More “Gun Violence”: Mothers Defend Their Children

By | January 14, 2013 | 0 Comments

 http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/04/20090422_lioness_1_250x375.jpg

I knew that I was going to have to choose him or my son, and it wasn’t going to be my son, so I did what I had to do. There’s nothing more dangerous than a mother with a child.
Sarah McKinley

When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
Clint Smith

Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley was home with her three-month-old son last New Year’s Eve. She lived in the rural community of Blanchard, Oklahoma, and police response times tended to be long. Her husband was not with her – he died of cancer on Christmas Day.
She saw two men attempting to break in. She recognized one as a man who had been stalking her since her husband’s funeral, apparently looking for drugs in the cancer victim’s home. She gave the baby his bottle, then retrieved a shotgun and a handgun and barricaded the door. She phoned 911 and asked what to do. She was told she could not shoot unless they came through the door. But the 911 dispatcher, who was a woman, added, “You do what you have to do to protect your baby.”
Sarah was on the phone with 911 for 21 minutes, and the police still had not arrived when the men broke down the door. The first man, the stalker, came at her with a 12-inch hunting knife. She fired the shotgun, killing the man. His companion fled, quite possibly breaking the Olympic 100-meter record. He later turned himself in to police.
Most commenters were favorable to the young woman. But they noted with sadness that in some states and most European nations, she would be jailed for murder, and her infant son would be taken from her – that is, assuming she was allowed to have a gun in the first place. But predictably, other commenters were opposed. One referred to “loving our enemies.” How this was relevant to Sarah’s life-and-death problem was unclear.
It was even less clear how someone who never faced a life-threatening attack somehow became an expert on handling such a situation. What critics of Sarah McKinley were really saying is: “My beliefs on gun control and self-defense trump your right to remain alive. You should be dead, and your baby should be an orphan − if he’s lucky.”
It is utterly inexplicable that people with such beliefs consider themselves “liberal,” “pro-woman,” and “for the little guy.” Isn’t protecting the vulnerable “liberal”? Isn’t Sarah a woman? Isn’t a three-month-old a little guy?
Only after conservative media carried this story did the mainstream media pick it up. There are thousands of instances in which an armed citizen prevents a criminal attack, but they rarely appear in the liberal media. In contrast, the much rarer cases of accidental shootings are reported prominently. Selective reporting of the news is the worst form of bias, because it dupes others into sharing that bias.
Lest you imagine that this incident is unusual, note that something similar just happened. Melinda Herman of Loganville, Georgia was startled when a man began breaking down the door. She phoned her husband, who called 911. She then grabbed a handgun and hid with her nine-year-old twins in a crawl space. But the criminal found them and advanced carrying a crowbar. She shot him and ended the attack. The criminal was taken to the hospital.
Mr. Herman remarked, “My wife’s a hero…She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do.” But what would have happened if restrictive laws had forced her to be unarmed?
Incidents of “gun violence” in which an innocent person defends himself or herself from a violent criminal are far more common than incidents in which criminals injure or kill innocent persons. But the media rarely report these incidents of defensive gun use.
Proponents of gun confiscation claim it should be done if it will “save just one life.” But oddly, they never think about saving the lives of people like Sarah McKinley, Melinda Herman, and their children. Why not? Why did they elect a president who opposed a law allowing citizens to use a gun to defend themselves in their own homes? What could better illustrate that the aim of gun confiscation is not to save lives, but to leave the government with a monopoly of power?
When Americans arrest a father for wounding a career criminal who is entering a child’s bedroom in the middle of the night, they tell us much about themselves. When Britons criminalize the use of pen knives, knitting needles, walking sticks, and even toy guns in defense against criminal assault, they tell us much about their belief system. They are excusing and protecting criminals − but criminalizing self-defense.
Such people may have gray hair and sit in legislatures, or on judges’ benches, or occupy professorial chairs, but intellectually and emotionally they are children. They believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. They believe that if they pull the blanket over their heads, the monsters won’t attack them. They believe that if they don’t fight back, eventually the schoolyard bully will tire of them and go on to bully someone else − not a very humanitarian attitude.
They believe that if they disarm themselves, eventually fewer weapons will be available to criminals and terrorists. But this belief is only superficial. If they truly believed that weapons make them less safe, they would post signs in front of their houses declaring, “There are no guns in this home.” But no one, not even the staunchest advocate of gun confiscation, ever posts such a sign. How revealing.
Even if a minority of homeowners are armed, criminals will be deterred from entering any homes while people are there. Figures bear this out. In America, only about 13% of burglaries are “hot” − that is, home invasions. But in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 59% of burglaries occur when people are at home. About 30% of victims of these “hot” burglaries are assaulted, or worse. Clearly, if a burglary occurs when no one is home, no one is injured. Disarming homeowners endangers them.
I believe that the reason many liberals detest the idea of self-defense is their stubborn refusal to see the world as it is, but instead to act as though their childish fantasies were real.
● They never worked in an emergency room and saw the results of man’s inhumanity.
● They never considered that a gun enables the weak – the disabled, the elderly, small women – to defend themselves against large men.
● They never took ROTC in high school or college, where they learned that a gun is a tool to defend freedom.
● They never were instructed by master sergeants with combat decorations, who taught them that freedom has a price.
● They never took responsibility for defense of their loved ones and themselves, but fobbed it off onto the government – that is, Big Daddy.
● They prefer the false safety of their illusions. They consider themselves civilized, but they are merely infantilized.
Many liberals remain intellectual and emotional children, despite their receding hairlines and increasing waistlines. Advancing years detracted from their appearance, but added nothing to their wisdom. In their own minds, they remain helpless children. But real children depend on adults to protect them. Who will protect childish adults?
If these people hate guns, let them refrain from owning one − but not stop me from owning one. If they oppose missile defenses, let them move to a nation that lacks them − but not stop me from protecting my loved ones and myself from apocalyptic, paranoid fanatics armed with missiles and nuclear weapons. Their right to hold infantile, unrealistic, pacifistic beliefs stops where my safety begins.
Instead of these self-important fools, let us emulate Sarah McKinley and Melinda Herman, who have more wisdom and guts than all of them put together. These women have more understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship than do many liberal politicians. And they have more understanding of what it means to be human than do many liberal clergy.
They are prototypical Americans: self-reliant, responsible, independent, willing to listen to advice and ask for help − but ready if necessary to act on their own and defend those dependent on them. We hope we will never have to face the life-threatening situation they confronted, but we also hope to be as courageous in defense of our freedoms. It’s not healthy to anger a lioness guarding her cubs, and it’s not healthy to anger Americans defending their freedoms.
Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.