My Response to an Underhanded Anti Gun Editorial

Last week, Inside Nova ran an anti gun editorial, The article ignores facts and statistics, and instead attempts to blame guns and gun owners for the already illegal actions of one person, then calls for a gun ban.  The author of that article pushes reason to the side, and tries to scare readers into accepting his or her viewpoint, all while misrepresenting the facts.  These anti gun assertions, and my responses, are below:The facts
To summarize, the editorial focuses on a series of crimes allegedly committed by one man, who was openly carrying a gun.  The story starts with the man allegedly walking into a bar in Virginia, in an apparently drunken state, and asking the bartender to serve him.  The bartender is then said to have declined to serve the drunk man, making him angry.  The man allegedly walked outside to a beach area, drew his pistol, and shot a duck.  The man then ran to his car and drove off, only to crash a while later, according to the article.  A suspect was charged with driving under the influence, refusal to take a breath or blood test and reckless handling of a firearm – although this anti gun editorial omits this information about the suspect being charged, as I discuss below.

The anti gun editorial, and my responses

Because domestic ducks can be hunted, he wasn’t charged for that. And because Virginians are legally allowed to carry unconcealed guns into restaurants, there
was no penalty for that either.

Early in the article, we can see half-truths being told, in a way to misrepresent the facts.  Here, the article implies that the suspect faced no charges for his alleged drunken actions.  Instead, as I found in another article on Google news, the suspect was in fact charged with driving under the influence, refusal to take a breath or blood test and reckless handling of a firearm, which are some serious offenses.  If, as the article states, those were domestic ducks, then the owners of the ducks can also maintain a civil action against the suspect.  Those nearby, in the “zone of danger,” may also be able to sue the man.  In short, this man is in a world of legal trouble.  Rather than accurately reporting the consequences of this man’s alleged criminal actions, the article omits them, in an underhanded attempt to drum up outrage and vector that outrage against gun owners, as I’ll discuss below.

That is ridiculous. There is absolutely no need for a person to carry a gun into a restaurant.

This is a baseless assertion, backed by only that author’s anti gun rights attitude.  Simply put, there is a great reason to carry a gun in a restaurant, or any other place that a person goes for that matter: self defense.  If criminals were polite enough to let citizens know when they were going to attack, then perhaps there would be no need to regularly carry a gun.  However criminals don’t extend that courtesy, and that is why more and more states are allowing open carry and concealed carry, so that crime victims can defend themselves.  Having a gun for self defense allows citizens to defend themselves against criminals who attack in a restaurant, or as that citizen returns home from a restaurant.  In other words, a ban on guns in a place where a citizen goes effectively disarms that citizen everywhere else they go during that trip outside the house.  Those who would like an actual example of a restaurant self defense shooting need only look here, as I wrote about such a case fewer than two months ago. I would note that I only write about a tiny tiny tiny percentage of self defense gun uses, so if I happen to have found one so recently, there were almost certainly a great many more out there.

Opponents might say the fact that patrons can be armed could deter criminals from trying to rob restaurants. Do we really want a criminal and a patron exchanging gunfire in a crowded restaurant? We think not.

Again, we have a baseless statement backed only by opinion, which is refused by the facts.  For the record, armed citizens are 5.5 times less likely than the cops to shoot the wrong person.  As such, I would much rather have an armed citizen defend themselves in my vicinity than to have the cops shoot it out with the criminal.  Here we have an attempt to drum up fears about a virtual non-issue.

And when a supposedly law-abiding person with a gun can get drunk, get angry, pull his gun and fire, something is wrong with the picture.

A person such as the suspect in this case, who allegedly got drunk, recklessly discharged a gun, drove drunk, and crashed his car is not a “supposedly law abiding person.”  Instead, assuming the allegations are true, he is a criminal.  It is ridiculous to paint gun owners and concealed carry permit holders as violent criminals, when the facts show that we are more law abiding that the average citizen.  More to the point, the kind of person who is willing to commit multiple felonies, as this suspect allegedly did, will be just as willing to break a law that tells them they can’t have a gun.  Anyone who doubts this need only look at the armed violence in Chicago and other “gun free” zones.

Furthermore, restaurants are usually family friendly, but it’s not so friendly when mom and dad take their children out to eat and have to sit close to someone with a gun strapped to their hip. In fact, it’s downright hostile.

There is nothing hostile about the presence of arms.  That is because hostility and violence are human actions, while guns are just inert objects.  Put more concretely, there are plenty of gun filled places with little to no hostility or violence, such as every gun store and range that I’ve ever visited, and my home.  There are also places with no (legal) guns that I wouldn’t want to set foot, such as certain neighborhoods of Chicago at night.  It sounds to me like the author of this article has a severe case of hoplophobia, which is the irrational fear of guns themselves.