Some commentary by Doug Hagin at SmallGovTimes.com:

Why, though, do those on the Left despise self-defense? They are collectivists, and Socialists. They believe that people should think and act collectively not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection not you. Listen to all the left’s talking points concerning guns and self-defense. They never talk about Americans who use guns in self-defense. Rather, they paint armed Americans as morons or trigger happy rednecks. Honestly, how many times have they laid out the tired old line about shootouts in the streets if states allow concealed carry permits? Never mind that such events have not happened in the 30-plus states that allow concealed carry, ever.

If you really want a great example of how the left views gun owners and particularly self-defense, look at a recent news story out of Oakland. There, restaurant owner Catarino Piedra recently shot and killed an armed man who tried to rob him. Piedra’s wife and three children were in the restaurant and he feared the armed robber would hurt them. So, acting in defense of his family, he pulled his 9mm and shot his attacker, killing him. Now stop right there my friends. This is clearly a case of a man, seeing his life and that of his family in peril acting reasonably in defending himself and his family.

Those on the Left, though, see it quite differently. Consider how Oakland Police Department spokesperson Roland Holmgrem described the actions of Piedra. "This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

Excuse me? How can anyone disagree with a man defending his family? How can anyone question the justification of this restaurant owner? He is the victim, a victim who chose, honorably, to fight back, to defend himself. Yet, he has his actions questioned? He has his self-defense ridiculed. He has become the bad guy now.

No quotes this time, just see this interesting article at John Lott's Website: Privatizing Law Enforcement in Southern Oregon.  Included is a scan of a newspaper clipping for a small newspaper that doesn't have an online presence.

Basically, there isn't enough tax money to pay the sheriff's department, so people have started buying more guns than usual, and the sheriff is going to be holding courses for the area citizens to help them learn about self defense, defense of property, and the legal implications thereof.

From KnoxNews:

As states and colleges across the country review their gun policies in light of the tragedy, many in Utah are proud to have the nation's only state law that expressly allows the carrying of concealed weapons at public colleges.

"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.

There are some foolish statements in the article. Like this:

"What happened at Virginia Tech might have been stopped," said Christine Zabawa, a medical researcher at the university. However, she said it is a bad idea to allow guns in dormitories, and fears an accident could happen during a party on campus.

"Alcohol and guns. It's a bad combination," she said.

Well then, Christine, why don't you just ban alcohol, since bans always work so well?

Oda said banning guns on campus might do more harm than good. He said people bent on violence might resort to other, perhaps bloodier methods, such as swords.

"A person that's got skill with a sword in a very big crowd could put a lot more people down with a sword than a gun," he said. "They're silent. You'll have people screaming, but nobody knows what's going on."

Or some psychotic killer might, you know, just ignore the ban and bring a gun anyway. I've heard that kind of thing has happened before.

Via Of Arms and the Law.

UPDATE:  I'm bumping this old post back to the top because some other folks have made similar posts lately, and I am adding links to them all from this post.  Scroll to the bottom for the links.  If you have a similar post, let me know and I'll add it, too.

---

I've been thinking about this some lately. It has lurking in the back of my mind for a while, and some thoughts were more recently crystallized because of this post at South Park Pundit.

I didn't always carry a gun. I actually only carried a concealed weapon one time previous to having a CHL, and then it was in my vehicle, not on my person. As if that makes any difference to the "authorities." Even after then-Governor Bush signed the law that established legal concealed carry in Texas, I didn't take advantage of it for several years.

I suppose many other people who carry have been asked the same question I have a few times: Why do you want to carry a gun?

My honest answer is: I don't want to carry a gun.

I don't want to do a lot of things. I don't want to hold down a regular job that drains me of all my energy so that by the end of the day, most of the time, all I can do is come home, eat, shower, and go to sleep. I don't want to rely so heavily on gasoline for my well-being. Having grown up in the country where there aren't many decent jobs, I have come to rely heavily on gasoline for commuting to the city where there are better opportunities. Having a family with two small children I have to do whatever I can to provide for them, which means I take the best jobs I can get, even if I hate them, which I usually do. Sure, I could move to the city and use less gas. But then I would also have to pay more for less land, be crowded into higher population densities, and my children would be exposed to a higher rate of drugs, crime and danger than they are now. I prefer to stay where I am.

Which brings me to the gun. I carry it for them. As a father, and as a more or less decent human being with a fairly well-honed conscience, I would be failing them if I didn't do what I had to to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, and protection.

I have heard people say that they are big enough and strong enough to handle anyone who threatens them or their family. Anyone who thinks he or she is big enough and strong enough to use their bare hands against a criminal armed with a gun is a fool. I am neither big nor strong, but I have dedicated myself to their protection, and I will do what I can and what I must, if I am forced to.

It means I must examine a number of guns to find the one that works best for me. It means I must weigh the destructive potential of a caliber against the number of times a given gun is capable of delivering that potential before reloading. It means I must carry different guns to discover which is easiest for me to carry, draw and wield. It means I must learn about different types of ammunition so that I can decide which ones are best able to deliver that potential.

My children already know this. I know they know it because they have both asked me something along the lines of, "If a bad person tried to get me, would you shoot them?" I answer them honestly, "Yes, if I had to, to keep you safe." This has not had the effect of making them paranoid, to my knowledge. On the contrary, it seems to be working for them. My very young son has even gone so far as to say that when he grows up, he will help keep me safe, too.

If something were to happen that abolished the Texas CHL law, I don't think I could go back. I know that their protection is my responsibility, and it's a responsibility that I can't rely on anyone else to provide.

If I lived in my ideal world, I would spend all my time puttering around a large ranch with nothing but a .22 hanging from a gun rack behind the seat of my truck. I would probably not own a handgun at all. Well, maybe a .22 handgun, just because they are so universally useful. But I don't live in my ideal world and I doubt that very many people do.

So when someone asks me why I want to carry a gun, this is my answer. I don't carry because I want to. I carry because it's the right thing to do.

SEE ALSO:
Confessions of a Deathbeast at Hell in a Handbasket.
Why I Carry at What Would John Wayne Do?
Last words on why I carry at When Your Only Tool Is A Hammer.
Why Carry? at Random Ramblings of a Republitarian.
Become Just. One. Person at Joe's Crabby Shack.

Philip van Cleave of VCDL in The Raw Story:

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip van Cleave president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.

Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus -- especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

He's more optimistic than I am. I hope he's right.

Interesting editorial from Investor's Business Daily:

Bernard Goldberg, in his book "Arrogance" (Warner, 2003), reports how the media reported the tragic events of that day. He notes that Lott did a LexisNexis search and found that only four of 208 news reports mentioned the rescuers had guns. James Eaves-Johnson did his own LexisNexis search for the Daily Iowan (University of Iowa) and found that only two of 88 stories mentioned that armed students subdued the killer and prevented more deaths.

Commentary on how the bias against guns relates to the recent atrocity.

Last words on why I carry over at Hammer's blog.  Good words against someone whose only argument is to regurgitate Brady lies.

Unfortunately, such reasoned points as Hammer's are rarely effective against a dedicated member of the cult of victimhood.

Bruce of No Looking Backwards asks that other bloggers avoid posting photos of the VT murderer because doing so would only give him the notoriety he craved.

Readers of this blog will note that I have not posted his photo, nor have I ever even mentioned his name.  His identity should be condemned to obscurity.

On the other hand, we should make it a point to remember and honor Liviu Librescu.

A 75-year-old Israeli professor and Holocaust survivor was killed in the massacre at Virginia Tech Monday when he leaped between the gunman and his students.

According to eye witnesses the heroic action of Liviu Librescu saved the lives of an unknown number of students in his class.

Gun Culture points out bias against self defense at the BBC.  Also here.

BBC biased?  Imagine that!

From Oleg Volk.

Follow the link for lots more images on this topic.

Technorati Tags: Virginia+Tech, self+defense

I don't have anything thought-provoking or profound to say.  I'm filled with sorrow at the loss of these innocent people.  I'm filled with hatred and rage toward those who work so hard to ensure that they were defenseless.

I am filled with utter disgust (plus hatred and rage) at heartless, smarmy bastards like this, who are already slathering themselves with the blood of their victims and gloating because they think they've made a point.

Yeah, I said their victims.  No, they didn't help pull the trigger, but their irrationality regarding the fundamental right of self-defense makes them partly culpable.  In my eyes, they are accessories to mass murder and should be treated as such.

I just don't have the heart to say any more.  I have no way to articulate my anger.

UPDATE:  Read this by Michael Bane.  And this by ChuBlogga!

Everyone has heard about it already.

Michelle Malkin points to Thinking on the Margin, who has a campus map showing how far the murderer walked across the campus, completely unmolested.

Reports are that these two separate mass murders were committed about 2 hours apart.

Two hours!

And nothing happened.

No class cancellations, no campus evacuations, no alerts, no police swarming the campus looking for this guy.  Nothing at all.

So tell us, Larry, where were your "hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting" this time?  Especially since they had two hours to prepare for the second onslaught.

Of course the campus was a Psychotic Killer Free-For-All Zone, often erroneously referred to as a "Gun Free Zone" by those who prefer to delude themselves with wishful thinking.

Imagine it, Larry.  If it weren't for evil victimizers such as yourself, one or two well-placed bullets could have saved a lot of lives.

UPDATE:  Interesting update and comments at Shooting the Messenger.

Columbia, South Carolina:

Deputies are searching for four suspects they say approached a man they knew, when he opened fire on them.

Investigators say at 10:30 p.m. on Thursday at the Mallard Point Apartments on 1101 Hallbrook Road, three men and a woman approached a man to settle an ongoing dispute over the woman.

After that, deputies say one of the suspects dropped a gun, and the victim picked it up and shot the suspect in the chest.

Investigators say the suspect has non-life threatening injuries.

Deputies will not file charges against the shooter.

Doesn't he know that taking the gun away is only supposed to work in favor of the bad guys?

Texas State Rifle Association Executive Director James Dark fisks Marsha McCartney's testimony against passage of the recent "Stand Your Ground" bill.  Here's a small sample:

Near the conclusion of her testimony, Ms. McCartney mentioned that she participates in gun-buyback programs. I hope that she is considering how she might look in an orange jumpsuit if the authorities ever take a good look at what’s going on with these gun buybacks. In the same committee meeting, a state representative and another witness (for the antis) admitted that they knew that most of those guns purchased in buybacks were stolen. Texas law forbids the purchase of “property [that] is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another.”

Am I the only one that wonders why these gun buybacks are allowed to proceed and why they are not looked into by the authorities? Do you not wonder why there is no attempt to link up the stolen property with the rightful owners, rather than buy the guns simply to feed them into a grinder?

McCartney is President of the North Texas Chapter of the Brady Campaign.  Most (just about all of it, actually) of her testimony involved simply reeling off one lie after another.

Thanks to A Keyboard and a .45.

Egghead Professor Gerald S. Reamey commenting in the San Antonio Express-News:

But why shouldn't people be expected to "calculate" before killing someone? Why doesn't it matter whether someone has a knife instead of a gun or whether the person is armed at all?

Weak argument, Jerry.  You have failed to convince me that I must psychoanalyze someone who is forcing his way into my home.

Besides, your argument is based on a false assumption, and if you were really familiar with Texas law, you would know about that old "night-time" clause regarding forcible entry.

Back up to the very beginning of this commentary:

Years ago, I was a legal adviser for a Texas police department. Before going on vacation, I put my house on "special patrol."

In the middle of the night just before I left town, my wife heard noises outside our bedroom. Someone was shining a flashlight on the door leading to the patio.

Because I was also a sworn officer, I had a pistol close at hand. As we watched the door, we saw the doorknob start to turn slowly. While I trained my pistol on the door, my wife called 911. She was informed an officer already was at the scene.

As you've probably guessed, the burglar I was prepared to shoot was a police officer mistaken about when to begin the patrol on my home.

So he was there for a legitimate reason. Was there a legitimate reason for him to be opening your door at night without knocking first?  Sounds like he was about as sharp as a dull fence post.

On the other hand, here is another commentary in the Austin American-Statesman by State Senator Jeff Wentworth and Representative Patrick Rose:

We take strong exception to the American-Statesman's Friday editorial "Gun Bill Encourages Violent Confrontations" and its inaccurate portrayal of the intent and the scope of Senate Bill 378, which passed the Texas House and Senate and was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Rick Perry.

SB 378 amends three aspects of Texas criminal and civil law with narrowly crafted language to benefit the innocent and not hinder the prosecution of lawbreakers in self-defense cases.

First, the bill creates a "presumption of reasonableness" for the use of force in response to an unlawful and forcible entry into an occupied home, vehicle or place of business or employment. A Senate panel added language to clarify that the presumption would not apply to people who provoke their attackers or engage in criminal activity.

Gang members, barroom brawlers and spousal abusers will not benefit from this change if they harm someone and try to claim self-defense. But victims of home invasions, carjackings and hold-ups will know the law is on their side when responding with force to a criminal attack.

Prosecutors can still bring charges, take cases before grand juries and rebut such presumptions if evidence exists that self-defense claims are not legitimate. But if no such evidence exists, the case probably should never have gone forward in the first place. The bill levels the playing field for crime victims and may even serve to prevent politics from entering into prosecutorial decision-making.

Second, the bill states that you have "no duty to retreat" from an attack if you are in a place you have a right to be, did not provoke your attacker and are not engaged in criminal activity. This was essentially Texas law until the mid-1970s. Under current law, the use of deadly force for self-defense outside the home is justified only "if a reasonable person in your situation would not have retreated." Victims should not be required to retreat simply because a criminal decided to attack them in a parking lot as opposed to waiting until they got home to commit the same crime.

Third, the bill protects victims from civil actions for using force authorized by law. The thought that victims could lose their life savings defending themselves against civil lawsuits brought by their injured criminal attackers is ludicrous. If we can offer more protection from this type of litigious devastation, we should do so.

Opponents falsely claimed in committee hearings on the bill that in the first year after Florida's landmark "Castle" law took effect, 13 people shot someone, claimed self-defense under the new law and got off free and clear. However, a review of those deadly force cases by an Orlando newspaper showed that authorities cleared five individuals, charged three and continued to investigate the remaining cases. Hardly the "get out of jail free" card opponents claim it is.

The editor had to add: "The Texas District and County Attorneys Association opposed the bill."  Of course they did.  Any law that would eliminate the possibility of another trial is a threat to their income.  Screw 'em.