It has been a particularly discouraging week during which two women in South Park were brutally stabbed – one fatally – as they slept, one teen fatally shot another in the Leschi neighborhood and two people in the Green Lake neighborhood were robbed of a gun and electronics.
So, let us consider for a moment: Should you own a firearm? Take a good look in the mirror, size up that person you see, and ask whether you think that man or woman has the skill, temperament, and backbone to use a gun properly, should the occasion arise?
In the Green Lake neighborhood early Friday, three thugs, one armed with a gun, burst in to confront the two people living in a residence. One of the residents grabbed his own gun but, according to this account in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on-line, “dropped his firearm and complied with the suspects” because he was in fear for his life.
This one left veteran gun owners mystified, asking, “Instead of dropping his gun, why didn’t the guy just shoot the other guy?”
Washington’s self-defense statute is pretty clear on this, and rest assured that in a home invasion robbery, a person is well within his or her rights to shoot a bad guy in his tracks. Washington is, according to the State Supreme Court, a state in which “the law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat…” according to State v. Reynaldo Redmond.
A standoff ensued and the victim fearing for his life dropped his firearm and complied with the suspects
As of this writing, police are still looking for the man who savagely attacked Teresa Butz and her partner with a knife. Butz died from her stab wounds, and hundreds of people crowded the South Park community center wondering how this happened in their neighborhood. Whether the crime convinced some people to buy a gun, or made others glad they already own one, it demonstrated that nobody is entirely safe from a violent crime.
Should you own a gun? If you do, should you have the right to carry it anywhere you go, including another state, without having to worry about being arrested. That’s what the debate was about in the Senate the other day, with anti-gunners making the usual preposterous arguments against citizens with guns, while the cooler heads noted that bad guys already have guns and ignore the law, so let’s level the playing field.
Every law-abiding citizen has a fundamental civil right under the state and federal constitutions to own a gun. Whether one chooses to exercise that right is a personal issue, and should not be used as a measure of whether others should own and use guns.
If you buy a gun, learn to use it and understand the laws about when you can and cannot use it.
Almost two years ago, I did a book with Alan Gottlieb – America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age – which I’ve mentioned many times in this space. The book details dozens of accounts involving armed citizens who defend themselves and others, and offers insights into why many people have made the decision to “gun up” and fight back. Guns may not be for everyone, but I have yet to hear from a violent crime survivor who used a gun in self-defense who isn’t glad they had that gun when they needed it. That’s certainly something to think about in the wake of this week’s Seattle-area crimes.
While you are thinking about this – and hopefully preparing to respond in the space below -- think about something else, which I wrote about earlier in the week.
Last Saturday I attended an Open Carry gathering at an apartment complex in south King County. There were more than 30 people in attendance, most of them packing handguns. They shared a barbecue with other residents and had a pretty mellow time.
One resident who didn't attend complained, and called the police. Officers responded, discovered nothing amiss, and then reportedly had a chat with the complainant, in which state gun laws and constitutional rights were explained.
In an ideal world, all of those armed citizens would have had their barbecue in the South Park neighborhood, and some of them would have gone home to the Green Lake neighborhood.
Check my earlier columns here.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities.
Comments
As a response to the question: yes
Yes, I believe that anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to acquire one without restraint. This in conjunction with a prohibition of such ownership of guns, and some knives, by anyone convicted of a violent crime or by anyone with a history of mental illness.
If you actually have to ask the question, the answer is probably no. It never occurred to me to ask, guns of all flavors (celebrate diversity) have always been a part of my life.
The fundamental definition of a slave/victim is: an under-armed person.
So, my question is: Are you a slave or a victim-in-waiting?
Should you own a gun? Not if you won't use it. In the into to his book On Killing, Lt. Col. Grossman points out "countless ...observations all confirm that the vast majority of combatants ... at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy have found themselves to be 'conscientious objectors.'"
True, honest citizens should and do have a duty to confront, to remove, the sociopaths who prey upon society. But scores of decades of conditioning to be passive bystanders has eroded the will and, yes, the ability of most members of society today to actually do their part. So before one can answer the question of should one have a gun one must answer the question could one use a gun.
The answer to both questions should ideally be "yes," but that's something only each individual can answer.
It ought to go further. Each state should have training for their militia. Arms would be issued by the state upon completion of training. Periodic practice and requalification would be needed.
Imagine a state where criminals did't "think" citizens might have a gun. They could be CERTAIN citizens had guns. This is a win-win. For those criminals who think it thru, there must be a legal way to obtain their needs. For those Darwin candidates who don't think it thru, court systems and penal institutions won't get so plugged up.
Everyone should guns and be ready and able to use them. My wife about 30 years ago faced down a would be attacker with a 20 gauge pump gun, the man had just beaten up his girl friend then threatened my wife and two of our neighbors in our apartment building. She told the SOB to go about his business and quit threatening them, when he didn't leave she went into our apartment ad dialed 911, got my 20 guage loaded it and placed it inside the door. She went back on the upstairs landing and told the guy she had called 911 and that the police were on the way at that point he started up the stairs ranting about how he was going to beat the bitches bloody. My wife then reached in our door and pulled out the 20 and told him if he took one more step she'd blast him through the door. He took one more step and she pumped the gun and he damn near dropped his drawers beating feet for the door. Which just proves that if you are armed you need to be able to do what is necessary to protect yourself.
A question: Just what "Open Carry" is legal in Washington State?
And where is Concealed and Open Carry restricted?
NRA-ILA and GoA are ambiguous about the Open Carry question.
Thanks
<< David Daniels says:
Yes, I believe that anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to acquire one without restraint. This in conjunction with a prohibition of such ownership of guns, and some knives, by anyone convicted of a violent crime or by anyone with a history of mental illness. >>
What is your definition of "violent offender"?
And the definition of "mental illness"?
Indeed, David, who defines "violent" and "mentally ill?"
As per our benevolent overlords right this minute, anyone who objects to being robbed and enslaved is both "mentally ill" and "violent."
The bottom line is that nobody can determine that ahead of time. Preventive law is the problem, not the answer.
Treat others as you would be treated, and defend yourself (and family) from those who don't reciprocate.
And no, you have no right to be kept safe from those who "might" harm you.
What part of infringed don't our leftists traitor politicians understand? What of their oath to protect and defend the constitution? Just words on paper? Just a saying to attain office? Well, if that's the case, those faced with such a politician should vote them out.
Oh, and not only should you own a gun, but you should carry it wherever you go, regardless of unconstitutional laws. And, NRA, GOA, etc., should be ponying down on a lawsuit to take to the SCOTUS in regards someone carrying in another state, who is arrested, or who would like to carry but is prohibited by that state's laws. Time to fight back the way people should have years ago. Time to make the law, and the Constitution, work for the 2A civil right, too. As I've noted numerous times, Shuttlesworth, Staub, and Cantwell, decisions all state that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints.
It is your right to be free. You are free to exercise your rights, and free to submit to unconstitutional domination.
Which specimen are YOU?
wat i don't get this at ALL
wat r u guyz talkn abourt??
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!