A True Best Friend

By Kellene Bishop


A true best friend is always by my side. Photo c/o Accurate Shooter

Will Rogers once said that strangers were friends he hadn’t met yet. With this in mind, I can’t help but wonder why it is so foreign for women to handle a firearm. Mine is definitely one of my best friends. Why?

I can trust this best friend to be reliable—to never flake out on me.

I can trust this best friend to protect my children, myself, and my loved ones.

This best friend will dependably fight for freedom and liberty for me.

I can rely on this best friend to stand for right over might.

This best friend is always available and by my side. 

This best friend strengthens my physical weaknesses against enemies, foreign or domestic.

This best friend enables me to preserve life when others may desire to take it.

Other than my husband, I have a hard time finding any other friend that I can say these things about. So ladies, my I suggest that you introduce yourself to Mr. Glock, Mr. Smith and Wesson, or any other Mr. soon and make a new friend?

Copyright 2009 Women of Caliber and Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Women of Caliber and Kellene Bishop.


U.S. Senate Rejects Thune-Vitter Gun Proposal

Senators Reject Gun Proposal: July 22, 2009 from ABCNews.com

  • The U.S. Senate voted against a proposal to allow certain gun owners to bring concealed weapons across state lines.
  • The Senate’s 58 to 39 vote fell just short of the 60 votes needed to add the amendment to a defense policy bill.
  • The gun debate was not an issue that cut down party lines.
  • Many new Democrats from conservative states are supportive of gun rights, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who voted in favor of the amendment.
  • Author Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said, “The visitor must comply with the restrictions of the state they are in.”
  • For example in S. Dakota, he explained, concealed weapons are prohibited at schools or anywhere that sells alcohol.
  • “It is not, as some have suggested, a preemption of state laws,” Thune said.
  • Only two states not slated to be part of the plan: Illinois and Wisconsin, who do not issue any conceal and carry permits so wouldn’t have been affected.
  • The amendment also did not apply to the District of Columbia.
  • “Law-abiding South Dakotans should be able to exercise the right to bear arms in states with similar regulations on concealed firearms,” Thune said in a Monday statement. “My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws.”
  • Those backing the measure argued that it’s not the people holding permits that Americans need to worry about.
  • “Few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file a permit,” said Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, who said he has a concealed carry permit himself.
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., agreed, saying those who take the time to go through the steps required of gun permit holders before carrying a concealed weapon are likely the ones who “understand the responsibility that goes with owning it.”

What is the Thune-Vitter Bill? February 5, 2009 kalb.com

  • U.S. Senators John Thune and David Vitter introduced the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in February 2009
  • The bill would allow individuals the right to carry lawfully concealed firearms across state lines, while respecting laws of the host state
  • “This bill simply clarifies the rights of gun owners and affords citizens a right that they are already entitled to under U.S. law,” said Vitter.
  • “By elevating concealed handgun permits to the same status as driver’s licenses, we can ensure that an individual possessing a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon from his or her home state is afforded the same privilege in another state that already has concealed carry laws.”
  • The Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act allows an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they have a valid permit or if, under the state of their residence, they’re entitled to do so.
  • Traveling individuals must follow the laws of the host state, including laws concerning areas where firearms may or may not be carried.

For a full copy of the Amendment, click here.

What are your thoughts on the rejected Amendment?

The Caliber Wars for Women

By Kellene Bishop

Caliber Wars: .45 Caliber Photo c/o wikimedia.org

Caliber Wars: .45 Caliber Photo c/o wikimedia.org

In a recent article I wrote, quite a few opinions were given about the appropriate caliber for self-defense.  There are many macho opinions dished out on the caliber wars.  But as a woman and a professional instructor I am constantly waging war on the misinformation dispensed to women on this matter.

Ironically, in spite of this site being primarily for the benefit of women, we have a LOT of male readers.  I don’t intend to offend any of these male readers when I say that the majority of the bad advice on “appropriate calibers” is given by men to women, and in my opinion, it’s a BIG reason why more women don’t embrace the ownership and use of a firearm.  The good news is that I’m certain that when men dispense this misinformation they certainly aren’t doing so for a diabolical reason.  I’ve talked to too many of these well-intentioned men over the years on “caliber wars” and have realized that ultimately they have a genuine interest in the safety of the women who are about to embark on gun ownership.  Regardless of their good intentions though, this unfortunate myth is still dispensed regularly.  And it goes as follows:

“Be sure that you have a caliber with a “4” in it.”

“Don’t rely on a 9 mm. It won’t save your life.”

“Anything less than a .40 caliber is useless.”

“Practice with a .22 or a .9, but be sure to carry a .40 or better.”

There are many versions of this advice freely dished out on thousands of blogs and in classrooms all over the U.S., but they are WRONG, pure and simple, for several reasons.

Lt. Yamile Jana Shoots a 9mm. Photo c/o northshorejournal.org

Lt. Yamile Jana Shoots a 9mm. Photo c/o northshorejournal.org

First, let’s understand where they myth comes from.  Many women opt to begin with a 9 mm handgun primarily due to the grip and recoil of the firearm.  A 9 mm typically has much less of a kick than a higher caliber.  But women often hear from their well-meaning, gun-toting friends that a 9 mm is useless.  This myth is perpetuated because of a handful of well-publicized instances in which a criminal was NOT stopped promptly in spite of being shot several times with a 9 mm.  Yes, it’s true that a drug-crazed individual is not easily fazed by a 9 mm shot.  But it’s not the caliber that is at fault.  It’s the PLACEMENT of the bullet. 

Don’t tell me that 9 mm is useless.  A 9 mm to the forearm may be useless whether or not the perpetrator is on drugs or embroiled in rage.  But a 9 mm to the center of the head or heart will stop a tyrant regardless of the quality of the drugs he/she is on.  The myth insinuates that a .40 or .45 caliber does not require accurate placement.  Clearly even if I manage to hit an attacker with a .50 caliber round on their pinky finger, it’s going to do very little to bring the confrontation to a halt, right?  You simply can’t count on the caliber to bring you safety.  You must rely solely on your target skills.

Grip, recoil, and competency all come into play when honing your target skills.  A chosen caliber should merely be the result of these aspects, not the determining factor of them.

Additionally, consider the capacity aspect of a firearm.  With a smaller caliber firearm I typically have more opportunities to hit my target directly than I do with higher caliber. 

This is not to say that women are “sissies.”  If a 9 mm were truly a “sissy gun,” then our nation’s law enforcement agencies would be run primarily by cowards.  Plenty of my students, male and female have opted for 9 mm, while others have chosen .40 or .45 caliber.  It’s not a self-defense issue.  It’s a personal preference issue.  But in most instances, my female students never would have started shooting if a .40 or .45 had been their only option.  If you’ve got too much kick in a firearm, you lose your skill.  If there’s too much required grip, you lose your effectiveness as well.  This is exactly why I’ve recommended the grip as the number one concern in selecting a firearm in previous articles.  The less a woman has to recover from the kick-back in her firearm, the more shots she can take.  Even a .22 caliber is better than a woman having NOTHING to defend herself.  And that is the primary goal of this site—to train and educate women how to appropriately defend themselves with a firearm.

Here are a couple of facts to be considered:

  • Professional (and military) assassins have long elected to use a .22 caliber rifle or handgun.
  • Law enforcement agencies all over the U.S. use a 9 mm as a standard issue. 
  • There have actually been several instances in law enforcement where even .40 and .45 calibers were ineffective in stopping a criminal—not because of the caliber, but because of the ineffective placement of the round. 
Woman Practicing At the Range. Photo c/o midwestdefense.com

Woman Practicing At the Range. Photo c/o midwestdefense.com

The reason why I fiercely advocate this point is because many women hesitate to shoot a .40 caliber.  They are much more successful in their shot placement when shooting a smaller caliber.  Thus it’s shameful to have a woman stopped or frustrated in her pursuit of gun ownership because some macho, misinformed man tells her that a strong caliber (that knocks her on her butt when she shoots it) is useless.  One thing that men simply don’t realize is that women are physiologically more sensitive to the loud bass sound of the bullet igniting than men are.  Women are literally more affected by the sound of a .40 caliber+ than men are.  The sound resonates through them longer than it does in men.  As such, the sound literally rattles a woman.  Thus high caliber firearms are uncomfortable for them to shoot initially.  Do you really think someone is going to practice with a firearm that they are not comfortable with or that frightens them?  No.  So if they do listen to their .40 caliber friends, all they end up doing is A) not moving forward with gun ownership, or B) acquiring a .40 caliber+ firearm and just putting it away, allowing themselves to be lured with a false sense of security.  Is that really in the best interest of a person who is considering taking on the responsibility of firearm self-defense? 

Finally, on dispelling these common myths, practicing with a firearm other than the one you intend to use qualifies as “dumb squared.”  Practice with what you are going to use for self-defense.  Period.  An element of surprise can only be suitably conquered by mental and physical practice to combat such an element.  The last thing you need when suddenly confronted with an attack, robbery, nighttime break-in, or worse, is a millisecond of doubt that occurs, causing you to question whether or not you will be able to use your firearm since it’s not the one you’ve been practicing with.  

Here’s one final thought on this topic.  Five years ago my own mother took her life with a teeny tiny little .22 Derringer.  So many men would have me believe that such a firearm is useless for anything other than rabbit hunting.  Mom’s death had nothing to do with the caliber.  It was all about the placement, folks.  So, well-meaning gun owners, PLEASE stop spreading the myth that a 9 mm is useless.  Let’s identify the real culprit.  A poorly practiced shooter is what’s really useless to provide self-defense.  Let the caliber wars cease.  

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.  You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Firearm Security for Women

By Kellene Bishop

Many women ask me “is it really necessary for me to carry a gun?”  My answer is always an emphatic “YES!” backed by some important statistics.

Photo c/o Hans Neleman/Stone/Getty Images

Photo c/o Hans Neleman/Stone/Getty Images

1)     Surely the prevention of over 2.5 million crimes a year (which equals 6,849 crimes everyday) is compelling enough to believe that you would benefit as well.  (Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997)  There is not a city in this nation that is impervious to crime with the exception of Kennesaw, GA which passed a required gun ownership law.  As a result, residential burglaries dropped 89% the following year!  Even then, petty theft and other minor crimes are still prevalent.  So please do not make the mistake of believing that you live “in a safe neighborhood.”  While your neighbors may be perfectly wonderful, you must admit that we live in a technologically advanced world where most people, even criminals, possess transportation and thus the means to infiltrate your world of serenity.  🙂  My point being is that no community is so safe that one can believe that they will never have the need to defend themselves against a violent crime.  

2)     Even criminals take the presence of a firearm seriously.  More specifically, everyday 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented simply by the presence of a firearm.  In less that 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever fired. (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply)

3)     You have the right not only to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones, but also your PROPERTY.  The increasing number of individuals having legal access to a firearm, either in their home or on their person has been slowing down the property crime rate.  It has decreased in direct proportion to the increase in the number of legal handgun ownership.  (Ibid) 

Photo c/o dailymail.co.uk

Photo c/o dailymail.co.uk

4)     Keep in mind that overall, criminals are parasites, not predators.  Parasites look for lazy, free rides.  They are not inclined to go out of their way to get what they want.  There are too many risk-free ways for them to pillage without risking getting shot.  So if you look confident, secure, and serious that you’re going to take care of yourself, you will usually be able to deflect an assault or otherwise criminal incident.  I have yet to encounter a woman who carries a firearm and knows how to use it who appears timid, shy, and as an easy target.  Firearm self-defense is simply “magical” that way.  *wink*  Just a couple of other tips, lock your doors (in your cars and in your homes) and stop leaving your garage doors open, even for a moment.  Such mindless exposure marks you as an easy target to a criminal.  I recently observed a woman who went into a hair salon to chat for just a moment.  The problem was she did so while letting her Jaguar run with several shopping bags sitting in plain site in the back seat.  (This is a perfect example of what I call “Dumb Squared.”)   Ridiculous!  (To be harsh, I know, I caught myself thinking women like that need a good scare to bring themselves back out of their fantasy land.  Yes, I admit that I was SO tempted to get in and move her car to another location in the parking lot.  I refrained even though I rationalized to myself that my moving the car would be a lot safer for her than some criminal hiding in the back of it waiting for his prey.)

5)     Women wield a substantially more significant result of safety when carrying a firearm than men do.  Here’s why.  The majority of rape, robbery, mugging, and other types of assault crimes are committed upon women.  Women are perceived as being an easy target.  The number one reason is simply because a man is typically stronger than a woman and she can easily be overpowered by his strength combined with the element of surprise and fear.  BUT… a woman who is armed with a firearm and possesses the knowledge of how to use it in a moment of self-defense is 3-4 times more likely to prevent a murder or a woman, as opposed to a man possessing a handgun.  (More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott, Sr. Research Analyst) Logic dictates that since women are the more likely targets of crime, then if women were to prevent crimes against themselves, a drop in the crime rate would inevitably follow.  When a woman was armed with a gun or a knife during an attempted rape, only 3% of the rapes actually were completed.  (U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979)

6)     Possessing a firearm statistically provides you with an immediate upper-hand in face of a criminal confrontation.  It’s actually a myth that the majority of violent crimes are committed with a gun.  In fact, 90% of all crimes do not involve a firearm of any kind.  (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 1998)  Even when the person committing a crime did have possession of a firearm, 83% of them did not use the gun in commission of the crime.  (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)  These two facts show you that you indeed have the high ground when possessed with the knowledge and the tools to defend yourself.

7)     Firearms used in self-defense most certainly save lives.  Of the 2,500,000 crimes that are prevented annually, 15.6% of the people who used them defensively stated that they “certainly saved lives” by doing so.  (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1985)

Photo c/o habby0123

Photo c/o habby0123

8)     You need not believe that owning or having access to a firearm makes you a lesser person.  While it’s not readily discussed by women, the facts are that 41.7% of women either own or have rapid access to a gun.  28.5% of women have a gun in the house.  (Smith. T; 2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the Nation Opinion Research Center; Research Findings. University of Chicago, Dec. 2001) Now all we need is for women to become more proficient with these valuable tools and increase that number to at least 90%. 

So, to answer your question, “Is a gun really necessary?”  I say the facts support such a necessity to carry a firearm.  Just be sure you do so also armed with the knowledge and mental preparation of how to use it as well.  For training availability specifically for women, taught by women, go to www.womenofcaliber.com.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Ready or Not

By Kellene Bishop

When I was still learning of the importance of the use of a firearm for self-defense, I attempted to take my proactive self-defense steps in teeny-tiny degrees—much like trying to ease myself into an ice cold lake on a hot summer’s day.  I’m sure that many women can relate to these steps.  You know:

  • ammunition-firearmFirst shoot a firearm a couple times, only to immediately relinquish the scary thing back into the hands of someone else when you’re finished. 
  • Then get your concealed carry permit, but that’s it. 
  • Next, perhaps owning a firearm, but store it away, unloaded.  Then actually owning bullets.  (Yup—as crazy as it sounds, for some that’s actually a completely separate step.)  
  • Then practicing with your firearm a couple of times.  And then, maybe, keeping it LOADED in a safe, with a trigger lock. 
  • Then, getting comfortable enough to carry it in the car, unloaded, with the rounds close by.  
  • And then perhaps the gun migrates to your purse, still unloaded. 
  • Then, the next step (and final for some) in self-defense is to actually carry the gun, loaded, in your purse.  
  • And then there’s the ultimate step typically thought to be taken only by zealots—actually carrying the loaded firearm on your person.  (I hear some folks waffle about whether or not they carry with bullet in the chamber.) 

Ultimately, these steps are necessary for many people—male and female—in order for them to gradually become mentally comfortable with the possession of a loaded firearm on them in such a way that it would be most effective for self-defense.  And I would never discount the merits of such steps for the mental strength of a gun owner. However, in an effort to get you to your ideal state of self-defense preparedness, I’d like to point out a couple of critical considerations.

movie-gunsContrary to what you may see in the movies, it’s not likely that you will have a lot of time in a confrontation with an aggressor to stall, get your gun, load it, and then use it for self-defense.  (Even less likely is for you to be able to convince the aggressor to “get in your sites, pretty please.”)  As I’m sure the rational part of your mind will tell you, criminals use the element of surprise, combined with their disregard for human life and safety, to their benefit.  Criminals don’t intend to give you warning.  They don’t intend to allow you to defend yourself.  With that in mind, expecting that you’ll be able to even load a magazine in your firearm fast enough to use it defensively is wishful thinking.

If you believe that you need a firearm for self-defense (and I pray to God that you do realize this at some level) then you need to be sure that your actions do not disable this valuable tool with faulty logic or rationale watered down by emotion.

Perhaps some of you remember the horrific multiple victim shooting which took place in Killeen, Texas at a Luby’s restaurant.  One of the women in that shooting reports losing her parents in the shooting because she had failed to have her firearm on her person that day.  Instead, it was sitting out inefficiently in her car (due to state laws at that time).  She was helpless to fight back, even though she was in a perfect strategic position to do so otherwise.  

The key aspect in this account is that the woman wasn’t in a dark alley, or alone on the streets late at night.  She was in a public, family restaurant enjoying a meal with her family.  But the accessibility of her means of self-defense was out of reach. 

The police did not arrive until long after 23 individuals were killed and several more wounded.  The police didn’t stop the gunman, rather he committed suicide.  Out of a jam-packed restaurant, no one was prepared to stop this madman. 

When my husband was teaching me the need to be ready with a firearm in the event that I needed to use it for self-defense, he orchestrated an example.  He provided me with a practice gun and a magazine clip to go with it.  He then walked to the other side of the room, and told me that he was going to pull his practice gun on me at the count of “three.”  Even though I was proficient with the practice gun and how to load it, AND I had the practice gun in one hand with the clip in the other (where it most certainly would NOT be if I was surprised by an attacker) and KNOWING what was going to happen didn’t make a difference.  I couldn’t load that firearm, cock it, and prepare to shoot prior to my husband lifting his shirt, pulling his gun and pulling the trigger.  Repeatedly we did this exercise, and no matter how “ready” I was, I couldn’t load the firearm fast enough.  After that exercise I realized the need to be prepared at all times to use my firearm immediately if my life, or someone else’s, was threatened.  (Warning: Please don’t try this exercise with real firearms.)  

Photo c/o concealedcarrypursestore.com

Photo c/o concealedcarrypursestore.com

This moment was a huge shift in my feelings about being ready with a loaded firearm on my person at all times.  I also realized that a firearm on my person was a lot safer than leaving it in my purse, where I didn’t always have access to it while visiting a friend or at a family gathering, where prying little hands might get ahold of it.  I also realized that if I was going to take the responsibility to use a firearm, I needed to also take the responsibility of being proficient and skillful with that firearm as well.  Consequently, my practice time increased dramatically, and as a result, my concerns of having a loaded firearm subsided with the newly acquired skills.  I also had peace of mind knowing that I would never wonder “what if” in the event my life did encounter a moment in which I could have acted to save someone else or my own life “if only I had been ready, truly ready, to fire.”

As such, I not only practice shooting the firearm, but I also practice lifting up my clothing expeditiously so that I can get to my firearm.  I practice rotating the firearm from the holster towards my target.  I practice exactly when my finger goes on the trigger.  I even practice shooting from my hip as opposed to extended in front of me.  I practice shooting one handed.  I practice shooting with my weak hand, in the event that’s the only angle I have available to me while maintaining appropriate cover.  And lastly, I even practice a quick magazine change as well.  I decided a while ago that I wasn’t going to let what’s portrayed in movies, on television, or the evil that lurks in men’s hearts frighten me from being truly prepared to defend myself, my loved ones, my nation–because then the “bad guys” have already won.   

So, for the record, yes, I carry my firearm on my person anywhere it is legal to do so.  Yes, I carry it fully loaded WITH one in the chamber.  I don’t indulge in a mechanical safety to disengage (as I carry a Glock).  I have made all of these personal decisions so that if an occasion arises in which I need to pull out the firearm, I can use it precisely for what it was intended—to save a life—and never have to live with the regret that I could have done better. 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  

High School Football—A Terrorist Threat

By Kellene Bishop, Women of Caliber

beware the football, lying in wait to attack!

beware the football, lying in wait to attack!

Between the fall of 1997 and the spring of 2002, FIFTY-THREE high school students were KILLED playing high school football.  (National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, Feb. 2001)  The lives of the spectators and the fellow students of these players will never be the same.  And I want something done to make sure that such needless deaths never happen again. Fifty-three deaths!  Where is the outrage?!  Where’s 20/20 or 60 Minutes when you really need them to shed light on a problem?  Why can’t we have Football Free Zones?!  Something must be done to STOP these needless football playing deaths.  In fact, I think that the schools should all adopt a strict “no play zone” policy.  Someone could poke an eye out with one of those footballs, or choke on it.  A teacher could be emotionally and physically harmed for life if a student hit them with a football!  If you see someone drawing a picture of a football, I don’t care if it’s a fifth grader in St. Petersburg, FL, that person should be arrested.  If a drawing of a football is used at school, even if it’s two eight-year olds, they should be have criminal charges filed against them and be considered a terrorist threat.  If a child is caught pretending to throw a football, they should be charged with felonious assault.  Take down those pictures of football players and coaches!  Stop glorifying them.  These types of activities KILL KIDS!  And if they get caught with a Nerf ball on school property—that’s just unacceptable.  Such a criminal should be jailed in Fort Meyers, FL—I don’t care if they ARE a National Merit Scholar.  There should be an aggressive and zero tolerance policy to this kind of extreme in order to ensure that no such football players are ever killed playing football again.  In fact, this problem is so pervasive, I demand that the National Education Association offer a FREE $150,000 insurance policy to be paid in the event that a teacher ever dies from a football incident. 


No.  I haven’t lost my mind.  “They” have lost theirs.  And the previous paragraph will point out to you just how extremely off-base they are.

Between the fall of 1997 and the spring of 2002, 32 students were killed by an incident involving a gun at an elementary or secondary school.  (National School Safety Center)  This total includes gang-related activities, crimes committed on school properties (even after hours), shooting accidents, as well as the highly publicized school shooting incidences.  During this same period of time there were over 128 million children enrolled in such schools.  This equates to 1 death per 4 million students.

During this same research period, four teachers were shot and killed at these same types of schools.  (National School Safety Center)  That equivocates to 1 teacher shot and killed per 3.3 million teachers. 

It’s interesting to note that in 2001, that yes, The National Education Association did indeed offer all of its members a FREE $150,000 death policy, payable only under such circumstances.  (San Diego Union-Tribune, July 28, 2001)  Hmmm…  Of course it was free.  The likelihood of it happening is 1 in 3.3 million!  But you can bet that the press didn’t give you those statistics, did they?

Why have they done so much to attempt to curb the deaths of children from school shootings, but have done nothing to alert them to a situation which takes the lives of more children than “school shootings” do?  We have gun free zones to avoid school shootings, why don’t we have “football free zones” as well?  The sickening aspect is just how extreme the schools have gone to punish the very non-infractions that I used to illustrate my point in the first paragraph.

  • A fifth-grade in St. Petersburg, FL was indeed arrested for drawing a picture of “weapons.”
  • A National Merit Scholar student was jailed in Ft. Meyers, FL because a dull kitchen knife was found under her car seat—it was dropped while her family was moving from one apartment to another.
  • Two eight-year olds had criminal charges filed against them and were identified as “terrorist threats” in Irvington, New Jersey for playing cops and robbers with a paper gun.
  • A seven-year old was charged with three counts of felonious assault for pointing a toy gun at three other children during recess in Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Ann Arbor News 2)
  • Elementary students throughout Texas and Louisiana have been suspended for pointing pencils and saying “pow” and have forbidden the children from drawing pictures of soldiers.
  • School libraries throughout the U.S. have even removed references to the military.

See: http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id-95000486, and Chicago Sun-Times, June 20, 2001, and NBC Saturday Today, NBC News Transcripts, May 26, 2002

Instead of criminalizing children for being children, schools should participate in sound measures of gun safety education and the U.S. Constitutional Amendments.  No wait.  Sorry.  I must have left the earth for a moment there to even make such a suggestion.  I forgot that education in schools is reserved for gay marriages, abortion, and the use of contraceptives. 

Any death of a child, young or teen, is tragic.  For those who have lost a child to ANY death is unacceptable, of course.  Emotionally speaking, I feel that homicide is an even more difficult death to accept in these cases.  Any death or harm of a child that can logically be prevented, should indeed be prevented.  I’m a huge advocate of seat belts, car seats, and adults not exposing their children to second-hand smoke.  To me, these methods pass the “stupid test” in my book.  Meaning, they are just plain stupid NOT to employ.  And while seat belts and car seats may have been known to even cause the occasional death of a child, but they are logical. However, the media harping on school shootings as if they are the ultimate killer of the children in our world is mal-practice in its truest sense.  It’s fear-mongering.  It’s a dissemination of false information and it prevents responsible parents from focusing on the true dangers in our midst. 

Conservatively speaking 2,000 of our nations children are sexually assaulted by illegal immigrants—EVERY year, and yet we can’t seem to instill an “illegal immigrant free zone” in our nation. (http://www.newswithviews.com/Kouri/jim94.htm)  

On average, over 1,700 children die every year as the result of a drunk driver, and yet mandatory accountability for such actions is minimalistic and seriously flawed. (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html)  

Four percent of all pregnant women use illicit drugs and extreme amounts of alcohol, and yet there is absolutely no accountability for such actions.   (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1169.asp)

These are just a few examples of genuine threats to our children. Fight the real enemy, folks, not a fictitious enemy that the media and some government officials perpetuate in order to accomplish other horrible agendas.  

May you be victorious in your REAL battles.



Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.  


Whatever You Do, Don’t Listen to the Dispatcher


By Kellene Bishop


Sorry folks.  But when you call 9-1-1, you may not be speaking to the sharpest knife in the drawer. 


Late Friday evening, a man and his wife in Botetourt County, VA were understandably scared when a violent man was beating on their door, hollering threats and words like “1969” and “Vietnam.”  The owner of the home, Jody Hoover, did the reasonable thing he could. After unsuccessfully trying to plead with the man through the door to go away, he called 9-1-1, and then as the threat escalated, he got his shotgun while handing the 9-1-1 phone call to his wife.  After over 10 minutes of persistence, the intruder did indeed break through the door in spite of repeated pleas from Hoover not to do so—at the peril of his own life. However, the intruder, Jerry Lee Jones, Jr, failed to heed the warning, ostensibly due to an alcohol level over 4 times the legal limit.  Jones violently broke through the door.  Concerned primarily for the well-being of his family (including his mother-in-law and two sons), Hoover shot the intruder with his double-barreled 12-guage shotgun.  But here’s where this story gets ridiculous.  You can listen to the 9-1-1 call here.


Jones breaks through the sliding glass door by hurling a wrought iron patio chair though it.

Hoover shoots twice.

Jones is on the deck, still moving.

It’s dark.

Mrs. Hoover informs the dispatcher that Jones has been shot by her husband and that he’s still moving.

The dispatcher responds by telling the frightened woman to tell her husband to put down the gun.


HELL-LO!  Jones is still moving.  It’s dark.  He has already demonstrated to have no rational behavior.  He’s already demonstrated himself to be a relentless criminal.  And this dispatcher wants you to put down the gun?!  Really?!  Do you know whether or not he has a gun on his person and his moving is an attempt to GET such a gun?  The caller can’t even see clearly and there’s no indication that she conveyed suitable information to the dispatcher in this regard.  How in the world can this dispatcher issue such instructions rationally?  And the worst part is the dispatcher backs up her assertion with the ignorant logic that “if he’s been shot he’s not getting back up.”  Again, really?!  Does the dispatcher miraculously know where on his body Jones was shot?  And if he was shot so effectively, then why is he still moving? Does he need to actually “get back up” in order to still pull a gun and shoot Mr. Hoover or the police?  Are you kidding me?  Is this the kind of downright stupid logic our law enforcement agencies are taught to spew to the citizens?


Now, understandably the police are on the scene, or at least near it, by this time.  We certainly don’t want them to be shot or Hoover for that matter, in any acts of confusion.  But telling Hoover to put down the gun because the man won’t be getting back up is an act of malpractice in my not-so humble opinion.  The dispatcher should have consulted with the officers who were on site as to how to consult the Hoovers with consideration that it was dark and the perpetrator was still moving.  If indeed the officers were on site and capable of handling the situation, she should have informed the Hoovers that the police were on location and that as such they needed to retreat back to the bedroom with the rest of the family, (backing away while facing the body of Jones) and stay secure while the police handled the situation until they were given an “all clear” from the police. THAT would have been logical.


Now, let’s address some of the other nonsense that has come from this story.  There are a whole lot of comments on the original news site that released this story.  One of which was a person complaining that “death” was involved as a result of the self-defense shooting.  Hoover’s motive was questioned as to why he didn’t just maim the man in the knee.  That, my friends, is how citizens defending themselves get killed.  If a man is maimed in the knee, does he get interrupted in his actions?  MAYBE.  Are you willing to bet your life on a “maybe”?  Do you know whether or not an assailant has a gun, or a knife, or an explosive device?  Do you know whether or not the assailant possesses the mental capacity to take your life?  No.  But here’s what you do know.  The use of alcohol and drugs are rampant in our nation and their use is associated with over half of all crimes in the U.S.  Couple this with the fact that such substances numb the senses and logic.  Now you add to the mix the fact that armed crimes are becoming common place, and you now have a recipe which gives you EVERY REASON not be fool-hearty thinking that you can simply maim an assailant and thus guarantee your safety.  In today’s world of advance criminal intent and preparation, EVERY self-defense shooting should result in the perpetrator to STOP, folks.  You don’t shoot to maim, confuse, intimidate, cajole, or scare.  You’ll only open yourselves up for a slam-dunk civil suit with that attitude.  I guarantee it.  You shoot to protect.  And the only way you can be assured that you have done so is if you shoot with the intent to STOP.  Yes, I’m well aware that may take some mental preparation on your part to handle, ad you MUST address that and train your mind accordingly for such situations. 


Even in this instance there’s merit to my belief that you should always presume a greater danger than what you can readily see.  In 1999 and 2005, Jones was found guilty in Botetourt County of brandishing a firearm.  Point made.


You have every right to protect your person, your family, and your property—especially your home when you are in it.  Take this right seriously, as well as the measures you have chosen to execute those rights.


Shoot to STOP, not to maim.  Then you don’t have to worry about a deranged dispatcher.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.