Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: OH State Rep., Anti-Gunner, Now Wants CWP

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    The second piece below is asatisfyingly well-balancedOp-Ed by Mr. Lewis.

    Please considerdropping him an e-mail to thankhim for it....





    Our View - Monday

    Unarmed lawmaker mugged by reality
    August 12, 2007


    Irving Kristol once said, “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” That certainly seems to be the case with former gun-control advocate Michael DeBose, an Ohio state legislator. DeBose’s epiphany was not a result of being mugged by reality, but by being mugged by a couple of gun-toting thugs in his own neighborhood.

    DeBose told Gun Week, the periodical of The Second Amendment Foundation, that he was taking a walk around his quiet residential neighborhood on the evening of May 1 when he was accosted by two men, one of whom was armed with a handgun. The unarmed DeBose took the only option available to him — he ran to a neighbor’s home and pounded on the door. The hoodlums, apparently worried DeBose’s yelling would attract witnesses, jumped in their car and drove away.

    Long an advocate of stricter gun-control laws, DeBose, along with his wife and several neighbors, have since enrolled in classes to obtain concealed-carry permits.

    “If I’d had a weapon I could have defended myself,” said the ordained Baptist minister.

    DeBose’s apparent conversion might not sit well with antigun colleagues, but as he said, “until someone has had a gun pulled on them and stuck in their face, (you can’t) put yourself in another’s place. . . . I just hope they’ll understand why I chose to change my mind.”

    We wouldn’t wish getting mugged on anyone; being the victim of a violent crime is a terrifying experience. But we do hope other anti-firearms legislators can learn from DeBose’s experience and realize that people have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones. In a free society, the government shouldn’t prevent them from doing so.

    http://www.gazette.com/opinion/count...sick_time.html




    OPINION: Self-defense advocates want options besides surrender


    GEORGE LEWIS
    Editorial staff
    August 16, 2007 - 8:07AM

    On Monday The Gazette published an editorial about Ohio state Rep. Michael DeBose, who, after being the victim of an attempted armed robbery, has decided to take classes and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The unusual part of his story is that before the mugging DeBose was a dyed-inthe-wool advocate for strict guncontrol measures.

    As a result of being mugged, DeBose came to realize what we gun-rights advocates have known all along: gun-control laws don’t keep criminals from getting guns. That being the case, law-abiding citizens should have the same access to the means to protect themselves.

    In response to the editorial, letter writers and online posters have weighed in, mostly on the side of allowing criminals to ride roughshod over the rest of us. I’m sure they don’t see it that way, rather, they approach the subject Richard Brandt does in a letter published in today’s Letters section. He questions the wisdom of drawing a handgun when a thug already has a gun trained on his victim. He went on to ponder which of the two has more experience in shooting another person and to question whether De-Bose would actually be able, mentally, to shoot and possibly kill someone.

    While I was reading the letter, I got the feeling that the writer believes his questions settle the argument. I’ll admit they are good questions and certainly things a person should think about before he makes the decision to carry a handgun for protection. But questions don’t win arguments.
    Not all robberies are the same. Many times a potential victim will have some warning about the intentions of wrong-doers on the street and can prepare to react or avoid the situation altogether. In DeBose’s case, according to the report in Gun Week, he saw the muggers get out of a car and approach him, one with a handgun. They didn’t actually accost him before he took the only defensive option available and ran to a neighbor’s home. Had he been armed, he said, he would have been able to defend himself.

    That’s not to say he would have sparked a gun battle on his residential street. Even armed, he might have retreated, but he would have had other options. And that’s what he wanted.

    When debating shoot-don’t shoot possibilities, gun controllers always assume the worst outcomes and self-defense advocates always assume the best outcomes. Our letter writer mentions that De-Bose should talk to crime victims who had tried to fight back and were severely wounded, sometimes crippled. He assumes those people were injured because they fought back. There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s possible they would have been shot regardless of their own actions. News stories often tell of victims injured even after they comply with an attacker’s orders. Compliance doesn’t guarantee a crime victim will not be injured.
    There’s a humorous scene in the Clint Eastwood’s 1992 western, “Unforgiven.” Several deputies are preparing to arrest a famous gunman and they’re loading their rifles and handguns. One deputy has only one arm, and asks another to load three revolvers for him. The second deputy asks why the man needs three guns when he has only one hand. The first deputy responds that he doesn’t want to be killed for lack of shooting back. That’s all many people want; a chance to fight back if it becomes necessary.


    Lewis is a copy editor and writer for The Gazette opinion
    http://www.gazette.com/opinion/gun_2...im_debose.html


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    It is unfortunate that it has to come to a mugging for this guy to realize the benefits of being able to be armed, hopefully he still has some pull with the anti's maybe he can bring a few with him.

    And yes -- the second article is well balanced, but I have read better arguents, of my own opinion...


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't wish a mugging on anybody, but maybe this will make some of his collegues take a step back and maybe rethink their anti-freedom positions. I guess that's what it takes to make some people come around, he's lucky he didn't get shot.

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    massltca wrote:
    I wouldn't wish a mugging on anybody, but maybe this will make some of his collegues take a step back and maybe rethink their anti-freedom positions. I guess that's what it takes to make some people come around, he's lucky he didn't get shot.
    Agreed, it's not a good thing that the state representativegot mugged. And it should cause his colleagues to think about their (anti) position. But thebiases run so deep with the antis, it's so hard to get them to change their view about anything involving guns. Same with pros. That's why this line from George Lewis above is so kewl:


    "When debating shoot-don’t shoot possibilities, gun controllers always assume the worst outcomes and self-defense advocates always assume the best outcomes."

    Lewis nails it. Both sides are so partisan that it's quite difficult for anything other than fighting to get done... That's how it's been for quite some time now. But that has to change.

    BTW, I found out that George Lewis is a hearty supporter of RKBA. He's one of the good guys but he can critically analyze the two sides, too. Most partisans cannot. They're too biased. And they don't want to learn anything.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •