HankT
State Researcher
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/county_25986___article.html/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_26130___article.html/victim_debose.html
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/county_25986___article.html/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_26130___article.html/victim_debose.html