Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Armed woman repelling attackers refutes evil demanded by gun-grabbers

What do you think Shannon Watts and repugnant anti-gun congressthings Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy  would be able to do against multiple assailants armed with a baseball bat -- assuming their security people weren't around...?
What do you think Shannon Watts and repugnant anti-gun congressthings Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy would be able to do against multiple assailants armed with a baseball bat -- assuming their security people weren't around...?
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

An Ohio woman used her lawfully-carried handgun to prevent a pair of men armed with a baseball bat from abducting her, WBNS 10TV Columbus reported Friday. Per the account Dinah Burns of Lancaster gave to the police and to reporter Jeff Valin, producing her concealed handgun induced the men to stop approaching her and flee.

What stands out from the incident are how many anti-gun talking points a simple incident like this one refutes.

First is the often-stated advice to just give assailants what they want. When armed assailants tell a person “You’re coming with us,” and back that up with a weapon capable of inflicting lethal damage, whatever they want is something no one capable of refusing ought to give.

Next is “Get a dog,” offered as the end-all in personal security. The woman’s dog is obviously a pet, a companion, not a trained attack animal. Even if it were, men with clubs and other basic weapons put our ancestors at the top of the food chain over much more powerful predators.

What she did was defuse the situation without anyone coming to harm. The presence of a gun in peaceable and capable hands prevented violence, as happens much more often than guns are criminally abused, and that holds true whether consulting the work of Gary Kleck, putting the number of defensive gun uses in the millions, to much more conservative Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates, which nonetheless dwarf unjustified gun-related homicides. So much for Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts false insistence that such incidents never happen.

Not, as colleague Kurt Hofmann noted in a recent JPFO Alert, rights should be dependent on such number-crunching – but what is significant here is the antis always couch that argument by saying more people are killed with guns than kill their assailants with guns. Those who do are intentionally steering the conversation away from the relevant argument. That’s because, as this incident reflects, good people often resolve such situations with the mere presentation of a gun, without firing a shot. Naturally, that’s why citizen disarmament advocacy groups like the Violence Policy Center instead portray Americans who choose to carry the tools of defense as “Concealed Carry Killers.”

While Burns was able to get away without shooting anyone, what she didn't do is turn and flee –chances are, had she, two young men with a bat could have run her down and carried out their attack. In fact, she STOOD HER GROUND, something the antis constantly decry and try to outlaw, all the while conveniently ignoring the universal response of predators is to chase and bring down fleeing prey.

The bottom line, and this is something the antis will never address directly, is they would rather see a woman brutalized, raped and killed than armed. When confronted with that observation, they deflect and insult, and try to redirect and accuse. They’ll even interject race into the “discussion” if they think that will help them escape being pinned down, but they nonetheless avoid addressing that singular demonstrable truth, as my telling exchange with them shows.

This story is no different. Rather than offer anything of relevance, an anonymous comment troll, that is, a sadist-psychopath / infiltrator-disruptor, offers such personal insights to the discussion on this story over at The Daily Caller as “F$%k your 2nd amendment” and “well I was thinking that you would make a perfect target, but alas I don't carry guns it's so passe' [sic]” and “but I'm not a gun toting idiot so I have no worries.”

Who wants to have a “national conversation on guns” with mental and moral defectives like that? Who thinks compromise with them is either desirable or possible? Who even wants such creeps hanging around, let alone having political power over the choices they would "allow" us to make?


If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."


The seat of government is a mighty curious place to set up a Constitution-free zone. “On-Again, Off-Again” is my latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column, noting the bizarre turns taken to date in the Palmer case.


My latest JPFO Alert, “Lawsuit faults Gander Mountain for failure to read minds,” notes you don't need to be telepathic to read the minds of the Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists at The New York Times, or the predatory blood dancers at the Brady Campaign.


What good is a right if government can get away with whatever infringements it wants? “Court Upholding Ban on Militia-Suitable Firearms Ignores Key Second Amendment Purpose” is my latest offering on The Shooters Log.

Report this ad