It’s a bright, sunny day in Texas and my outlook improved drastically over the second cup of coffee when I found Steve Chapman’s column displayed in the Dallas Morning Fishwrap. Common Sense Prevails
There may be hope for the mainstream media yet. When a Chicago Tribune columnist can write a column extolling the values of an armed citizenry it’s noteworthy. I grew up in Chicago when the Trib was still owned by the McCormick’s and it was the neo-fascist voice of the Republicans in the boss-run Democratic bastion of Richard J. Daley’s machine. The Trib was the newspaper that declared Dewey the winner in ’48, probably setting the precedent for the entire current crop of left-wing print media which report the news they wish was rather than that which actually exists.
Chicago is a leader in anti-gun legislation. They’ve embraced the philosophy of disarming the citizenry by convincing the masses that if they don’t own guns the police will be there to protect them. You can’t own a gun in Chicago. Do you suppose that means that the gargoyles of the streets don’t have any guns? Ahh, but I digress once again.
The Dallas Morning News is a pretty good newspaper. They report a lot more national and international detail than I was accustomed to in Colorado Springs. They pick the scabs off Dallas municipal scandals with aplomb. They name names and dig into the dirt of City Council almost daily. But, when it comes to the editorial page, particularly the selected publication of letters to the editor, they really don’t measure up. Rather than challenge the “conventional wisdom” of the undiscerning masses, they seem delight in reinforcing the ignorance and misunderstanding of the man on the street. There’s a lot of dumb on display in those contributions.
Yet, Chapman’s truth was right there on the opinion page in black and white—and only one day after it ran in Chicago. Maybe someone on the DMN editorial staff was napping when a low-level functionary chose to publicize such heresy. Why, there’s this columnist suggesting that the Brady bunch is wrong in their studied mischaracterization of Florida’s laws. He dares to imply that telling the citizenry that they don’t have to cower and flee when threatened with serious bodily injury isn’t a bad thing. He dares to point out that there’s a big difference between being attacked maliciously and having someone raise their voice in disagreement. He even goes so far as to suggest that an obligation to flee may not be practical for many folks when threatened.
I’ve got to admit, that now that I’m a more seasoned citizen, my time in the 100 yard dash is extended considerably from even the outrageously slow numbers that I posted in my warrior prime. I’ve always been slow and now I’m not even that. But, I’m also a CCW holder and I practice regularly. I can’t flee from a handful of aggressive young thugs who would like to commandeer my vehicle, steal my wallet, attack my family or enter my dwelling. But, I undeniably can do some very serious deterrence to the thugs that remain standing after the first three or four are dropped.
The gun control argument is filled with clichés. Both sides resort to oversimplification of the issue. They make assumptions that aren’t supportable to bolster their arguments. History and the data are pretty supportive however of the cliché that “an armed society is a polite society.” A cursory review of areas with high incidence of violent crime seems to correlate with draconian gun control measures while a check of those states and regions with “shall issue” legislation for concealed carry and high percentages of gun owning citizenry look pretty safe for both persons and property. Who’da thunk it?