And What’s Wrong With Killing?


So The Joyce Shill is going into hysterics that Utah has made the M1911 pistol their state firearm. Given that it is one of the most popular handguns in the world, even 100 years after its invention, and it was invented in Ogden Utah by John Browning (bonus Points for JMB being a Mormon), its really a political no-brainer. Plus they don’t want people to think the M1911 was invented in Hartford! I was going to rag on Baldr but really Joe covered it perfectly. So I decided to work on this quote.

I love the revisionist history you guys come up with. Browning invented the M1911 with one purpose in mind: creating a handgun for the U.S. Army which would shoot and kill an attacker. Sure, it can be used for self-defense, but a military officer using it at any point in the past isn’t shooting to wound or to scare — they shoot to kill. Thus, Browning invented the device to kill humans, as I said in the post. All other uses (sport shooting, plinking at cans, showing it off to relatives, whatever) are secondary to the original concept. Please don’t pretend it to be anything else. If you need a source for that info, Orygunner, here you go: http://www.m1911.org/full_history.htm .

You guys go off on such tangents! Was he a great inventor of guns? Certainly so. And certainly not all of the guns out there are used for crimes. I never claimed otherwise. But to celebrate an item made for killing, as a symbol of a state, is disgraceful, no matter how honorable the man who invented it or how reliable or long-lasting the weapon. If the purpose were to honor a “son of Utah”, surely there are other “sons” who have invented great things which could be honored with a state symbol, without glorifying weapons.

First go read Bob’s rebuttal, its a good one, and I’ll try not to step on his points. His main point is “The 1911 has saved thousands — probably hundreds of thousands of lives.”

He’s right. Its also killed a lot of bad people. And when its lawful self defense, or a war defending the free world what exactly is wrong with a “Weapon that shoots to kill”? From the webpage Baldr links:

The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers.

The heavy caliber of the .45 ACP (still a robust cartridge even today) was to replace the smaller .38 caliber revolvers (I believe the revolvers were in .38 Short colt) which would severely and often fatally wound an attacker….but not STOP the attacker very well, so the Moro would die, but not before he killed the American who shot him, and maybe some of his friends. That principal alone shows how the M1911 saved lives, if the attacking man stayed down, rather than 2-4 deaths there was 1. Yep killing is ugly and no fun for anybody, but I like those odds.

And of course the M1911 pattern guns are IDEAL for carry. (I’m carrying one right now as I type, and have been since 5:30 this morning) Now not only does this gun allow me to protect myself from violent harm (and if a body needs to be created, why not it be the violent bad guy?) but how often does a gun get draw, only to have that simple gesture end the confrontation?

But of course the end question is a question the anti-freedom advocates can not, and will not answer. And what is wrong with Killing? We have justifiable homicide on the books. We have legal statutes for self defense. Are the anti-freedom advocates willing to admit they are AGAINST self-defense? Are they to admit that if an innocent person is confronted by a violent attacker they are obligated to run, and if unable to run, they are obligated to die politely?

If they agree that it is acceptable for me to kill an attacker to save my, or some other innocent life, than what do they have against me implementing a tool designed from its origin to do just that?

And that is the TRUE origin of the M1911, pistols have never been offensive weapons except in VERY narrow circumstances (mostly close quarters battles) the rifle has always been the main offensive weapon of a military, for the M1911’s lifespan that has been the .30-40 Krag, the M1903 Springfield, the M1 Garand, the M14, the M16, and the M4 Carbine. (yep its still being fielded today) While not at popular as the Double-stack polymer pistols today the M1911 and its siblings has been a popular gun for Police. Do you think the Police are an Assault force? Nope, Police arms are also weapons of defense as well. Do police not have the right to kill an attacker as a means to preserve innocent life?

If they do, what’s wrong with a tool designed to kill?

Thanks Again Robb Allen for the image.

This entry was posted in Guns, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to And What’s Wrong With Killing?

  1. Newbius says:

    “Shooting to wound or scare” is a guaranteed trip to jail. It is de facto evidence that you were not sufficiently in fear for your life to actually shoot to STOP the threat.

    Hey Joyce Shill!: The criminal has already determined that your stuff is worth your life. Why wouldn’t you be willing to place the same valuation in it?

  2. Chad says:

    Agreed….if my stuff is worth my life, it’s damned sure worth the criminal’s.

  3. Kermit says:

    People like the Brady Bunch and the Joyce Foundation aren’t concerned with self-defense. They’re not concerned with guns. They don’t care about killing, justified or otherwise.

    They “care” about victims of crime, because it suits their interests.

    See, you can’t be a victim if you haven’t been victimized, and if you stand and fight, defend yourself, you make a very poor victim.

    If you will submit to a mugger’s whim, or a rapist’s will, or a robber’s fancy, then you are likely to follow along later, when the friendly lady with the nice clothes on TV says you need to vote for her so that no more people are ever victimized. If you are pliable to a criminal’s demands, you’re likely to be more pliable to the talking head who says you need to listen to him as to why Guns Are Bad and It’s The Gun’s Fault. The criminal threatens/attacks with a weapon. The power-monger entices and seduces with false compassion. In the end, the street thug does less damage to fewer people.

    It comes back to power and control over other people. “Gun Crime Victims” are just one more sub-set of people to be divvied up, balkanized, ruled, and controlled. Tell the black man that if he votes for you, you’ll fight the racism that’s keeping him down. Tell the woman that if she votes for you, you’ll fight the glass ceiling. Tell the poor that you’re compassionate, and will help them improve their lives, guarantee their welfare check. Tell the crime victim you’ll ban the weapon that was used against them, and prevent that crime from ever happening again. Tell them you say this because you care.

    And then if the black man is ostracized for being promoted beyond his competence, or the woman gets pregnant and has to leave work without paid time off, when the welfare recipient is encouraged to be lazy by the regular check and never improves himself, when the thugs ignore the law and come back to attack another, you use it all as “evidence” of the rightness of your own position, and justifications to double-down on your control and manipulation of the “protected classes.”

    It’s just another part of the game. They don’t care about the blacks or any other minorities, only how said minorities can be manipulated. The same holds true for women, the poor, the elderly… and the victims of crime. They WANT each group to remain “disadvantaged,” and in fact, to become worse off, because they believe it strengthens their own positions.

    It’s about power and control.

  4. Bubblehead Les says:

    I’m happy to honor a MAN like JMB. Having carried old Slabsides on and off for 10 years in the Navy, it was comforting to know that I had a tool designed to KILL any thing that might threaten me, my Shipmates and my Ship. Only had to pull it out for real once, but that was a good size Gator that was hanging around the aft end of my last Sub down at the Charleston NWS. The Skipper then ordered a M-14 broke out and put in the Guard Shack “just in case” it tried to crawl up the turtleback.

    By the way, don’t the Hippies and the Commies get all warm and fuzzy when they hand out the Nobel Peace Prize? And didn’t that money come from Alfred Nobel’s Trust Fund from all the money he and DuPont made making up High Explosives? Think that a few million people have died from Artillery Shell and Bombs and Missiles loaded with his invention and it’s heirs, right? Frackin” Hypocrites. Wonder if this fool ever ate some meat in his life? Didn’t some poor critter give up its life to feed that fool’s face?

  5. Pingback: Weer'd World ยป Quote of the Day: Kermit

  6. Considering that weapons give strength to the weak and a voice to the silent, I think that honoring the people who design them is not only justifiable but downright commendable.

  7. Jake says:

    They embrace the falsehood that all killing is wrong because they want to disarm us – not just physically, but mentally. A population that sees all violence as evil is easier to control, because it’s people are less likely to act to protect their freedoms.

  8. Pingback: “Gun Death” Steak Knife | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.