My Blog List

Friday, January 22, 2010

Owning A Gun In California

Considering what is happening in the country, and around the world right now, I thought I'd share the most recent issue of our weekly newsletter with the readers of our blog.  I realize that this is common sense to most folks that wander by this way, but I think it bears repeating.
---
Owning a Gun in California

Because of the complexity of this issue, we're breaking this down into two parts. The first part will cover the WHY, the second part will cover the HOW.

Random Acts of Violence

Our society has a love/hate relationship with guns. So many of us have been led to believe that guns are evil. They're not: Guns are a tool. It is the individual using the gun that is good or evil.

In response to horrific acts committed by deranged people, our legislators pass "feel good" laws - such as establishing "gun free zones" - which restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to provide for their own self-defense. These do nothing to actually increase our safety.

Don't think so? Then answer these questions: Who won't have a means of self-defense in a gun-free zone? Answer: A law abiding citizen. Who WILL have a weapon? Answer: A mentally unstable person bent on killing as many people as possible. They choose gun-free zones because they know there will be little chance of resistance.

Do you think that a sign on a wall declaring a place to be a gun-free zone will cause a criminal to suddenly obey the law?

Consider this: When was the last time you heard of a crazed person shooting up a police station? Sounds ridiculous, right? I can't recall any such incidents. Everyone in that station has a means of self-defense and the criminals know it.

Look at the recent Fort Hood Army Base massacre: Amazingly, military bases are largely full of unarmed soldiers. It took civilian police officers to stop the assailant - a soldier who knew his fellow soldiers were unarmed - after he had already killed 13 and wounded more than 30 people.

In any of the recent mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood), how many fewer dead or injured would there have been had there been just one trained and armed civilian on-site? Just one teacher, one professor or one employee.

The long and short of it: You are at a distinct disadvantage - in a legal sense - to a common criminal. You follow the laws; They don't.

Disasters and Social Unrest

As we are witnessing now in Haiti, when law-and-order break down on a large scale, you are on your own. Rampant looting, murder, rape and assault have become the norm.

And this doesn't just happen in third-world countries. The exact same thing happened in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and in Los Angeles in 1992.

Those LA riots lasted 6 days and resulted in 53 deaths plus thousands of injuries. Federal and California National Guard troops did not arrive in the second largest city in the United States until Day 3. "Copy Cat" riots spread to over a dozen US cities.

Just this past December, a group of 75 disgruntled students fire-bombed the house of the Chancellor of the University of California. In the middle of Berkeley!

Spontaneous violence can and does happen. To dismiss this out-of-hand is fool-hearty at best.

You, and no one else, are responsible for your personal safety. Not the police, not the National Guard, not your next door neighbor. You are responsible.

How you choose to meet that responsibility is your call.

Next Issue: Owning A Gun In CA - Part 2 - The Process
If you'd like to sign up for our weekly newsletter, click here.

---
Copyright 2009 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

3 comments:

John Byrnes said...

Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!

Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.

The Problem
Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.

The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” - all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.

All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:

1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!

2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.

3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh

The Solution
Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.

The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.

The Hermit said...

Doesn't matter to me what laws the hivists pass. I'm keeping my guns.

Chief Instructor said...

John, some interesting stuff. Please don't wear out your welcome by using this site as an advertising medium. I'm OK with an overview and a link. No more dissertations.

Hermit, indeed. We all have different plans (hopefully) for ensuring we can exercise our right to bear arms, even if the laws were to say it's no longer legal.