Reichley Column: Duck attack about alcohol -- not guns

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 thinking@msn.com.