Posted on July 28, 2008 by Kathy McManus in All, Ethics, Parenting Comments (49)
Mothers With Guns: Packing Too Much?
Moms pack many things—endless lunches, bottles, diapers, snacks, toys, wipes, overdue library books, and of course kids.
But does a responsible mom also pack a gun?
The question was recently raised on the website BabyCenter, which chronicles all things motherhood, from conception to inconceivably picky eaters and back-talking three year olds.
On the site, a mom blogger described the terrifying experience of a mother who was attacked at home in a safe neighborhood by a rapist with a gun. The woman fought, the attacker fled, and the blogger posed a question: “Do you think that every mother should own a gun?”
The point-blank debate about point-blank defense revealed that some moms are packing heat.
“I carry a Keltec 380 (small pistol) on my hip everyday,” revealed a mother of a one year old and a two year old. “I feel comfortable knowing that I will be able to defend my kids and I if we are in a life-threatening situation.”
Another mother—eight months pregnant and with a toddler—wrote that her husband works the night shift, and “our gun is the only way I could defend myself and my children should someone intend to do us harm.”
And there was this disclosure from a police officer mom: “I keep a loaded 9mm in my Coach diaper bag.”
Suddenly, it seems, mothers with guns are everywhere—movie star moms included. Recent news reports quote actress Angelina Jolie as saying she keeps a gun at home for security, and that “if anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.”
Tell us what you think: Should a mother’s responsibility to protect her children include having a gun?
Comments (49)
Skip comments
moms + guns = death
People should not have to carry guns to protect themselves. What has become of this world when the emphasis to kill has a greater priority than anything else?
RE: moms + guns = death
Moms + Guns = life & death
You’re right. People shouldn’t have to carry guns to protect themselves. However, criminals don’t follow rules. As the father of a 2-year old, I find myself struggling with the decision of whether or not to purchase a gun for defense. I’ve run through scenarios in my mind, lying in bed at night, of how I would react to a home invader with and without a gun. Right now, I have a metal bar under my bed for defense. While I can certainly do some damage with it, it is of little use against a gun. Sure, the chances of being the victim of a home invasion are low, but it happens, and while my odds at large are low, they’re the same as the guy who lives next to me.
I also find it interesting that you read the article and see an emphasis on killing rather than protecting.
Bag of Tricks
I have no issue with a mother carrying a concealed weapon, including a gun, as a means of protection for herself and her children. Frankly, I have no issue with anyone doing this as long as they get a license, register the gun and take safety courses. However, my stance on gun rights is not why I’m commenting, so let me get to my point. The mother who keeps her gun in her diaper bag should be locked up. That’s just plain irresponsible. A holster keeps your firearm at the ready, but more or less secure. A diaper bag typically has a big gaping hole that can be reached into by anyone and (if protected by a zipper) unzipped by nearly any toddler. Not to mention the fact that based on my experience with diaper bags, they’re not exactly super-organized. I wouldn’t want to mess with fishing my gun out if I needed it at a moment’s notice.
Statistics?
I can understand a parents concern for safety for their children but a mother carrying a gun on her during the day has to also store that gun in their home at night. Anyone who reads the paper should know that guns in the home are a bigger risk to children than protection. There are dozens of statistics that state that guns kept in homes for protection are more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a homicide or a suicide. If parents really want to keep their children safe they should teach them about the dangers of gun violence and should educate themselves about how big issue gun violence amongst children is.
Guns YES!
Mothers with guns is TRUTH. There are many women who have been in the military and are very well trained. I have been a guardian of history. History tells me in Australia when the Government made guns Illegal crime among the elderly risen 300% overall crime risen 80%. Now let us talk about Hitler. He got rid of guns for the safety of “The Children” (for your protection) and looked what happened.
When it comes to truth, I cannot depend on the cops … after rape! I cannot depend on our military…..during/after 911! I believe in law and what’s just. I believe in freedom! THANKS
Guns NO!
It should be common knowledge by now that gun ownership is a terrible way to defend your kids. Mothers with guns will more likely end up killing their kids with it than saving them. Most of the time when guns are purchased for protection, they end up being used in suicides, homicides or murders, but not for safety. Even in the rare instance that you are attacked by someone with a gun, what help would having one too, do? It might make the assailant even more edgy or scared and more likely to shoot when he intended not to. Americans are in constant fear of being attacked, raped, mugged, shot at and everything else the media makes people fearful of. The fact that the media has mothers so scarred across the country that they are starting to think that carrying a 9mm in their diaper bag is responsible makes me sick. Guns kill many more innocent people than guilty people. Be smart, don’t buy a gun, and stop being so scared of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE!!! If you want to feel safer then get non-lethal protection or even more effective, a home burglar alarm. The best way to stay safe is to use common sense and learn how to identify dangers and avoid them. Just remember no matter what you see on the evening news, the reality is that the world is not full of creeps who are out to get you and your kids.
Where's the proof?
Jane Smith and Ty, do you have the statistics you quote? I have firearms in the house and my children (5 and 1) know it. My 5 year old knows gun safety and shoots with me often. We enjoy shooting as a hobby, and the home protection comes second. Responsible firearms ownership means not hiding things from the children. My wife knows how to shoot, but does not. I respect her for that choice, just as I respect the mothers who responsibly carry a firearm.
Statistics.... confirmed
Please see some facts below. Please note that these are direct facts from bradycampagin.org and are cited from national studies:
In 2005, 1,972 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 822 committed suicides with guns, and 173 died in unintentional shootings. Twenty-one were killed in a police intervention, and another 39 died, but the intent was not known. A total of 3,027 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S.
Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.
The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries.
43% of households with children have guns, and 23% of gun households keep a gun loaded. 28% keep a gun hidden and unlocked. 54% of parents said that they would be highly concerned about their child’s safety if they knew there was a gun in the home of their child’s friend.
RE: Statistics.... confirmed
Let's discuss it rationally, Jane.
Your source is incorrect, simply by virtue of common sense. If 43% of households with children have firearms, and the firearms are the second leading cause of death (with your caveats), then there ought to be a lot more deaths than you list. In point of fact, people locking their kids into cars and going into malls, or running over them with cars, or losing them somewhere, or letting them drink the stuff under the sink, or beating them to death because they cry, or letting them go out in the yard to play with the pit bull, or talking on the phone and then noticing them at the bottom of the pool or trying to change their diaper and rolling them out the window, or born and left in dumpsters ….let’s lump it together and call it household accidents…are the most common causes of death of children. With teenagers, it’s impaired driving. If you don’t want a firearm in your home, by all means don’t have one. Kitchen knives are the preferred murder weapons within families anyway. But don’t tell me that guns cause accidents.
As of July 1, 2008, heart disease was the leading cause of death for ALL Americans ages 24 and older – almost 725,000 every year (source: Ban the Ban’s Ten Leading Causes of Death in the USA). How they made it to 24 with a gun in the house boggles the mind.
What does that tell you? Instead of going to the shooting range and learning to enjoy the outdoors and be safe with firearms, kids are smoking dope, doing drugs and eating fast food….but you would be concerned if your kid’s friend’s parent had a firearm?
Almost TWO MILLION civilians prevent violent crimes against themselves or someone else annually by owning a firearm. “Civilians” doesn’t include police officers.
I will let you research the statistics of how many women and children are raped and tortured and murdered every year because they couldn’t protect themselves, but almost NONE of them are shot.
If you want your neighbors’ children to feel safe in your home, you ought to put up a sign out front that says, “There are no firearms in this home. I trust that the government will SEND someone with a gun, in the middle of a dark, rainy night; that the officer will not nave a mechanical breakdown, will be less than two minutes away, and will arrive with the complete knowledge of the situation (the 9-1-1 dispatcher will tell him “Woman screaming; call dropped; unknown further), and that he will be able to save me.” Get a book called ‘Dial 9-1-1 and die”.
Madame, your case for not having a firearm in your home applies, more correctly and statistically, to kitchen implements, stairs and slippery floors.
The bottom line is that the government has no responsibility for protecting any individual, or even responding to 9-1-1 calls. It’s a service, not an obligation. Some humans are predators; some are simply irresponsible. Gun owners are typically the most responsible people in society. The occasional exception does not invalidate the premise of personal responsibility.
Trying to be rational and respectful
Tom, you have asked me to discuss an issue rationally and in my opinion I think statistics are rational. From your notes, what your common sense tells you is not what my common sense tells me so I think it is safe to say we will agree to disagree! I don’t think you’re wrong, I am sure there are many responsible gun owners and that people have protected themselves with firearms but an individual with a gun in their home is more likely to have a gun related accident then a home with no guns. I stand by my opinion.
I had a request from another writer to provide some statistics for my opinion and I did. I did not make up the statistics or change them based on my opinion – I noted my source, so if you believe that the statistics are wrong I would recommend checking out the Brady campaign directly. Please know I am not an advocate of getting rid of guns or the right for people to own them, however, I simply don’t believe people should have to resort to carrying guns around on a daily basis to protect themselves or should keep guns in a house with children unless they are extremely secure. I will mention I do not believe it is a polite way to make a point by assuming someone else’s opinions on items that they have not commented on – I also don’t think kids should be eating fast food, smoking dope or doing drugs either. I think they should join a sports team and enjoy a healthy life style and as you stated you think they should go to the shooting range. So again, we have to agree to disagree.
I have lived in two of the biggest cities in the US in the last five years and the majority of crime I hear about always has to do with gun violence- especially amongst teens, so we clearly have different perspectives. So while I don’t agree with all of your opinions, for example I have more faith in our law enforcement officers than “call 9-1-1 and die”; I respect your opinion and ask that you also respect mine. Thank you.
Statistics can show whatever we want
Jane, thank you for providing your source and elaborating. You say “an individual with a gun in their home is more likely to have a gun related accident then a home with no guns” I agree, but you can also say that a child is more likely to drown at a house with a pool, than without. Statistics exist for just about everything.
To counter your stats from the Brady campaign, I have found some pro-firearms statistics.
Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to possess a firearm to protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.
Since the ordinance became law, crime has declined 89% in Kennesaw while only declining 10% statewide.
States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes, based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
It is important to note that since 1991, the number of states that have Right To Carry (RTC) concealed weapon laws has increased from 17 to 36 and the percentage of the U.S. population that lives in RTC states has doubled to nearly 60 percent.
This has led to a 12 consecutive year decrease to a 26-year low in all categories of violent crime? (FBI statistics). Americans defend themselves with firearms roughly 2.5 million times per year.
The statistics are there for every angle of the discussion. I exercise the right to own firearms, and I respect those who wish not to.
Tom, I don’t believe that Jane is trying to say that no one should own a firearm. She is showing statistics she has found, and agrees with. While this is a conversation that will never reach a single consensus, is one that will continue as long as crimes are being committed. That is the great part of living in this country; we have the ability to debate these matters, and can enjoy our own opinion.
"When Seconds Count...
The police are just minutes away!”
I have been carrying a Lady Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver ever since I was driving by myself at night on a two lane road and three men in a BMW with no tags tried to run me off of the road… for seven miles they harassed me, no cop in sight. When I got to the (closed) convenience store, they whipped around me and parked at the phone booth!
Two weeks later, I was “armed and dangerous”; a convertible with four men attempted to run me off the road again. Again, no cops anywhere – but they made the fastest u-turn I’d ever seen when I pulled out that revolver and aimed it at them! I didn’t have to shoot. And that is what most people don’t realize – most times, just the threat of a higher-scaled violence is enough to frighten off most would be attackers.
Yes I carry and yes I will shoot and yes I know how… it was something my father insisted on. Not only that, but for my 25-year-old daughter’s birthday, we bought her a 9mm Glock and membership in a gun club. No one messes with the women in our family period.
When I am at home, my revolver is right next to my head at all times… one noise and I’m up and walking the house. When I travel, I carry it in my vehicle, right next to me. When I’m walking, it is in my purse – and yes I will shoot right thru a perfectly good purse.
The police can’t be everywhere, all they can do is take reports or chase a criminal AFTER he has done something to someone. I will never again be listed as a “victim” on any report – nor should any woman. Or any man, for that matter.
“Armed Women = Polite Men” may not always be true, but it will save many women a lot of grief.
Ummm...yes
Now I am confused. Your original argument was about children being accidentally shot by firearms in their own homes. Now it has apparently morphed into a discussion of gang-banging. Let’s try to stay on the subject you originally broached if we can, please.
A house with a gun is more likely to have a gun related accident than one without. Yes, and you are more likely to have an auto accident in an automobile. And more people will get hit by lightning this year than children will die from accidental gunshots.
A house with a gun is also much less likely to house the victim of a violent crime. An armed citizen is about an order of magnitude safer than an unarmed one to a predator. I spent my career as a law enforcement officer in LA and I NEVER saw an accidental gun-related death of a child so I speak from experience. I saw a bunch that were beaten to death by a parent, or were killed accidentally in their home, but none by accidental gunshot. I’m sure you see a lot of violence on TV, but I simply do not believe that ALL of the violence you have ever seen on TV is firearms related. MOST violent crimes are NOT firearms related. I would like to know how many stories you saw about children who were accidentally killed by a firearm in their own home, which is what you were originally talking about. Any at all?
Although we were serious about protecting the public, we usually didn’t arrive in time to stop a crime…..the kind you see on TV. We secured the crime scene until the coroner arrived. That’s not opinion. Where I live now, the police are underfunded and may or may not even respond to a call. It’s not a matter of faith. Until a crime is occurring, no one calls the police. The officer might have an accident or a flat tire or a prior emergency. They simply may not respond to your call through no fault.
I am not trying to sway your opinion. I am merely telling you that you have the final responsibility for your own safety. If you choose to delegate it to a telephone, you are welcome to do so.
But you have picked an emotional issue to argue, not a particularly rational one.
More children will die this year from reactions to bee stings than firearms in their homes.
Do you honestly want to argue the danger of guns versus bees when bees are clearly much more deadly to children?
Or would you rather argue that the gang violence you see on TV is somehow caused by parents who own firearms to protect their homes against exactly what you have just described?
Beware of lies to raise money
One thing everyone needs to avoid is the lies that the Brady Campaign, and the VPC will spew out. These horrible hate groups are supported by the Joyce Foundation, known for fabricating data to raise money. You cannot believe anything that they post as facts.
Remember a gun is nothing more than a machine, that used correctly can save your life and can be part of wonderful sporting activities.
Teach your children young to respect them. I have three daughters all in their late 20’s now. All have shot their entire lives, never an accident all are concealed carry license holders.
Look for the truth – ignore the lies.
Aloha Jane, Matt, Bea, and others.
I attempted to reply to all of you privately, but Firefox 3, Vista and AVG Beta are not cooperating. I am sorry that I must post a generic reply. I am now retired, but I have carried a concealed firearm legally for 45 years and I am still authorized in all fifty states. I am a tactical pistol combat instructor, a Utah CCW instructor, and VERY pro-women’s rights, including the absolute right to defend them. I do not believe everyone who wants a gun should have one; but neither am I in any way opposed to any person who legally qualifies to own a firearm not being permitted to own or carry one. When I was a young police officer after Viet-Nam, I had a very similar experience to Bea. My wife was in the car, and the aggressors were part of a motorcycle gang in Indio, California. I was a Ph.D. and a decorated Marine Corps combat veteran, but I looked like a kid. I wasn’t. My 21 year-old blond California beach babe wife was a cop as well. We were driving to Arizona in my new BMW to deliver a couple of AR-15 systems to a gun dealer there. We were stopped at an all-night-drive-in when a gang of ‘outlaw’ bikers rode in and started making comments about what they thought they would do to me and then to my wife. We tried to ignore them and walk back to the car, but one of them grabbed my wife. So I took him down and stuck my .357 in his mouth, cocked it, and suggested he didn’t move. He didn’t. My wife, who carried the equivalent of a LadySmith wasn’t happy with that, so she popped the trunk, grabbed a mag and racked a round into an AR. Then she explained to the bikers, who have started to encircle me, what she was going to shoot off them and in which order. She was actually off ‘safe’ and squeezing when they got the idea.
The dynamics of us being a couple of victims of a biker gang changed immediately. Six dirt-bags went to jail for drugs and illegal firearms. But we had to hold them at gunpoint for about ten minutes before enough police and CHP officers arrived to handle them all.
I have a choice. Win or lose, I choose to be the final arbiter of my own self defense. I do not suggest that option for anyone who is not willing to draw and shoot. A firearm is not a bluff. When you pull a gun, you are in a gunfight. The debate is over.
There are plenty of victims out there and criminals try to pick them. I’m choosing not to be one of them. Neither are my children and grandchildren.
Untitled
Pro-gun-rights organizations are easily and consistently verifiable using neutral or even slightly anti-gun sources.
Gun-control organizations you cannot make the same claim. They are telling the truth when they promoted the benefits of civilian disarmament. Their claims are not statistically valid and are not from verifiable sources.
The “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” is considered to be one of the preeminent gun control organizations in our country. It has a page addressing Australia since the 1997. One of the sources they cite, found that “Between 1996–97 and 2000–01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire).None involved fire arms.
Brady Campaign indicates where you have gun control crime goes down. Let’s have a look at Australia shall we.
Robbery rates in Australia have risen 70% since the gun ban. The AIC states: “In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people — the highest recorded since 1995. The International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000 concur, showing that while having had lower crime rates than the USA in 1992, by 1999 Australia’s combined rate of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force was more than double that of the USA.
The Brady Campaign believes that as long as civilians don’t own guns, it is an acceptable price to have more people raped, robbed, and assaulted. This hearkens back to the feudal period, when everybody’s life was cheap, except, of course, those in power who had private standing armies to protect them and enable them to prey upon those who were banned from owning weapons. Enter Sarah Brady, member of the Washington elite by virtue of her husband, who was press secretary to President Reagan.
Please look for the truth. Do not believe the lies, that some will tell you, or a horrible group just looking for money!
You left something out
On the statistics for Australia, the most likely group to be assaulted with a gun is age 55 and older – and usually by one or more assailants.
Teens and adults who use guns for assault, robbery, carjacking – rarely do they get them from legitimate sources. They are usually stolen guns, either from B&Es;in large quantities from gun shops and shipments. If they are ‘legitimately’ purchased, it is usually with a false ID.
Children being killed by guns in the home – as an EMT I have seen it – once. Mom and Dad dropped off their two year old at Grampa’s for him to babysit (grampa was in his 80’s ) and the 2 year old went into the spare room, crawled through the junk and under the bed, and found Grampa’s old revolver under the bed. Grampa was miserable, but whose fault was it really?
When you raise children with a knowledge and an understanding of what guns are, what they can do, and how to clean and take care of as well as use them in exigency, they are as safe as a baseball bat, butcher knife, or electrical socket. Should we take up all the baseball bats, not allow parents to own kitchen knives, or turn off their electricity in their homes until the children reach 21?
As an EMT I saw many children die – beaten to death, left in hot cars, born to crack-addicted mothers, thrown from vehicles in which the parents had not bothered to use even a seat belt. Who’s responsible for those deaths? NOT every parent – only those parents who refuse to accept the responsibility for their children. Should we ban all mothers from carrying weapons, while excusing the pregnant crack smoker because ‘she can’t help herself’? No, but we do… Each parent is responsible for their own child(ren). When they take responsibility for their safety, they should not be ridiculed, harassed, or punished.
My last comment on this subject
I’ll try again. I thank everyone involved in making this blog possible, for allowing me to participate, and for all of the comments.
Tomorrow’s news will report the murder of a Deputy Sheriff at his home in Los Angeles. I can’t comment on the details, but it could have been you or me just as easily. I know no one thinks it can happen to them, but it can and does, every day.
Bottom line
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice. Either convince me to do it willingly, of my own volition through a reasoned argument or an offer of compensation, or force me to do your bidding against my will under threat of violence. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a criminal to do his crime. That, of course, is only true if the criminal’s potential victims are disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when a potential victim is armed. People who argue for the banning of firearms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. An armed criminal can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
I carry a gun. Not because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m not. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation.
Guns not great for self-defense
Guns are not a terrific tool for self-defense. They’re good for property defense. They’re good against animals. But they’re not great for self-defense. They are effective against an attack that you see coming. If someone is trying to hurt your person (as opposed to steal your wallet), they are going to hit you from the back or the side.
If you’re concerned about defending yourself and your children from human attackers, learn some hand-to-hand fighting skills – not stylized martial arts. Real fighting skills, taught for self-defense, at full speed and with people wearing enough protection to take a full-force hit. A gun isn’t always at hand when you need it. Your hands, feet, and brain are always with you and ready to go.
I was recently seriously considering learning to use a pistol for defense against a neighbor’s pit bull (which had already bitten two of my children). Fortunately, the threat of a lawsuit convinced them to put the dog down.
I have to respond to Karen
Aloha Karen,
I am not sure what you do for a living, or what training you have. But I am an SRT trainer. I train officers, with and without firearms. I am also a third Dan Black belt in Judo and Akido. The best martial artist training in the world is Krav Maga. It’s purpose is to kill people. If you are young, in EXCELLENT physical condition, capable of taking a punch to the kidney and continuing the fight, you might have a chance at hand-to hand; but I assure you that you will lose to a Pit Bull or an assailant who has targeted you. Predators pick and choose victims. PLEASE ask someone who was well trained and lost a physical encounter. It’s a crap-shoot. One mistake, one second of lost concentration and you lose. I’m now over sixty years old. I have bullet holes, knife scars, broken bones, and I am simply not capable of going hand-to-hand anymore and I am smart enough to realize it. A twenty-one year-old has a disparity of force merely because of his age.
If you MUST suggest something other than firearms (please don’t start on knives.), allow me to suggest two resources. The first is color codes of awareness.
Awareness makes up 90+% of self-defense, The remaining 10% being physical techniques including the employment of firearms. With awareness, you can identify and avoid potentially dangerous situations. Without it, you become an easy target for a criminal.
Colonel Jeff Cooper, my old combat pistol instructor, developed the Color Code system, used by most military and police organizations, to differentiate different levels of awareness.
These color codes help recognize, evaluate, and avoid potential threats. They are used to measure rising threat and make most situations avoidable. The following are the colors in ascending order of awareness of danger: white, yellow, orange, and red.
* You feel secure, whether or not you are actually safe. * Awareness is switched off. * You are unaware of your environment, its inhabitants, and their rituals of attack. * All attackers look for victims in this state.Code White
Most people live in white. ALL victims live in white.
Code Yellow
* You are cautious. You should spend most of the time in this state. * Awareness is switched on. * State of threat awareness and relaxed alertness. * You have a 360-degree peripheral awareness of such environmental danger spots as secluded doorways, entries, and alleys, as well as such psychological triggers as adrenal dump and attacker ruses. Be aware of people, vehicles, behind large objects, dark areas, etc.Code Orange
* You are in danger. You are aware of a potential threat. * State of threat evaluation. * Specific alert. A possible target has been identified. A particular situation that has drawn your attention and could present a major problem. Someone may be giving oral indicators such as direct threats or using suspicious language. Focus on the potential attacker. * Check to see if there is an avenue of escape, potential weapons available, and if others around you are friend or foe. * Decision is made to take action.I live in orange. I shouldn’t, but it had become ingrained. I see threats before they become threats.
Code Red
* You are in conflict. * State of threat avoidance. * Fight or flight. Flee, defend, or attack. You have evaluated the situation, and if there is a threat, you fight or run. * Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing. * Carry out decision to act made in Code Orange. You don’t have to think; no indecision on the course of action; you are prepared. * If use of physical self-defense techniques is necessary, use the level of force appropriate to the threat. E.g., don’t treat someone who pushes you because he is rude like someone who is trying to stab you with a knife.How to Use the Color Codes of Awareness
The color codes of awareness are a continuum of your awareness and readiness to defend. The objective is to constantly flow from one color to the next above or below, depending on the situation.
Never be in white. Spend most your time in yellow, even in places where you feel safe, such as at home.
Constantly be aware and alert, and shift from yellow and orange often as you notice potential threats and dangers. While walking down the street, practice imaginary shifts between the 2 colors. Practice thinking of ways to respond to potential attackers.
When in orange, notice what you can do to flee, defend, or attack if it becomes necessary, and make the decision to take a specific action if the situation escalates to red.
What would you do if that person walking behind you picks up the pace and makes a move toward you? What would you do if someone jumped out of the alley just ahead of you? What would you do if someone walking in front of you suddenly cuts your path and raises his hands toward you?
The Color Codes in Practice
Here’s one example of how the Color Codes of awareness could be used. A 100-pound woman is walking to her car, carrying grocery bags. Being aware and alert in Code Yellow, she sees two suspicious men near her car.
She switches from Yellow to Orange. She decides on her self-defense options. They walk toward her and reach for her. She switches to Red, and executes her decisions: she throws the bags at them and runs back into the store.
Another example. You are walking and someone diagonally across the street stares at you for no apparent reason, with an angry expression. He doesn’t avert his gaze. You shift to Orange and decide to run the opposite direction and yell for help.
He starts moving quickly toward you, crossing the street without regard to traffic. You immediately shift to Red, and without thinking or deciding, run the opposite direction at the fastest speed you can, and either lose him or run into a police officer or security guard that can help you.
Conclusion
Starting right now, be in Code Yellow. Throughout your day, identify potential areas of danger and switch to Code Orange as necessary. Switch back to Code Yellow if no threat exists. Do this exercise again tomorrow. And the next day. And so on. Eventually, awareness becomes a habit. Make the most important self-defense skill, awareness, a habit.
The second training aid I recommend is the OODA loop. I am not going to detail it here because it requires training. Search Wiki for OODA loop or John Boyd.
I can recommend a Firearms training facility called Front Sight. I will get you a discount free for the asking. Because your life is important to me.
Hand to hand combat
I and my children spent six years in a self-defense course called “water karate” – the flowing away from an attacker, and the use of his aggression/body weight/momentum against him. It was a great class. The kids would go home and try what they learned on their dad – a 5’9” firefghter, built like a fire plug, who could leg press 600 lbs. He was immovable! His arms were as big around as my thighs. He could stop any assault and flatten his “attackers” by sheer strength and power. In his younger days as a bar fighter, he could be smacked with pool cues or chairs and simply – blink. His fighting motto? “Thou shalt not live without air.” If he got his hands on you, it was all over.
You never know what an attacker might have in mind. You never know what his capabilities are. You cannot assume that your defense, no matter how well-trained and instinctive, will have the same effect on every attacker, or even any attacker. Like using pepper spray, any defense is only as good as the attacker’s weaknesses. If they are determined to perpetrate an attack, if they are hopped up on drugs or physically impervious to your assault by dint of their weight, strength, or body’s ability to overcome “minor” inconveniences such as gashes and broken bones, then you as the victim are at a double disadvantage – you are overconfident because you think that your training can overcome ALL obstacles, and you are not knowledgeable about any attacker’s strengths and weaknesses in a fight.
A weapon that will cause harm to ANYONE, no matter their size or abilities, is the best defense. Yes, the self-defense courses were great in that they taught our children self-confidence, self-reliance, and the ability to spot weaknesses and vulnerabilities in themselves as well as others. But they never assumed that, by holding belts in any discipline, they could always defend themselves from any and every attack. That kind of faith is self-delusional and can prove deadly.
Just as soon as I say it rarely happens
It does. A 6 year old girl shot herself in the face with her father’s police issued Glock. He’s a police Captain in Little Rock Arkansas and is required to carry a firearm.
I understand that this will empower the Brady bunch, but I am nothing if not honest. I don’t try to change the facts, or hide them. This tragedy was the fault of the officer, not the gun or the child.
Personal responsibility extends to everyone with whom you interact. There are no excuses for doing it wrong.
Guns not great for self-defense: follow up
I think I need to clarify.
One: I do not believe my fighting training would do anything against a pit bull. This is why I was briefly considering getting a firearm.
Two: As a general rule, the type of human attackers who would be a potential threat to me would be looking for an easy victim. I’m small and female, so there would be no particular bragging rights about having defeated me. I’m neither a police officer nor a soldier. I do not live in a hideously dangerous part of the world, where NO ONE leaves home without an armed escort. I do not need to be able to defeat every possible adversary. I simply need to be able to make myself “not worth the trouble.”
Three: Hand-to-hand may be a technical term that I was misusing. If so, I apologize. The training I received was from an organization known in most places as Model Mugging. They teach situational awareness (staying in code yellow), boundary-setting, de-escalation, how to manage the emotional/verbal aspect of an attack, and full-force knock-out techniques. I suppose foot-to-head would be more accurate than hand-to hand! For survivors of attacks, they also offer “re-scripting”, a way to replay a situation and have it end better. They were founded when someone discovered the hard way that a black belt in martial arts doesn’t give you the skills you need to win a real fight.
I have never had to use the full-force techniques to defend myself. I have come very close once, and was very glad to have the skill. A gun wouldn’t have helped, as I don’t normally hug “friends” with a weapon in my hand. (He was damn lucky he decided to back down and let go.) I have also used the de-escalation skills to talk down a rookie cop who was so scared as to be irrational. A gun REALLY wouldn’t have helped.
In summary: If you have reason to believe you will have to deal with a frontal attack from someone/something you are willing to kill, a gun will be useful. For most of us, the risks come from family, friends, surprises, and looking like a victim. Tom Burnett’s excellent discussion of codes helps in these types of situations. Having some practical physical self-defense skills help in these situations. Guns usually don’t.
IF IT'S OBTAINED LEGALLY!!!
Not only should mothers have a gun but I feel all women should obtain a gun permit in their state and learn how to use the gun properly. This world we live in is not as SAFE AS WE WANT TO BELIEVE IT IS!!!
Whose stats?
We have to be careful about statistics. They can use and misuse information to promote their (ANY) agenda. Don’t forget, teens include 18 and 19 year old adults. So, they can use 18 and 19 year olds in both teen and adult columns.
Some just outright LIE! FOX News called Senator Craig (airport bathroom sex scandal) a Democrat for a week when we all know he is Republican. ABC News say more men in the US are charged/ticketed for aggressive driving (road rage) then women…..Lie!!
Most people believe what they see and hear and take for granted “the news” tells the truth. Why should they lie? RIGHT! Well, maybe they make mistakes, typing error, or story gets changed as its getting told person to person.
Education is key and don’t take everything we see and hear as absolute truth. Get your source, check opposing source, and check all nooks and crannies. Most people don’t have the time to do that. So, it is just easier to believe what we read or see to be truth.
Thanks
Statistics. Lie.
Anyone who has ever taken a course in statistics knows that statistics lie. You can make them say anything you want – by asking differently phrased questions, by grouping answers differently, by interpreting numbers to mean what you (consciously or subconsciously) want them to mean. One very bright literal young man I was counseling in a Statistics course he was failing brought this to me. When I explained how the questions could be/should be asked to get his desired results, a light bulb appeared! He passed the course…
In everything from exit polls to the Nielsen ratings, the statistics are suspect. There are humans with beliefs and agendas formulating the questions, and humans with beliefs and agendas answering the questions. Some are in a hurry, and some don’t want to expose their innermost secrets – like they are watching “OXY” when they are asked about the televised political debates. So if you base your arguments on “statistics” you are more than likely in error. Think for yourself; don’t repeat someone else’s opinion as proof of your own.
Guns
I don’t think moms should have to carry guns but if they do then they do.
Me Either
I wish it was a decent, honest, responsible world out there. But it isn’t. There are people who will “roll you for a nickel, and stick you for the extra dime”. The whole idea that all of the police, court systems, and even National Guard in the world can make us safe is a dangerous fallacy. Each one of us is responsible for our own safety, and that of our children. Some mothers don’t have a choice but to live in dangerous or depressed areas, or to go through them to daycare and work and back again. Gated communities, rural areas, large and small towns, schools and businesses, even malls and fast food restaurants all have their dangerous people in them. This is fact, not fear. It is irresponsible to assume that one is safe anywhere.
We recently moved to a town of 125 from a city – and even though I know everyone in town, there are still vagrants walking down the highway, folks who drive through, etc. You never know who is out there – or what they intend. Therefore knowing your capabilities, planning your responses, and being able to meet sudden force and aggression with equal or superior force and denial, is the only responsible choice.
Cut it out...
Statistics can say whatever you want them to. That makes them entirely subjective. So clearly this issue can’t be resolved by running the numbers.
Do any of you people remember why Michael Dukakis LOST the presidential election to George Bush? This entire debate boils down to ONE THING. Ask yourself this ONE QUESTION: What would I do to keep my family safe? You can lie to us all day long but when you lie down to sleep at night, do you believe in your heart that what you say here reflects your true feelings? Ever heard of March Fong Eu? She was just like you people, you people that decry violence and weapons. She changed her tune when IT HAPPENED TO HER.
Consequences be darned; if someone enters my house in the middle of the night there are no questions or qualms about what I am going to do. Everything you think you value in your life is WORTHLESS without being able to share it with the people you love. Things come and go, money comes and goes, but love and family are all that really matter. Of course, that’s just MY opinion.
Why not?
All guns except one, used in a murder, were not registered. Even accidental death wise, no deaths from a registered gun happened, except when a cop shot his wife about 40 years ago. That is actually a true fact.
I believe that moms carrying guns is a perfect idea! More women are raped and beaten every year, and I think its time we stopped that! I have several guns in my house, and I’m not afraid to shoot someone who tries to hurt my family. I would much rather protect my family than to watch them being raped and beaten while I’m helpless! As Hussein Obama says “they are people who cling to their bibles and their guns”. I will continue to do so even if they outlaw it. If someone has a gun, are you going to call 911 and hope they don’t shoot you while they watch you call? Guns are the ultimate safety tool. They are loud and they aren’t very hard to use. Self defense doesn’t work when someone shoots you.
Responsibility and families
My children wear seat belts and bicycle helmets. If I knew when we were going to be in an accident we wouldn’t need them because we would just stay home. That’s why my wife and I carry guns, everywhere we go. I am responsible for my children’s safety, so is my wife.
In our state it is legal for us to carry concealed. We are not taught to FEAR guns, we are not taught that good citizens automatically become crazed criminals once they have a gun. My whole family shoots on a regular basis and we are not evil or a threat to any of our neighbors, quite the contrary, the only people we are a threat to are the ones that would like to cause malicious harm to us.
Responsible parents with guns are no different than responsible parents with cars or bicycles. We don’t hide our bicycles in closets as if we are ashamed of them; the first thing we teach our children is how to handle them and make sure they are safe. Our children DO NOT FEAR guns because they are mechanical devices. The next thing we do is make sure they are good with using them, that’s right….my daughter was taught to shoot when she was five. If you live on the East Coast, I’m sure you’re taught we’re different, but the only difference between my family and yours is if my family is attacked, the criminal will have to decide on whether or not he wants to find out if we’re bluffing while he’s looking down the barrel of our .45s. With yours, he has to hope he’s faster than 911.
It makes me very sad that there are Americans that are denied their constitutional rights by federal and state law, the same way slavery was perpetrated on the south. I hope the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case against DC will open doors so all Americans can choose for themselves how best to be responsible for the safety of their children.
There are families that believe they shouldn’t take medicine or see doctors so I suppose it’s the right of every parent to play the odds and hope crime happens to their neighbor, but for my opinion as respectful as I can state it, I WANT to be the one responsible for my family’s safety. If crazed drugged up criminals brake into your house, is 911 going to dispatch officers with no kids or family, or are those officers going to think about leaving their children without a father or a mother before they come in to rescue you and your kids? In my state the police WANT us to be the ones responsible for our children. It is my greatest prayer that I never have to produce my pistol because of dire circumstances, but I would rather be wearing a seat belt and not need it, than not have one on.
Moms and guns
As a residential youth counselor years ago, my life was threatened by a gang member who stated he would be coming to my home to visit me after he was released. As a result, I applied for and got a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I had the experience and training to use it and I kept it safely locked up when I wasn’t carrying it. Thankfully, I never had to use it and have since divested myself of the responsibility.
If, for any reason, any person decides that a firearm is necessary for their protection, the following are thoughts that should be in the forefront of their mind before they take possession of a firearm:
(1) Do you have the required training. Do you know how to use the weapon at the target range. Are you prepared to be in complete control of your emotions if you ever have to take that weapon out of its holster.
(2) Are you prepared to take the full responsibility for possession of that weapon remembering that if someone takes it away from you and hurts someone with it, you are going to be the responsible party.
(3) Are you prepared to use that weapon, possibly to take human life, and to deal with the residual emotional impact on you and everybody else involved.
(4) Do you understand that the weapon has to be suited to the situation: a 357 round fired in your house will penetrate a wall easily and could strike an innocent person across the street.
(5) Are you prepared to deal with the fact that, in attempting to defend yourself with a pistol, innocent people may be injured.
I ask all these questions because I know from personal experience what owning and carrying a handgun means. I strongly suggest serious consideration of these factors before getting in over ones head. There are other effective ways to protect oneself and they should be thoroughly explored before carrying a firearm. If on the other hand it is decided that a gun is the only course to take, one has to accept the full and undeniable responsibility that goes with that decision.
I agree
Mothers should carry gun but keep them away from children. There are a lot of bad people these days, it’s not safe anywhere. If I was a mother, I would want to protect my kids if someone tried to hurt them. I wouldn’t kill them; I would just shot them in the leg to keep them from moving.
Guns for you all, but not for me
Well it is good to know that more and more people are buying guns. As a result people will die good or bad. All I know is that I will never be responsible for the shooting of anyone, in self defense or having my gun getting into the wrong hands and killing someone else. The reason is simple, I do not have a gun. So all you people out there keep shooting people and keep our country rightfully at the top of the list for gun deaths.
2 side notes to further the discussion.
We have the constitutional right to carry guns, but we also have the right to refuse quarter to foreign troops. Both these rights originate from the British control of America. We have the right to defend ourselves in the case of invasion, but who would have thought the enemy army now invading us are fellow Americans.
Second, in a lot of states you can carry automatic assault riffles and high powered sniper rifles. Is it necessary for citizens to be armed to fight off an army with armor piercing rounds with right rates of fire? I know it’s good to be prepared for the worst but what are the odds that you will need to be spraying hundreds of bullets in defense.
So the John Wayne’s of the world, keep shooting each other, the media loves it. I will hear all about it on the news tonight…and tomorrow, and everyday until I die. I for one will never have the blood of a shooting on my hands… ever.
People love power, and guns are an easy way for anyone to get that power. People with power can be tempted to abuse it. The US will never get rid of its guns and therefore we will always have plenty of people with plenty of bullet holes in them. I personally love living in a society where we are taught to be scared of everyone around us, and to not work together for a common good.
And now the gun people will rant about how I’m wrong and how great guns have made their lives.
2 side notes to further the discussion.
We have the constitutional right to carry guns, but we also have the right to refuse quarter to foreign troops. Both these rights originate from the British control of America. We have the right to defend ourselves in the case of invasion, but who would have thought the enemy army now invading us are fellow Americans.
Second, in a lot of states you can carry automatic assault riffles and high powered sniper rifles. Is it necessary for citizens to be armed to fight off an army with armor piercing rounds with high rates of fire? I know its good to be prepared for the worst but whats the odds that you will need to be spraying hundreds of bullets in defense.
So the John Wayne’s of the world, keep shooting each other, the media loves it. I will hear all about it on the news tonight…and tomorrow, and everyday until I die. I for one will never have the blood of a shooting on my hands… ever.
People love power, and guns are an easy way for anyone to get that power. People with power can be tempted to abuse it. The US will never get rid of its guns and therefore we will always have plenty of people with plenty of bullet holes in them. I personally love living in a society where we are taught to be scared of everyone around us, and to not work together for a common good.
And now for the gun people to rant about how I’m wrong and how great guns have made their lives.
Nope. No one has to.
You are right – emotional people shouldn’t carry, as they may harm themselves or others by accident.
My son carries the armor-piercing bullets, and has several high-powered semi-automatics. He is licensed to do so, and has to pass a very rigorous course to do so. He was in Desert Storm and knows how to handle himself as well as weapons. His friends who shoot with him are Federal Marshals, FBI agents, and the local police, all of whom know him and are comfortable with him carrying such lethal weapons. While I don’t want such things, I respect what he has gone through to be able to carry them – and use them in necessity. When you are hiding under a table at McDonald’s someday, terrified of the crazed gunman standing at the counter, you might be very grateful to know that my son is on his way. Or, not. Shrug. Maybe you’d object to his skills and qualifications then.
interesting observation by an "outsider"
I moved to the US in ’94. The biggest difference I noticed when looking at newspapers or TV: In Austria, where nobody wants to stay away from speeding, every day you’ll find several reports of people having been killed or seriously hurt in car-accidents. I hardly ever see a report like this in the US papers.
In the US papers, every single day, there are reports of gun-fights, almost always with people having been killed or seriously hurt. Here, people don’t want to stay away from guns.
Another observation:
The two top topics in the US – in terms of polarizing the population – seem to be legalized abortion and legalized gun-possession.
It seems to me, that the ones pro abortion are also the ones opposing the guns (“liberals”), and vice versa (“conservatives”). Hm, so it is ok to kill an unborn but it is not ok to kill with a gun. Or, it is a sin to kill an unborn, but it is ok to kill with a gun. As Tom mentioned above, somebody who carries a gun should be willing to use it. So what now? Is killing ok or not? Enlighten me, please… :)
I find our problems today can not be solved with technology or current approaches and attitudes. In order to grow, and continue in our development, we need to grow on the spiritual level. The discussion pro-contra is going on for decades. Nothing new is added. The only way for it to change, to get unstuck is by changing our view-point, our attitude. We need a fundamental shift; a spiritual revolution… If you’re open-minded and willing to change, stretch your belief system, expand your horizon, my ponderings at www.smat-consulting.com/thoughts/spiritualRevolution might be of interest…
Go Moms!
I think that if they take the time to go through the process of getting a permit in their state then more power to them. I go to http://www.usacarry.com which lists each state’s concealed firearm permit information, state maps showing where you can and can’t carry, plus a lot more.
Dear Thomas...
I always find input from people from other countries interesting; their perspectives are so different.
While you may not see reports of high-speed accidents in the papers or on TV, they are omnipresent… they are so commonplace that they are simply no longer reported. As an EMT for 7 years, I worked many massive wrecks that never made the 6 o’clock news – and even smaller ones are totally ignored, even with loss of life. The lack of reports only indicates the frequency and the commonplace; over time you’ll notice that sensational yellow journalism and the act of purposely influencing emotional upheaval are the hallmarks of news reports here. They’d rather make news fit their personal agendas, than report it.
That said, let’s move on to your other queries. I find it interesting that you are from Austria, where guns were confiscated just prior to the influx of the Germans, and the removal of individual rights from your countrymen right afterwards, in the 1940’s. While believing that we should all just get along is a high and noble aspiration, the fact is that nothing changes much in the human element. There are always people who think that their way is best, that they should be able to dictate to others where they can go, what they can do, and what they can own, up to and including their own lives. The Germans (nazis?) were thugs, just like the current gangs that wander the streets, believing deeply that their superiority was/is sacrosanct, and that the common laws of decency do not apply.
It is not ‘OK to kill people’ – it IS OK to defend yourself from others. It IS OK to defend one’s children and one’s property from thugs. There are not too many ravening wolves in New York city against whom one must take up arms and defenses – unless you count those human wolves whose idea of survival is to take what others have with impunity. Where I live now, there are real fur-bearing wolves with the same attitude and against whom I have no problem defending. Where I lived before, I also had no problem with defending myself against the fur less wolves and jackals. The key word is DEfense, not OFfense. Just as a child in the womb should be defended, so should a child – or adult – outside of the womb be defended and protected.
The liberals who think that abortion is OK and guns are not, cannot understand that DEfense is DEfense, and OFfense is the opposite. No responsible gun owner WANTS to shoot and kill people. The liberals cannot say that about the conscienceless animals that run among us, no matter how many times they try to excuse them, pity them, and blame someone else for their acts. The criminals must be held responsible for their actions against individuals and their rights, and since that is not the case (most violent criminals start their criminality by being excused from personal responsibility for smaller infractions, and work their way up to violence because they do not know the meaning or self-restraint, responsibility, or punishment), then it is the personal responsibility of every citizen to ensure that his own rights are not taken away from him by others.
Even folks who are willing to give up a “little bit” of their property, their rights, hoping to keep their lives and further safety in place “for the greater good” are often killed. If anything, that is the lesson that the German aggression of the 1940’s should have taught us – and that lesson is still unlearned by many.
Ms. Jones ...
My absolute respect to you and your crew. I mentioned in an earlier comment that I had served as a volunteer EMT I for three years and it left its mark on me.
I want to add that my initial comments concerned the use of firearms by persons who might not have the training and experience to do so. I did not touch on the right to bear arms.
That said, I need to add, in light of your remarks, that I hold as a an undeniable right the ability to own, to carry and to bear with intent to use firearms to protect myself and my family. I go so far as to say it is a commonly held responsibility rather than a simple right.
So far, I have only had to use in public the skills I learned as an EMT, once to assist a woman who was choking, another time to assist a driver who unfortunately lost his wife in an auto accident. I was with both my parents and my mother-in-law at the moment of their death and was able to provide assistance to them in the hours before.
Twice in my life, I have stepped into a violent situation to assist a person in trouble. Thankfully, I have never had to fire a weapon with intent to terminate an assault, neither as a correctional officer or a volunteer auxiliary patrolman but, if that situation ever arises, I will be prepared to do so.
I wish the world was a better place but, in the absence of global sanity, I feel the necessity to be prepared.
I need to repeat however that bearing a firearm is a responsibility that requires training, selection of the appropriate weapon,safe handling of that weapon and a firm psychology that does not permit the possession of that weapon to become stimulant. Well trained people do not need to advertise or to pound their chest. They go about their life quietly hoping that each day will be a good, quiet day and they will never, ever have to take their weapon from its holster other than to clean it.
Aversion to self defense
Some people have a personal aversion to firearms. That is understandable in light of their destructive potential. What isn’t so easy to understand is why some people have an aversion to self defense in general, especially when that self defense results in the serious injury or death of the attacker. Any thoughts on this?
Aversion to self defense
A police officer is authorized to use deadly physical force under a set of specific circumstances, to prevent or to terminate a felony. It goes without saying that attempting to seriously injure or kill a police officer or civilian is a felony that will be prevented or terminated by the use of deadly physical force.
A civilian, carrying a firearm, basically must operate within the same guidelines.
If a carjacker attacks armed driver, and if in the process of that attempted theft the carjacker attempts to stab or shoot the driver, the driver is justified in using his/her weapon to in self defense.
A person skilled in a martial art is justified in striking a potentially lethal blow in defending themselves or another person from an assailant attempting to harm them.
The basis for all these examples is an immediate response to a serious threat. If in fact an incident of this type occurs and the intended victim justifiably responds with a deadly physical force, that victim will be left to deal with the fact that they have, with justification, seriously injured another human being or terminated a life.
Even in those clear cut cases, there is an initial and residual emotional reaction on the part of the surviving victim and, for the unprepared, a lifelong recurring memory of the incident.
In short, I can fully understand what has been described as an aversion to the concept of a lethal self defense even by those who are well trained and do it for a living, although I know that there are some for whom lethal combat provides an adrenalin rush.
Remembering that we have described an immediate response to an immediate threat, now consider the idea of the death penalty, the use of a deadly physical force long after the incident and administered by people who were not involved.
In short, although rational people accept the existence of violent crime and realize they may be put in the position of having to use deadly physical force to protect themselves, no one, unless they are among those addicted to the adrenaline rush of mortal combat, wants to even think about it other than to hope it never happens.
Would this question even be asked...
…if it were a father and not a mother carrying the firearm?
Yes
I have a 4 year old girl. She has shot a pellet gun, she know her daddy has guns. She knows not to touch them.
I do not keep them loaded I keep them in a safe. If I could carry one legally here I would. If some one breaks into my home for what ever reason I will use them. I enjoy target shooting and hunting. That is why I purchased the first one.
Guns will always be in the hands of people who will use them for the wrong reasons. Why shouldn’t we all have them and let every one know it. To every one that does not feel this way, look at your kids. What if it happened to you could you live with your self knowing you had the right to own a gun and you didn’t. Murder, rape, robbery etc.. it will never end at least not in our life time. Just look at your kids.
Women and guns
I had the good fortune of working for two and a half years as a vocational instructor at the Manatee County Central Jail in Port Manatee, Florida. During that period of time, I happened upon a CERT team, a group responsible for dealing with a violent situation, preparing to deal with an emergency. The leader of that team was a woman, a young lady who had earned the absolute respect of the male and female deputies she commanded under extremely challenging and dangerous circumstances.
Some years before, while attending a Shotokan Karate class in New York, I was asked to spar with a female. In doing so, treated her differently than I would have treated a male partner. I was immediately reprimanded by the Sensei who stated that I had shown disrespect for a fellow student by not giving her my best sparring skills. He immediately ordered me to spar with a young lady who I out weighed by some 25 pounds. That young lady had recently acquired her black belt. I learned a lesson during that match that I will never forget and which prompts me to add that if anyone does still see a difference in the ability to manage emergency measures, specifically a handgun, based on gender, that person is seriously deficient in factual, experiential knowledge and needs seasoning.
Think it over
A person being attacked is always at a big disadvantage. Thugs either gang up or pick on those smaller and weaker than themselves. The firearm is 1 way to have a chance of coming out alive. I have 2 girls, 7 & 12. I will protect them and my wife (she may protect me, she’s a great shot). Yes, a person who carries a gun should practice with it often and be better prepared if something happens. No, you don’t pull a gun every time an argument comes up. No you don’t go out drinking with your firearm on you. I realize that many people only see the negative of guns; they don’t know anyone who shoots and only know what they see on the news. But, in your circles, how many accidental gun deaths do you count? Probably less than car accidents, pool drownings, work accidents, etc. Do your selves a favor and go to a shooting range sometime, observe that many people there are not that different from you. Don’t have a gun if you choose not to. But someone with a gun may save your life one day. It happens far more often than you see in the average newspaper. Cops are great; I just took courses from some. But they cannot be everywhere. We live in a dangerous world and need to be prepared for it. Consider also that if guns are confiscated today, books won’t be far behind. Political parties banned? Letters to the editor safe to write?
Gun owners remember; be good ambassadors to non- owners. They are our friends, family and neighbors. Invite them to some event if possible. Be a good neighbor at any rate. Let’s strive to be at our best.
Should moms have guns?
This is a very emotional subject. First, a woman (mom) should have the right to decide whether to carry a firearm for self-defense. Before making that choice, each person needs to be willing to take the responsibility to get training from a certified instructor and understand the responsibility of owning a firearm. This is a very great responsibility that should not be taken lightly and is not right for everyone. I feel there is a miss conception about what is taught in a firearms safety program such as the one that is recognized by Arizona and is required to get a Concealed Carry Permit. Firearm safety is emphasized throughout the class. One part of the course most people are surprised to hear is that if you carry a firearm for self defense, you never get into a fight again and you never use a firearm for settling disputes. You must wear the cone of peace. We do not teach people to kill! On the contrary, we teach them to use whatever means necessary to stay out of altercations – especially with a firearm.
So the question, is “Should every mother own a gun”? Absolutely not; only those who are willing the get the proper training, understand the law and legal issues and the responsibility of firearm ownership.
I have taught many women firearms safety. Some have decided to carry for personal defense but many do not. The training should be with a Certified Firearms instructor. My objective is the keep people safe.
Yes, why not?
Yes, when it comes to the safety of my children, I think every woman should have a gun. I don’t see why not. I gave birth to my children and promise to protect. These days, guns get pull on you everywhere so you better be prepared to defend your own. Police are outnumbered and delinquents brag about that. So, as a mother you have the responsibility to protect your children. We just have to be responsible to keep the gun with the safety locked and out of reach of children. I like to believe that we live in a perfect world and everyone has a good heart; unfortunately, that is not the case.
Moms with guns
I don’t know why anyone would want people not to be able to defend themselves. People use guns every day to defend their lives or property. But that’s not news. The only time you hear about it is when it’s a 90 year old grandmother. The American prison has reached an all time high of 2 million. There are almost 65 million gun owners in this country who have never shot anybody. I personally just finished the process to get my CCDW license, not because I feel the need, but because if the weapon is on my body I don’t have to worry about someone stealing it out of my truck or home and using it to commit a crime. I love to go shooting and am a member of a local gun club. Common sense goes a long way; don’t believe everything you hear on the news. When the American public is disarmed, a corrupt government can do what ever they want, personally I think that’s the main reason the government wants us unarmed, so when we get fed up with them we can’t march up and have a talk.
I’m done now.