Proponents of civilian disarmament love the term “gun violence.” It shifts attention away from criminal responsibility for a criminal act and focuses it on the gun (which had no say in the matter). The mainstream media has adopted the term with Daddy Warbucks-like fervor. So I was hardly surprised when I read the headline Judge shot in March calls for end to gun violence at detroitnews.com. Nor was I taken aback by the ballistically-impaired judge’s pronouncement, “This is a time for our city to experience a liberation from the scourge of gun violence.” But what actually happened to U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg was interesting . . .
Speaking on Good Friday, Berg called for a “spiritual conversion” in Detroit. The key to reducing gun violence, he said, is more jobs, better schools and more police officers.
“I am sorry to have become a victim of gun violence, but I know I am much more fortunate than so many Detroiters who are injured and killed by gun violence every year,” Berg said.
Sorry. That’s not the tale. I just wanted to highlight The Big Lie repetition lavished on the term “gun violence,” and the Judge’s failure to acknowledge the fact that arming citizens is a key part of any anti-crime initiative. OK, here’s what went down . . .
A federal judge since 2012, Berg was shot March 5 outside his home near Seven Mile and Livernois in Detroit while taking out the trash. Two men between the ages of 18 and 25 demanded to be let inside his home. They shot Berg in the right leg when he refused, then fled in a dark-colored sedan, the FBI said.
Berg underwent two surgeries, has metal rods in his leg and was released from the hospital March 11. Last week, he returned to work part time from his home.
On Thursday, federal officials increased the reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction in the shooting of Berg to $50,000 from $35,000. The FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Detroit Police are investigating.
TTAG advises all People of the Gun to home carry. Our detractors – and many of our readers – consider this advice “extreme.” It isn’t. Home carry is especially recommended if you hold a job where you deal with a great many potentially violent or known-to-be-violent people who emerge from the encounter unhappy with the fruits of your labors. A job like, oh, a federal judgeship.
I bet U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg has taken out a lot of trash in his time. He should have done so while armed. He should do so armed, now. For all we know, he does. If he does, hat tip. If he doesn’t, heads-up! Those bad guys are still out there. Offering them better jobs or more education won’t do much to stop them. A gun might.
The same way that NYC, Chicago, and LA have liberated themselves of gun violence?
He meant to say “liberalisation”. You know when everybody except state or federal employees are felons and guns are only still here because there is no way of stopping the NRA delivery truck into Oakland. Wow its scary how closely I am able to tap into the phobias of the enemy.
Many years ago in California I saw a bumper sticker:
Help fight gang violence!
Shoot back.
Apparently the message didn’t sell.
In CA, If I carry taking out the trash and use it in a lawful self protection, I become a felon. My armaments will be removed, fined, have to post bail and when I return to out of state work, my wife can no longer protect our children when I’m gone.
It is morally wrong to deny lawful self protection.
But, you may live to see your own trial! Hell of a choice, would not want to make it myself. You roll the dice, and take your chances.
You only shoot if you really have to.
I don’t get it. From oag.ca.gov:
“It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend themself from attack if he or
she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she
will suffer bodily injury . In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly
force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe
necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death .”
So… why do you become a felon?
Because he had the audacity to set one foot out of his domicile with a loaded firearm. Think of the children for god’s sake.
Concealed carry is allowed in CA.
I still don’t get it.
Concealed carry is allowed in CA. I still don’t get it.
CA is “may issue.” Which your town may, if you’re not in a de facto “no issue” town or city. Or your Chief LEO isn’t a total d1ck. Or you have plenty of money to
bribecontribute to someone’s campaign fund. Or . . .Are you getting it yet?
What I’m starting to “get” is that if MK’s post is true then maybe he shouldn’t be posting it…
As Ralph says, CA is two faced and “corruption” is rampant. If you have lots of money you can get away with anything in CA as long as you have a good lawyer.
If you don’t like CA’s Gun Laws your two choices are:
1. Go into politics and change the laws..
2. Move somewhere else, (i.e. I hear AZ has open carry and it’s not that far away…)
Not that I’m trying to be mean, but as long as people keep electing Democrats that want to screw with the system and laws already in place because they don’t like them. Then you’ll never have sensible gun laws, yes I know the Republicans aren’t much better, but at least a good majority of them in other states are making the Pro-Gun push. Granted for how long is the question, and the Republicans may only be doing so out of spite and to piss off Democrats as a whole.
Garabaldi, your quote did not mention use of a (gasp!) firearm. Given all that, use your black belt to whup him to death, fine. Use a gun, go to jail.
I’d cut my own balls off with a dull butter knife before I’d live in California.
I think we would have preferred you to keep that information to yourself.
I wouldn’t want to live there either….
Garibaldi “What I’m starting to “get” is that if MK’s post is true then maybe he shouldn’t be posting it”…
Why not? I posted because citizens do not know what the local DA will do. By law your required to lock up your gun so the kids don’t have access. Run in the house to get your gun, you retreated. The DA could argue you retreated and went back so you’re looking for a fight. CCW is may issue after a long wait and then maybe you get it. If you carry without a CCW, you violate the law and at the discretion or mercy of the court as to whether they imprison you or require a “survive a criminal attack tax”. Then there is case-law where if you’re a felon and use a gun to protect yourself its ok. The “who’s on first, whats’ on second and I don’t know on third” state sponsored confusion must come to an end, because at the moment, laws are specifically designed to prevent law-abiding citizens from lawfully protecting themselves in public. The simple right to lawful self protect using the most effective tool across the country must be the law of the land. The simple requirement to declare arms when approached by an officer is all that’s needed (requirement in Alaska and no I’m not moving to Alaska). If states want to add law training and bust paper then fine, at least we then would have a clear path to shall issue.
I’m not sure if you are still following this (articles get buried quickly on this site) but here’s what my line of thinking was:
I found evidence that use of lethal force in self defense is legal in CA (law quoted above).
Carry is legal in CA if you have a permit to carry.
You said you would be a felon if you used your firearm to defend yourself.
I put all that together and surmised that you were carrying without a permit, and was hinting that you should not make that public knowledge since you would be breaking the law.
But now I see you probably have a permit, and you are just worried about all the confusing laws in CA. OK I see that point of view. Maybe I’m just the eternal optimist, but I like to think that even in CA you would not get convicted of a crime if you really were defending yourself.
I’m curious to know if Michigan offers the same idiotic license plate perk to the Federal Judiciary that is available here in Texas. Most likely this attack was a random act by criminal predators, but it would be interesting to know if Judge Berg had a vehicle parked at his house with “U.S. District Judge” license plates that make it easy for any predator to locate and target a Judge if they so desire.
Ya think he would be the first to go 180 degs. ie. arming the law abiding public. Crazy $hit. Also, good to see our tax dollars spent as a bounty for criminals…………. must be nice to be that important, too bad they don’t spend that kind of $$ for Joe plumber.
And before anyone makes an ignorant statement about living in Detroit, the 7 Mile and Livernois area is fairly nice, there are some very nice neighborhoods in what is called the University District around the University of Detroit Mercy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_District,_Detroit
I grew up around there and went to the catholic school associAted with that Catholic Church. There are nice homes but they also have private security patrolling. It probably was random
Well he said “spiritual conversion”, “more jobs, better schools, and more police”. At least he didn’t say “assault weapons ban”, “universal background checks”, “making firearms less available”, or any of a number of variations on that theme. I’m kind of surprised.
I have been home carrying for the past 2 years. I also keep a Beretta 21A tucked in the couch cushion where I sit watching TV.
Paranoid?? Maybe. Prepared defiantly.
I think it is VERY interesting that his solution to “gun violence” does not include taking away more guns or restricting guns even more. Then again, isn’t Detroit a “gun free zone” ? But, of course, he did not mention that.
Michigan is Shall-Issue and the Detroit Police Chief ADVOCATES getting your CPL. It is one bright spot, along with Milwaukee County, in the landscape of Sheriffs/Police-Chiefs supporting the 2A.
Detroit is not a gun free zone. It is anomalous among big cities in that it is pretty gun friendly and average people are not denied their rights.
Hey, Judge, you weren’t victimized by gun violence. You were assaulted with a gun by violent felons. The needed fix would be no different had they chosen instead to break your leg with a baseball bat.
…or use a chainsaw…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-man-arrested-after-chainsaw-used-to-threaten-family-1.3022763
The Big Lie about “gun control” (which I always thought should lead to a better shot grouping) is that enacting restrictive laws on firearm ownership will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. C’mon, the very definition of “criminal” describes someone who has made a conscious decision to violate a law.
Even if you WERE able to reduce crimes involving firearms through legislation, evil people with a desire to do harm would find other ways to achieve their goals…like a chainsaw…and that’s when the law-abiding need a proper tool such as a firearm to defend themselves.
But I’m guessing I’m preaching to the choir on this one.
The key to reducing gun violence, he said, is more jobs, better schools and more police officers.
The same tired, leftist claptrap we’ve been hearing for over 50 years, and it’s all bullsh1t.
Jobs only appeal to those who want them and have half a brain. That doesn’t apply to the typical thug, whose IQ doesn’t approach room temperature. Betters schools only appeal to those who actually want an education and are smart enough to use it. More police officers equals more corruption, as opposed to hiring better police officers and not allowing them to join freakin’ cop unions.
Public employee unions should be banned. There is an inherent conflict of interest when some pol is negotiating with a union that helped that pol get elected.
What some folks from Detroit are lacking most are values.
Doing a bit of research on this and I ran into an article that claimed that Detroit was the most dangerous city in the world. So, I looked it up. Sorry, not even close. Check out this link: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2015-1#36-pereira-colombia-had-3468-homicides-per-100000-residents-15
Notice that Detroit is about 22nd on the list. Notice some of the foreign countries that have many more restrictions on firearms and also much more violence than most places in the U.S.. Basically one more article that states a “fact” that is false and just expects the readers to believe them. Unbelievable. Do the editors not fact check these articles or is this just one more case of propaganda?
The editors fact-check as aggressively as Rolling Stone fact-checked the Virginia rape story. That’s what passes for “journalism” today.
F**K the list. I’m tried of the “list” and where a geographic is “on the list”, or what percentage of X is on what issue. End using the phrase because all it does is swirl the conversation down the dogma drain.
Lawful self defense via a gun must be Federally enshrined across every state, territory or district. Only then will criminals, knowing risk losing their lives, will peace be achieved in our neighborhoods. Government tried everything else, its the only cost effective option left.
“Lawful self defense via a gun must be Federally enshrined across every state, territory or district”
Maybe we could pass something like, say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That ought to do it, I cannot think of stronger language, or more difficult to misunderstand.
I like how getting shot makes you an expert on gun control. I guess if I get hit by a baseball bat I should be the MLB Commissioner, then?
The judge wasn’t carrying a gun, likely by choice instead of by law.
If there was a law against carrying a gun, then he would have been in the same situation, namely disarmed, when facing an armed threat except that he could have been arrested afterwards.
That can’t be his plan to reduce gun violence.
So a law against carrying a gun doesn’t make any difference when it comes to being attacked, except that after being shot you have to defend yourself from a legal attack.
Well, that can’t be his plan to reduce gun violence.
Maybe the judge’s plan to reduce gun violence is a law making carry mandatory. Anything else won’t change a thing.
But that would presume a bureaucrat could think and learn from experience.
Wasn’t there a movie about the Seven Mile area starring that white (c)rapper Enema?
Comments are closed.