Dead Woman Found on Toilet  |   Home  |   Barrett to Challenge Kind

Personal Protection

Heh.

On the weekend after Zimmermann’s death, Maternowski’s father drove over from Milwaukee and brought his daughter three items for personal protection inside her apartment: a black Louisville Slugger baseball bat, a 2 1/2 -foot metal pipe and a can of industrial-strength wasp killer.

You know what would work better?  A gun.  A good gun coupled with a lot of range time and training is far more effective than a bat and a can of bug spray.  For those of you who think that a gun would be “uncivilized” or something, please explain to me how bludgeoning an attacker with a bat is more civilized. 

Posted by Owen at 0916 hrs
Culture + Firearms + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. I’d take the bat and wasp killer any day…get medieval on their ass.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 0938 hrs




2. My daughter’s arsenal: Pepper spray, a 9mm semi-auto, a 22 revolver, and a lesson at the shooting range. 

   I was in Madison to bring her home yesterday and had an eye open for homeless creeps.  They were all over.  I saw two walk right in front of her apartment, where some dickhead always blocks to entry door open.  The students have no sense of how dangerous Madison has become.

   I am so glad my daughter is home and will not be living in Madison again.

   Posted by Headless Blogger on May 10, 2008 at 0953 hrs




3. As a father I would be more concerned that they published my daughters plan for defense in the news paper. 

   I agree with your assessment Owen.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1018 hrs




4. Baseball bat or Desert Eagle and some instruction and practice time?

   Pretty easy choice.  Unless, of course, you live in Madistan.

   Posted by The Asian Badger on May 10, 2008 at 1034 hrs




5. The tolerant, liberal city has historically lent a helping hand to those in need. ......
   “Some suggest that Madison kind of attracts people here,” he says. “I don’t know if that is urban legend at this time, that we are a resource-rich community. ....I would hate if that causes us to reduce or eliminate things that we need to help people that really do need it.”

   Are the liberal, do-goooders in Madtown ever going to realize that being able to deal with with the repercussions of your actions is just as important, if not more so, than just being able to say they support some idea or policy?  These NIMBYs really chap my ass. If you are all for helping the homeless by providing for them with welfare and other entitlements, rather than trying to solve the problem by keeping jobs in the state and so forth, then please, do not start crying when they (the homeless) begin to move where entitlements are. 

   This is the same attitude that we are seeing with the green movement and ethanol, it was a great idea at the time, because those who supported it could feel like they were doing something and not have it affect them. Once the hen came home to roost in the form of higher gas and food prices, they are up in arms about it and demanding that something be done. It didn’t take a PhD in economics to see that, if corn was worth more as a fuel additive than as a food source for human or cattle, then farmers would sell it to the oil companies.In addition, it isn’t fair to blame the farmers for selling where the dollars are the most plentiful. I doubt if there is any one of us here who would not make the most of an opportunity to make the highest legal profit possible.

   Perhaps the Democrats of 47 years ago had it right, what sacrifice are you willing to make?  What are you willing to give up or to give to those that truly need? Are you going to put strings on it? Are you going to limit the places that the help will be given? Are you going to ask what you can do, or are you going to ask what the government can do for you? (For those to obtuse or to young, google January 20, 1961)

   I am sorry that this post is a bit off-point, but the quote at the end of the article, and the perceived hypocrisy I have read in some posts lately necessitated my rant.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1128 hrs




6. Many people in cities own dogs, including students.  I feel that a dog is a much better way to prevent crime from happening than owning a gun.

   Some people do not want the responsibility of owning a gun.

   One thing a dog is that a gun will never be is a good companion.

   Dogs are certainly more civilized than guns and some of the people who own the guns.

   I realize that not everyone is well suited for dog ownership, but it certainly is an option to be considered when the discussion is about personal safety.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1327 hrs




7. I realize that not everyone is well suited for dog ownership, but it certainly is an option to be considered when the discussion is about personal safety.

   Sustitute gun for dog in the above statement, and that is the feeling of many here. Would you agree to it?  That is should be an option?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1334 hrs




8. Dogs are certainly more civilized than guns and some of the people who own the guns.

   
   Yes, having a dog latch its jaws onto the arm of an attacker and not letting go, (which is what a properly trained dog will do, bite and stick) is SO much more civilized than firearm ownership.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1339 hrs




9. One of the primary differences between dogs and guns is, even a small, “woman’s” model of firearm is understood as a deterrent, the attacker knows what it can do. On the other hand, a small Pomeranian on a leash is not seen as much of a deterrent, or even a golden lab for that matter, until it is shown to have the training to actually function as a deterrent. If well trained, that proof will not be evident until an attack is in progress. So much for deterrence.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1400 hrs




10. Elorich, my friend:

    I wrote that a dog is a better way to PREVENT crime.  A barking dog scares would-be criminals away, even the many criminals and would-be criminals who own guns.

    In the discussion of personal protection, I am merely ADDING to that “arsenal”, if you will, dog ownership.

    SHEESH!

    I live at the corner of West Washington Avenue and Broom Street, and Ms. Zimmerman lived in the 500 block of West Doty; if you’re familiar with Madison, you know that is only a three block walk.

    Absolutely none of my neighbors that I know of went out and bought a gun as a result of this crime.  And I expect if they haven’t done so by now, they likely never will.

    Why is this?  Are we all a bunch of nuts? Are we all just a bunch of bozos sitting around waiting to be assaulted?

    There are many reasons, but I’ll start with the first one:  Many of us don’t go around living our lives in Paranoiaville.  No one in their right mind lives in such a paranoid existence that requires a gun at the ready to shoot first…

    Quite frankly, many individuals who own guns probably have no business owning one, owing to their mental state alone, not to mention criminal intent, and I believe many responsible gun owners agree.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1403 hrs




11. Yes, barking dogs scare away criminals like car alarms alert the neighbors or owners of the vehicle to the fact that someone is trying to break into it, or that the wind is blowing, or someone bumped into it.

    No one in their right mind lives in such a paranoid existence that requires a gun at the ready to shoot first…

    I resent that remark, being of sound mind, but still being a gun owner who chooses to exercise my right to do so.

    And yes, I agree that people who do not have the mental capability (oh try to define that and stay politically correct btw) or have a criminal intent , should not own firearms, but then they would not most likely own them legally, and I am against all forms of criminal behavior, including owning a dog without getting it licensed where required, having it off a leash where it is required, not cleaning up after one’s dog, where it is required. I also think that anyone who is not in the business of breeding dogs who does not have it spayed or neutered is acting irresponsibly.

    As for why you and your friends have not purchased firearms:  I would never characterize you as nuts or bozos. As for waiting to be assaulted, have any of these friends gone out and gotten a dog, or done ANYTHING proactive in the past week?

    But, just as I would not characterize you and yours from being nuts for NOT purchasing a firearm, why do you think it is okay to characterize those who DO choose to do so as paranoiac or of criminal intent?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1419 hrs




12. While we are talking about personal protection dogs, as opposed to security or guard dogs I assume, I would like to point out one other fact.  While I do not think it is possible to place a value on one’s protection, the industry average for a fully trained personal protection dog seems to start at about $8500-$12500 US. Certainly a possible reason why you or your friends have not run out and gotten one.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 1503 hrs




13. Adam,

    You ever see a gun eat its own vomit or sniff another dogs butt?  I haven’t.  Sure doesn’t seem very civilized to me.

    Also, last I checked a gun is an inanimate object and I always find it tiresome when people attempt to compare it to a living creature.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2008 at 2008 hrs




14. Adam,

    Like most sheep, you are in complete denial.  You see, read, hear of others being attacked/murdered by wolves and you are just glad it wasn’t you.  This is typical sheep mentality.  We sheepdogs on the other hand know how to deal with wolves and keep our skills honed and the necessary tools always nearby.  I assume you carry a spare tire in your car?  Is that because you are paranoid or because you are prepared for the day you may get a flat tire?  Most people have a fire extinguisher in their homes.  Is that because they are paranoid or because they want to be prepared for the day they may have a fire?  Those of us who keep a firearm readily accessible think of it as just another tool to be always ready should it be needed.  It sounds like you have a fear of firearms (hoplophobia).  This could be corrected with a NRA basic firearms course and a few trips to the range.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 11, 2008 at 0844 hrs




15. Hi Elovrich,

    I see you have taken a stand against ALL forms of criminal behavior, including owning an unlicensed dog.

    So I assume you NEVER speed and ALWAYS come to a COMPLETE stop at a stop sign or red light; a yield doesn’t count as a legal stop.

    If so, then I shouldn’t be casting about stones…

    Hi TosaDan,

    Thanks for mentioning that dogs sniff other dogs butts; your friend 45acp, whose comment follows yours, compares gun owners to sheepdogs.

    No I didn’t write that and sign off as 45acp; I think it’s funny since the immediate thought in my mind was: gun owners sniff each others’ butts!

    Thanks for the laughs everyone.

    Is this a great country or what?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 12, 2008 at 1331 hrs




16. Adam,

    Yes, I always come to a complete stop. I try to obey the traffic laws, including speed limits, it isn’t as difficult when one lives in a rural area. I also know that when I do get stopped and ticketed, and yes, it has happened, I do not bitch and moan about speed traps or police departments trying to fill quotas. I pay the fine and try to keep a better eye on my speed.  Being FOR enforcement of laws one agrees with, and trying to change or taking a stand, and having the fortitude to live with the results of said stand, to try to change the laws that one feels are unjust, immoral, unnecessary, ill-advised, does not mean I am making a statement that I think I am perfect or without fault. It certainly is not casting stones. I feel that anyone who breaks a law should be subject to the punishment the breaking entails, including myself when I break a law, intentionally or inadvertently.

    BTW, have you or any of your friends who live in the area of the attack taken any sort of proactive action to avoid being the next victim? Or would thinking that it could happen to you make you paranoid?

    Also, you did not answer why you thought it proper to characterize those who choose to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment as either paranoiac or of criminal intent.

    As ever, I await your reply.

    Elovrich

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 12, 2008 at 1451 hrs




17. What exactly the Second Amendment means is debatable; I understand the current US Supreme Court is trying to figure out if the right to bear arms is an individual right or is viewed as a collective right (for military purposes). I don’t want to get into to that argument.

    If it is a right for an individual to bear arms, I would assume that laws and regulations can limit that right, as with any other rights we share as American citizens. For example, guns aren’t generally allowed on commercial airlines.

    I don’t think that a person who owns firearms is necessarily paranoid or has criminal intent; I have a close friend who is a very responsible gun owner. In fact, it’s safe to say most gun owners are responsible citizens.

    
    My friend keeps his guns locked up when not used for hunting, so if there was a break-in at his house, his guns would not be ready to use; he has two pre-schoolers at home and probably doesn’t want the guns accessible in any way.

    That said, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions: Can a person claim to be both pro-life and ANTI-gun?

    [Assuming you’re a Republican:] Why is it that Republicans in the Old Confederacy have a conniption when the GOP is referred to as the “Party of Lincoln?

    P.S. I’ve been busy with niece and nephew lately, so I wasn’t able to get back to you sooner.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2008 at 1141 hrs




18. Adam:

    I will try to address point by point:

    What exactly the Second Amendment means is debatable; I understand the current US Supreme Court is trying to figure out if the right to bear arms is an individual right or is viewed as a collective right (for military purposes). I don’t want to get into to that argument.

    Agreed, not the proper post to get into that debate.

    If it is a right for an individual to bear arms, I would assume that laws and regulations can limit that right, as with any other rights we share as American citizens. For example, guns aren’t generally allowed on commercial airlines.

    True and agreed again, free speech is the law of the land, but there are limits placed on that, and rightfully so in many cases, slanderous speech, speech inciting to riot, “fire’ in a crowded theater, ‘movie’ in a crowded fire hall. The point of contention is when is the law protective of the public and when is it restrictive of the right.

    I don’t think that a person who owns firearms is necessarily paranoid or has criminal intent; I have a close friend who is a very responsible gun owner. In fact, it’s safe to say most gun owners are responsible citizens.

    Thank you for a seeming turnabout, or at least clarification of your earlier statement, to wit:

    Quite frankly, many individuals who own guns probably have no business owning one, owing to their mental state alone, not to mention criminal intent, and I believe many responsible gun owners agree.

    There is a problem with the word ‘many’ as it is so vague and easy to misinterpret. I agree with your friend, keeping firearms safe and out of reach of children, especially those to young or immature to understand their intent. I will not mince words, the purpose of firearms is to destroy whatever you are aiming at. Flat out. When one points a gun at something outside of a range, the understanding that when you pull the trigger you intend to kill is paramount, whether it is an animal or another human. Keeping firearms in safes, with ammunition locked up separately is the safest way to store them. Trigger locks are another, although these have their own problems. Cable locks preventing insertion of a magazine is another. Wither of the last two at least allows faster access in case of a break-in. The BEST safety step, with an exception for very young children, is education.

    That said, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions: Can a person claim to be both pro-life and ANTI-gun?

    Certainly a person could be pro-life and anti-gun. They are separate issues. It may be that a person who is a ‘conservative’, but was the victim of a gun crime, or lost a loved one as a result of a gun crime, has a specific reason for a certain view. Or a ‘liberal’ had an abortion in the past and now has come to the realization that, in her case, it was a grave mistake that she wished she could undo.  There are myriad reasons people believe what they do on various issues that have nothing to do with an ideology they hold in general.

    [Assuming you’re a Republican:] Why is it that Republicans in the Old Confederacy have a conniption when the GOP is referred to as the “Party of Lincoln?

    My party affiliation, or lack thereof, is a personal matter, but my posts should identify my general tendencies. Either way I cannot answer for why some people have ‘conniptions’ and I addressed this question in the other post you asked it in.

    P.S. I’ve been busy with niece and nephew lately, so I wasn’t able to get back to you sooner.

    Wonderful. I have a couple of nieces myself, and understand the desire to spend time with family. Especially nieces and nephews, you get to send them back to their parents…(smiles)

    I would appreciate an answer to one question I asked however.  Have you or any of your friends taken a proactive step in the aftermath of the attack that spurred this discussion? Not wanting to label any of you, but I believe it was Rita Mae Brown, (not B. Franklin) who said, “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” Jut wondering if anything has changed in your neighborhood that would preclude this from happening again.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2008 at 1405 hrs




19. Hi, Elovrich,

    No, nothing has really changed in the neighborhood.  There are a lot of dog owners that live in the area already; in fact, the 13 story building called “Metropolitan Place” has so many dogs living there that there’s a separate “Dog Elevator.”

    I don’t want to leave the wrong impression regarding this special elevator: because some folks don’t care for dogs, this elevator is not an elevator exclusively for “people passengers”; it serves dogs and their walkers.

    One will ride the dog elevator at their own risk of coming in contact with a dog otherwise and really shouldn’t complain, after all, they are warned.

    The one thing that did stand out in my mind was the UW police and Madison police went throughout the UW Memorial Union in the week that followed the Zimmermann murder, asking patrons for ID and WisconsinUnion membership cards.

    I had my drivers license, but not my Union card; my companion told the police that I was his guest, and guests are allowed at the Union. The police then went on about their business. I assume that they were looking for neighborhood vagrants, the focus of their investigation at the time, so they proceeded to ask everyone in the building to present ID and membership cards.

    The only other time patrons are asked for a Union card is when purchasing beer at the Rathskeller bar in the Union.

    Most people in my neighborhood feel relatively safe, although it seems many student neighbors take their chances and don’t always keep their doors locked.  Many doors are propped open with no residents in sight!

    I see a lot less propped open doors when I walk to the store now, so maybe that’s how people have changed their usual habits in the wake of this crime.  It’s an easy common sense move and I’m sure a lot of parents called to ask their college student family members to make sure the doors are LOCKED at all times.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2008 at 1622 hrs




20. One will ride the dog elevator at their own risk of coming in contact with a dog otherwise and really shouldn’t complain, after all, they are warned.

    I had to chuckle when I read this.

    Adam, no offense to you since I do not know where you stand on what I am about to address.  But, I find it odd that people can have this attitude about dog dander in an enclosed space when asthma and allergies can be quite distressing to those that suffer from them, and yet have a problem with designated areas for smokers. After all, they were warned and really shouldn’t complain.

    Anyway, I am glad to hear that SOME action is being taken by the residents in the area. Oh, what breeds of dogs are you talking about?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2008 at 1657 hrs




21. Hi, elovrich,

    Dogs are a part of the human family in seems, since the time they were taken in as orphaned wolf pups.

    Deliberately inhaling smoke has always struck me as deadly, after all, when a cigarette smokers’ house is burning, I expect s/he’s not doing much inhaling. If smoking was such a great thing, they’d be inhaling the smoke like crazy, no?

    Smoking and pet dander. Who would have ever thought to link the two? Last time I checked, smoking’s deadly, pet dander is an annoyance (for some).

    I will admit, as you and everyone knows, not everyone likes dogs. On the other hand, dogs will be apart of humankind forever.

    As time marches on, smoking will become a thing of the past.

    The dogs range from little 12 year-old Watson, a terrier like Toto from the famous movie classic ‘Wizard of Oz’, to ugly poodles (which I don’t consider real dogs), to a Great Dane and Newfoundlander. My 16 year-old cat was bigger than some of the dogs that emerge from that building.

    MOST of the dog-walkers pick up after their dogs; there are too many witnesses otherwise, this being downtown Madison.

    This is my last post on the matter.  Ciao! or is that Chow!?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2008 at 1806 hrs




22. I’ve often wondered about the wasp killer vs. pepper spray thing. I always have a can of wasp killer in my car. I’ve been pepper sprayed, way overrated. The wasp killer has some really scary warnings on it, I’m thinking it would be more than effective in the event I encounter pepper spray again

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1724 hrs




23. Great article, well written!

    Posted by Proactive Free Trial on May 27, 2008 at 1437 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.