“What is the possible gain of encouraging people to shoot rather than fleeing, even when the latter is an option? It’s like goading the average citizen, encouraging them kill others, when they don’t have to and still can remain safe.” – Mary Sanchez, ‘Gun rights’ have morphed into the right to gun down ‘threats’, The Chicago Tribune
Recommended reading on this subject: Jeffrey R. Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards”. Enter that title in a search engine. Some excerpts follow (warning – this is expected to generate trollish comments from the MikeyBot.):
From “A Nation of Cowards”:
“Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist. It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim.”
“Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers. One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let’s not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence. ”
“It is by no means obvious why it is “civilized” to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is “civilized,” a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding — because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers — certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not “civilized” arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being “civilized,” the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do. ”
“In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God’s gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly.”
People like Mary Sanchez believe they have a right to expect the police to protect them, with guns and violence, when they are unwilling to protect themselves. That is cowardice.
Why would I read a real author when I could read what someone who spent $120k over 4 years to learn how to make headlines “punchy” thinks?
+1
I don’t care if Sanchez wants to disarm herself and end up wolfbait. That’s her choice. I wholeheartedly support her right to remain as defenseless as she wishes.
It’s when the sheep try to take away my choice and disarm me that I object.
The only time you should shoot anyone is when you have no other choice. The best thing is to get out safely without shooting. Now you may not have an option to do so and shooting should always be your last resort. I know plenty of gun owners and none of them wants to shoot someone or get involved in any type of shootout. Guns are a lot of fun and can also be an important tool, but if you miss use them you’re in for big trouble.
Joe, in other words you find the quote by Mary Sanchez acceptable? You should come right out and say that. Of course that might interfere with the soft-ball pitch Robert lobbed to all his followers who can always be counted to play ball.
Sanchez said What is the possible gain of encouraging people to shoot rather than fleeing
That’s just spin i.e. characterizing Stand Your Ground as “encouraging … to shoot.”
That’s not what he said. Putting words in other people’s mouths doesn’t encourage good-faith discussion of issues, Mike.
“Stand your ground” laws don’t prohibit you from fleeing, or impose some sort of penalty on you for doing so. They don’t change the definition of justifiable homicide, either. They do remove the legal obligation to PROVE that you were incapable of fleeing the situation. Prior to “stand your ground”, even if you found yourself surrounded in a dark parking lot by armed individuals who meant to do you harm, you could still go to jail on a homicide charge for defending yourself with deadly force. When the only witnesses to the act are the deceased’s partners in crime, and you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law, that you couldn’t flee without suffering grievous bodily injury or death, without “stand your ground” the law is decidedly on the side of the predators.
Fleeing is still a better option, if it is available. However, it is not always available.
Yep. Ask George.
That sounds good, but how do you explain the three-fold increase in lethal DGUs in Florida. Do you really think so many guys were retreating or holding back on firing before?
I don’t. This one small statistic, yes I’m quoting a statistic to back up my claim, proves that now with the new law there are more false DGUs. I call them murder disguised.
“proves that now with the new law there are more false DGUs”
—–
Ooooh, so close. You almost made a true statement, Michael. It proves that there are more DGUs. It does nothing to prove or disprove the justifiability of those DGUs. Good try, though.
It’s nice to know that you support criminals succeeding in their crime and going on to commit further crimes.
The problem with that logic is… the criminal is still alive. Which means he could escape arrest. Then go on to kill, rape, rob, kidnap or beat some other prey.
What can we gain by killing by way of self defense? That is kind of a rhetorical question. A human being hopes to never see anyone killed. What we do know is America could lose another criminal/felon. Hmm…
This isn’t Japan. You cannot walk around at 2am drunk in an alley (let alone “pass out” on the street) and not ever be a victim of crime.
You have the right to defend one’s life and property. You have the right to arms (tools). Whether that be a fire(arm), knife, etc. These are two different rights.
I am not surprised the use of words comes before the use of arms in the bill of rights. However, day to day life isn’t always like that. More often than not, we cannot tell a criminal to just leave us alone or run away and not have an increase of violence befall us.
“…and still can remain safe.”
Exactly where in the implied social contract between a victim and the (possibly unstable or impaired) robber is this outcome guaranteed? Only in the minds of lefty liberals, who don’t read the many accounts of people who gave the thief everything that was demanded and were still assaulted/stabbed/shot.
I am still of the opinion that if society makes it as dangerous as possible for thieves and robbers to operate, then folks will stop choosing this as a career path (or even a temporary way to feed their drug habit).
“Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly … has made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Spoken like a true ignoramus who’s never been in that kind of situation.
Like Ralph said, she can remain as defenseless and helpless as she wants. But she can kiss my ass if she wants to tell me that I need to be also.
This is an egregious misconstruing of stand your ground laws. It’s not “goading”, it’s a policy of not placing defenders in additional jeopardy for having defended themselves. If someone attacks me and I’m somewhere I’m withing my legal rights to be, say a public street, then why should I be legally obligated to flee? What happened to my right to be there? Is my lawful presence trumped by the lawless acts of another?
That’s a different set of questions from whether it would be tactically advisable, morally superior, or personally preferable to flee. Any or all of those might be true, but I completely disagree that anyone should be legally required to flee before an attacker if they are somewhere they have a legal right to be. Lawlessness should not trump lawfulness.
Agreed. I think anyone who takes the responsibility to carry arms seriously would agree that if the opportunity to flee in safety exists, one should take that opportunity instead of standing and engaging in a shoot-out. The fact that the law may permit you to do something more does not change this — the legality of an act does not by itself mean that the act is wise.
It’s also legal to cheat on one’s spouse or to go and get drunk every night. These are not winning strategies in life, and have caused their share of violence and deaths as well.
To the extent that these Stand Your Ground laws provide clarity to the circumstances under which a citizen may lawfully use deadly force in self defense, they are useful. I am sure an intelligent argument could be made that the line that was drawn in some of these statutes is too inclusive. If Ms. Sanchez, however, would prefer a different line to be drawn, she did not clearly express it in her article.
As an aside, I’m getting sick of the use of the word “race”. As Ms Sanchez stated in her article: “Morrison was bi-racial….” Bi-racial, huh? What was he — half-Vulcan/half-Klingon? There’s only one race, the HUMAN race. Everything else is mere ethnic distinctions that only losers and the mentally weak get exercised over.
Her argument was absurd. She was saying that even castle laws were too inclusive, that you should have to retreat in your own home!
That’s ridiculous. That’s just complete surrender. In the cases she described, the defenders had no way of knowing what the guys who were shot had in mind. The moral of the story is don’t do the stupids: don’t do stupid things, in stupid places, with stupid people, at stupid times. If both of these guys had followed that advice, they don’t end up on law-abiding citizens’ property in the middle of the night, and they don’t end up shot.
After reading the article it sounds like that alcohol can be pretty bad stuff if you aren’t drinking it responsibly. Both kids would still be here if they weren’t drunk out of their minds.
The answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGYttXa0d1k&t=13m19s
You know; I agree with everthing Cooper said in his speech.
Most Private Owners have more of a desire or will to be competent with their weapon ( even if it is a .22lr ) than the Police or Military as they are buying their equipment with their own money and using said equipment on their time.
I would agree that the more competent M &P people were gun enthusiasts before they went into service. I know my Dad was a gun freak before he went into the Army and it probably kept him alive in the PTO.
I would state that Cooper is right about the Private Armed Citizen desire or will to succeed in a defensive situation versus a lot of rank and file M & P people as the Private Armed Citizen is interested in these things.
A lot depends on interest and will to succeed against the Goblins.
I also agree that England and Australia have turned the streets over to the Goblins with Gun Control.
The world would be a better place if those who look for trouble were removed. What better way to do that is there other than overwhelming violence?
Her article makes everyone out to be a victim, all with the aggressor of firearms. She’s falling into the bad habit of thinking that people don’t kill people, objects must.
It is clear to me that we no longer have a media in America;rather, what exists in its place is a a club of pseudo-intellectuals who are ignorant of their national past as Americans.
Not to mention their national present.
‘Gun rights’ have morphed into the right to gun down ‘threats’
–What were they gunning down before ‘gun rights’ had morphed? Women wearing last season’s ‘in’ colors? Guys covered with too much cologne?
I don’t like overcologners very much, but shooting them seems a bit harsh. YMMV.
Heh. Brings up a lesson about personal scent that I learned a long time ago: When it comes to the amount of cologne you apply, it is OK for them to know you’re there, it is not OK for them to know you’re coming.
The only cologne I find acceptable is Hoppe’s No. 9.
Well, in Florida they were gunning down one-third of the perceived threats they are now. Do you really think that means before the stand-your-ground law, so many Florida gun owners were retreating. No, of course not. It means that now there are so many more bogus DGUs.
There’s the legacy of loose gun laws, but if it saves one life of a gun owner, it’s worth it right? All those dead guys were scum anyway.
“All those dead guys were scum anyway.”
—–
Most probably were. But hey, the rest will just have to endure a little inconveniece in the name of keeping the rest of us safe, right? That’s what you always say about gun rights, anyway…
I consider the whole retreat thing to be just stupid in a lot of cases, and maybe most.
Retreats can easily turn into total routes.
I have stated earlier that when I had the 3 BGs of the Welcome Wagon on my front porch that trying to exist a bedroom window with a 2 year old child right into the outside where the BGs were located would have been sucide.
What makes you think the retreat route you are planning on taking is safe?
One of Chicago’s very own. Stupid wench.
She’s right. And her proof is in the daily responses in this forum. The rhetoric in here often indicates that people are itching to get into a situation where they can shoot a bad person doing bad things. Perhaps the respondents in here are steely-eyed ex-commandos who can operate optimally under life-threatening stress, but that author is speaking to the general public of shooters, who do not possess such skills of lightning-fast judgment and gunfighting ability.
There are just as many respondents in here (probably more) who advocate violence as a last resort.
What we do not advocate is sacrificing our loved ones and ourselves needlessly.
Wrong. The rhetoric in here is by men (usually) that do not submit to the modern PC call to be victims and sheeple, and to depend upon the nanny-police state government. FLAME DELETED
Something about personal consumption of intoxicants. Moderation standards are unusually conservative this evening.
Wow, the daddies are being really sensitive tonight about our behavior. It must be an election year or something.
Right-on Koolaidguzzler.
People, this guy’s obviously a joke plant playing as a gun-grabber. Look at the name.
No, she’s wrong. But one thing I’ve noticed is that, in general, gun haters actually seem to WISH for innocents to die so that they can be right.
Pay her no heed. She’s just a hack on the local dying newspaper and is widely disdained as such.
She is a columnist for the Kansas City Star. Like I said, a dying media outlet that is collapsing fast and I don’t expect it to be around too many more years now
I’m of the opinion that this ‘educated’ lady hasn’t much experience with criminals. Crimes of passion, opportunity, anger, etc. aren’t explained away in textbooks. I absolutely agree with the quotes from “A Nation of Cowards.” Perhaps I’m too rough around the edges, but I happen to think that a dead or wounded criminal and an unharmed victim amounts to a happy ending. Decisive action in the face of violence may be objectionable to the liberal elite, but a real emergency or two will quickly change that paradigm. So will victimization by a criminal.
Real life has carjackings, burglaries, rapes, etc. Ugly stuff. Sometimes you might just simply be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I don’t want a candle lit in my memory, I will value the life of myself and my family above anyone who plans violence upon me. It doesn’t mean that I am looking for trouble. It would be more accurate to say that trouble occasionally finds me, as it does most anyone who is trying to accomplish anything meaningful in this world.
But if Ms. Sanchez wants to be wolfbait, well, that’s the beauty of freedom.
Paraphrasing – “I would prefer that she (the victim) was alive and the rapist was dead. I’M crazy.” Ted Nugent
At one time the state of PA. had on the books a law that simply stated that if a BG enters your home, business, etc. YOU must make every effort to escape, and not defend yourself. It may still be there, for all I know. If so I heartly invite Sanchez to move there. I’m sure she would feel much safer knowing that she has no chance to escape harm, and prosecution if she should defend herself.
I often ask these people what their alternative is, if they don’t want to defend themselves. I get the standard answer of call 911, the police will come etc. I demonstrated to one young lady that her cell phone was no threat to any one. As she produced her phone, I produced a rubber training knife. As she began to simulate calling, I made a number of hits on her, using said knife. This left a mark showing where she had been cut. As she looked in the mirror, and saw where her throat had been slashed, her face slashed, both arms cut, and her pretty blouse cut across the stomach, she realized at that moment 911 wasn’t so great after all. I inflicted all of these simulated cuts in a matter of seconds.
I even allowed her to get the phone out of her purse, where she had to dig to find it. Her comment after showing her what could happen to her was un-nerving.
She turned and said, “Well this was only a simulation. I’m sure I could talk my way out.”
The moral of this is that liberal stupidity, is forever. Only when it happens for real, and they are saying “Why me, what did I do to deserve this?” will the reality of life sink in, if ever.
She turned and said, “Well this was only a simulation. I’m sure I could talk my way out.”
The moral of this is that liberal stupidity, is forever.
— I think that attitude of being able to talk oneself out of trouble or not be held accountable goes beyond a definition of just liberal and is more specific to modern liberal women. I suspect that most modern liberal men would not be so naive to believe they could just so easily talk their way out of it. Modern society holds the two sexes (note I did not use the term genders) to two different accountability standards. I guess someone needs to convince the thugs to be more reasonable…
While PA previously had a codified duty to retreat, it is now dead and gone.
Look up Act 10 of 2011 to see the most recent changes to the law in this regard.
Also, that woman is a LEFTIST, not a liberal. The two are mutually exclusive, because liberalism is all about small constitutionally limited governments, and maximized individual liberty, two things that leftists oppose. Note how both liberal and liberty obviously share the same Latin root.
The modern twisting of the word “liberal” to mean “leftist” is part of the Orwellian urge the left has to control political discourse through their use of language.
Its the same reason why they take the positions against guns that they do, and why they insist that abortion is solely an issue of the mother’s alleged ‘right to choose’ while ignoring the entire issue of the child’s right to continue living.
Yikes! By saying that isn’t she basically admitting (advertising loudly even) that her home, or herself(!), is ripe for easy pickings by any criminal so desiring? I’m good with not advertising how many guns of what type and where/what brand of safe I have and all….but conversely shouldn’t she be content with not advertising how easy of a target she is?
The question is not whether the solution to any particular situation is armed force, retreat, or even “talking your way out of it.” The point is that such decisions belong to the person whose life is in danger and not to the people sitting in comfortable offices, nor the people who supply them with campaign contributions and/or blowjobs.
My niece saved herself from being raped and/or killed by a home invader who was terrorizing her neighborhood by drawing down on him with a 357 after he entered her parents’ home-she didn’t have to fire(she was an adult at the time)and he ran through a closed slider(ouch)to get away-he was captured the next day.
I’d love Ms.Sanchez to tell my niece what she should have done instead.
I have an older cousin who lives alone near detroit-I told her to buy a gun-she was shocked-she said if someone broke in they could take whatever they wanted.So I asked-your body?your life?She had no answer.
I spent 25 years in law enforcement and over 4 in the military-I’m not gonna panic,but I won’t be victimized.I’m ill and partially disabled nowadays,but I can still outshoot a lot of younger guys because I shoot recreationally all the time.
My wife shoots often enough to know what she’s doing,but I can’t say she’s really into it.
BTW-great bumper sticker:911/20 Minutes Glock/2 seconds
More pithy version:
911 – 20 minutes
1911 – 2 seconds
I can see that it is quite easy for the liberal elite, those that live in gated communities and eat at all the nice restaurants to cut down gun owners. I would guess that those lifestyles probably don’t have many violent encounters. But, for the rest of us, those that choose to not be a victim, or those that maybe work late, or go to work when it’s dark, or cant afford to move to new, gated subdivision, having the ability to own and carry (legally) a firearm is a much more acute need.
The problem with people like this reporter, is that they have already demonstrated the desire that people like me not be allowed to defend my life, my families life or property by use of a firearm.
A Paris Hilton would say…”She’s Hot”
After the Heller decision, The Chicago Tribune carried a front page editorial entitled “Repeal the Second Amendment.” That newspaper is as anti gun as any gets – Chicago’s other newspaper, The Sun Times, is even more anti gun if anyone wonders how that could be possible. On the positive side, both those newspapers are doing terribly, and it is a question of time before one follows the other into oblivion. And, Sam Zell, the real estate developer who owns The Chicago Tribune, must be salivating at the thought about the newspaper dying – that would free up its offices near the Chicago lakefront for development into luxury condominiums.
As a gun owner who lives in the Chicago suburbs, I hope that that happens soon. Would love to see who hires this Sanchez woman afterwards.
Comments are closed.