In one short, 6-page Washington Post "Metro" section today, among the obits, homeless news, and broken water pipelines, I found all the elements of the Second Amendment debate.
First was a report on a dust-up in Prince George's County (Maryland). A gent (we'll call him Mr. A) returning to his abode saw a woman being pushed violently into an apartment opposite his. This good samaritan knocked on that apartment's door, and was confronted by another gent (we'll call him Mr. Z) pointing a gun at him. Z proceeded to push A back into his own apartment where he forced him to kneel on the floor and (according to A), it was clear Z intended to kill him. Fortunately, A just happened to be kneeling where his own gun was easily in reach. He shot and killed Z.
Now, there is some speculation that A isn't telling the truth/whole truth thing, and that Z may have been set up. (Oh, by the way, did I mention that A is a Supreme Court Justice? - Hah! Gotcha! I was just joking about that.)
But on the face of it, here's a perfect example of why every citizen should be able to have his own personal weapon, if not several, as the Supremes have recently decreed. Mr. A saved his own life, and maybe the woman's too.
This whole event dovetails nicely with a second story, "Packing Some Extra Peace of Mind," in which Frederick Kunkle portrays how Virginia gun-rights activists "try out" a new Virginia law that allows -- perhaps even requires, who knows? -- patrons in bars to carry concealed weapons. Aside from the fact the accompanying photo might make you think you must be grossly overweight to be a Second Amendment fan, this is a fairly typical tale of guys brandishing sidearms in a bar. Hey, that's the law, it's their right now to do so. Not a problem. So here again, we see cause to celebrate the foresight of our Founding Fathers, who knew the value of packing heat (and only put that stuff about a "well-regulated militia" in there to confuse things) whenever they stopped by the Olde Taverne for a little grog.
On the other hand, amid all this celebration, one statement in the first article caught my eye:
justifiable homicides by civilians using firearms.
That puts into nice perspective the wildly exaggerated notion that by exercising their right to a weapon, "regular" people can defend themselves. Assuming that each justifiable homicide resulted in saving a victim's life (and assuming we don't count the 204 homicidees, which I agree we shouldn't), the number of lives so saved is minuscule.
Comments