Monday Miscellany and Open Thread

Above -- Why I didn't write yesterday.  (Did you know a dog can double as a pillow? My wife greatly enjoyed snapping this shot.)

- So I reluctantly head back to the horror of Newtown for a couple of more thoughts.  It seems to me that the focus of most of the discussions has been on legal restrictions on types of gun and ammunition ownership and how these can be squared with political reality and the federal courts' expanding notions of Second Amendment rights.  I am thinking along the lines of a more market driven solution, i.e. the use of civil remedies against manufacturers of weapons and ammunition may be the most effective way to curb the proliferation of these inherently dangerous instruments.  In other words, impose a legal regime of strict liability on the manufacturers of guns and ammunition as well as those who sell them.  If your weapon or your bullets -- as manufacturer or importer or retailer -- are used in the commission of a violent act, you will be civilly liable in tort to the victims.  Under such a regime, it is not difficult to imagine a large number of makers of guns and ammunition, along with sellers, being put out of business in short order.  And it avoids all of the pesky Second Amendment issues.

- Well my idea may not be perfect, but in comparison to that idiot Megan McArdle's take on things, it looks like pure genius.  The list of things about which Megan knows nothing is a dauntingly long one, but good God, matters like these are just completely outside of her frame of reference.  Clearly here is a woman who knows nothing about 1) small children; 2) semiautomatic assault weapons; and 3) what it is to be in mortal danger -- but hey, I think having 5 and 6 year-olds try and swarm a madman wielding a Bushmaster is genius.  

-  Like Josh Marshall, I find the notion that gun ownership is the basis for our freedom as Americans to be offensive and laughable.  I would be hard pressed to think of a single instance in American history where arms wielded by civilians have advanced the cause of freedom.  (Please enlighten me if I've overlooked something.) I find it similarly preposterous when people make the same claim for military veterans .  I say that not to disparage military service but as a reflection on what most of our veterans have been asked to do in recent times.  Were American civil liberties really at stake in the outcome of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again?  WWII was against an enemy so powerful and vicious that I suppose one can make the case.  Other than that, what are we looking at?  WWI?  The war to end wars was hardly a boon to American freedom.  The Spanish American War?  Promoted the freedom to exploit and colonize.  Ditto the Mexican American War.  The Civil War is the only American war I can think of that directly brought about enhanced American freedoms.  Anyone else see it differently?

Alright, must grab the dog pillow and head for bed.  Got an early train to Philly to catch.  What else say ye?

Comments

[Gene O'Grady]

In Daniel Walker Howe's history of the 1815-1848 period, dedicated to John Quincy Adams, he begins with the battle of New Orleans and makes two points. (1) Andrew Jackson (not my favorite guy on a bill) was far too good a general to let anything rest on the militia and (2)it was expedient for a lot of people afterwards to spread the myth that the militia coming down from Tennessee and Kentucky had won the battle.

The second amendment is based on a totally wrong concept of national defence, which has been disproven by the ineptitude of militias for two hundred years. Needs to be replaced with a plain spoken amendment that speaks to our current situation. Frankly, I tend to feel that way about the whole damn constitution.

[Gary K]

I'm with you on finding the 2nd amendment a horrible anachronism, but I think the historical incident our gun-toters would point to is the march out from Lexington to Concord and back again. The marching redcoats were picked off like carnival ducks by the local militia. Maybe they'll also mention Ruby Ridge and Waco, who knows?

[RayM]

Depressingly predictable, gun sales are through the roof, particularly assault weapons and hand guns. As though hundreds of millions weren't already more than enough.

*That* is surely insanity by any reasonable definition.

[Sir Charles]

Gene,

I think whatever the flaws in the Constitution, a good many of us think that sitting down in a room with the present GOP assembly of lunatics to hammer out a new one would not be a pleasant experience. Or an improvement.

Gary K,

I think the thing that these clowns don't seem to understand is that the notion of an armed challenge to the duly elected government of the United States is actually treason. We have a system of government in which changes in power and policy are supposed to be dictated at the ballot box rather than by the bullet. I would like to see people attack this "Red Dawn" fantasy for the subversion that it is.

Ray,

One has to wonder at the mindset of people whose first reaction to something like the Connecticut massacre is to run out and buy more weapons and ammo.

[oddjob]

Insightful take on the gun culture by one of TPM's readers.

[kathy a.]

i can't find the story again, lost in the tsunami of articles on shooting -- but in a piece on how even some pro-gun lawmakers are coming out and saying we need to do something, one of the elected geniuses said, "but we shouldn't do gun control; we should focus on violent video games and mental health."

mmmkay, then. i hate violent video games as much as anybody; have no stomach for violence; do not think it is a good idea to promote violent thoughts. but let's be clear: this man did not kill 20 kids and a bunch of adults by hitting them over the head with a CD or a joystick. outlawing video games is the "abstinence only" equivalent to doing something real about the problem of gun violence.

i am absolutely sympathetic with calls for better mental health services, having dealt with some serious mental health concerns in my own family. in fact, we've got a chronic problem going on now, and it is one of those slow-motion train wrecks where basically nothing can be done unless/until this adult incompetent person becomes a danger to self or others. (or, unless the person decides s/he needs help. insight as to personal functioning is not a feature of mental illness and/or dementia; the absence of insight is.)

prup has noted the danger of mental health screenings, which might dump a person into the "ill" category for arbitrary reasons. (in the situation of gun ownership, i personally do not care if every one of us flunks the mental test. but what about spillover to other ares of life? privacy?) and at the other end of the scale, there are high-functioning people who could easily pass a screening test, just as they pass in regular life, but then go shoot their kids and the mother of their kids and themselves -- this is what the husband of one of our physicians did. and he worked in the medical office; nobody guessed he was in that frame of mind.

so, here is where i come out on mental health: we need better ways for individuals and families to deal with MH concerns -- greater access, less stigma. i prefer better screenings for gun ownership; but we are going to disagree on criteria, and we are in danger of both over-inclusion and under-inclusion.

it keeps coming back to the ready availability of guns. in mass shootings, it tends to come back to the availability of military-grade firepower. we have to begin dealing with guns themselves.

and we need to fight the propaganda of the gun nuts and gun lobby. and the freakin' yahoos who think teachers should be armed, or kids should rush the shooter. i'm sick about the idea of everybody living in a shooting gallery, to the greater glory of gun manufacterers and conspiracy theorists.

[low-tech cyclist]

According to the NYT, the NRA has been working overtime in recent years to restore gun rights to convicted felons, including those convicted of violent crimes.

So this latest notion that they'd really like to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons, to the extent that they can be identified, is total bullshit.

Yeah, I know: shock and surprise.

[low-tech cyclist]

Josh Marshall on McMegan's latest:

"The whole lump of nonsense makes me wish purveyors of over-cleverness and hack think tank denizen garbage could be sent to a time out."

[Joe S]

Sir C, in addition to Lexington and Concord, I'd also look at John Brown's raids into the Confederacy and pro-Northern militias in "Bleeding Kansas" before the Civil War as situations where armed civilians actually advanced the cause of freedom.

From the perspective of conservatives, of course, there are a number of situations where armed militias were helpful. The Antebellum Deep South was one giant police state with most Whites armed in case of slave revolts and the Interior West had a great many armed militias to put down resistance by the indigenous Indian population. Although these clowns on the Right would never admit it, that's their model- heavily armed Whites holding off people of color.

[kathy a.]

p.s. -- you and stan are so cute, snuggled on the couch! excellent stealth photography. :)

also, good point about armed rebellion against the government (which sits at heart of gun-nut justifications) being treason. mass violence and treason are not "american values."

[kathy a.]

i'm speechless about the restoration of gun rights story, ltc. gobsmacked. stunned.

the next time a gun nut argues, "but they can get guns on the street," everybody ought to cite this story -- they can get their own guns back after felonies and despite mental instability, because of laws that make it so.

[oddjob]

it tends to come back to the availability of military-grade firepower

This.

It's nuts to expect to live in a civilized, peaceful society where being armed for "self-defense" means arming oneself as if you lived in a war zone. If you have widespread access to weapons of war it's silly to think some aren't going to use them, and for what?

[oddjob]

i'm sick about the idea of everybody living in a shooting gallery, to the greater glory of gun manufacterers and conspiracy theorists

Moloch be praised.....

[Bill H]

"In other words, impose a legal regime of strict liability on the manufacturers of guns and ammunition as well as those who sell them."

Certain amount of merit, but an invitation to abuse. Dozens of small businesses in San Diego county closed due to bogus lawsuits under the ADA, filed by a lawyer who drove by and never entered the store. He paraded around in his wheelchair and inviked "standing" based on his disability, despite the fact that the stores had never offended because he never entered them.

Likewise the motorcyclist with a blood alcohol content who crashed his mototcycle at 100+ mph and then sued Harley Davidson.

Sorry, I still think the libility for murder lies with the guy who pulled the trigger, not with whoever made the gun.

[kathy a.]

bill -- let's just deal with one set of issues at a time. disability access is a separate set of issues. i would rather see things solved in that arena with a more positive set of solutions in the tool-box -- but ultimately, i agree with accessibility because we all might need it one day. i have in fact personally depended on accessibility accommodations. those make life better!

let's leave out stupid lawsuits, too, which normally are tossed out of court -- or settled for one reason or another.

guns are made to kill. they are tools; that is their intended use. they do not provide transportation, or access to information. if they feed or clothe, that is in the limited circumstance of subsistence hunting.

if semi-autos and 30-round clips are meant for entertainment or recreation -- why not restrict them to well-regulated shooting ranges? because these babies are not for hunting anything but a lot of helpless humans. and anyone who sells them knows that.

[low-tech cyclist]

Bill - I agree with SC and kathy. As kathy says, "it tends to come back to the availability of military-grade firepower."

Manufacturers are providing firepower beyond any reasonable self-defense need, providing a level of excess firepower that can only cause harm.

IANAL, but it sure seems to me that they should be held liable for the carnage caused by guns in excess of that which might be caused by guns suited for self-defense but little more*. They know what they're building, and they know what it can cause. They have a moral responsibility, and I can't see why their responsibility shouldn't be legal as well.

Sure, the guy who pulled the trigger is culpable - who would disagree with that? - but the one doesn't exclude the other. You can execute multiple persons for the same crime (e.g. a gang boss who orders a hit, and the triggerman himself); culpability doesn't have to sum to 100% or less.

* For instance, consider a handgun with a capacity of six bullets that doesn't take ammo clips, where you'd have to reload bullets individually. It would suffice for practically all self-defense situations, but would make it well-nigh impossible for a killer to put between 3 and 11 bullets in each of 20 first-graders. The gun manufacturer should be liable for the excess carnage beyond what could have been reasonably inflicted by a nutcase with a couple of those more utilitarian weapons in his hands.

[jeanne marie]

I just put a couple of good links in the comments of the previous post. Can they be moved here, SC?

[jeanne marie]

An Open Letter from a PTA Mom to Huckabee for the let's blame the godless . . .

[jeanne marie]

Let's try this again, to fix link.

An Open Letter from a PTA Mom to Huckabee

[oddjob]

An Open Letter from a PTA Mom to Huckabee

Her most excellent letter reminds me of a saying often attributed to St. Francis that Huckabee would do well to heed:

"Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words."

[Sir Charles]

JM,

Great letter. Thanks for sharing the link.

Amtrak's incredibly crappy wifi would make St. Francis himself doubt the existence of God. I am being forced to rely on the iPhone, which is not really my preference for this kind of thing.

[kathy a.]

michigan's gov. sees the light, decides he does not want every mom and dad in the state's awful revenge, and vetoes the stupid expansion of the concealed carry law that would have allowed guns in schools. thus showing more sense than some people out there, not to name names.

[kathy a.]

JM's pieces posted on the other thread: i am adam lanza's psychiatrist, which is great. and, debunking the gun fetishist propoganda.

[TrishB]

So, I just want the dog. Is that a mutt or a Dandie Dinmont?

[low-tech cyclist]

Gov. Ultrasound wants to talk about arming teachers:

"If people were armed, not just a police officer, but other school officials that were trained and chose to have a weapon, certainly there would be an opportunity to stop an individual trying to get into the school," [Va. Gov. Bob] McDonnell said on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" show Tuesday.

"I know there is a knee-jerk reaction against that, but I think we should have a discussion about it."

Y'know, bozo, it shouldn't take a discussion. Five minutes' reflection should be sufficient to have reasons why this is a terrible idea tumbling over one another inside that empty space you call a head. The sorts of people who go into teaching, by and large, aren't the sort who want to play commando. As a result, they're not likely to be very good at it. It's just one more thing you're asking them to become skilled at - are you going to reduce their amount of instruction time by the amount of time they have to spend learning to handle firearms with skill? This would surely drive more good teachers out of the profession, to be replaced, I suppose, by mediocrities who can handle a gun. If teachers are carrying guns, kids are going to swipe their guns from them, either to show off with (and likely shoot someone by accident), or to deliberately shoot a classmate or a teacher. Hell, a teacher in a moment of frustration might lose it and shoot a student or two. Need I go on?

That's why such a conversation is unnecessary. These thoughts should have been crowding your head, if you have one, from the moment you thought about arming teachers.

All I can say is, hopefully that drives the final spike through the Presidential ambitions I know you have.

[low-tech cyclist]

The (GOP) governor of Tennessee also wants to have that conversation. And Gov. Rick Perry of Texas thinks that conversation is unnecessary - teachers should be able to carry heat in class. (Here.)

Good Lord almighty.

[Sir Charles]

Trish,

He's a lovable little mutt. He has the long body and coloring of a Dandee Dinmont, but his head is more like a Glen of Imal terrier. He has a tail like a Lhasa Apso. People most often ask if he is a PBGV.

[kathy a.]

they want to arm the same teachers whom they don't want to permit to unionize? those bloodsucking leaches on society, who put kids first, and also want benefits to go with their low pay?

the irony-meter is not working properly in some of the governator mansions.

[nancy]

Surprise. They are going to go there, looking to arm teachers in the classrooms of Tennessee.

Of course, not one of these delusional *patriot legislators* posturing such auto-ideas has the slightest understanding of what it is to be a teacher in a classroom; nor any idea of what is supposed to go on in an elementary classroom, in particular. That would be Childhood, Part 2. Books, numbers, sounding out, recess, story-time, Valentine's Day card boxes, markers, butcher paper, floor-time, making new friends, etc.

I had one hothead teacher in high school who'd have swelled at this idea -- he was primarily the football coach who liked to shove male kids against the wall at any occasion. His off -season assignment was to teach American Government, at which he completely failed. I blame him for the catch-up I'm still doing.

[low-tech cyclist]

To be able to hold gunmakers legally responsible for their carnage, Congress would apparently have to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, passed in the wake of a successful suit against Bushmaster, the gun that D.C. snipers Muhammad and Malvo used.

In this Congress, unfortunately, the odds of that are approximately zero.

[TrishB]

Sir Charles, thanks for the reply. Your pup struck a chord for absolute cuteness, whether Dandie, Glen of Imal, PGBV, or mutt. Something about a scruffy little face does it. My sister has a Dandie right now, and one that passed last year. Oddly, she was also considering a Glen of Imal this time.

Oh, and I'll just leave gun regulation alone for the moment instead of preaching to the choir.

[nancy]

kathy a. -- the irony-meter is not working properly in some of the governator mansions.

An understatement -- Gov. Transvaginal needs to go meet a teacher or two in his state to get some responses to his school-armory plans.

[Sir Charles]

Trish.

I am a big fan of his scruffy little face. My wife had to talk me into getting a dog a few years ago, but I truly have the zeal of the convert. He is a splendid companion.

My wife and I went to the Westminster Dog Show last year and spent the bulk of the time in the terrier section, which is where I first saw Glen of Imals, who are just gorgeous dogs. The dog show is kind of a hoot.

[Crissa]

Dog thread! Dog thread!

I'm at my mom's house, and she has a dog.

[oddjob]

Robert Bork has died.

(Hat tip, TPM.)

[low-tech cyclist]

Another WTF gun moment from a couple of years ago, via TNC:

A man, Charles Bizilj, goes to a gun show in western Massachusetts, bringing along his father-in-law and his two sons, aged 11 and 8.

Bizilj testified that his father-in-law, who was also along for the trip, shot the Uzi, then Bizilj shot the Uzi, and then Colin [the 11 year old] fired the Uzi. But the Uzi jammed for Colin and a "rangemaster" -- the person in charge of safety on the range -- switched the group to an even smaller "micro-Uzi" gun. Colin fired that weapon a little more.

Then, Bizilj said, Christopher [the 8 year old] said, "Dad, can it be my turn now?"

Bizilj said his youngest son fired 10 rounds, then the gun jammed. Bizilj said he was taking pictures and fiddling with his camera when he looked up to find his son was no longer in the viewfinder. He rushed over to find his son on the ground [fatally wounded].

1) Excuse the fuck out of me, sir? You were "taking pictures and fiddling with the camera" while your 8 year old was handling a loaded Uzi with your permission? You weren't monitoring his every move? I mean, sure, you shouldn't have let him come near that thing at all, but given that you did, why weren't you hovering over him every second? Did you think he was playing with a fucking Xbox?

2) They let elementary-school kids shoot guns like these at these gun shows? The "rangemaster...in charge of safety on the range" at the gun show had no problem with this? Is this fucking crazy, or what?

It isn't just politically that they're in some sort of alternate reality. The cultural divide between us and them is even wider and deeper than I'd realized.

[kathy a.]

the father of the 8 year old was a surgeon. geez. he testified at the involuntary manslaughter trial of the event organizer, having already settled with the gun and ammo manufacturers. dad was not charged.

[kathy a.]

task force on gun violence. go, joe.

[nancy]

It isn't just politically that they're in some sort of alternate reality. The cultural divide between us and them is even wider and deeper than I'd realized.

The father's use of the phrase "sporting event", describing the circumstances of his son's death in his book's afterword, make that divide clear for me. Shooting automatic military weaponry as sporting event. With children.

The first time I encountered such a weapon, carried by security guards at the airport in Amsterdam in August of 1998, was quite sobering I remember. Twenty-nine had died, hundreds injured, in the IRA car bombing at Omagh. Uzis in the hallways seemed no mere deterrent but a statement of political and police purpose -- police presence at a likely exit point for international fugitives. Serious business.

Yet my morning paper features a front page story about the rush to buy more "home protection" weapons. People with a vicious dog on their property need to post signs for liability purposes. Might we expect same when semi-automatic weaponry is inside a home?

[low-tech cyclist]

A sporting event. Dear Lord.

And one that was "touted as both a lark for gun-lovers and a firearms safety exercise."

Rather unsuccessful with respect to both aims, evidently.

And I don't understand how the dad didn't get prosecuted too. Just because he's the grieving dad doesn't mean he isn't liable in his son's death, taking video from ten feet away while his eight year old handles a loaded Uzi. Goddamn.

[low-tech cyclist]

From the book: "The day was designed for families but a series of unforeseen events proved catastrophic."

What - you can't foresee that letting an eight year old play with a loaded Uzi might turn catastrophic? I repeat: goddamn.

[Joe S]

LTC, A lot of gun nuts really do have a weird view of gun safety and a cavalier attitude towards kids with guns. I remember a family outing with a huge number of kids age 6-17 wherein my gun nut uncle laid out a half dozen loaded shotguns after shooting (some of them) and then wandered off without putting them away. I also remember him walking around with a small caliber pistol and showing how it could be used by shoving it into people's chests (it was supposedly not loaded). All of this was stuff I had been taught never, ever to do when I was age 14 in a hunter safety course.

[nancy]

We all knew the right would soon get ugly again -- I didn't expect it would happen quite this quickly. Via Corey Robin. If the university capitulates to this witch hunt, we're in more trouble than we know.

[kathy a.]

really? the honcho of the NRA feels threatened because someone used *words*??? words that are best understood as "this guy should be held accountable," rather than an actual physical threat [against someone the universe can reliably assume to be armed to the teeth]? i mean, walking around with an actual head on an actual pole is so 400 years ago....

the sentiment might have been inartfully stated, but it is definitely in the tradition of "the pen is mightier than the sword." or, "we're mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it any more."

[paula]

Check out Charlie Pierce's column on Charlotte Allen. I led off the comments, and she went after me. Ha! I'm flattered! You never know who you'll run into on Charlie's blog.

[Crissa]

They charged the event holder with manslaughter? But not the father? WTF? Sure, suspended sentence, whatever, but get a felony on his record, he doesn't deserve a gun.

No one should have been shooting those weapons without them being tied down and fixed down range. Ye gods, what do they think? It's a good thing they didn't blow apart.

Which, strangely, manufacturers aren't liable for.

[kathy a.]

steve benen summing up one branch of the mcstupid -- mcardle's urging that young people rush the shooter, and allen's rant about the alleged lack of Y chromosomes at the school.

paula -- allen's response to you is really saddening. having been victimized herself, she really is that unable to see the differences in this situation? oy.

there is stuff floating around out there about the pro-gun people thinkin' the real culprit here is video games. who knows what the NRA itself will propose when it speaks out tomorrow, but i'm willing to be this will be an item.

so, let's just say it: video games did not kill these children and teachers and staff. i don't like violent video games because they lead to coarseness in society, and promote the idea that problems can be solved with violence. but the Tools Of Killing are guns. in this case, big-bang military style guns. the kids and staff could have fended off an assault with video games.

sure, we need to do a lot of thinking about the culture that supports physical aggression and killing. but the major component in the high death toll is THE TOOLS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE FAST. killing is what guns are meant to do! when a design feature makes a bad outcome extremely likely, we need to focus on that.

we do not allow personal or recreational use of a lot of items, for reasons of public safety. you can come up with more examples, but here are some off the top of the head: rocket launchers. tanks. cannons. bombs. grenades. toxic poisons. nuclear weaponry. potent biological agents. possession of materials to make a meth lab -- many of which are innocuous unless brought together.

selling semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines to civilians is like selling meth kits, or bomb kits, only worse -- because the intended use of these weapons is to kill, kill a lot, and kill fast.

[paula]

Thanks, Kathy. I really tried to understand this woman, but, to me, she makes no sense at all. She boasts about how aggressive she is, how she'd blow a guy's brains out if she could, then wants to sit back and let some other guy do the dirty work for her. Who is the adult and who is the child in this scenario? I guess the women at the school who fooled the shooter or threw themselves in front of their kids didn't count because they were just being mommies, but guys who complete a tackle or knock out a bad guy with heavy objects are the true heroes. And CA is, what? The damsel in distress? The lady in white gloves screaming for someone to rescue her?
I stand by what I said in the first line. Either she has no kids, never taught in an elementary or secondary school or has not faced death at the hands of a bad guy. She says she has. Maybe so, since 1 in 5 women in this country are molested at some point in their lives, it's quite possible. But, threatened with rape, she didn't make take control of the situation. She called out to be rescued, but I don't think she understands this.
She's living in a different and extinct world, with no business commenting in national media on such complex and dangerous matters.

[kathy a.]

look -- if i was being attacked by a bigger and stronger person, the smartest thing might be to scream. or play dead, depending on circumstances. i have no reason to doubt her personal story, and i do not wish for anyone to be in those circumstances.

my ideal personal scenario would probably start with trying to talk a person down, then screaming for help, and then playing dead. i hope to not have the need to test this approach; and i'm pretty sure things would be compressed or altered if there were kids involved. i might be the one charging the shooter; or i might be the one under the desk, dialing 911. those are things on my apocalypse playlist.

allen's personal moment of terror was not like the one at newtown, and she is not thinking straight about what actually happened in that school. or what actually happens in any number of other situations, especially involving guns. and kids.

[kathy a.]

i have to say, trying to talk down someone who is already shooting is not a really viable approach. i've used talking down in less deadly circumstances, but there are practical limits.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

Charlotte Allen is seriously stupid.

I blasted her some time ago -- I'll have to dig it up.

What a tool she is.

[nancy]

Paula, Charlotte Allen is one strange woman. Kind of a Coulter creature with academic standing. I noticed that the Publisher's Weekly reviewer at amazon had some serious concerns with the *scholarship* of her single book. Stanford has some outliers, for sure. She's way out there. She made an even bigger fool of herself on that thread with you. In perpetuity.

[paula]

Sir C, kathy, nancy---thanks for your support. I read Allen's FB page and apparently she Googles herself to see who's saying what about her, then goes to those sites and defends herself, and tells her friends how badly she was treated by the "supine liberals," on her own age. Ha! Somewhere on FB she also says she does not have kids. No surprise. And, that she was educated in Catholic girls schools until college. I figure she's in her late 60s. Her sheltered background explains a lot to me. She simply has no idea what she's talking about, and probably got her knowledge of guns and violence from James Bond.
You just don't know how you will react in a life/death situation until you're in it, and then you may not act the same way you did the last time or the time before that. The only way you can prepare is it keep yourself mentally fit and have faith in yourself to do the right thing.
I don't wish this woman any ill, but would prefer that she were not one of the few women speaking out on such an important issue. She proudly posted that she did the liberal talk-show route yesterday thanks to rattling so many cages.

[paula]

sorry for typos----on her own page, way you can prepare is to keep yourself fit, etc.