on the signs of PTSD. You are a smart person. Just please be aware of them. My prayers for the Oakland family and you and your family.
Can anyone explain why so many blacks have it in for Asian (here Vietnamese) folks? My guess is it's mainly just their rep as easy targets likely to store money at home. It also doesn't help to be considered "white-adjacent" in a rabidly woke left city like Oakland whose mayor, btw, recently decided to gift non-white poor citizens with $500/mo payments. Probably to keep them from storming the Oakland Hills, which is the tony part of town.
Wow! Nuts!
You're one of the most courageous public figures of our time and this story further demonstrates that; despite being subjected to something so horrifying, you manage to stay compassionate and humble in recounting what happened. I am so so grateful your children weren't there. Thank you for linking to the GoFundMe, the young girl in Oakland deserves all necessary resources to help her work through this and find peace.
You can thank his mom Arlene for that. Amazing person.
Glenn,
Knowing about the level of crime in Brazil, I have morbid thoughts from time to time that you might fall victim to run-of-the-mill criminals. A Brazilian student I knew lost his father in a holdup. The robbers shot and killed him without pretext. Your situation is further compounded by your political enemies some of whom are prone to violence. I'm relieved as I'm sure many others are that this episode ended without bodily harm. Wishing you all the best.
My biggest surprise is that you have security guards. Glad you survived and I hope the writing of this was cathartic.
As for the dogs, they don't think - they act/react. You may think they are there to protect you, but they are there to be fed, sheltered and obey their pack values. You may be the pack leader (to them you are a dog that makes odd noises and walks upright), but with 12 dogs they have their own pack hierarchy. Once the robbers were in charge, if I may borrow a phrase, the pack did not have a dog in the fight.
If you want dogs to defend you, you need to buy "man" dogs and train them, have them live apart and never be petted. They will still need to be given commands, and they could just as easily obey the commands of an alpha invader and attack you. I'm not sure that would work for you and yours...
The trauma is going to be with you (and the Oakland family) for life. It is happening to thousands of people, unreported, every hour of every day. Take a look at the slaughter of white farmers in South Africa, the young Latina girls being shipped in across the southern border or the Chinese girls being trafficked to "massage" parlors worldwide - beaten, raped, threatened and beaten again into compliance.
We need borders - your fence, your front door, your walls, your country. And we need the will to defend our homes and families, because our politicians are not going to do it for us.
Insecurity at home is going to be much more common as the 0.1% destroy our economic independence with their global reset. For the crooks covered in your article, the virus is just an excuse: they are not Robin Hood and his Merry Men. They are smart enough to play victim, just like the journalists you have been writing about.
A heart is not enough here. Especially last 2 paras, so well said.
Glenn, what a wonderful article. Tomorrow is Easter Sunday and I will contribute to the fund then. But I have 2 others short comments.
First, let me offer my sympathy to you for your ordeal. I know you knew when you moved to Brazil that it wasn't the safest place in the world. But no of us thinks it will ever happen to us. Like you I am thankful your children were not there. A true blessing. I hope you and the security guard overcome this incident quickly.
Second, I was raised a a child in SW Mississippi and I have had dogs all my life. I know you will understand this when I say I much prefer the company of a dog(s) to most human beings. They are truly God's gift to mankind and I believe all my dogs are in Heaven waiting to cross the Rainbow Bridge with me when I meet St Peter. God bless you Glenn from a true Southern conservative.
"For whatever reasons, I recovered fairly quickly".
Either you have nerves of steel or it hasn't really sunk in yet. What a horrifying ordeal. To not only have a gun pointed at you, but to have it put into your mouth. Whew, my Depends would've been sagging. Plus like you said, "you only need one to be sufficiently unhinged or impetuous for real violence to start." This might be more traumatic for a child or parent to process, but, thank goodness, you're fucking lucky, man.
Am I weird in looking for confirmation to a story before sending money? I know home invasions occur, but hearing from the police in Oaklad would be useful. People can make up a story and collect $100k. Very sorry to hear about Glenn's ordeal.
I'm familiar with this reporter's work. I have several friends who are journalists in the Bay Area who vouched for the reporting. And a network affiliate there has extensively reported on it.
Devil's advocate here...this is a common story in the bay area and you could do this story once a week due to the home invasions here.
Do you think the media is running with this story because the victims are asian americans at a time we are seeing a lot of violence toward them?
Again this is a story you could write every week in the bay. Home invasions are an everyday occurrence.
I won't use WOKE go fund me they need to be out of business ref their cancel culture
Wish I knew that before I used them.
Someone broke into my home years ago. I wasn't there. The house was empty. I remember how totally naked I felt walking around the house and observing the places the robber had been. A/he went to the fridge, pulled out some leftover KFC, walked to my desk. Sat down, read some letters, ate the chicken and rummaged through some desk drawers. It's like I could see a glowing path around the house. It left me feeling like there were no safe places.
So. I hope your family and the other family recover emotionally from your experiences, not today or tomorrow, but soon.
My experience exactly. Had to move eventually. PTSD is so real.