Channeling Helmke to the masses

It's inevitable that editorial boards (typically composed of liberals who know nothing of combat, tactics, guns, life, earth, reality, etc.) are going to come out with high-minded baloney against right to carry laws on college campuses. However, you have to wonder whether or not they are actually thinking for themselves or channeling Paul Helmke while pretending to think for themselves:

In dormitories, more guns will undoubtedly mean more gun-related accidents, more suicides and more senseless tragedies brought about by immaturity, lack of judgment, impulsivity, alcohol consumption or mental illness. But whatever their root cause, each of those incidents will only have been made possible by the proximity of guns.

So there it is. They've written off all college students as immature, idiotic, impulsive, drunks and sociopaths (just like Paul has almost word-for-word). They seem to forget that there are a lot of non-traditional students out there who would like to be safe in a classroom too.

Of course, I can think of a place where there are a whole lot more people of the similar ages to the average college classroom who are all sitting in "dormitories" with fully automatic firearms. It's probably even more frightening to said editorial boards that these young people tend to be conformist and all wear the same clothes and speak respectfully of tradition, authority, and discipline.


Let's also not forget that some of these guys are coming back and going to college. And now, the editorial boards are screaming that they are too immature to handle a firearm in a dangeous situation? Come on. They've been in combat how much more training do you need?!?!

This seems to me more like a case of projection. Go back and read that description again and you'll probably get a good picture of what a bunch of hippie kids were like before they got a chance to be on editorial boards at local newspapers. You know, immature, idiotic, impulsive, drunks and sociopaths...

Local Reaction to the Empty Holster Protest

Click here for the video from KOMO TV 4 in Seattle, WA. This piece about Ethan Pratt and the Empty Holster Protest organized by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus aired last night.

Over all I thought it was a pretty balanced piece, although a bit short. They did manage to slip in a couple of negative views versus the one pro-gun viewpoint though. One is the Seattle Pacific University spokesman Vick Peirson who thinks that getting behind a lockable door is the best way to survive a "Cho-like" rampage, and the anonymous young woman who says that guns on campus would make her nervous. How she'd know about it since it's called Concealed Carry for a reason is beyond me. Besides, the protest organizers have stated this isn't about arming every student, instead, it is just about letting the students who have CCW permits already to legally carry their weapons with them on college campuses.

Funny, I've never once considered carrying a lockable door around with me for protection. One, like a police officer, it's too heavy and two, a gun is more effective.

National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest

Press Release - National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest – Students for Concealed Carry on College Campuses – ConcealedCampus.com

On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims—He wasn’t concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech’s status as a “gun free zone,” this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

In thirty-nine U.S. states, thousands of collegiate students and faculty—age twenty-one and above—are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals might pose any more threat to college campuses than they do to office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc., they are currently prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses. On October 22 these students, through their Empty Holster Protest, will ask for a change.

In the last twenty years, the vast majority of the mass shootings in America—from the Texas Luby’s massacre to the Columbine High School massacre—have happened in “gun free zones.” Labeling an area “gun free” may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.

For over a year, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies, including studies by John Lott, David Mustard, William Sturdevant, and state justice departments, show that license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. Clearly, license holders pose little threat to college campuses.

While some may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, the students of the Empty Holster Protest contend that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place on America’s college campuses, and these students respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

Oregon Teacher Steps Forward

Oregon teacher suing to carry gun in class reveals identity

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon teacher suing to assert a right to carry a gun at school has made her name public.

She is Shirley Katz, 43, a teacher for 21 years, the last seven in Medford. She teaches English at South Medford High School.

She went public in interviews beginning Tuesday with Lars Larson on his talk radio show.

Katz says she fears her former husband. They were divorced last year, and she has had two restraining orders against him, the last of which expired in September. She said she missed a deadline to renew it.

Gerry Katz, 54, a photographer, told the Medford Mail Tribune that he's no threat and said his former wife has made unfounded accusations as part of her effort to limit his visitation with their 5-year-old daughter.

Shirley Katz has custody, and Gerry Katz has weekly visitation rights under the divorce decree, which required him to complete an anger management class, the Mail Tribune reported.

On Sept. 26, a judge denied her bid to limit visitation rights and his request for full custody, the paper said.

Gerry Katz also has a concealed weapon permit, but his gun was seized after he waved the weapon at another driver and was charged with disorderly conduct, the paper said.

Shirley Katz filed her suit under the pseudonym Jane Doe. She said she went public after the school district filed a motion to dismiss the case based in part on her anonymity.

"I am definitely under the microscope," she said. "I had sought to avoid that (by remaining anonymous). My son goes to school here. My daughter is in the school system."

Katz filed the lawsuit Sept. 18. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 11.

The Oregon Firearms Foundation is financing her lawsuit.

Oregonians who have concealed weapon permits may carry a gun onto most public properties, including schools, without violating state law.

School districts, however, commonly bar teachers from carrying guns to classrooms.

Oregon Teacher Poll

Go here and show your support for her right to carry a concealed weapon in her school!

Another B.S. Anti Editorial

No guns in school. Period.

Sympathy for an Oregon high-school teacher with a restraining order against an ex-husband ought not extend to allowing her to carry a gun to school.

The Medford School District teacher, known as Jane Doe in court papers, wants an exception to the district's policy against guns on school property so she can carry her Glock 9-mm. The answer forthcoming from a Jackson County Court judge ought to be a resounding no. The teacher's fear of her ex-spouse deserves a compassionate response — one that doesn't lead to pistol-packin' teachers.

The school could beef up security. Or the teacher could be given a paid leave while sorting out her personal problems. The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.

There are solutions that don't require a gun in the classroom. The teacher has a concealed-carry permit but that doesn't give her the right to bring a gun to class.

If teachers fearful for their safety can carry guns, what about other school employees, or students fearful of the playground bully? Exceptions could create a school climate that is dangerous and distracts from education.

The 1994 federal Gun-Free Schools Act is threatened by cases such as the one in Oregon. The Christian Science Monitor reports the Michigan and Ohio legislatures have pending bills permitting school employees to carry concealed weapons on school grounds, while others have considered the possibility.

Washington state law prohibits anyone other than law-enforcement personnel from possessing weapons on school premises, school-provided transportation or any facility exclusively used by public or private schools. Legislative efforts led by Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, would remove legal ambiguity by defining what is considered a weapon and making possession of one a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor.

Oregon's Jane Doe may fear she's in harm's way. But taking a gun into her classroom puts students in the same predicament.

Yes Virginia, Guns Really do Save Lives!

Found at Conservative Scalawag.

What not to do...

...if you are prone to road rage and think that following and harassing other drivers is cool!



I can't speak to the authenticity of the video, but it looks to be real from what I can tell. Good thing we don't have Smell o' Vision because I'm sure the smell of urine was strong in the air at the end.

LOL!

The Truth About the Right To Carry

This needs to be seen far and wide.


Thanks to Xavier Thoughts for the video.

Where Discretionary CCW Permitting Gets You

FBI reportedly probes gun permits
Suit alleges ex-Sheriff Blanas issued licenses for concealed weapons as political favors.
By Christina Jewett - Bee Staff Writer

The FBI is looking into concealed-gun permits issued by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, according to documents filed in a lawsuit that alleges former Sheriff Lou Blanas issued permits as political favors.

Documents filed Friday in the federal civil rights suit say FBI investigators have requested gun permit documents from the department, which include a permit Blanas issued to Sacramento businessman Edwin G. Gerber. Gerber gave $3,500 to Blanas' election campaign, election records show, and bought a vacation home with Blanas in Reno in the fall of 2005, according to property records.

The former sheriff signed Gerber's gun permit a day before leaving office last summer. He issued the approval without following the department's usual procedure, which calls for a three-person committee to review applications from people asking to carry a loaded gun in public, according to interviews and court documents.

FBI spokesman Steven Dupre declined to say whether an investigation was taking place.

Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness said he could not comment on any possible FBI review.

Law enforcement sources said the FBI did request information from the department's concealed-weapons permit division. But those sources said they had no knowledge of whether Gerber's application was included in that request.

Blanas and Gerber did not return repeated calls from The Bee.

State law says sheriffs and police chiefs can award concealed-weapon permits based on "good cause" to people of "good moral character."

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department sets the bar higher. Applicants typically are interviewed by a deputy and required to take a gun safety class in addition to facing the review panel.

McGinness said the permit approval committee was put in place more than a decade ago to keep the elected sheriff from deciding who gets the permits and giving the appearance of political motivation.

He said the system has worked generally well, but here, as in many counties, it is a "nebulous" endeavor that he'd like to see better organized.

McGinness said Gerber's application was for an "emergency permit" that should have lasted 90 days -- instead of the two years of most permits.

Gerber said in his application that he carried "large sums of cash" and wore expensive jewelry.

The department revoked Gerber's permit in December -- five months after it was issued, McGinniss said.

Attorney John Lavra, who works for a private firm that contracts with the county, represents Blanas and the county in the civil rights suit. He would not comment specifically on Gerber's permit, saying only that all permits are issued for good reason.

About 250 civilians hold gun-carry permits issued by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, officials said. While it is legal to have a gun in one's house or business, it is a crime to walk around with a loaded gun without a permit.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2003 when Blanas was sheriff, alleges that Blanas denied David Mehl, a chemical engineer, and Lok T. Lau, a retired FBI agent, equal protection under the law when his office turned down their applications for gun-carry permits.

"It's about political influence, power and money," said their attorney Gary Gorski. "Anyone who gives money to the sheriff and applies for a (permit), gets a (permit). There are a lot of people who apply for one and need one but don't get one."

Lavra said both men were denied permits for good cause and in accordance with long-standing policy.

"We believe that the undisputed evidence in the case will show that each were denied a (weapon) license based upon legal and legitimate and sound reasons," Lavra said.

On Friday, Gorski filed documents claiming Blanas' attorneys have been withholding evidence in the federal case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled Monday that Gorski and Blanas' attorneys should try to work out their disagreement before an Aug. 22 hearing about the evidence.

In the paperwork filed Friday, Gorski says a Sheriff's Department clerk told him during a sworn deposition that the FBI was investigating gun-carry permits. That includes Gerber's hand-scrawled application, Gorski said.

The application contains only a brief explanation for why Gerber was seeking to carry a loaded gun: "Carry large sums of cash $4,000-$5,000. Wear $45,000 watch & rings -- expensive jewelry."

On the cover sheet, the word "approved" is checked, and the comments line says simply: "Approved by Sheriff Blanas," with his signature.

McGinness said Gerber's permit was revoked in December when officials noted that the 90-day period had passed and that Gerber had not provided proof of completing a gun safety class.

On Dec. 19, Gerber sent a letter to the department stating that when he applied for the permit, he told Blanas he had been assaulted three times in Sacramento restaurants and bars, increasing his need for protection. Gerber had not included that information in his application or filed police reports, McGinness said.

In May -- five months after the department had pulled Gerber's permit -- Blanas called and suggested the new sheriff revoke the permit because the threat against Gerber no longer existed, McGinness said.

Gorski said hundreds of applicants with more compelling needs to carry a gun have been rejected over the years. His filings allege that six major Blanas contributors were issued weapon permits, as well as several business associates of Blanas and his wife.

According to campaign finance filings, Gerber's company, Energetic Paint & Drywall Inc., gave $1,500 to Blanas in August 2003, part of a $3,500 contribution during the election cycle.

Two years later, Gerber, Blanas and his wife, Nanette Blanas, took out a $518,000 loan together for a house worth $647,000 in Reno, records from the Washoe County assessor and recorder show.

Elections records show that Gerber made two $5,000 contributions to McGinness in August 2006. McGinness returned both, records show.

"That was money I didn't need, so I gave it back," he said.

McGinness said he has assigned new captains and chiefs to the permit-review panel. He said he plans to change the system, making it computer-based and standardized. He said he will have veto power over permits awarded from now on.

Sheriff Wants More Concealed Carry

ID sheriff: more concealed gun permits would boost public safety
8/8/2007, 6:45 p.m. PDT
The Associated Press

MOSCOW, Idaho (AP) — The sheriff of a north-central Idaho county where a shooting rampage left four dead and three wounded last May wants more people to obtain concealed weapons permits and carry guns, including on the University of Idaho campus, to improve public safety.

"In my opinion, if there were more students with (concealed weapons permits), the world would be safer," Latah County Sheriff Wayne Rausch told the Lewiston Tribune on Tuesday. "Just because we (law enforcement officers) are charged with protecting the public, doesn't mean the public shouldn't be able to protect itself."

The university bans guns except under supervised circumstances at its firing range. Except for law enforcement officials, the university requires that firearms "be transported to the range unloaded, encased, with a trigger lock attached or otherwise rendered inoperable."

Rausch's idea also contradicts Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney, who late last month asked for a legal opinion from the state attorney general's office on whether the city has the authority to ban both concealed and exposed weapons in public areas such as city buildings.

Late on May 19, Jason Hamilton killed his wife at their Moscow home before driving to the courthouse and firing some 200 gunshots into a sheriff's dispatch center. There, he killed one law enforcement officer and wounded two others, as well as wounding a man who armed himself and ran to help.

Hamilton then went to the nearby First Presbyterian Church, fatally shooting a caretaker. Hamilton fired as many as 80 rounds inside the church before taking his own life.

Tania Thompson, director of media relations at the university, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that school officials declined to comment about Rausch's push for more concealed weapons on campus.

Chaney did not immediately return a call from the AP.

Sgt. Brannon Jordan, who is still recovering from being shot by Hamilton that night, said he agrees with Rausch when it comes to having more concealed weapons, but added, "When I make contact with a person, I like to be the only one with a gun."

Rausch said people who apply for concealed weapons permits are screened, and are typically not a problem. He said some 540 people in the county now carry concealed weapons.

One of them showed up at Monday's City council meeting and said he was carrying a handgun.

"When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away," David Klingenberg, 36, told the meeting. "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

Rausch is the only law enforcement officer in the county with the authority to issue concealed weapons permits to individuals.

"Most of those are good citizens," he said.

Rausch said that if Moscow officials ban guns in public buildings and parks, they will have to pay to enforce the ban.

"We don't have any system in the courthouse to back up the ban on guns," Rausch said. "The bad guy is going to go right through the door."

He said a metal detector screens people entering the federal building in Moscow, but that the county courthouse, City Hall and other public buildings in the county have no such systems.

___

Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com

Ten things non-gun people should know about CCW holders

1. We don't carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don't walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don't get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don't hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don't think we are cops, spies, or superheroes. We aren't hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don't take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don't believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or "rage" incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don't pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply lying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of "accidental discharges". There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun "going off" was the result of negligence on somebody's part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it's very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don't generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like "there's a guy running around in the store with a gun" or even simply "I saw a man with a gun in the store" could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe "gun free zones". If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don't believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe "gun free zones". Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.

..clicky..

Lt. Col. Grossman on the VT Report

Lt. Col. Grossman: Virginia Tech Tragedy Report Misses Point

A leading expert on mass violence has taken issue with a presidential task force report delving into the Virginia Tech shootings and school violence in general, saying it fails to address the key issues.

The report, released to the public on June 13, was issued by a panel that included Michael Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and was officially titled "Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy.”

But Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former West Point instructor, declared: "I think they missed the boat.”

Grossman is the author of several book including the Pulitzer Prize-nominated "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” which is required reading for FBI recruits.

After reading the government report, Grossman told NewsMax exclusively:

"All they are reporting on is largely mental illness, sharing information about threatening individuals, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, getting help to mentally ill people, and improving emergency preparedness and violence prevention.

"A full spectrum plan looks at: Deter, Detect, Delay, and Defeat.”
Grossman elaborated on each of the four points:

"Deter: The killer can be deterred. That is why there are seldom any successful workplace massacres in police stations. We need to start putting pressure on schools that refuse to arm their police.

"Most colleges and universities are small cities. Any city leadership that refused to arm their cops, and then had people murdered, would be put out business at the next election. We entrust our kids in the care of organizations that neglect the most fundamental aspect of public safety: armed cops.

"And of course we have the whole issue of not permitting concealed weapons permits to apply on campus. These are laws that disarm law-abiding citizens, and attract killers who want a body count.”

On "Detect,” Lt. Col Grossman told NewsMax:

"The whole focus of the president's task force report was on detecting mentally ill killers before they strike. But most of the high school killers were not mentally ill. The kids that gave us Jonesboro in the middle school and Columbine in the high school are now showing up in the colleges. And the high schools are getting very good at identifying these wannabe killers. All the methodologies learned in blood in the high schools now must be applied in the college.

"An alternative is to identify (‘detect’) and list in a national database all the colleges that refuse to arm their police, and to recommend that parents not send their kids to these colleges. Instead of trying to detect the killer, just detect the negligent schools.”

As for "Delay,” Grossman says: "This generally means lockdown drills and securable facilities. Lockdown is to violence what fire drills are to fire. Every classroom must be quickly securable. How many teachers and professors and students have to die blocking doors with their bodies before we learn this lesson? "Also, every classroom must have two exits, even if one is out the window. And colleges have to do lockdown drills, just like high schools. The faculty must be briefed on where and how to secure their students.

"Defeat: This brings us back to our cops again. First, armed cops need to be onsite. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 in nine minutes. How many more would he have killed if armed police were not onsite?

"Secondly, the police need rifles so they can defeat body armor (the high school killer of seven at Red Lake, Minn., was wearing body armor) and so they can effectively engage snipers. The campus police need SWAT teams trained in explosive breaching so they can quickly and effectively respond to barricaded gunmen scenarios.

"Remember, if a gunman is trapped in a bank or convenience store with hostages, he isn’t there to kill people. But if a gunman takes hostages in a school, he can be there for only one purpose: to kill kids and to carve his name in history in your children's blood.”

The expert concludes: "In these scenarios, seconds equal lives, and just as colleges have fire hoses and fire extinguishers on site, they need to have the tools to respond to violence on site.

"If they are not going to permit their citizens (students and faculty) to carry lifesaving tools (firearms), then they must provide those lifesaving tools, in the hands of trained professionals. This is a moral, legal obligation.”

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

Does God Believe in Gun Control?

By David B. Kopel

"You are doing God's work," Brady Bill sponsor Charles Schumer remarked to Sarah Brady at one Congressional hearing. And perhaps one could argue that if it took God seven days to make the world, people shouldn't be able to buy a gun in any less time.

But did God really endorse the Brady Bill? One would certainly think so, given the huge number of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious organizations that endorsed the Brady Bill, and which endorse virtually every other gun control proposal. God's anti-gun army is prominent not just in Washington, but also in the state legislatures.

This year, for example, as legislatures have debated laws allowing licensed, trained citizens to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for protection, some of the most vocal opponents have been religious groups. Now the state chapter of the National Council of Churches does not show up at legislative hearings armed with criminological data. Instead, persons claiming to testify on behalf of "the religious community" come to express their "moral" opposition to the use of deadly force against criminal attack.

This same world view is at the heart of the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons," which attempts to distinguish good "sporting" firearms from bad "antipersonnel" weapons. It likewise motivates the stated long-term agenda of Sarah Brady's organization Handgun Control, Inc.--to outlaw firearms possession for self-defense. Within the gun control movement, one does not have to dig very far to find the strongly-held and sanctimonious belief that the NRA and its ilk are moral cretins because they believe in answering violence with violence.

But is hostility to the lawful use of force for defense the only morally legitimate position? The moral authorities relied on by most Americans suggest otherwise. The Book of Exodus specifically absolves a homeowner who kills a burglar. (Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguiltiness on his account.")

The Sixth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.

A bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, the father of the Hebrew nation, learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Abram (later to be renamed "Abraham" by God) immediately calls out his trained servants, set out on a rescue mission, finds his nephew's captors, attacks, and routs them, thereby rescuing Lot. (Genesis 14). The resort to violence to rescue an innocent captive is presented as the morally appropriate choice.

Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5: 38-39 ); "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5: 43); and "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." (Romans 12: 17). None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life.

Reverend Anthony Winfield, author of Self-Defense and the Bible, suggests that these verses command the faithful not to seek revenge for evil acts, and not to bear grudges against persons who have done them wrong. He points to the passage "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone" (Romans 12: 18 ), as showing an awareness that in extreme situations, it might not be possible to live in peace.

Further evidence that the New Testament does not command universal pacifism is found in the missions of John the Baptist and Peter, both of whom preached to soldiers who converted. Neither John nor Peter demanded that the soldiers lay down their arms, or find another job. (Luke 3: 14; Acts 10: 22-48 ). John did tell the soldiers "Don't extort money, and don't accuse people falsely," just as he told tax collectors "Don't collect any more than you are required to." The plain implication is that being a soldier (or a tax collector) is not itself wrong, so long as the inherent power is not used for selfish purposes.

Of course most gun prohibitionists do not see anything wrong with soldiers carrying weapons and killing people if necessary. But if--as the New Testament strongly implies--it is possible to be a good soldier and a good Christian, then it is impossible to claim that the Gospel always forbids the use of violence, no matter what the purpose. The stories of the soldiers support Winfield's thesis that the general "peace and love" passages are not blanket prohibitions on the use of force in all circumstances.

Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus' final instructions to the apostles begin: "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," the apostles answer. Jesus continues: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." He ends by observing "what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The apostles then announce, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," and Jesus cuts them off: "That is enough." (Luke 22: 36-38 ).

Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were "enough." More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion. The metaphorical interpretation is supported by scholarly analysis, and seems to best account for the entire conversation.

Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry Ba'al statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.

A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said "No more of this" (Luke 22: 49-51) or "Put your sword away" (John 18: 10) or "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.") Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was "not leading a rebellion."

The most immediate meaning of these passages is that Jesus was preventing interference with God's plan for the arrest and trial. Additionally, Jesus was instructing the apostles not to begin an armed revolt against the local dictatorship or the Roman imperialists. Jesus had already refused the Zealots' urging to lead a war of national liberation.

Do the passages also suggest a general prohibition against drawing swords (or other weapons) for defense? The versions of the story recounted in Luke and John do not, but the version in Matthew could be so read. If Matthew is analyzed along the lines of "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword," the passage is an admonition that a person who centers his life on violence (such as a gang member) will likely perish. On the other hand, a translation of "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" could be read as a general rule against armed violence in any situation.

The best way to understand the Bible, most theologians would concur, is not to look at passages in isolation, but instead to carefully study passages in the context of the rest of the Bible. If the single line in Matthew were to be read to indicate that to draw the sword is always wrong, then it would be difficult to account for the other passages which suggest that drawing a sword as a soldier (or carrying a sword as an apostle) is not illegitimate.

Looking at the passage of Matthew in the context of the rest of the Bible would, therefore, look to the passage as a warning against violence as a way of life, rather than as a flat-out ban on defensive violence in all situations. A 1994 document produced by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states: "In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community." The document notes that "the right" to armed defense "is coupled with the duty to do all possible to reduce to a minimum, and indeed eliminate, the causes of violence."

The Catholic Church recognizes people as saints because (among other reasons), the lives of saints are considered to worthy of study and emulation. February 27 is the feast day of Saint Gabriel Possenti. According to The One Year Book of Saints, as a young man in 19th-century Italy, Francesco Possenti was known as the best dresser in town, as a "superb horseman," and as "an excellent marksman." The young man was also a consummate partygoer, who was engaged to two women at the same time. Twice during school he had fallen desperately ill, promised to give his life to God if he recovered, and then forgotten his promise. One day at church, Possenti saw a banner of Mary. He felt that her eyes looked directly at him, and he heard the words "Keep your promise." Possenti immediately joined an order of monks, taking the name Brother Gabriel.

The main incident for which Saint Gabriel Possenti is remembered was this: "One a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock [Possenti] stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun....[W]hen Garibaldi's mercenaries swept down through Italy ravaging villages, Brother Gabriel showed the kind of man he was by confronting them, astonishing them with his marksmanship, and saving the small village where his monastery was located."

Saint Gabriel Possenti's "astonishing marksmanship" was displayed after he had just disarmed the soldier. The mercenaries' leader told Possenti that it would take more than just one monk with a handgun to make the mercenaries leave town. The saint pointed out to the mercenaries a lizard which was running across the road. Possenti shot the lizard right through the head, at which point the mercenaries decided that discretion was the better part of valor; they obeyed Possenti's orders to extinguish the fires they had started and to return the property they had stolen. They then fled the village, never to be heard from again.

Jewish law comes to the same conclusion as the Vatican Pontifical Council: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first," commands the Talmud. Bystanders are likewise required to kill persons who are attempting rape. As Columbia University's George Fletcher explains, while there is a duty to self-defense, the duty to defend others is seen as prior.

The view that forcible resistance to evil attack is itself evil has serious implications: Patrick Henry and the other founding fathers were wrong to urge armed resistance to the British Redcoats; the Jews who led the Warsaw Ghetto revolt against Hitler were immoral; Jeffrey Dahmer's victims would have been wrong to use a weapon to protect themselves; Saint Gabriel Possenti was a paragon of evil; Abraham should not have rescued his kidnapped nephew; and police officers who fire their guns to protect innocent people are sinful.

Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house. The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police will arrive. Is the woman's moral obligation to murmur "violence engenders violence," and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother's moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?

The view that life is a gift from God, and that permitting the wanton destruction of one's own life (or the life of a person under one's care) amounts to hubris is hardly new. As a 1747 sermon in Philadelphia put it: "He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."

Whatever their disagreements on other matters, the natural rights philosophers such as Blackstone, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and Locke who provided the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution saw self-defense as "the primary law of nature," from which many other legal principles could be deduced.

As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force..."

Leading 19th-century criminal law scholars emphasized a less philosophical, point: that victims protect the entire community when they kill a dangerous criminal rather than leaving him free to prey on others. As Frederick Pollock summarized the views of James Bishop and of Sir James Stephens, "Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not merely a thing to be tolerated ...as a necessary evil [but is] a just and perfect" right. A good citizen attacked has "a moral duty" to use all force necessary to apprehend or otherwise incapacitate criminals rather than to submit or retreat.

Janet Powell, speaking for Australia's Anti-Gun Lobby, Incorporated, insists that a person should never use a gun for self-defense, because of duty to the community. But what kind of decent community would prefer that an innocent member of the community be harmed instead of the harm being suffered by a conscious predator?

John Crook, the head of Gun Control Australia, stated that any woman who would defend herself with a firearm is "selfish." But a Psychology Today study of "Good Samaritans" who came to aid of victims of violent crime found that 81% "own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don't believe they will be hurt if they get involved." Are these people selfish, inferior beings?

Having been through the Bible several times, I still can't find the parts where God (or even a minor prophet) endorses a handgun waiting period, one-gun-a-month, or any other item in the litany of the anti-gun lobbies and the religious groups that endorse them. (Nor, of course, is there anything in the Bible implying that there is anything immoral with any of these proposals.)

But the idea that pacifism in the face of violent attack against one's family or oneself is some kind of moral imperative that should be enforced by the state is not only missing, it is contrary to common sense and the Western religious tradition. Making it illegal for citizens to own firearms for defense of home and family may or may not be a good idea from a criminological viewpoint--but it is certainly not God's work.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/oprelign.htm

Original content is Copyrighted © by NoDNC.com . Original author(s) retain their own copyright(s). Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment.

Senior Couple Saved by Gun

Cape Coral, Florida

From the Bonita Daily News of May 29, 2007

Cape Coral couple tries to cope after attack at their home

Jacob Seckler keeps a gun in his pocket when he mows the lawn. He keeps a gun in his pillowcase when he tries to sleep, but the shadows dancing across the bedroom walls keep him awake.

“I’m strictly against guns. I never wanted them in the house,” said Seckler. “Now I wouldn’t be in the house without a gun.”

Seckler’s stance on guns changed the morning of May 16. He was mowing his lawn when he turned around and saw two 20-year-old men standing behind him. Seckler said one of the men was pointing a gun at his head.

After Seckler, 50, raised his hands to the sky, the two men pushed him past the garage toward the front door of his home in northeast Cape Coral. They held him at gunpoint and said they were getting into his house no matter what.

A struggle ensued at the front door. Seckler refused to let the men inside and they beat him over the head with the pistol and their elbows and fists. One of the men bit Seckler’s back. Seckler’s fiancée, Elizabeth Kachnic, 37, said she heard screaming and the door slam repeatedly.

“I don’t know what happened to me,” said Seckler. “I was so scared. I’m not crazy like that, but I knew I had to do something.”

The gun was pressed against Seckler’s temple. He said he pushed the assailant’s hand down and the gun fell to the ground. Seckler said he screamed for Kachnic to call 911 as he and the two men scrambled for the weapon.

“I got the gun. I just turned around and shot,” said Seckler. “If they did not come here with a gun, they would be alive. It’s their fault.”

He fired every bullet in the clip. One of the men, John Patrick Moore Jr., was hit as he sprinted across Seckler’s driveway. He stumbled to the edge of the street and died.

Police say Moore’s accomplice, Damion Jordan Shearod, fled when they lost control of the gun. Seckler said Shearod was hiding in the garage or the side of his home and appeared after the gunfire ceased and ran to a car parked in the street outside Seckler’s residence.

Police say Moore’s 19-year-old girlfriend, Jazzmyne Carrol-Love, was waiting behind the wheel and the two sped away.

Seckler had just killed a man. He hadn’t held or fired a gun since he was 18 years old and serving in the German Army. Even then, he was only aiming at practice targets.

“I was crying, screaming and hurting,” said Seckler, a large man who became tearful while recounting the shooting. “If they would have gotten in they would have killed us both. Everybody says I did the right thing, but it feels so bad. I killed another person.”

(Much More)

Found at Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog

No Living Person Left Behind

I haven't had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on "Guns Bad, Victims Good!" called "No Gun Left Behind", but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

"Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let's give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers."

Okay, let's tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They're DYING instead!

Yes, let's talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I'm waiting... Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47's to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I'll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn't able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli's. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a "Gun-Free Zone" is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!

"Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let's not give him or her a gun."

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you're perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

"Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?"

Now they trot out the "Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately" myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can't hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn't pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I'm not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren't teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They're bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that's all I'm going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can't or won't fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I'll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I've got some kids to feed...

Which is it Wayne?

Mr. LaPierre. Do you, or do you not support a CCW permit holder's right to carry a concealed weapon at their school; for theirs, and others protection?

Reference this quote from May 1st, 1999:

"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."

This quote, btw, is quoted verbatim on page 11 of the Brady Campaign's new propaganda "No Gun Left Behind."

Contrast that to this quote from May 11th, 2007:

"I agree that we need to look at steps the government can take to protect our kids, but let's be honest here. I mean, my gosh, Mr. Gonzales agrees there's no guarantee of complete security.

If that's the case (and we all know it is), then why shouldn't we also be having a discussion about trained adults legally carrying concealed firearms for their own protection and the protection of others? Texas Governor Rick Perry's willing to have that discussion. Why isn't the nation's attorney general?"

Recently I wrote a letter to the NRA voicing my concern with Wayne's previously stated policy:

"I am disturbed by Wayne LaPierre's support of "Gun-Free Zones" (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043).

As recent events at Virginia Tech demonstrate, "Gun-Free Zones" are an oxymoron at best, and a killer at worst. Criminals don't obey the law, period. Wayne should renounce his support of "Gun-Free Zones" and embrace the rights of students and teachers to be lawfully armed, or consider resigning his post. In addition, it is profoundly disturbing to me that he and the NRA are betraying their principals and the members by negotiating with the other side to further restrict our second amendment rights. I am speaking of the NICS enhancement bill.

Every time you compromise with evil, evil wins and you lose. Soon there will be nothing left of our rights and evil (Sarah Brady, et al.) will have won."

What I got back from the NRA was political doublespeak and avoidance:

"Hello and thank you for contacting NRA-ILA in regards to the Gun-Free Zones issues.

Let's always remember first and foremost that it is those deranged individuals who have committed horrific crimes with guns at schools that are themselves responsible for their acts. Clearly it is already illegal to bring a gun to school and use it to take the lives of others. In committing these criminal acts, numerous federal, state, and local existing laws are broken. You can't make such heinous behavior any more illegal than it already is.

Of course, in the aftermath of such tragedies, Americans ask "why" and seek solutions to prevent future tragedies from occurring. If we are truly to find solutions to preventing school shootings, a wide range of remedies must be on the table for consideration, including whether or not there should be a lawful, armed presence on our nation's campuses. However, at the top of the discussion list, should be trying to figure out what has gone so wrong in these instances that an individual(s) feels the need to take the lives of young students in what should be a safe environment. One thing that is certain, however, is that passing additional gun control laws should not be part of the discussion, as again, you can't make what these criminals do with guns at schools any more illegal than it already is.

Suzanne N. Anglewicz
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
703-267-11741-800-392-8683 (VOTE)
sanglewicz@nrahq.org"

Suzzane, I don't really care why psychotic killers feel compelled to kill. I DO care about my ability to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones. This includes malls, schools, churches...anywhere I might be, without fear of being labeled a criminal for exercising my 2nd amendment rights, and defending my right to life and liberty.

So now I am left with too very contradictory statements from Mr. LaPierre. Which is it sir, which one is your real position?

Wayne, you should take a hint from Tom Gresham who has come out very strongly in favor of abolishing (so called) Gun-Free Zones, which have done nothing to stop mass shootings, and only see the law abiding disarmed and defenseless.

I should point out that I am a member of The NRA, but on this topic (and some others) I don't agree with them. It would be nice to get a consistent answer from them too.

I'd write them again, but I don't have any faith that I'd get a real answer back this time either.

Another Reason to Carry a Gun

[courtesy of Oleg Volk]

This is one of my favorite pro-gun posters that he has made, although if I had to post all of them that I like, I'd fill up the blog with nothing but posters. Feel free to go check out the rest of his work at http://www.olegvolk.net/ and http://www.a-human-right.com/.

Will Pepper Spray Save Your Life?

More words of wisdom from Katey...

Why would anyone want to carry a gun inside a church?

Several Christian churches these days seek to restrict CCW inside their walls. After all, churches are places of sanctuary, and of peace and devotion. Why would anyone want or need to carry a concealed weapon inside a church?

I can come up with at least two reasons off the top of my head. Search the internet and I bet you'll find several more.

Sex Attack Inside Church Captured On Videotape
May 17, 2007 11:38 am US/Mountain

"(CBS) NEW YORK CITY - It's supposed to be a sanctuary, but instead a New York church became perhaps the most unexpected place for a sex attack.

Middletown, N.Y. police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a woman inside a local church -- in an act that was captured on surveillance video.

The attack happened just after midnight on Wednesday. The victim, a female volunteer at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Middletown, was volunteering during perpetual adoration when the church is kept open for paying respect over the Eucharist."

...clicky...

Church Fire Was Set to Kill, Police Say
SALEM, Ore., Oct. 28, 2006

"(AP) A man accused of sloshing fuel on pews and parishioners during a church service and starting fires intended to kill everyone in the building, investigators say.

Kam Shing Chan is charged with attempted aggravated murder, attempted assault, arson and reckless burning. A judge denied bail Friday, saying Chan would be a danger to the community.

Witnesses said Chan burst into the Peoples Church on Wednesday ranting about "the blood," sloshed fuel around and started fires. Two women were burned when their clothing caught fire. Members of the congregation caught him."

...clicky...

Even Jesus advocated armed self-defense. When preparing his disciples to go into the world and spread the gospel, he specifically instructed them to buy a short sword for defense against wild animals and robbers.

"Luke 22:36 (New International Version)

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Any questions?