High School Football—A Terrorist Threat

By Kellene Bishop, Women of Caliber

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 2nd Amendment being honored throughout this nation, then you have reason to shout and holler with happiness! In an otherwise highly liberal court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled to enforce the 2nd 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.

Proof Positive that Ninety-Percent of the Guns in Mexico Did NOT Come From the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

While this site is dedicated primarily to the firearm self-defense education of future or current gun-owners—particularly women—I cannot avoid the genuine need to educate my readers on important matters of gun ownership. Indeed, your very ability to carry a firearm by which to defend yourself is intrinsically tied to our 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment which reinforces your inalienable right to defend your life, your property and your liberty is consistently under fire from those who are threatened by it. While this may not make sense to a trusting citizen of this nation—that a government would attempt to take away such a security, especially in light of the fact that this same government has ruled time and time again that law enforcement, military, and even your own community members are under no obligation to protect you otherwise in any manner—it is still a matter of verifiable fact. The threat of the elimination of such rights has been thrust upon us ever since our leaders have been bedazzled with obtaining powers to which they are not entitled.

With great foresight based on a history of learning, the Founding Fathers specifically tied the right of the citizens to defend their liberty to their right to defend against a tyrannical government. Is it a coincidence that such a right to “keep and bear arms” was only the Second Amendment? I think not. As such it certainly cannot be accused of being a mere afterthought of our forefathers. Indeed, these wise servants of our nation desired that if the power of the spoken or written word was ineffective in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty our nation, then by all means they were willing to ensure such freedom by the “flint and lock.”

Since the sanctity of this right is consistently under fire, it’s impossible for any citizen to consider a firearm for personal self-defense and not be affected by the political landscape involved in such rights as well. As such, I feel it appropriate to enlighten my readers on matters which would circumvent or violate the Laws of the Land in this matter.

For a long time now, I’ve heard time and time again the misquote that “90 percent of the guns which are confiscated by criminals in Mexico come from the U.S.”

First of all, IF that was actually true, can I just say “SO WHAT?!” If the U.S. had provided guns to Mexico, did we do so with the intent that they be used for nefarious acts? I don’t think so. And if you believe that they were provided to Mexico with an ulterior motive, the U.S. doesn’t pull the trigger on such acts. The criminals do.

Secondly, I have written previous pieces regarding the fictitious state of such claims. However, while it may be common place for so-called journalists and gossipers to restate this mythical statistic, I believe it an act of ignorance and perhaps even treasonous for our Commander-in-Chief to do so. Recently, on his trip to Mexico, Obama “admitted” to President Calderon that “90% of the guns which are found in the use of crimes in Mexico have come from the U.S.” The problem is there was no such fact to “admit” anymore than it was a “fact” when he claimed that America was no longer a “Christian nation” at a recent international summit. This claim of the 90% weapon stuff is indeed NOT fact. And if Obama made such a statement knowing that it was in error, then he did so with the intent to put the American culture at odds with the rest of the world once again. In fact, a knowing mis-statement of this nature clearly shows his anti-gun agenda to the world, most importantly to those who elected him to office believing (however naively that may be) that he had a more favorable stance on the right of American citizens to defend themselves.

Here are the Make-No-Mistake-About-it-Facts on the guns in Mexico.

29,000 guns were recovered in Mexico in 2007 and 2008. 18,000 of those guns were clearly NOT from the U.S. They were instead from Israel, Turkey, Asia and other nations. So the remaining 11,000 guns were actually given to the ATF in hopes that they could be traced to somewhere, even if it was the U.S. Of those 11,000 guns which ATF received, only 6,000 were traceable, meaning that they had enough information such as serial numbers, brands, etc. to provide any tracing information. And finally, out of those 6,000 guns which were traceable, a whopping 5,114 were found to be from U.S. sources. U.S. sources means that they were purchased at a pawn shop, stolen from a U.S. owner, or obtained some other way within this nation and then delivered to Mexico.

5,114 guns out of 29,000 is nowhere near 90%. Yes, I realize that the people spouting this fictitious percentage of 90% are the very same people who don’t know how to calculate their taxes, read a bill prior to passing it, counting votes, and properly evaluate assets which they require the tax payers to foot the bill for…but come on! How in the world could they be so far off the mark?! It’s NOT 90%. It’s 17.6 percent. Gee. Just a LITTLE bit off there, eh? (If you must, you can read the ATF report here)

So what’s the motivation to spout such a number then? Hmm. Perhaps it gives the Powers That Be the ammunition they need (excuse the pun) to convince legislatures and gun-fearing ignoramus’s that there must be a ban on guns. After all, if there is a ban on guns then so many guns will not go to Mexico, right? We all know that the Brady Bill brought crime rates lower—NOT. And we all know that D. C., New York City, and the State of California which are notoriously anti-gun have very little crime as a result of their anti-gun laws, right? Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic. You see, here’s a rule of marketing… when you’re intending to support of falsehoods in your campaign, the only way you can do so is by dispensing more falsehoods! Statistics don’t lie. But plenty of folks lie about the statistics.

Folks, if you are really trying to get genuine information on the use of guns and their value to your life AND your freedom, please don’t get your information from the press. As I’ve said before, I perfectly accept someone’s right NOT to use or own a firearm so long as that person has come to such a conclusion via genuine education. Not to do so is about as wise as the Spaniards were in believing that the earth was flat… after all, wasn’t that published repeatedly as well?

(Clarification from the author: Let it be known that I am not a Republican, Democrat, or any other type of “it.” I do not attack anyone based on their political affiliation. (What kind of caliber they use for self-defense…yes, admittedly I may become quite riled when someone is stupid in this matter.) But otherwise I am merely an AMERICAN. As such I will defend American freedoms by taking to task anyone who would destroy such freedoms.

Back Door CIFTA Threatens Firearm Freedom

“If you can’t beat ‘em, hide from them.”

The Obama Administration has unabashedly announced in several instances that they intend to bring in more gun control, even going so far as to taking away our firearms of self-defense. However, the likelihood of our 2nd Amendment being taken away from us is highly unlikely. So what does Obama do? He uses our apathy in international relations to try to accomplish the same end.

Stage Left: Enter CIFTA (read text here)

CIFTA appears to remove ownership of any firearm manufactured for, or any based on a military design, OF ANY AGE, from 2nd amendment protection. No exemptions for flintlocks, or pre-1899, either.

The treaty bans ‘“illicit” manufacturing’ of firearms, defined as:

the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives,
and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the
State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of
manufacturing.

This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations. And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.” This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license. It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition? Not anymore, not without a government license!

It defines illegal trafficking as “the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.” This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.

It requires states to destroy seized firearms. “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”

Here are the licensing requirements:

States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export,
import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of
firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues
the corresponding license or authorization.

States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the
importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or
authorizations.

The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon
request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials.

It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented. It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses. We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.
It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their
respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on
matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever
possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related
materials;

This means your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations. “Carriage” in this CIFTA sentence seems to imply carry permit information. “To the extent possible” means that if the records exist, it must be delivered. Registration leads to confiscation — in this case, confiscation by foreign criminals breaking into your house to steal the guns that they know you have. Could this bring about gun-control through crime? Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you? I believe that that “list” would have about a 30 second life before some international enemy successfully bribed a Mexican official for it…” hmmm… let’s see which Americans we take out first.” And once it’s out, it’s out everywhere, so the threat of security doesn’t just lie in “official circles.” It can easily make its way into the hands of our own neighbors.

This treaty will clearly result in establishing national gun registration. The treaty requires signatories to establish and maintain records of all firearms manufactured and transferred to allow participating nations to trace back a weapon found in their nation to its manufacturer and owners (Article XI). This also addresses issues of extradition to other nations for "offenders" (think gun makers and dealers), and establishment of international oversight committees.

The Washington Post article today clearly points out that Obama wants to push CIFTA through the Senate ASAP! This is an end-run around our rights associated with the Second Amendment! Entering into this treaty will make illegal the acts of hand loading your own ammunition, adding attachments to your own firearms, etc! This is clearly a back door attempt all the way, to get serious gun control implemented in our nation. Obama pushes the treaty like he’s fighting a wildfire. The Senate then ratifies it based on the Democrat agenda. The Dems then use treaty as an excuse to pass a variety of legislation to register and track arms. All of which aids Heller et al…

This is the WP article about Obama’s discussion of CIFTA with Calderon while in Mexico.

We absolutely MUST make sure that our US Senate does not ratify and enter us into this treaty.

Silence is Concession, folks.

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.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

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 IV

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: http://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.

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, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott) “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.

Children and Guns Part III

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.

When is it Safe to Educate Your Children on Guns?

A friend of mine relayed an enduring story. As a gun owner he has diligently practiced safe handling procedures with his children, even down to the youngest. One day he had occasion to take his youngest child, a 4 year old son, to the emergency room to accompany an ill family member. The 4 year old insisted that he get to wear his cowboy garb complete with the hat, and boots, as well as his belt, holsters, and pistols. As the two of them were walking in the entrance, a police officer was walking out. The 4 year old cowboy was irresistible to the jovial police officer, so he couldn’t help bending down in front of the boy and making a comment, “Hey there cowboy, you gonna shoot me with those guns you’re slinging?” The boy instinctively put his hands on his guns just like a gunslinger from the Wild West days and then paused. He put his hands down and said, “I don’t point my guns at anybody.”

So, when should you talk to your kids about guns? Consider the following:

According to federal statistics, there are guns in approximately half of all U.S. households.* So even if you do not have a firearm in your home, it’s very likely that there will be one in another home your child visits. Thus regardless of your own personal feelings about gun usage, you will be unable to ignore the reality of their presence elsewhere in your child’s life. As such, gun safety education should occur as soon as your child is likely to encounter a gun, real or fake. Another ideal barometer for education your child on gun safety is as soon as your child begins asking questions about guns. This is also indicative of an ideal time to educate. Even if such questions are relevant to toy pistols or rifles, it’s imperative that parents do not ignore or deny a child’s interest. Delaying education will only heighten any sense of mystery your child may have. Education is much more effective in gun safety than a passionate instruction for them to simply leave them alone. Be sure that any rules you establish with your children also apply to any visiting friends. This will prevent your child from being pressured into showing a gun to a friend. Be sure to discuss gun use that may be viewed on television or in movies or in video games that your child may see as well. It’s especially important in these categories because your child is likely to think that the use of a gun merely requires a “reset” button or the switch of a channel, rather than respecting the permanent nature of its use. Your education of guns should not only ensure that a gun is never used without supervision, but also that a real gun is never mistaken for a toy.

Fortunately there are simple gun safety programs such as the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program which teach simple, memorable rules to ensure gun safety. The Eddie Eagle program has been taught on a volunteer basis to over 26,000 school systems nationwide. Civic programs have also used this program nationwide to reach over 21 million youth since 1988. This program is even formulated to begin teaching children as young as kindergarten.
The essential rules of the Eddie Eagle program are as follows:

STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

To reinforce this program, there are always posters, activity books, certificates, 7 minute animated DVD program, and reward stickers which accompany the Eddie Eagle training. In many instances, an Eddie Eagle mascot is even available. Note that the Eddie Eagle program does not teach whether or not guns are right and does not promote NRA membership. No firearms are used in the program. It focuses strictly on accident prevention. (If you would like the author to present an Eddie Eagle program for your school or civic group, call us at 801-788-4133.)

Should you desire to teach your child about actual gun use, the guidelines for doing so will be determined by their physical and emotional maturity. However, research has found that the sooner a child understands the true impact of a gun, which is best achieved with supervised gun-use education, the more respectful of guns your child will be.* I recommend that parents who do want to instruct a child to shoot begin with an air soft gun for technique, then graduate to a BB gun, then to a .22 caliber. This process will assist them in physical coordination and technical learning.

*Statistics provided by the National Rifle Association’s web site

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

To Serve and Protect

The illusion that the police are there to serve and protect YOU is propelled by the media and Hollywood. Be it known that believing that police are there to protect you in any way is indeed an illusion. The fact of the matter is, the motto “to serve and protect” is not referencing everyday citizens. Instead it’s about protecting the STATE, although it is everyday citizens which foot the bill for the execution of such a philosophical stance.

The only time you can be assured of true protection is with a private contract between you and a security guard—from someone else other than yourself, that is. Such individuals would be required under contract to protect you. Should anything happen to you while they were under your employ you could hold them accountable. However, the police are government employees. This is exactly why there are so few law enforcement officers in relation to the crime in your area and the number of citizens to protect in your area. It’s not about protecting the citizens. It’s about protecting the state.

The release of thousands of inmates from California (and other) prisons reinforces this flawed thought process. The release has been ordered as a result of the best interest of the financial standing of the State of California, not the citizens of California. And yet it is the citizens who literally pay (through their taxes) for the legal representation of these criminals, the jury of citizens who are asked to make a fair judgment, the judge to oversee the case, the city employees who push the papers around for each criminal case, their care and well-being while incarcerated. Yes, this is like making the citizens pay dearly for a high-tech weapon, only to have it scrapped and released to wreak havoc on the same citizens who paid for it. Talk about “bait and switch!” Ultimately it will be the citizens who pay a heavy price for any recidivism of any of these convicted criminals. For centuries we’ve been paying our taxes gladly for such “services.” And yet we’re truly paying (in more ways than one) to be oppressed and overcome by such power and authority, regardless of the fact that it was free, law abiding citizens who bestowed such power.

Instead of relying on any government entity to protect you, why not invest in protecting yourself? Get a permit. Get a gun (or two, or three, or more). Get appropriate ammo—I don’t care how expensive it is. And then get trained with REAL unquestionable skills to use that firearm safely both physically and emotionally. For REAL self-defensive firearm skill, go to http://www.womenofcaliber.com/ for exclusive training for women, by women, or http://www.castledefense.com/ for those of you who don’t want to be outdone by the women in your life. ;)

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 II

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.

The Myth of Gun Safety

By Kellene Bishop

Wow! Our first installment in this series reaped the most feedback, e-mails, and responses than all of our other posts from Women of Caliber. I hope that you will find this installment at least as equally beneficial.

In this piece I’m specifically addressing real gun safety. I’m referring to the avoidance of accidents, and putting the safety of guns around children in its proper perspective. I’ve read far too many statistics which inflate the danger of guns around children. My objection to this is not only that it’s false information, but that such information is the foundation for many women who would otherwise elect to possess a firearm and the accompanying self-defense skills. So let’s provide the real facts so that we can make an educated decision, shall we?

Myth #1: “Children are constantly killed by accidental gun usage.”

The fact of the matter is that the reason why the media highlights the deaths of children via gun accidents is because they happen so rarely. Obviously, it’s much more headline worthy when an innocent child is killed via a gun than a headline reading that a child is 6 times more likely to die in a car wreck than by a gun. In fact, the likelihood of children dying via a car wreck is 14.5 times more likely than from a gun.

There are approximately 300,000,000 guns owned legally by 94 million people in the U.S. There are approximately 40 million children in America. In 1999, the last year for which a detailed breakdown was available, 31 children younger than age 10 died from accidental shootings. The Center for Disease Control only noted 4 children under the age of 10 dying from accidental gun deaths. With 300 million guns and 40 million children, you would think that there would be a lot more deaths if the firearms in our homes were as dangerous as the media makes them out to be.

Based on statistics in the same year, roughly 550 children ages 0-14 were run over by cars, 800 drowned, 660 were burned to death in fires, and 1,850 died inside cars. Most of the 800 drowned were as a result of unattended children in a swimming pool, 93 drowned in bathtubs, and 36 died in 5-gallon buckets, yet we have no "mothers against bathtubs, buckets and swimming pools" organizations to speak of.

Eight times as many children die from non-gun violence acts than from gun crimes. (Kids and Guns, 2000, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquincy Prevention)

82% of homicides against children age 13 and under were committed without a gun. (1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

While less than 0.1% of all deaths for children between the ages 0-14 are from firearms, 0.6% are from motor vehicles, 5.3% are from being struck in beatings or bludgeoning, 6% from poisoning, and 42.6% from suffocation. (1997 National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics Report)

Why aren’t more children dying at the villainous hands of 94 million gun owners throughout all of America? Because, with few exceptions, law-abiding gun owners are conscientious of educating children on gun safety and likewise practice it themselves. And yet so many parents, and particularly women, relinquish their freedoms to defend themselves based on the warped reality spoon-fed to them by the media.

While one would think that enough has been said about the exaggerated accidents involving children and guns, I still feel it’s necessary to address this next myth.

Myth #2: “If I don’t have a gun, my children are safer and better protected.”

This concern is falsely founded for so many reasons. For starters, if you are not familiar with the workings of a firearm, how are you able to appropriately stop an accident from happening? Suppose you walk in on your child who’s holding a firearm in his hands. What do you do? Do you grab it from him? Do you instruct him to put it down? HOW do you grab it? HOW would you instruct him to put it down? Do you know when a firearm’s safety is actually engaged on every possible gun your child could get their hands on? Do you know the proper manner to TAKE a firearm from an unauthorized child? Why should you NOT holler at the child, even to “freeze” and put the gun down? If you don’t know the answers to these questions then you could actually CAUSE a firearm accident by simply trying to prevent one. (I’ll answer these questions specifically in a further post as the instructions for such an instance are an entirely separate piece.) Additionally, is a child’s exposure to a gun solely relegated to your own home? Not teaching your child (and yourself) about firearms doesn’t protect them, it exposes them.
If they don’t know what a gun really is, then how are they supposed to respect its deadly power or to even be an influence among their less educated friends who may possess a firearm in their presence? Parents who choose to ignore the reality of a firearm in the midst of their children only promote a greater percentage of danger to them.

If you are not in favor of possessing a firearm yourself and teaching the accompanying rules with such a responsibility, then at least teach your child these 4 simple rules when they come in contact with a gun.

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

(Eddie Eagle Education Program sponsored by the NRA)

When the only exposure to guns that children have is on video games—where they “kill” people who get right back up to play some more—you are increasing the chance of them or their friends being injured in a gun accident whether you possess one or not.

Now, let’s address the last myth. I warn you in advance, this is going to get a bit dicey as it will address a topic that most parents do not want to even think about.

Myth # 3: “Waiting until my children are grown so that they can make their own decision on using a firearm is the best policy.”

First of all, let me ask you this question, when has your child EVER waited according to your time-frame to do anything? They grow up too fast, date far too soon, get married when you swear they are still only 8-years-old, and make you a grandparent while you’re still feeling in your prime. So let’s debunk the myth that they will actually wait until YOU are ready before deciding for themselves about firearm usage. The best thing you can do is to give them proper knowledge and education early on so that when they do make that unprecedented decision for themselves, they do it fully informed.

We communicate regularly with a lot of single moms on the topic of gun ownership so I’m going to create this scenario specifically for you, Super Moms.

Suppose a criminal enters your home just as you’re about to put your 3 children down for bed. He’s got a knife and he’s holding it at you and making vile threats against you if you don’t give him money. He’s also made it clear that he intends to fiercely violate your virtue in the presence of your children. Sounds a bit melodramatic, you may think, but unfortunately this is exactly the situation that numerous children have faced throughout the nation (See examples below). Of course as a mother you don’t want to ever have to think about your child needing to defend your life with a gun. That’s a natural instinct. But if this same scenario is thought out rationally, think about the alternative. Would you rather that your children have to witness a heinous attack on their mother, then her death, and perhaps even be subjected to more violence to themselves afterwards? That’s obviously an even more disturbing thought.

So what do you do? You train your child not to be a victim and to handle a firearm properly. Why a firearm? Because out of all of the championship karate matches I’ve ever been to, I have yet to see a “power pint” who is truly capable of kicking the butt of a drug-enraged criminal intent on causing death and mayhem.

If you do not prepare them mentally for such a situation now, they won’t be ready if such a horrific event does occur and you’ll risk more than one life being lost. By preparing them for such an instance you are NOT emotionally scarring them. You are preparing them to win with the best possible situation. You’re not treating them to bully others. You’re treating them to heroically defend the lives of those around them. Such a mental fostering has a much more powerful effect on their lives than fearfully and helplessly reacting to a crisis. If they don’t decide when they are young, they may not be able to make a decision when someone’s life depends on it.

See:
Boy shoots home invader http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/308864

Son uses shotgun to defend mother against armed home invader http://www.cbs12.com/news/intruder_4709600___article.html/home_alleged.html

17-year-old disarms armed robber and shoots him saving his mother http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/17-year-old-disarms-shoots-robber.html

Bank robbery and hostage situation thwarted by a teenager in 1915
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070702_1_A4_Kingo54280&breadcrumb=state

17-year-old thwarts home robbery with shotgun http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou061228_ac_crosbyshooting.547846d3.html

In closing, I want to reiterate that the maximum way to ensure your children are safe is to be an involved parent. We can’t control what they are exposed to, but we can have a great influence in what happens when they are exposed. While I’m fully aware that parts of this article are quite uncomfortable to consider, I believe that even putting yourself mentally “there” goes a long way to assist you in your progress to be fully capable to defend yourself and your loved ones. I simply don’t want you to NOT make that decision out of misguided information fed to you by the media. As I’ve said before, I respect individuals who elect not to possess a firearm, so long as that decision is based on sound knowledge. I hope this piece has assisted you in making wise decisions regarding your own self-defense as well as that of your children.

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 I

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.

I have been shooting firearms for about 8 years now. As a woman who’s convinced this is the best method of self-defense, I regularly communicate with other women on this topic and frequently hear 3 primary reasons why women are fearful of owning a firearm. The most common reason is the safety of their children. Rather than seeing a firearm as a method of defending their children, they see it as a willful danger that they bring TO their children. Rather than simply telling them that such wasn’t the case and they were simply falling for the mainstream media story of the day, I decided to do some very, very specific research on what really happens in this nation when it comes to children being around guns. Frankly, my research astounded even me. So much so that while I intended to write one article about it, I realized that there was far too much information to cover in just one. So I’m breaking it up into a 4 part series as follows:

Part I—Want to Ensure Your Kid Never Commits a Gun Crime? GIVE Him a Gun.
Part II—The Myth of Gun Safety. What you must know in order to truly protect your children.
Part III—When is it Safe to Educate Your Children on Guns?
Part IV—What’s Really Responsible for the Deaths of Our Nation’s Children?

Part I—Ensure your child never commits a gun crime by actually giving him a gun? Sounds crazy, but it’s true. Of course you would NEVER hear the media spout off such a statement, but in a GOVERNMENT study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention revealed the following bit of valuable information.

Fact: Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0 percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so (21 percent).

Fact: Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in the house (24 percent) – and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.)

Fact: Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned drugs (13 percent) than children who get illegal guns (41 percent.)

Fact: Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.

This study covered a period of 3 years (1993-1995).

When you take the mystery out of a gun, you take the mischief out of the child.

Presenting a firearm in an appropriate manner, as a tool of critical self-defense, along with the appropriate safety rules, means that you don’t have to worry so much about your life being turned upside down by your child living a life of a gang-banger criminal. Why? Legal gun owners tend to take their right of owning a gun very seriously. As such, they do not want to do anything that will compromise that right. They are typically a very law-abiding people. Bringing your child into that culture will enable them to associate with other like-minded, law-abiding people that you can count on being an example to them even when you’re not around.

Now, let’s talk about the other aspect of gun ownership… a sound knowledge of appropriate safety rules. Whether your child has a gun or not, this should be taught to them ad nauseam until they truly get it. Every single “accidental shooting” that has EVER occurred has done so as a result of a violation of one of these gun safety rules.

First rule: Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction.
Second Rule: Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
Third Rule: Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded
Fourth Rule: Always protect your firearm from unauthorized use.

Learn for yourself and teach these rules to the children in your life to ensure their safety and to foster a respect for firearms. It is also important that you teach these rules in this particular order as well. One leads to the other.

Stay tuned for Children and Guns – Part II.

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