MICHAEL PAUL WILLIAMS COLUMN: Patron with gun won—that time

The author of this stool sample, would prefer that everyone that was in that store that day was killed. That fits his anti self defense agenda. A dead victim is morally superior to a still living victim who defended their own life with deadly force. Disgusting!

“the first time someone in a similar situation misses the bad guy and nails a bystander”

Hey smart guy, how does the “nailed bystander” magically survive being shot by the criminal?

“A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense already has lost the battle.“

This is such a pathetic statement, I can taste vomit in my mouth. This individual who saved lives, was not only the FIRST line of defense, he was the ONLY line of defense.

Joe—I really hate to be in the position of defending either the RTD or MPW; after all, the first buys ink by the barrel, while the second has a regular forum.  Just the same, fair’s fair, so here goes.
 
You have two comments posted online (as of a moment ago).  Don’t know how many others have been deleted.
 
MPW has been out of the office for a couple of days, according to the automated response I got to a direct email to him.  If he ain’t there, he probably ain’t answering questions.  NOTE, however, that he completely ignored a previous email about anti-gun bias, and also completely ignored a followup email . . . so we can’t rule out a categorical refusal.
 
We’ll see . . . mostly all we can do is to keep on pointing out those inconvenient little facts.  We can also write letters to the editor at <letters@timesdispatch.com>, or short notes at <your2cents@timesdispatch.com>, or contact his editors—but let’s wait and get more evidence first.

If more armed robbers are shot, shot right on-spot, then there will be less bums attempting to pull armed robberies.

I too am a long time reader and I have endured many columns from Mr. Williams. 

Of course, he cannot resist the urge to trot out an anti-gun victim of the VA Tech shooting (and a Brady intern at that). 

There is great evil in the world and Mr. Goddard’s suffering at the hands of an (arguably) insane person at VA Tech was (and is) an awful event that no one should have to endure.  Effective resistance was not available and evil was allowed to run its course - killing and injuring many.

But what possible bearing does Mr. Goddard’s opinion or limited knowledge have to do with this instance of armed robbery?  Evil visited this convenience store and was dispatched by effective resistance.  Shall we ask the store keeper (shot twice before he could even comply with the robber’s instructions) about other potential outcomes?  How about the patron that was an apparent target for execution?  Anecdotes and personal impressions abound on all sides.

Mr. Goddard’s experience makes him a crime victim, complete with all the terrible complexity (and simplicity) that being a victim entails.  It does not provide Mr. Goddard (or any of the VA Tech victims or family members) with any sort of enhanced wisdom, knowledge or special status with regard to the “truth” on guns, gun violence or the defensive capabilities of other people. Their opinions count no more or less than those of anyone else (contrary to the pandering media).

It is still the right of the law abiding citizen to decide whether or not they are “fast” enough, “together” enough and sufficiently versed in the law to handle this type of responsibility.  A significant part of this is to understand the consequences of acting improperly (which are severe). 

The Brady Campaign can always be counted on for a complete failure to mention the thousands upon thousands of “defensive uses” of firearms each year where the presence of the armed citizen stopped the incident before it could escalate to a shooting - not to mention the prevention of countless instances of robbery, rape, assault, etc. 

Other comments have already addressed the role and limitations of the police in being able to interrupt an individual intent on homicide.  I will offer that our only hope is that citizens’ will again view themselves as the first line of defense (in whatever form that vigilance takes). 

Discharging a firearm in public is not a good thing and should be done in only the gravest extreme.  But sending a message that - no matter what - we will cower in the corner and offer up no resistance doesn’t seem to have brought us to a good place either.

If only I were a gambling man.  As the story of the tragic July 11 shooting at the Golden Food Market unfolded and the facts became known, I became quite convinced I would soon enough see in my morning paper an opinion piece authored by Michael Paul Williams decrying not only the event, which is certainly well-deserved, but also the resolution involving (gasp!) an armed citizen.  I was not disappointed.

The argument appears to be that, as an “average citizen”, one should not be responding to imminent threats with defensive measures involving the use of firearms, either in an effort to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s fellows, and that one should instead rely upon one’s sworn police officers, acknowledged to be highly trained and dedicated, to address said threats. 

Were police present in, or in the immediate proximity of, the Golden Food Market that day?  Can we and should we expect a police officer to be present in each and every situation where and when such a threat arises?  The obvious answers are “No”, and “Of course not.”

Mr. Williams’ real argument, then, seems to be that we citizens are to respond to life-threatening events such as this by bleating as sheep and hoping for the best.  I refuse, and reject his argument as ludicrous.  And contrary to his closing statement, I submit that a society whose citizens do not consider themselves to be the last line of defense is truly a society that has, and is, lost.