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:

• First 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.

Contrary 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

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.

Letter to the President

By Kellene Bishop

Dear President Obama,

Photo c/o nymag.com

As you know, the Taliban has been successful in infiltrating Pakistan.  Your teleprompter may have also informed you that the Pakistani people are a nuclear society, well armed with an abundance of nuclear weapons.  As you may also know, the Taliban have every intention of overthrowing the Pakistani government.  As such, the nuclear weapons held in that country would be at their disposal and they would then be able to use such horrific weapons on the United States.  It is based on this concern that I address you today.

Since you and Geppetto feel that a gun ban in the United States will be effective in ensuring that even the criminals don’t have guns, I would like to persuade you to write the governing powers of Pakistan and request that they issue a weapons band edict.  Surely you can convince them that such an edict does not need to be met with any resistance.  It won’t have to be approved by any additional governing consensus of the Pakistani people.  Perhaps it can just be dictated to the people in something akin to an Executive Order or Presidential Directive like you do here in the U.S.  I’m sure that if you are able to influence their government leader to firmly issue a weapons ban, then all of the firearms, grenade launchers, machine guns, and the nuclear weapons will immediately disappear and we will no longer be under any threat of a violent attack.  Surely crime will decrease significantly in their war-torn nation.  In addition, I’m sure that such a weapons ban would even eliminate the Taliban from within the ranks of the Pakistani people.  After all, surely they will have to give up all of their weapons as well if they are dwelling in a country which imposes such restrictions.  Then the Taliban will only be left with words to fight their battle.  But then again, if you’re really smart, you can educate the Pakistani president on the power of the “Fairness Doctrine” and then ensure that the Taliban cannot even share their message without having an alternative view thrust upon the people as well.  Surely these actions will bring our nation and even the world under a much greater security and peace.

Sincerely,

The Tooth Fairy

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!

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.

Kellene

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

 

Another Significant Victory for the 2nd Amendment

By Kellene Bishop, Women of Caliber

 

Did you think that the ruling in favor of D.C. residents of legally possessing handguns was simply a fluke?  Think again.  If you’re in favor of the 2^nd Amendment being honored throughout this nation, then you have reason to shout and holler with happiness!  In an otherwise highly liberal court, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled to enforce the 2^nd Amendment!  Woo hoo!  This is a significant development, folks.  Take a moment to bask in good news.  

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

Are You a “Gun Free Zone”?

By Kellene Bishop

 

While it’s one thing for it to be a federal offense for carrying a firearm into a “gun free zone”, it’s a completely different situation for you to impose such a state upon yourself.  There are dire consequences in doing so.  And yet the MAJORITY of the women that I speak with who have a concealed firearm permit do not carry a firearm on their person, or even in their purse.  As such they are sentencing themselves to the same exposure that a “gun free zone” does to citizens involved in public shootings.  While carrying a firearm indeed needs to be a confident proactive decision, too many avoid carrying their firearm on their person for reasons lacking in rationale and substance. 

 

Let’s ask this question.  If you were a criminal intent on shooting people, or robbing a place with a firearm, where would you NOT want to go?  What would be the most stupid place or area you could attempt to hold up?  Let’s see… The Pentagon.  A police station.  A military base.  A Texas rodeo.  A donut shop in New York (because that’s where a lot of police hang out – j/k) or a pawn shop in Utah—way too many guns there and people with guns.  Yup.  I haven’t heard of any criminals trying to hold up the Federal Reserve or Fort Knox in a hundred years.  I wonder why that is?  Oh yeah, there might actually be GUNS there and people who know how to use them.  Indeed, with the exception of a little tongue in cheek humor, these places would be the most risky for a criminal to infiltrate as a result of the harm that he would most assuredly face.  And since such criminals are cowards of prey, not predators, they would not be inclined to expose themselves to such a risk. 

 

Now, let’s ask this question.  If you were a criminal intent on killing people, where would you go to avoid the majority of risk with the most possible damage?  The post office?  A school?  A church gathering?  Blockbusters or McDonalds?  (Both opposed to their customers being armed with the ability to protect themselves).  And exactly why is that?  Because a criminal knows that there are no lawful firearms in these places.  Instead, while there may be concealed firearm permit holders, such holders are statistically very law abiding individuals.  So, no guns.  Just law abiding citizens.  As a result of this rationale, what have we seen parading on our televisions as of late?  Shootings taking place in “gun free zones.”  In fact, the whole nation watched the consequences of a U.S. ship which was barred from having any lawful guns on it.  (Thank goodness the captain and pirates were actually off of that ship when the pirates were shot, otherwise an explosion or something dangerous could have occurred—*sarcasm intended*)  Seriously.  Think for a moment of the multiple victim shootings in “gun free zones” you’ve been exposed to lately. 

 

Riverside, CA—Roman Catholic Retreat—no guns allowed.  2 killed, many wounded at the hands of one gunman

Oakland, CA—No firearm permits issued without insurmountable exceptions.  4 police officers dead at the hands of one gunman.

Detroit, Michigan—Michigan College—gun free zone.  2 dead at the hands of one gunman.

Blacksburg, VA—Virginia Tech—gun free zone.  33 dead at the hands on one gunman.

Colorado Springs, CO—New Life Church—a gun free zone, with the exception of armed security officers who are screened members of the church, one of which stopped the killer with her own gun.  3 were killed that day by a man who was armed with 2 firearms and over a thousand rounds of ammunition.

 

As “STUPID” as criminals are, do you think that they are not aware of the fact that the likelihood of a WOMAN being armed and able to defend herself is less than 1%??  That’s right.  They instinctively see women as a perpetually open season “gun free zone.”  No wonder they see women as targets, as easily accessible as a church, school, or federal building.  Is that really acceptable to you?  And besides, in the name of fashion, for crying out loud…  Does a big fat neon bull’s-eye on your back compliment any of the fashionable accessories and clothing you adorn yourself with everyday?  Contrary to a popular movie title, “death” does not look good on anyone.

 

Now, here’s a compelling 3-minute video to make you think a little deeper about this issue.  

 

 

My point?  So-called “Gun Free Zones” don’t do much to protect anyone from criminals.  So why would you insist on imposing a “gun free zone” in the sanctity of your own home or in and around yourself?  How about doing more with that concealed firearm permit than just having it in your wallet?  How about getting the training and confidence that you need to actually start carrying a firearm on your person and being ready for any possibility in which you would need to defend yourself, your family, or members of your community?

 

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.

Children and Guns Part 4

What’s Really Responsible for the Deaths of Our Nation’s Children?

 

This is part of a four-part blog series addressing Children and Guns.  Part I – want to ensure your kid never commits a crime?  Give him a gun.  Part II addresses myths of gun safety – what you must know in order to truly protect your children.  Part III  addresses when it is safe to educate your child on firearms.  Part IV explores what’s really responsible for the death of our nation’s children.  If you enjoy what you read, please comment and share on your blog or Twitter.  Thank you. 

 

This is the final part in a series I’ve been writing on Children and Guns. 

 

I’ll start right off with answering the question, “What is Really Responsible for the Deaths of Our Nation’s Children?”  This is specifically posed to the deaths that result from guns being inappropriately used by children, and not all of the other more deadly causes of death discussed in Part II of this series.  The answer is the somewhat naïve position that parents take regarding “toy guns” and the entertainment that we expose our children to.  Allow me to show you why this is indeed the case.  

 

As you well know, the media and overwhelming political powers have successfully positioned in the minds of caring parents that children and guns simply don’t mix–when in fact, children and guns collide whether you like it or not.  In this regard, the only decision you really get to make is if you prepare for it by making this a positive concert or a deadly clash.

 

The other night I was at a family gathering watching 12 raucous boys ranging in age from 3 to 12 in the back yard. There were all kinds of “boy toys” back there such as foam swords, balls, and even a plastic gun.  I was livid however, when one of the boys picked up a toy gun and began “shooting” his cousin with it.  Clearly this child has not been taught anything about the proper use of guns in his environment (Yes, I did intercede and took the moment to educate…not that it will do any good unless it’s reinforced in his home as well). 

 

Let me speak plainly.  While I firmly believe and have even provided you with statistics that guns are not the “bad guy”, and are not the killer that the media and political diatribe would have you believe, they still are—100%—to be fully respected and confined to their proper perspective. 

 

It may sound odd to some parents to know that my husband and I—who are avid shooters and in full support of their use for self-defense—have agreed that we will not have ANY toy guns in the home.  A child’s desire to play with a toy gun is merely a mimicking and acting out of what he has seen on T.V. or at his friend’s home.  However, the creation of toy guns is actually our nation creating a promise for disaster. In actuality it’s downright shocking that more deaths of children combined with guns do not occur.  Think about it.  A perfectly dangerous combination exists with all of the inconsequential violence that your children are subjected to in video games, movies, and other social activities, combined with the fact that there are over 300 million legally held guns in the U.S. and over 73 million children under the age of 18. So if we were to actually believe the picture that the media feeds us, shouldn’t there be MORE deaths involving children and guns?  I mean seriously, if the media painted overeating and refined sugar as the villains that they really are the same way they portray guns in the presence of children, we’d have a very different health status in our American youth.  It’s hard to uncover any other way that children die which receives more focus by the media in America.  Regardless, one life lost unnecessarily is too many in my opinion, especially when it truly is so easily avoidable.  The key aspect of this problem is that our nation has come to accept a dichotomous position, yet the two sides of this position simply cannot coexist and still foster gun safety with children.  

 

There’s NO Such Thing as a “Toy” Gun

It defies logic to think that we can simply teach children that “play” guns are acceptable but “real” guns are not, when “play” guns always instill the physical action of pointing and shooting!  Parents have an even tougher challenge in this regard when we consider that “play” guns are expertly mimicking the appearance of real guns today.  Parents, you simply cannot have it both ways.  You can’t successfully have a world of toy guns and a world of real guns.  Remember, you can’t control what your children will find outside of your home.  The rules for guns need to be consistent, and deliberate whether it’s a “play gun” or a “real gun.”  Teach your children that there’s no such thing as a “toy” gun.  Non-real guns can be used to teach skills, safety awareness, etc.  But every gun your child comes into contact with should be viewed with the same safety rules and respect as a gun which shoots real bullets and can take another’s life, otherwise it’s playing Russian Roulette in it’s truest form.  There’s too much else that your child is exposed to which is relentlessly fighting against your message to your children of gun safety.  As such, you can’t afford for there to be any confusion on the subject.  You are either going to teach your children unequivocal truths about gun safety, with no exceptions, or you are going to fail miserably.  Does this mean that you shouldn’t teach you children how to shoot, how to clean a gun, how to hunt, how to enjoy shooting sports, and how to defend themselves?  Absolutely not.  In fact, quite to the contrary. 

 

When a child is old enough to pick up a toy gun and begin playing with it, this is the perfect time to take him into the education process of teaching him the REAL world of guns.  Start teaching him how to clean them.  Teach him the safety rules, all of them, again and again.  Take him shooting.  Take him to a REAL gun training class (like the kind that Women of Caliber offers to children 5 and up with a parent present).  My husband and I even bought our niece a BB gun when she was 5 (with her mother’s permission, of course) and taught her how to shoot it.  Bottom line, you can’t successfully outlaw all guns, period, because of what they will be exposed to elsewhere.  So you’ve got to educate them with one set of rules which applies to all guns.  

 

From the beginning of the 1800’s and through the 1970’s you rarely heard of accidental shootings with children.  Why?  Because the combination of gun usage and children was a necessary and integral way of life for a significant portion of our youth during that time.  Children had to regularly learn to shoot on their farms, for hunting, in sporting events, and yes, even to defend themselves.  Don’t you recall the abundance of “children” that attempted to enlist during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and even World War I?  It was also custom at the time that when a boy turned 4 years old, he was taught how to shoot rabbits to put food on the table.  Additionally, children were not exposed to the kind of “entertainment” and pervasive television like they are now either.  Guns weren’t vilified during these years as they are now.  Think about it.  Our nation lasted over a century without this prevalent kind of problem in our midst.  Why is that?  Because guns had their proper, respected place in society.   

 

I wholeheartedly encourage parents to teach their children about guns, consistently, and to be sure that their rules apply to ALL kinds of guns.  This will ensure your safety and that of your children in many more ways than one.

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

 

20/20 Shoots Blanks

Serious flaws were present with the 20/20 show aired last Friday, April 10, 2009.  This episode was focused on showing the error of private citizens owning guns.  It made a case for the fact that individuals don’t shoot effectively when they are under stress, that children and even teenagers aren’t properly trained to avoid guns, and that gun shows are ideal locations for criminals to buy guns.  Let’s go over their fallacies bit by bit. 

1)     “Individuals don’t shoot effectively when they are under stress”: In actuality this is 100% true.  This is why Women of Caliber emphasizes individuals to not only get training, but to get a specialized form of training that enables a person to automatically defend themselves in a moment of emotional climax.  However, the gross error that 20/20 commits is the insinuation that only if you are expertly trained, should you have the right to defend yourself.  This is 100% false!  Even the police and military require special training in order to overcome their body’s natural reactions in the event of a criminal attack.  The fact that 20/20 was able to contrive shooting errors in the scenario they aired does not negate the fact that citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals (and even defend themselves from a tyrannical government).  Many monumental wars have been fought to defend this nation by every day citizens who were not trained in matters of sharp-shooting, overcoming tunnel vision, and muscle memory.  Yet the wars were won because so many stood up for their rights to freedom, with an effective tool of influence.  Speaking of influence, over 2.5 million criminal acts are prevented EVERY YEAR as a result of the presence of a firearm in the hands of every day citizens, not Rambo-trained individuals (John Lott, Sr., Research Scholar, School of Law at Yale University and former chief economist for the United States Sentencing Commission).  Having the ability to protect yourself is not only your human right, but it is the law.  And no television show can tell you otherwise.

 

In this scenario, 20/20 had a “shooter” enter a classroom full of undercover participants and one “Exhibit A,” an individual “armed” with a derivative of a paintball gun in a holster on their person.  All of the “Exhibit A(s)” had just gone through a gun safety and target training with professional instructors prior to being put in this contrived situation.  While each “Exhibit A” was attending a training class, the appointed shooter enters the room and starts shooting.  The undercover participants start screaming and running in all directions.  In every instance shown by 20/20, the Exhibit A person was unable to draw their firearm effectively, protect themselves from being shot, and/or accurately hit the offending target.  Can I just say, DUH!  For one thing, just how often does such a scenario as the one 20/20 illustrated actually occur?  Sure the news is full of shootings in public places over the last 6 months, but they are far from being commonplace.  In my opinion, using such a scenario was callused and sensationalizing a horrific occurrence.  Very rarely do mass shootings get stopped by regular citizens.  It is difficult to be sure of your shot and thus difficult to avoid collateral damage due to the ensuing chaos of fleeing and frantic persons all around.  The cessation of such a scenario with a firearm would very likely require either a whole lot of armed private citizens focused on the same outcome, or one very well trained shooting expert.

Secondly, the flaw in this scenario is that shooter knows who “Exhibit A” is, so of course they are going to be aiming for “Exhibit A.”  And sure enough, in each instance, the skillfully trained shooter goes into the room, takes out the instructor and then immediately goes for the “Exhibit A” person.  That does not happen in a real scenario.  Criminals do not expect anyone to fight back.  They intend to intimidate and get their prey to cower and comply.  In mass instances, the shooters do not know who’s armed or who isn’t.  In such mass shootings, the shooters are just as susceptible to tunnel vision due to the heightened emotions as any who would defend against them.  Ultimately the only point that this portion of 20/20’s episode conveyed accurately was the need for legally armed citizens to be trained properly and practice regularly if they want to save their own lives or the lives of others.

 

 

2)    “Children and even teenagers do not handle situations with firearms properly”: Again, another DUH!  This point is 100% accurate thanks to the education that most children receive all of their life at the hands of the media and film industry about guns—not for the reasons that 20/20 attempted to demonstrate.  Most parents do not train their children appropriately about guns nor frequently enough.  20/20 would have viewers believe that gun safety training was ineffective in preventing accidents.  Bottom line is the safety your children employ around firearms is up to you.  Obviously it takes more than a simple 20 minute safety class to train them properly—it has to be a lifetime effort.  Just as you attempt to train them all their life to choose right over wrong, you must train them all of their life to handle a firearm appropriately.  That way they don’t turn into stupid teenagers who mishandle firearms.  By the way, you may want to take a look at the real statistics of children dying at the hands of firearm accidents by seeing my previous expose on children and guns:   https://womenofcaliber.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/children-and-guns%e2%80%94part-ii/

 

 

3)     “Because of all of the shootings we’ve had, we must make it harder for people to get guns”: See this is where folks really don’t understand what it means to be a nation of Freedom.  Freedom is in place so that ALL citizens can have the unfettered ability to make decisions for themselves.  And in the event that some citizens use their freedom to take away the freedoms of others, then they need to suffer the consequences.  But taking the freedom away from law abiding citizens because there are many who won’t use their freedom wisely is wrong, plain and simple.  This is like the age-old question that people ask, “Why does God let these bad things happen?”  Because He allows us to make choices and to suffer the consequences that come thereafter.  If He took away the freedoms of one to punish another then He would not be a God of Free Agency, would He?  And if our nation takes away the Freedoms of some in order to MAYBE thwart the evilly used freedoms of others, then we are no longer a nation of Freedom.  Our government does not exist to legislate and squelch freedoms.  It exists to support and protect our freedoms and then to dish out appropriate punishments to those who abuse that freedom, and ONLY to those who abuse that freedom.  Yes, it’s easy for criminals to get guns.  And no matter what laws get put into place, it will always be simple for criminals to get whatever it is that they want.  But we cannot punish the criminals in what may be their evil intent (i.e. prevent them from getting guns through standard processes) without surely punishing a free, law-abiding people from carrying out their rights.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

Apparently Rape is a Spectator Sport in New York

Horrific news is coming in today from several sources.  A woman who was repeatedly raped in the presence of MTA employees at a train station in Queens, NY was told by a judge today that those who stood and watched her rape take place had no obligation to help the woman, other than inform their command center that police presence was needed at their location.  (Note: they are only obligated to call the command center, not 9-1-1) 

My thoughts on this issue are frankly all over the place.  I will always fight vehemently that our Constitutional freedoms are upheld.  Unfortunately, that means that I must tolerate the immoral way that others use their freedom.  However, we certainly need to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution was created for a moral and God-fearing people.  Clearly, as in the case of those who watched this heinous act take place in Queens, many have become numb to any thoughts of moral conscience.  While these onlookers will not have to answer to this particular judge, they will certainly have to answer to God and explain to Him why they simply allowed this to happen.  

See full story details at http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012009/news/regionalnews/subway_rapist_victims_shock_162317.htm and http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/?GT1=43001  

But let’s move on.  I think it’s only a matter of fairness that I address the other obvious aspect of this crime.  Whenever an “accidental” (a.k.a. stupid disregard for gun safety) or criminal act with a handgun is committed in this nation, we are bombarded by the media and other anti-gunners telling us how awful guns are.  So isn’t it fair that when a person is attacked by a psychotic rapist and completely ignored by the citizens around her that we also hear the drum beat again and again about the need for us to take responsibility for protecting ourselves?  Clearly this judge didn’t feel that anyone was required to protect this woman.  And clearly the police didn’t have sufficient cause to protect her as they showed up at least 10 minutes after the call was made–the attacker was able to rape the woman twice during this time!   

So I ask you.  When are women going to learn that we simply cannot and should not count on anyone else to protect us?  We MUST take responsibility for this matter ourselves.  And we must make a wise decision as to the most effective way to defend ourselves.  With so much training available, much of it even for free, there’s no reason why a woman needs to endure this type of atrocity.  Fighting back is not a privilege.  It’s a RIGHT.  

I know, I may shock some of you with this statement, but I am 100% convinced that the best way for this woman to have defended herself would be with a handgun.  I don’t know how much the guy weighed, how tall he was, but frankly it doesn’t really matter.  When it comes to a clear need for self-defense, I say don’t mess around asking the guy to stop raping you.  Don’t mess around asking for others to defend you.  Defend yourself.  Two double taps to the chest, and it’s done, and it’s justified.  The horrors that this woman is going to have to live with over and over again, feeling not only betrayed by mankind, but by her own instincts, would not be an issue for her any longer if she had simply and matter-of-factly been able to stop this act by defending herself.  Yes, she would have to deal with the fact that she defended herself and as such took a life.  But psychologically that’s a lot easier to deal with than the unspeakable horrors she suffered while others simply watched.   

Her second best defense would have been an Asp, a telescoping metal baton that will indeed crush or break bones that it contacts with a forceful strike.  The third most effective would have been by leveraging her physical strengths—real physical strategies that help in a street fight such as this.  None of this “crouching tiger” baloney.  When he had her in a bear hug, if she had known how, she could have crushed his nose with her head, or she could have flipped him over into the tracks, the very same way that he threatened her, or she could have crushed his wind pipe with her hand, shoe, or cell phone. 

Here’s the rub though.  This woman is in New York, thus she has to show “cause” as to why she should legally possess a firearm.  An Asp would have been illegal in her state as well.  Adding insult to injury, if this had occurred in New York City, even IF she had a handgun WITH a license to carry, she would have been illegally in possession of it, as New York City does not recognize licenses from the State of New York.  How’s that for ridiculous?   

The sanctimonious positions of many who mistakenly believe the 2^nd Amendment is only for members of militia are clearly wrong in light of this set of circumstances.  Our Founding Fathers fully understood that others could not be compelled to defend us, except in a time of war, and still have our nation be built on freedom. However, they certainly would not have left us defenseless in the face of evil as this woman was either.  Thus every American in this nation was given the right—not privilege—to defend themselves with a gun.  This woman lost her civil lawsuit against the MTA.  Perhaps she should be suing the State of New York for making it difficult for her to defend herself with the most effective means possible!

 

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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

Get a Gun, Woman!

Do you want to reduce violent crime nationwide?  Get a gun, woman! 

 

Women with a knowledge of firearms for the purpose of self-defense actually make a bigger difference on the numbers of violent crimes nationwide than if men were to have the same knowledge. Why?  Women are more often the target of violent crimes than men are. 

 

This becomes even more pronounced when considering the impact that armed women have on the murder rate in our nation.  According to Dr John Lott, a renowned senior statistics researcher, “one additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.  This occurs because allowing a woman to defend herself with a concealed handgun produces a much larger change in her ability to defend herself than the change created by providing a man with a handgun.”

 

I can fully concur with this assessment. I have certainly discovered an unveiling of confidence in all aspects of my life as I’ve learned to defend myself competently with a firearm.  I’ve expanded my knowledge to other effective defenses as well such as the use of an Asp, a knife, and my own body leverage—even in scenarios involved a 6’4” 280 pound hardened Marine.  I’m no longer fearful of speaking to people, helping people, and just plain being myself. I know that if something were to go amiss that I am capable of defending myself in most circumstances.  This added confidence has simply made me a better person, more true to myself and to others around me.  This is surprising, considering that the anti-gunners would have you believe that the possession of and the ability to use a firearm effective would strip you of your femininity, make you hateful, belligerent, and a member of a terrorist militia. Once again, the mainstream media is dead wrong.  And I’m living proof of that.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.

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