Jeff Outdoes Himself
Jeff at Alphecca has this week’s Weekly Check on the Bias up, and it starts off with a bang, almost literally.
First, Jeff reviews the a case of a Detroit woman who used her – legally permitted – concealed handgun to defend herself from a gun-wielding attacker:
I mentioned this story last week but thought it deserved mention in this post, firstly, because it is a perfect example of what the right to bear arms is all about and secondly, because — in a break with their usual bias — the Detroit Free Press actually reported this story straight-up, without an anti-gun slant. If you read the full article, I think that you will reach the exact same conclusion that I have: Holland would be dead now if she hadn’t been carrying that firearm.
Here’s the money quote from the article:
Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan’s controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.
“The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down,” said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.
Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.
Not only has it “not occurred,” it never occurs. But it’s ALWAYS PREDICTED. After the fact the best argument opponents can come up with is that supporters cannot conclusively prove that CCW is responsible for crime going down.
Jeff follows this with a “Dial 911 and DIE!” story – from TEXAS. (Doesn’t everybody in Texas own a gun?)
Then he tells us that Jim Purtillo – the guy that moderates the rec.guns newsgroup, and all-around generally great and pro-gun guy, has filed suit against the State of Maryland over just what constitutes “an integrated mechanical safety device” in its badly-worded law that has severely restricted what firearms may be sold in Maryland.
There’s much more. Jeff does a helluva job. Read it weekly, even though it gives you a RCOB™ moment.
UPDATE: Reader Sarah – proving that critical reading skills still exist – points out something that I had glossed over. The quote above from the paper reads:
Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings.
Uh, no. That’s not what was predicted at all. What was predicted – and what is always predicted – is “blood in the streets” from shootouts over fender-benders and K-mart blue-light specials. And that NEVER happens.
However, there is a – slight – increase in bad guys getting shot.
Good catch, Sarah. And you’re right: why should it be a bad thing to have a large increase in criminals being shot?