A vicious “pack of up to four pit bull terriers” remain on the loose in rural Los Angeles County after killing a 63-year-old female jogger, The Guardian reported yesterday. The woman died while being transported to the hospital, authorities say.
One of the dogs tried to attack another human, a responding law enforcement officer, but was repelled when the deputy drew his service weapon and fired a round at it.
“It’s really scary,” one woman told a local television news station. “I really think I’m going to be getting a gun to protect myself.”
The problem with that is, if the woman goes jogging, or to work, or shopping, or just “out,” chances are the law will require her to leave that gun at home. California, which banned “open carry,” is what is called a “may issue” state when it comes to issuing concealed carry permits, with the decision to approve coming from municipal police chiefs and country sheriffs. And when it comes to Los Angeles City and County authorities, unless one is well-connected (and generous), the default decision is “may not.”
Sheriff Lee Baca and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck have earned reputations as notorious opponents of armed citizens. Yet the dog’s response when the deputy fired at it clearly, and for all the world to see, shows the only thing that would stop such an attack. Proponents of alternative so-called “less than lethal” solutions would be hard pressed to demonstrate how they personally would stop such an attacking animal, let alone several of them, and the fewer legs predator pack members have, the more dangerous they become.
What this means is, top LA law enforcement knows perfectly well that savage beasts are preying on peaceable citizens, they are unable to stop it from happening, they know what will give those being attacked a fighting chance, and they deny them that option under force of state arms. Through their mandates, they confirm that they would rather see a 63-year-old woman mauled to death, ripped apart in the most horrible, agonizing and terrifying way conceivable, than simply have the choice to the means of defense.
This is what that “monopoly of violence” advocated by the gun ban crowd ensures, and what the unfounded mentality that police are the “only ones” who can be trusted with firearms guarantees — helpless prey for the monsters among us, including and especially the official kind. It’s what Obama, Bloomberg, Holder and Schumer, the ruling class, the media elites, the “Authorized Journalists,” the politicians and vacuous celebrities hiding behind armed bodyguards, and the low information useful idiots they rely on to build political momentum, demand.
They tell us such thinking is “progressive.” And the insane thing is, based on the politics rewarded by election results in places like Los Angeles, it’s what the majority of their residents believe they want, at least up until that moment when they realize the pack has cut them off from the herd, there’s no place to run, and that flesh being torn into is their own.
The latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column is now online. Click here to read “Dodging a Bullet.”
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”