Media says you have no right to self-defense

N

NationalCCW

New member
Story on the media's slant against self-defense. Recent bias against even using a gun to defend yourself in your own house. There is also a link on the page where you can give these liberals your opinion. All this at the "cat icon" at:
National CCW Reciprocity Foundation
In regards to the media, you know another name for a cat. http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw.html

------------------
National CCW Reciprocity: http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw.html
 
The Media can BITE ME.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
 
I followed the links and did some reasearch
and what I came up with is that Dr Fang
was only shot after he had emptied all 6 shots from his revolver and was out of ammo.

After Dr. Fang was out of ammo he
turned around to run for cover and was shot twice in the back by the criminals.

The moral to this story is that a 6
shot revolver is inadiquate for many self
defense situations.

I am sure that had Dr. Fang had a
16 shot 9mm semi auto pistol that only the
felons would have been shot.

Here we have a case of two lives lost
due to gun control; specifically, the
Diane Fienstien ammendment to the 1994
so called Crime Control Act prohibiting
lawfull ownership (but not stopping the criminals from having high capacity magazines) of magazines over 10 shots.

If it had not been for this law,
Dr. Fang could have armed himself with a
16 shot pistol instead of a 6 shot revolver
and would not have run out of ammo and subsiquently been shot twicw in the back.

So we see gun control laws comming back to bite us in the back. ---Twice!

------------------
In 2000, we must become
politically active
in support of gun rights
or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.

NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!

Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they are all disarmed and helpless and die,instead.

ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Well I guess we can take a truly liberal view, and tell them if you don't want a gun, then don't get one. It is that simple. If I gave my life in defense of my wife, and spared her the agony of rape, then my sacrifice, was small and I could die happily knowing that my life was not in vain. Although I have a 10 shot semi-auto, I use a 6 shot revolver for self defense as this seems the most reliable. If I need more firepower, I get the 12 guage.
 
The spin on this story is incredible. I love the line "The question that lingers after the WILD [emphasis mine] shootout is whether anyone would have been injured if the Fang family had simply OBEYED [emphasis mine] the gunmen."

Wild? This word was used to characterize anyone who uses a gun as a nervous nut who lacks self-control. If that word was omitted, the sentence still would have made sense, so I believe it was put there to color Fang as an extremist.

Obeyed? Isn't this the cornerstone of Liberal philosophy? When you look beneath all of the pseudo-compassion Liberals peddle, what you see is the sheer power of brute force compelling individuals to live according to another's ideas and ideals. Why should this man have "obeyed" criminals who have forced their way into his home? Can you really trust men who have initiated the use of force to do you no harm? NO! NO! NO!!!!!! Only a Liberal could advance such a notion.

Those of us who live in reality know that bad (evil) people exist and that they shouldn't be "obeyed," if at all possible. Force is the currency these people traffic in and it is the only thing they understand and respect. Anything less is seen as cowardly by them and an invitation to further violence. That doesn't mean that vain heroics should rule the day, rather, if there is a means to resist, it should be used.

Another thing about the article that irked me was the quote quoted "'Studies that compare homes with guns to homes without them show that households with firearms are five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and three times more likely to be the scene of a homicide,' said Professor Jon Vernick." Well, duh!? A gun is one of the more effective ways of killing a human, so of course there are going to be more successful suicides and homicides. How many people try to kill themselves with Valium? Or razor blades? Probably a large number, but because those means are less efficient, fewer people are successful.

The problem, if the anti-gunners would look any deeper than they do, is the people using the gun, not the inanimate object. If the object can be used for either good or evil, which guns can be, then it is up to the individual holding the gun to decide which way he'll use it.

To magnify this whole issue, let's look at it in the context of countries. Japan attacked the U.S. Should the U.S. have just "obeyed" Japan and hoped that Japan would be kind to it? Hell no! That would have just made Japan more brazen, and it would have meant death and enslavement for many, many Americans. The only thing the Japanese criminals understood was brute force. That's why the U.S. was right to resist them, and the U.S. was right to use atomic weapons on Japan. They were the most efficient means of breaking the militaristic Japanese government at that time, just as a gun is the most efficient means for an individual to protect himself if/when he has no other option.
DAL


------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.


[This message has been edited by DAL (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
and what I came up with is that Dr Fang
was only shot after he had emptied all 6 shots from his revolver and was out of ammo.

I commend the late Dr. Fang for his bravery!
A 6-shot revolver is great for concealed carry, but I find a Mossberg 500 Persuader (8 rounds) much nicer for home defense
 
For the people who think that you should just "obey" the thugs instead of using a gun to resist, would they advise a woman under the threat of imminent rape to just "lie back and enjoy it and you won't be hurt"?

I find this reasoning repugnant. For all anyone knows, Dr. Fang saved the life of his family at the cost of his own. In my mind he is a man of courage and high moral character. I only hope that if confronted with a similar situation, I could live up to his heroic example.
 
So, according to the media, the bond of human love, friendship or concern is negotiable.

Under threat of force we are required to submit to anything our attackers demand and trust that they will not abuse, destroy or kill us?

Hardly. Come at me with force, I know you me an me no benevolent regard...look to yourself for I and God won't.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
DAL, it's the 'ol double standards time here again. When the media painted the picture with WILD colors, they were referring to a mental picture of Don Knotts :eek:, as seen in "The Shakiest Gun in The West".

The double standards comes into play like this.
1. A potential rape victim is supposed to willingly concede, and "OBEY".

Not what the LEO, and rape prevetion people have been promoting. They say fight like hell, and makes as much noise as possible.
But, if a gun is used for defense, then it's a no no.

Right, I'll have to be discreet, and use the suppressor. That's a way of saying NO, very, very quietly.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited January 12, 2000).]
 
The same people who will tell you that the word "obey" is repugnant at the marriage altar are the same ones who will expect it at the altar of criminal behavior. Give them everything. Abandon your property. Run away and let them have it all. DO AS THEY SAY.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
I went to the web site and it seemed to be having trouble. But from reading all the above feedback, I got the general idea.

The moral to the story is, load 'em up with all 9 shots from your mossberg 590 and you won't even have to worry about the coroner being able to identify the remains, thereby thwarting off any possible frivilous lawsuites from the intruder's family.

The most disgusting thing I have seen lately is the local news referring to the dead or injured intruder as the victim. They even referred to a carjacker as the victim when the driver managed to somehow push the car jacker out and run him over during the escape, killing the criminal.

Is that twisted backwards or am I really that screwed up?
 
Guys,

I wrote to the paper, as suggested. Here is my reply to them:

***********

I wanted to write to you concerning your article on the Fang family who were recently involved in an unfortunate and preventable shooting.
I will start by saying that I am vehemently opposed to how you portrayed Mr. Fang. You wrote of him as if HE were the perpetrator. Please, let us use some common sense. Mr. Fang exercised his unalienable rights in defending his household against terror. How can you, as supposedly intelligent people, be critical of a man who heroically acted on behalf of his family. Tell me, was Mr. Fang simply supposed to comply with his attacker's requests? Was he supposed to go down on his knees and beg for mercy? LET'S NOT FORGET. THE MAN WAS IN HIS OWN HOME. Do we, as Americans, no longer have the right to protect our person, our property, our families? What you espouse is a corrupt, and leftist mentality. It's OK for the perpetrator to maim, rape and kill, using, mind you, no Constitutional rights in his actions as terrorist, but it's NOT OK for a law-abiding man, in his OWN HOME, to exercise his guaranteed Constitutional rights. But that's OK according to the misguided leftist, liberal way of thinking, because said perpetrators had a hard youth and were abused, and having grown up in broken homes and been subjected to horrible conditions, they have the right to act out their frustrations on the innocent. The surviving jerk will be out on the street in less than a year, if he even sees the klink.
Grow up, take of the Socialist blindfold.
Look at history. In rather recent times in America, everyone carried a gun, and openly. If you care to use the super computer your esteemed publication (and I use that term loosely) possesses, you will note that upon thorough inpection of history, when society at large is armed, people tend to behave themselves. Less people died when EVERYONE was carrying a gun than today, when few can legally do so. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. But that's OK, because they had a tragic youth. Grow up!
 
I like this part:

quote:*******************************
"In 1995, researchers from the Center for Injury Control at Emory University in Atlanta conducted an analysis of 198 home-invasion incidents that had taken place in the city during a three- month period. Their survey showed that in only three cases were the occupants able to get to a firearm to repel the intruder.
Two of the occupants brandished their weapons without firing them. One fired but missed."
****************************************
If I read between the lines, (assuming the victims repelled the intruders)it looks like those who were able to get to a firearm repelled intruders 100% of the time. I'd call that good odds!
 
I like Ruger Guy's idea of civil lawsuit prevention. :)

Yes, seems as though Di Fi is responsible for Mr. Fang's death. Wonder if he voted for her....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top