Find The Boots

The shooting at CNN is a real tragedy. Of course, the Brady Bunch was all over it as yet another reason to restrict people's right of self defense. In response, a pro-gun commentator pointed out that had anyone been armed, they might have been able to defend themselves. Paul Helmke responded in typical Brady fashion in his blog:

Guns do not instantly and always make people safe. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible at best. And to suggest that Charles Williams – whose only alleged failing was that he did not carry a gun – has some moral responsibility for the death of Clara Riddles is simply unconscionable.

To quote Bill from Office Space: "Ooh, uh, yeah. I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. Yeah."

Let's break down Mr. Helmke's post a bit. First, he starts off by quoting statistics about homicide rates of men vs women.

...intimate partner homicides composed only 4% of the murders of men but about one-third of the murders of women

Of course, he doesn't mention whether or not those take place with guns or not. Frankly, if someone is so stoked up that they want to kill the ex, then access to a gun isn't going to make much difference. Here's a real shocker for the libs: Men are physically stronger than women. Yes, I know, hard to believe but there it is. In fact, I'll go ahead and make the claim that in most circumstances, the only chance a women has against even an unarmed man who has decided to kill her is with the great equalizer -- a gun. Pepper spray, tasers, whistles, and screaming are much more likely than a gun to merely enrage your attacker.

And by the way, a guy that has decided to kill his ex probably isn't too concerned about breaking the law to get a gun. So if Mr. Helmke had his way, only women would be unarmed and their insane ex-boyfriends would have guns.

Then the typical liberal response of just dial 911 was made:

...an armed security guard responded immediately.

Except in this case, like most others, the cops didn't show up in time to do anything about it. I guess, according to the Bradys, that if you're rich enough to be able to afford security guards around you at all times you get to be safe, but for the rest of us that just want to take responsibility for protecting ourselves and the people around us, too bad.

Now here's one place that I'll agree with him. Charles, the guy that stepped aside to allow the ex-boyfriend to murder the woman in peace, isn't morally culpable. He wasn't armed and his choice not to put his life in danger was his own to make. The moral culpability for that situation goes to the people that made sure that he wasn't armed. Made sure that he didn't have a choice to be armed. Made sure that he had to get the permission of the government before he could carry a weapon. Made sure that an environment of hostility exists towards those citizens who are willing to take responsibility for their self defense.

So the kicker here is that the first comment on Mr. Helmke's blog is from Tim James, who puts it all in perspective:

It is tragic that the man did not happen to have a gun or other weapon that day to give Clara a small chance at life. While it would be no guarantee, armed citizens have stopped public acts of violence many times before. I’m sure Clara, who is now dead, would have loved to take those odds rather than wait helplessly for her imminent death.

I guess if the woman being dragged by her hair to her death was a member of the Brady Bunch, she'd have been thinking "Wow, I'm glad I don't have a gun. This situation could have really gotten out of hand!"

But I do have to tip my hat to Mr. Helmke. Most bloggers would have just deleted that embarrassing comment. After all, he looks like a complete buffoon when you consider the arguments. But at least he's willing to stand up and take his whipping like a man...

Labels: 2nd amendment, Brady Bunch