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
anthonyafterwit:
You are totally wrong. The US was founded on slave3ry and exploitation.
If it wsa religion as you claim, then Christianity MUST ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for slavery, civil rights violations, murders, lynchings, Holocast of American Indians, wars, Civil War, corruption, greed, graft, thefts, discimination, hate, racism, etc etc. A real ugly legend.
And let’s not forget that Washington, Jefferson, George Mson, and others owned slaves. It was a profit and business matter. Property.
If slavery was so bad among the Christians, then why did it take a juicy Civil War to partially resolve the matter?
Face it; religion is the root of all evil.
And racism is alive and well today. The last presidential election proved it - look how the entire South, with its closet racists - went for McCain.
It was “I ain’t voting for no n***er”.
Joni: “...calling for taxing everyone except unions”. Ah yes, more union prejudcie on your part.
Are “they” (or whoever) calling for taxing churches, thenAMA (union 0o9f doctors), the Chamber of commerce (union of businessmen), non-profit institutions, etc., and what about those CEO’s who you allege sign union contracts concerning employment benefits? Please provide us the FACTS.
Or has your keyboard “mistyped” again, that is “except unions” ixs a LIE by your computer mistyping? HA ha ha ha!!!!
Of course, you just don’t have the fortitude, strength, and courage to respond to my previous posting in response to your hilarious allegations and ignorance about unions.
mmarin,
Actually, you made my point. We do regulate marriages. At least 16 states have prohobitions on same sex marriages written into their constitutions, from the 2004 elections, courtesy of the Republican Party who pushed these. Every state has restrictions on marriage age, prohibitions on how many men/women a woman/men can marry, and restricitons on how to dissolve the marriage. It was just in my lifetime that the activist Supreme Court struck down prohibitions on marriage across racial lines.
Are these valid restrictions?
We have limitations on our free speech. The most commonly stated Conservative protest is “You can’t scream FIRE in a crowded theater!“ (Which has always led me to wonder why, especially if the theater really is on fire.) And please don’t get me going on pornography. Or get me going on the 2008 Republican Convention, where protesters peacefully exercising their free speech rights were pre-emptively arrested or herded into “free Speech” cages far away from anyone to hear them - and that seemed to be all good with the Republican Party.
Do you honestly believe that packing guns around would stop the police or National Guard from firing on Americans protesting some government action? Like, say, a blatently racially biased court decision that upheld the right of (white) police officers to beat unconscious a (black) handcuffed citizen lying face down in the street < ahem, Rodney King >? If I remember correctly, the National Guard was called in with deadly force authorized. Those protests were no less violent than what is happening in Iran right now (buring cars, buildings, etc). What do you think would have been the result of private citizens shooting back at the National Guard or LA Police?
No, you example does not stand up to the reality that every civil right we have has a body of regulations on how that civil right may and may not be used. Conservatives, if anything, seem to always want those regulations increased except for gun use.
Why?
Ron,
That’s the very point that I’m making. If you can regulate one civil right you can regulate them all.
I don’t believe I’ve said that guns should be completely unregulated. While I appreciate that the law in Virginia allows me to walk around with a tricked out M4 Carbine semi-automatic with precision laser optic scope and M203 granade launcher (god bless virginia) on a sling - I don’t do it. Aside from it being fairly heavy and being impracticle for close quaters it just draws a bit too much attention at the local IHOP. But, I apprecaite that I *can* do it (legally!) if I really wanted to.
Gun ownership is one of those unique things that both secures our personal lives and liberties. As I’ve said before Thomas Jefferson (father of the Democratic party) was convinced that we needed armed revolution every 20 years to make sure government wouldn’t run amok and restrict civil liberties. He was also against standing armies. In this respect, I do agree with Mr. Jefferson—if we do not pay homage to the one device that allows us to remain a free country then our liberties are all at risk.
Iran is a good example of this. People are protesting in the street (something we take for granted here) and what does the govt do? Shoot them so they die on that street. What can the people do at that point? Who fights for those rights when you lack the capability to fight? I guess the UN will step in after a million confirmed civilian casulties.
But, to my earlier point Ron (which you actually made for me—THANKS!!) if I can regulate that a person can’t carry a carbine but can carry a S/A pistol than it’s no stretch in the imagination to say ‘these’ people can marry and ‘these’ cannot.
mmarin,
“if you can regulate a gun you can regulate every other civil right there is.“
Please name even ONE civil right that is not already regulated in some way. With every civil right we have, we have regulations defining it. In fact, it is usually Conservatives who push the hardest for the most restrictive regulations possible - except gun ownership.
Please explain why you think the “right” to own firearms should be our only civil right completely unregulated and uncontrolled by laws.
Well, there you have it… Just move to Peshawar or the Mog. You’ll love it there! Everybody’s packing!
Rain,
Was hoping for a serious answer but based on your last I don’t assume I will get one.
On the upside I am helping out a GySgt I work with pick out a new sidearm for his personal use. He lives on post so it’s got to be locked up in the armory (he can’t secure it under his pillow like my personal arsenal). My hope is that he carries it openly when off post but small steps.
Funny how you brought up China though. When your executed by the State they send the family a bill for the bullet.
I however will side with those persons that abide by the law and buy arms to protect there life or the lives of others.
Nationwide, crime rates are lower (odd during a recession cycle) and I (without any proof whatsoever) believe that one factor of it is in the last 6 months the US civilian population has bought enough firearms to equip the armies of China and Egypt - wow. That’s freedom.
There was a period in England when police constables were not armed. The English felt that the authority of the law in the form of a police uniform could do the trick, and they also felt that it would also restrain the more thuggish tendencies of some police officers. British police are still less armed than their American counterparts and the debate still goes on in England as to whether the police should be armed or not. It would be nice to think of a society where police authority, in itself, would carry the day. I don’t think that this would be a serious debate in the U.S., given the violent nature of how we live, but many policemen are opposed to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, concealed arms, and certain kinds of ammunition, all for obvious reasons. You see, the English actually have a notion of public responsibility and living in a society.
I qualified as an expert marksman in Vietnam, and enjoyed firing the M-16 and M-60. But I earned a bitter respect for what weapons can do to people. Having said that, we were under strict fire discipline and we were not allowed to carry our weapons around any time we felt like it, not even during the Tet Offensive of 1968. I pulled perimeter duty at night and my weapon was secured while I slept in the day. American servicemen do not carry around their weapons off duty. Even during the German occupation of Paris, German soldiers were often unarmed when off-duty and were marched under armed escort from place to place. They may have been Nazis, but they weren’t stupid.
Having said all that, I think you guys are on to something. Why should we worry about anything in our society since we will all die? Why bother about our children’s education? Give them guns. Let China worry about collecting our debts. We can shoot each other. Why worry about health care? We all die one way or the other, so why not violently? It would save us all a lot of time and money if we just turned into Somalia or the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. Let God figure it all out… Let the 2nd Amendment trump “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” All ready on the firing line? Fire!
I am sorry ron, I am not sure why I thought it was her arm, thought I read that someplace….BUT I still stand by the fact that it is not a hospital and while it was unfortunate that you were new to the area, with a real hospital less than one mile away, it makes perfect sense that they would not treat her but I hope they directed you to that hospital. If she was in need of cpr or the like, and turned away,then I would cry foul too. How were you able to find Kaiser and not Potomac Hospital?
I worked in the field for over 15 years and in all that time, I never heard of a single person being allowed to die before getting help. I for one think that is a mythical political talking point that has no merit. Give me one example where a person went into a hospital in the last 25 years to get help and was allowed to die because they had no insurance and I will eat my hat and never post to this site again.
They did not turn you away due to income or anything of the sort, IT IS NOT A HOSPITAL) and as far as I know in all my 50 years, I have never heard of anyone being turned away from a hospital for lack of money in the event of a life threatening event. I worked for INOVA for more than 15 years and I worked with people EVERY SINGLE DAY and their accounts that they couldn’t pay and we were always able to find ways to help them if they were poor.
I also never said I felt the insurance companies should be able to cancel insurance because of a person’s illnesses, but I do agree with a 12 month waiting period/pre existing condition clause for people who had no insurance to begin with. It is ridiculous to think an insurance company should have to pay for bills of new policy holders who never paid for insurance yet want it when they find out they are sick. If the government wants to provide help for those in this situation, great, I would vote for it. I am a supporter of a coop type health care system for the 30% of people who do not have insurance through their employer and for the self employed. Small businesses and self employed people should be able to pool together to get affordable health insurance. I also think we must DEMAND that the government fix Medicare/Medicare before we allow them to move onto universal health care.
You may not agree with me, but I will continue to stand up against the government taking control of my health care when they can’t run the programs out there now.
Don’t you find it funny that during the campaign President Obama slammed McCain for talking about taxing health care benefits yet is now talking about the same thing? Don’t you think it’s funny that they are now calling for taxing everyone except the Unions? Doesn’t’ that concern you?
Joni6100,
Once more around the bush, then I’m done.
My wife’s medical condition was having severe cramps. My issue is that a medical facility refused to treat her, or even refer her to someplace that would treat her, on grounds they would not accept our money. It was the first facility I could find, having only lived in this area for three days at the time.
I consider this to be a violation of basic human decency, never mind a sympotm of a corrupt “pay or die” healthcare system. I consider that this is just one tiny example of why we need a national healthcare system that does not turn people away based on economic status. There are hundreds of thousands of other personal examples out in the blogosphere and on record, if you’d only open your eyes and look.
You are entitled to claim I was wrong for thinking a large building labled “Medical Center” would, like, actually provide emergency medical assitance. However, I have been accused of lying about this incident, and you did nothing to defend me against the person making that accusation - implying you agree that I lied. You no longer have credibility.
You also think a viable health care system is one in which people who cannot afford to directly pay for care die. You believe that it is justified for a person who once has a serious medical condition to be refused medical insurance again - meaning that person now has to pay out of pocket for future care (that they will probably need sooner rather than later, having had one serious medical condition already) - and if they cannot pay they should die. Yet, you think a national healthcare system that triages people based on direct medical need is a fatally flawed system?
As a veteran who defended this nation for 22+ years, I expect my country to do better than that - and I have no tolerance for people with your mindset.
You may claim “social liberal,“ but no true social liberal would accept letting fellow American’s die for the crime of being poor. No, It’s no longer fun “debating” you, or any other person who thinks as you do.
You really need to go find a country with no government to interfere with your freedoms. As I’ve already suggested, Somilia has had no functioning government for over ten years now - you should be quite happy and quite free - there.
Advertisement