Reichley Column: Duck attack about alcohol—not guns
Published: June 23, 2009
Updated: June 23, 2009
Last week, Joseph Wescott, 67, a clerk at a Georgia liquor store, was working when a robber attacked him with a knife. Miraculously, the knife hit his cell phone which was in his pocket. Wescott then
grabbed his handgun from under the counter, and shot the robber.
The cell phone and gun were gifts given to Wescott by his son for protection. Without them, Joseph would likely be another murder statistic. But because he had a gun to defend himself against an
attacker with a deadly weapon, he is alive today. This is just one of countless stories each week where innocent victims defend themselves using handguns.
Locally, a man walked into Tim’s Rivershore restaurant last week and asked for a drink. Since he was intoxicated, the bartender refused to serve him. Angry, he stormed out, went to the beach and
used a handgun he was carrying to shoot and kill a duck. He then drove his car into Powell’s Creek, where he was apprehended and charged with drunk driving and reckless handling of a firearm.
This paper’s editors proposed to prevent future incidents like this by banning handguns from restaurants — even though the shooting was at the beach, not a restaurant, and the problem was that the
guy was drunk. It would make more sense to call for banning alcohol. Or cars, since he could have killed someone driving his car drunk.
The editorial makes a series of irrational arguments. They argue that restaurants are “family-friendly” but seeing a gun is “hostile” — which would suggest police with guns shouldn’t be allowed to eat in
restaurants. But then they say guns are bad in restaurants since “intoxicated people congregate there and the possibility for violence exists.” That does not sound family-friendly at all — if a restaurant
is known for fights and intoxicated people, they have bigger problems than patrons with guns.
The editors flippantly dismiss the use of guns for protection, despite numerous cases where gun owners successfully defend themselves and others from attackers. The editors simply assert that “we”
don’t want an “exchange of gunfire.” Of course, nobody wants gunfire — but if there is, isn’t an exchange with the good guys better than just a bad guy shooting defenseless people, as happens so often
where guns are banned?
The editors also don’t explain what makes restaurants special. People would be just as “uncomfortable” seeing a guy with a gun walking down the street. And if people can’t use a gun in a restaurant to
defend themselves, exactly where would it be OK to respond to a violent attack?
Having called for government to ban guns in restaurants, the editorial then says restaurants already have the power to ban guns (meaning government meddling is unnecessary). So,why don’t
restaurants ban guns? Maybe because their patrons aren’t as upset with law-abiding citizens carrying guns as the editors think.
Suppose the editors have their way, and guns are banned. How would that have helped last week? The drunk comes to the restaurant carrying his gun; being drunk, he could care less about where he is
allowed to carry his weapon. The restaurant refuses to serve him because he has a gun. The drunk, mad that he is refused service, walks to the beach and shoots the ducks — like last week.
In other words, the editors’ proposal does nothing to prevent what happened — they simply used the incident as a pretext to push an anti-gun proposal. Worse, suppose the drunk, after shooting the
ducks, came back to the restaurant? If the editors had their way, nobody in the restaurant, except the mad drunk, would have a gun. He could start shooting those nice families the editors care so much
about.
Eventually, the police would show up. Maybe they’d stop the guy, although most shootings in gun-free zones end only when the attacker runs out of bullets or victims, or takes their own life. Gun-free
zones never seem to stop the people who break the law — they only prevent good people from defending themselves and others.
A man got drunk, got mad, shot a duck and crashed his car, and should be thrown in jail. But if anything, it shows the importance of allowing responsible people to have guns in restaurants to defend
themselves should a drunk decide to target people rather than ducks.
Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at critically .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Mmarin,
While I appreciate an honest answer, I need to provide a reality check on the right-wing concept of private citizens shooting back against brutal government forces.
In the cases you cited as examples of situations when it would have been appropriate for private citizens to shoot at government-backed forces; popular opinion of the day was on the side of the government forces! What makes you think that public opinion would have shifted in favor of the underdog if that underdog engaged in armed conflict with the government? Don’t you suspect that it would have been more likely taken as an excuse for government to completely crush armed insurgents engaged in civil war with the US (aka: Terrorists of their day)? Actually used as an excuse to strengthen the sue of government force?
In the case of Kent State - which I note you cleverly refused to answer - public opinion even today is mostly on the side of the National Guardsmen who shot at unarmed students, and killed two who were not even participating in any protests. In fact, you seem to be on the side of the NG. What makes you think sympathies would be different today had the students shot back at the NG in “Black Panther” style?
In the case of southern blacks shooting back at the KKK and people engaged in lynch mobs; public opinion at the time was completely supportive of denying black Americans living in our southern states their civil rights (voting, peaceful assembly, etc). What on earth makes you think public opinion would have turned in favor of black people if those black people were engaged in open combat (civil war) against upstanding God-fearing white citizens (aka: the KKK)?
In the case of people coming unglued and deciding to walk into a church, school, or other public place and randomly shooting people; in my opinion, these incidents strengthen the case for tighter controls on who can obtain access to semi-automatic weapons and ammo that has no use in sports hunting. Giving untrained people more access to firearms and expecting them to be able to effectively engage random shooters in a public area is not a rational solution. Speaking as a veteran with some limited combat firearms training; People with no combat training cannot be expected to make rational decisions while using firearms in a combat situation.
Off the top of my head:
Zoot Suit Riots (LA?)
New York Draft Riot (NY)
Bonus Army (DC)
Kent State was interesting (in that how poorly the NG were at hitting targets) and that the NG claimed that they were shot on first.
But, all of these examples that you’ve provided or brought up (attacks on union members or labor in general and minorities) actually strengthen the arguement that a government unchecked will just roll over those without arms to protect themselves. Iran is a real world example of this.
Not sure that it would have made the civil rights movement go faster or slower but I think that the attention it would’ve brought would’ve pushed public sentiment to there side faster (in my humble opinion) as America loves the underdog. Pop culture reflects this with movies like Dog Day Afternoon or Gran Turino.
Of course there are many instances of civilians using arms to HELP civilian law enforcement (aside from the obvious of sheriff-led posse’s [still common in Arizona]). Many instances of dashcam videos exist of a fallen police officer or one struggling to gain control over a combative suspect being assisted by either armed or unarmed citizens. It’s more common in rural parts for citizens to step up and help a police officer that is in obvious need of assistance. And, I’m ALL for that. We all have the common law ability to arrest our fellow citizens. Unfortunatly, people now a days rely so heavily on police presence rather than taking care of situations on there own (and before you debate me on this point - I don’t mean 100% deadly force).
Police tactics and preconcptions are changing because of the blood baths at VA Tech, Columbine and Trolley Square. Active shooters, those with no intention on negotiation or taking hostages, must be engaged as soon as possible. If nothing else, this focuses the attention of the shooter on those firing back on him and allows innocents to escape or for response teams to move in.
Since you used a college example I’ll share one with you. University of Texas. Charles Whitman on the bell tower killing people before he was actively engaged by police and armed civilians who pinned him down long enough that police and civilians could enter the tower and kill him.
We’ll probably never agree on the availability the citizens of this country should have access to firearms - I believe they should always have access and that laws that are too restrictive are an afront to liberty and freedom. Again, you have the luxury of that choice in this country - if you choose to not use it it doesn’t hurt me - but don’t take away my choice because it’s uncomfortable to you.
Mmarin,
“However, it was more frequent to used armed resistance against civil authority before the 40s”
I’d like a few examples of this statement. I’ve read the history of turn-of-the-century union organizing in this country, and read an awful lot of accounts of the US Military and local police being used to break up early strikes with force; meaning union strikers being shot dead. Haven’t read any accounts of strikers shooting back at the police or military (and the Pinkerton’s don’t count - they were private, not government).
I also note that the only shooting involved in the 1960’s civil rights struggle was white people shooting black people (and shooting other white people supporting blacks). In this case, do you think civil rights for our black community would have been won sooner and quicker if all black people were armed and shooting back at the KKK and lynch mobs?
Since you don’t like my example of the Rodney King riots; how about Kent State? Here we had the National Guard opening fire on college students, killing four. In this case, should the students have returned fire on the National Guardsmen and engaged in a free-fire fight?
Anthonyafterwit:
“Excuse me sir. Please explain yourself.
The Settlers and Our founders did bring Christ to our nation and for 400 years we have reaped the benefits of it. I’m not saying our history was perfect but we have ended slavery and racism in this nation. Reading scripture and praying in the public square or schools has never hurt anyone in this country. Only the lack there of has hurt this nation in the last 50 years”
Mayflower Compact, Jamestown.. Early settlers were they not? Which “early settlers” brought Christianity to our shores? You say we have reaped 400 years of it. Well by my calculations 400 years is a long time and would include the Civil War, even if the Jamestown settlers were not around.
You fail to answer why all that wonderful religion took so long - 350-400 years - to partially eradite slavery, racism, etc.
Admit it: you can’t refute the awful and terrible history of religion in the US, if you insist religion played such a big role. Besides it would be so shameful and embarrassing for you.
You seem to not even remember what you posted. Been whumping and thumping too long??
Ron,
Not sure how to respond. You agree with me - or I agree with you, whatever. But, then you start going on this tangent about Republicans… So, not sure how to take that.
To your comment about the King riots not being violent - thats not how I rememebered them.
To your question - yes I believe that it would stop them in as much as the NG or LAPD would regroup to ascertain what is occuring and a way to neutralize the situation. It may require pacification of the area or negotiation. However, it was more frequent to used armed resistance against civil authority before the 40s (with the 60s-70s being a small exception).
But, to your point about race riots in California I’m perplexed. The first true gun control laws in this country we’re developed to keep blacks and indians from having access to guns because white’s feared them. If, as you’ve said before racism still exists in America, why would we want to push legislation that disarms minorities?
For example, Pink Pistols is an openly gay organization whos motto is “Armed gays don’t get bashed’. What you have to, and have failed to do so, is reconcile the fact that guns equalize the field. An elderly woman with a gun does not have to fear that she will be killed or raped by an 18Y old attacker. Guns allow for the victims to fight back and not be victimized.
I don’t really see gun ownership as a conservative issue - though many will disagree with me on that - but rather a plain and simple consitutional issue.
phdee I shouldn’t even waste my time, but have you ever heard of the Mayflower? Mayflower Compact? or Jamestown?
I hope you are 8 years old because you should be ashamed. Our founders weren’t around during the civil war
:‘( so sad, can’t even argue anymore today,it is just such a sad sad day
Joni:
I know there has been talk about taxing health care employee benefits. It was the “exception” of unions you posted that caught my eye. Now you say it’s also the Congress.
I don’t Pay much attention to “talks” or legislative discussionns; I am interested mostly in the final product. As in almost all legislation there is pork, exzemptions for some, etc.
such a sad sad day,Farrah and Michael both in the same day, so sad….
just telling you what they were saying on the floor of congress yesterday..and was being reported in many newpapers including the WSJ and this exemption also includes members of congress…research it,learn it, if you get help with your health insurance from your employer, hold on to your hats.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124581677678245833.html
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/20/wyden-wants-to-tax-health-care-benefits/
Advertisement