Concealed Carry Worked
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 9 months ago
The media outlet biases the report for the readers:
It’s a case where it appears concealed carry worked.
West Allis Police confirm that early this Tuesday a man used a gun to stop an attack on a woman. That man had a concealed carry permit for the weapon.
A man who knew that victim was attacking her near 102nd and Lincoln. The good samaritan happened on the attack. He jumped into action, pulling out his gun. He never fired, but he used the gun to hold the suspect until police arrived.
“It appears to have worked well where nobody was injured as a result of the use of the weapon,” West Allis Police Chief Charles Padget told us.
Police arrested the suspect and the woman is recovering. The chief says it appears the good samaritan did everything right. The District Attorney’s office will still review the use of the weapon. The DA will also investigate the original attack.
It’s amazing, no? It’s actually a case where “concealed carry worked.” First of all, the tools that write this claptrap should read a little more. Guns are used every day in America to stop crimes and save lives.
Second, concealed carry only worked because this person happened to be concealing his hand gun. Wisconsin is a traditional open carry state, and it’s possible that the perpetrator wouldn’t have even committed the crime had he seen someone openly carrying a weapon. It would have “worked” equally well if the individual had been openly carrying and had used his weapon to stop the attack.
The hint in the article is also that it “worked” because the weapon wasn’t discharged. Let’s be clear. If the perpetrator had attacked the person with the weapon and he had discharged the weapon in response, it still “worked.”
It always “works” when a weapon is used to stop a violent crime, as long as we stipulate that a life was in peril. That’s the point. The only thing he couldn’t do – and neither can the LEOs because of Tennessee Versus Garner – is detain the perpetrator by discharging his weapon. And he didn’t. So that worked too.
It “worked” all around, and it does in American every day.
On March 15, 2013 at 9:32 am, Publius said:
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which owns WTMJ, is your typical Big Blue City paper, with predictable outlooks to match on any issue you care to mention. You could hear their weeping and wailing when Scott Walker survived the recall election.
They never miss an opportunity for slanted reporting, this being just one of great many such propaganda pieces. (Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, however, is cut from sterner stuff.)
On March 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm, Darkwater said:
I like their priorities too — the DA will investigate the use of the weapon; he’ll even investigate the actual crime too!
I expect that the Samaritan will be in fine stead in that he drew his weapon upon discovering a violent crime in progress. That doesn’t excuse the time, stress, lawyer fees, or like here the likely court costs he will entail as a result. That is what passes for justice — always punish the innocent.
I know that Tennessee vs Garner involves the actual shooting of a fleeing suspect. What if the Samaritan fired his weapon to the side if the suspect questioned the Samaritan’s resolve? Are you aware of any cases like that?
On March 22, 2013 at 6:29 pm, Walter Rickshaw said:
This kind of stuff infuriates me. Almost as though ‘LUCKILY the idiot holding the gun didn’t have to fire it, because even if he stopped a crime, he would be in the wrong’.
It’s fortunate he didn’t have to discharge his weapon, but if he had, as you said, it still would have worked. That’s the point.
Thanks for bringing this to attention.