Conservatives claim any new gun control regulations are a serious impediment to their ability to defend themselves and their families. Liberals claim guns are destructive to the fabric of society by way of equipping murders with the most efficient tools to kill. Both sides have valid points to make, and the Constitution, for better or worse, guarantees that Americans have certain rights regarding the bearing of arms.
Curiously, though, little attention has been paid to the types of weaponry that could be used to defend oneself from home invasion or other attack. What about non-lethal weapons? Tasers have made huge advancements in recent decades and are available to civilians right now. These weapons will effectively incapacitate an attacker without killing.
The military has been deploying advanced weapons that use sound and microwaves to cause intense pain to attackers without causing permanent harm to a single hair on their heads. These promising technologies are being used to defend military bases, warships, and even civilian shipping in waters with higher than usual piracy.
Why aren’t these technologies being made more widely available? If a non-lethal option can get the job done of self-defense, why would lethal self-defense weapons even be necessary? Does any American civilian deserve the right to kill as he or she judges “in self-defense” — especially if other options are effective and available?
Criminals can be reformed so long as they remain alive. Blood never washes from the hands of someone who kills. It is with great sorrow that one must acknowledge that self defense is from time to time necessary. But thanks to technology, it needn’t end with bloodshed.
WASHINGTON – Top Senate Republicans said Tuesday they would reserve judgment on Chuck Hagel’s nomination until after his confirmation hearing next week, a positive sign for President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Defense Department.Hagel, who already has drawn strong opposition from six Senate Republicans, continued his outreach to lawmakers on Tuesday, meeting with Sen. John McCain, whose support for the nomination could smooth the way for the former GOP senator and provide political cover for other Republicans to back the nominee. Senator Hagel and I are old friends and we had a very frank and candid conversation, and I’ll be looking forward to the hearing and asking him questions, the Arizona Republican told reporters at a news conference on his recent overseas trip. He should be given the opportunity of a hearing before any of us make a judgment. Hagel, during a brief conversation with reporters in the Capitol, declined to answer specific questions, simply saying, we have a hearing next week and I look forward to answering questions. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said earlier in the day that it was too soon to count the votes and he would have a better assessment of the support for Hagel after his confirmation hearing on Jan. 31.Asked if there were any Republican votes for Hagel, Levin said, I haven’t seen any, but there may be that I haven’t seen. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be. The Hagel nomination gained momentum last week as Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., two of the strongest pro-Israel Demo http://www.saclouisvuittono.com crats in the Senate, said the former Nebraska senator had addressed their concerns about his stand on Iran sanctions and support for Israel.But Hagel still faces ambivalence among Republicans, if not outright opposition, and could emerge from the Senate commi louis vuitton ttee vote with only party-line support. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the panel’s top Republican, has announced his opposition as have several other committee members.Hagel was scheduled to meet on Wednesday with Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., a committee member who has said she was perplexed by the nomination.Another panel member, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Tuesday, I look forward to visiting with him and hearing his testimony and we’ll see where it goes. Concerns about Hagel replacing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have centered on whether he is sufficiently pro-Israel, his description of pro-Israel groups as a Jewish lobby, and his stand on gay rights. Some GOP lawmakers also are concerned about potential cuts to defense spending and Hagel’s past support for reductions in nuclear weapons. That’s of great importance to me, said Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Corker’s state is home to the Y-12 nuclear facility and significant cuts in the nuclear arsenal would affect his state. I want to delve beyond the one-liners and sentences that have been brought forth by groups. It’ll be a very earnest conversation. I always start with an open mind. But I do have concerns, said Corker, who is scheduled to meet with Hagel on Friday.Democrats hold a 55-45 advantage in the Senate and would have the votes to confirm Hagel on a simple majority, but they would need five Republican votes for the 60-vote threshold to break a GOP filibuster. A Republican effort to block Obama’s choice of a former Republican senator would set off a firestorm as Senate leaders try to negotiate new rules on filibusters.Hagel has reached out to all 100 senators.Separately, a GOP-leaning group launched an anti-Hagel ad campaign in the home states of five Senate Democrats up for re-election next year. Say no to Chuck Hagel before it’s too late, said the commercials from Americans for a Stronger Defense. The spots target Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.___Associated Press writer Richard Lardner contributed to this report.
More…
Sam, perhaps you’ve raised a line of thought worth pursuing but realistically, none of us is going to have access to any of those things tomorrow or the next day, or probably 10 years from now. For better or for worse, guns are the cheapest and most efficient means we have of protecting ourselves today. I’m 58 and I’ve never brandished, threatened or even revealed my gun to anyone, let alone fired it at anyone, and hope I never have to. To me it would be the very last resort, and only the Lord knows whether at that moment I would even choose to do so. If it meant protecting an innocent person, young or old, I believe I would. Whether just for myself, I’m not sure, I’m trusting God for the right decision at that moment.
As far as the taser being an alternative, I for one, would feel woefully inadequately protected against certain types of attackers. Face it, someone who is given over to commiting a murderous act against another person is being fueled by more than a logical thought process, and probably some chemicals as well. It, in a majority of cases I believe, is going to come down to you or him, and that’s the decision you better make in advance. I’m not advocating for one or the other here, just that it be thought through before it happens.
You’re right of course, Dennis. I think that’s market forces at work. An almost entirely unregulated market for self defense has left us only with the cruelest, deadliest, and most unsafe options for protecting ourselves.