Facing terror and a horror within (Gun Grabber Alert)

In fact, it wasn't a gun at all. It was the kind of "gun" you make with your fingers, the kind kids make when they're running around playing cops and robbers.

Only this guy was no kid. He wasn't a cop. He wasn't even a robber. He was a man who appeared out of nowhere and confronted me and my daughter on the corner near our home where we waited for the bus.

As he approached us, my first thought was that he would ask for a cigarette or money. He was clearly agitated, and he stepped right into our personal space, way too close for comfort. With his bulging eyes, his leered at my 17-year-old daughter, asked "How ya doing?" and then, with one swift motion, brought his imaginary gun out of his pants pocket. He aimed it right between my daughter's eyes.

"I've got a gun! Take it easy!" he yelled, with a rage brought on with no provocation.

Then, as quickly as he had come, he was gone, turning away from us and heading down the street. He turned back to wave and grin a crazed grin at us, which did nothing to ease our tension and fear.

Actually, it increased it. For this was the grin of someone clearly disturbed or high on drugs and undoubtedly dangerous. If not to us, who? If not now, when? What type of mind, what type of man would do such a thing? And why?

Yet what was even more disturbing to me was the thought that popped into my mind immediately after he had turned his back and began to walk away from us.

Me, who had been in the process of developing an essay critical of the use and availability of handguns in this community. Me, who could not understand why people would want to own a gun. Me, who had intended to write that gun ownership, even by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, only increased senseless violence and did nothing to abate it.

My first thought as I saw this creep, this sicko, put a look of horror such as I had never seen on my beautiful daughter's face - and a hook of terror in her heart where there had previously been none - was that I wished I'd had a gun. If I'd had a gun, I thought, I would have aimed it square at his back, and I would have killed him.

My thought was that by doing so I would relieve society of a tragedy waiting to happen. For the price of a bullet, an innocent such as my daughter would be protected and justice would be served, instantly.

All of this emotion over the mere threat of violence to one of my children has shaken me to my very core. It has twisted any rationality I may have had regarding the ownership and the use of guns.

What am I suggesting? That we resort to a wild west type of society, where vigilante gun slingers roam the streets taking the law into their own armed hands? Not at all, although, after reporting this incident to the police, I can certainly see why that scenario might be preferable to some.

To continue the story: Hours after this event, after we had caught that bus we were waiting for, kept my daughter's optometrist appointment and further digested what had occurred, we decided we needed to report the incident to the police.

After all, the woman who had, years earlier, demanded me to give her all of the money from the cash register of the bakery where I was a clerk, had later been caught and charged with armed robbery, even though it had been determined that the "gun" she had pointed at me from inside her jacket pocket had actually been a comb. Because she claimed to have a gun, because she had threatened to use it, she could, in the eyes of the law, be charged as if she had had a gun.

We took the car this time and drove a few blocks from home to the police station, just a few blocks from the bus stop where we had our confrontation. As my daughter and I got out of the car, she screamed, "Mom, it's him!" and, incredibly, it was. He was walking diagonally across the police station parking lot, looking as crazed and aimless as before. He saw us and recognized us, but kept walking casually in the opposite direction.

We ran into the police station and quickly told the officer at the front desk what had happened, pointing out the man who was getting further away. Foolishly, I half expected this officer to leap over the counter and run down this man or at least, commission a squad to do the same. Instead, the officer wrote down some information and disappeared into a back room. Moments later, another officer came out with him and asked us to repeat our story. Then, astoundingly, in a tired voice, the second officer asked, "What would you like us to do about this, ma'am?"

I realize that this police station needed to operate the way emergency rooms do - that is, to treat the most serious matters first. After all, this man had not shattered my daughter's face with a loaded firearm. He had only pretended that he was going to. What kind of reaction could we reasonably expect?

But urged on by our exasperation, disappointment and shock, the officer did put a call out to the area squads. He gave them a description of the man (now long gone) and told them that he had a gun. The officer then told us he would call us if they needed any more information.

He had done his part. We had done ours. Hopefully, this sad man will get stopped and, hopefully, he'll either be detained or given mental health treatment.

But the sad truth is that, in all probability, nothing will happen until something happens.

Which left me to wondering: Something would have happened if I had been one of the estimated 70 million people who own, and often carry, handguns. I would have easily, in a split-second decision based solely on the raw passion I have for my child, shot at this man for pretending that he was going to shoot and kill her.

That makes about as much sense as anything that I have read from the various pro-gun advocate literature and Web sites I have perused. Combined, these readings essentially conclude that a safe society is an armed society, that rational, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have their freedoms challenged by gun-buying waiting periods or by specific weapons restrictions. These advocates argue that citizens should be trusted to use their rationality to know when, and if, and how, to use a firearm for their own personal protection.

And it is this logic that frightens me. Prior to having my daughter threatened in this bizarre manner on a street corner near the home I have lived in for the past 18 years, I was such a rational, law-abiding citizen. However, if a gun had been in my hand during that moment of fear, anger and confusion, I would have used it to do something illogical and irrevocable. I would have crossed the line of reason. I would have easily become that thing I have claimed to hate.

And in spite of everything, I'm not sure if that's a right worth protecting or a pernicious alternative best eliminated.

Classic liberalism. The woman assumes she has no right to defend herself from the threat of violence, and is therefore prepared to deny that right to everybody else. What would she have done if Creepo had pulled out, not his finger, but a knife? The phrase "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" has no meaning to her.

What am I suggesting? That we resort to a wild west type of society, where vigilante gun slingers roam the streets taking the law into their own armed hands?

It might be a good last resort considering the criminal justice system is only interested in the rights of the crimial, not the victim. How else did Samantha Runion's killer skate out the court room front door, I wonder?

This writer would be well-advised to ask Erin Runion about this if she somehow doesn't get it.

"...I would have crossed the line of reason..."

The 'line' this pig has crossed is the line that separates free expression from advocating the overthrow of the Bill of Rights.

She's a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States, plain and simple.

I pray that my children's children will be blessed to grow up in an America where walking filth like this dull-witted slattern are -at a minimum- arrested, tried and exiled.

However, if a gun had been in my hand during that moment of fear, anger and confusion, I would have used it to do something illogical and irrevocable.

On the contrary, it would have been quite logical. And then she wouldn't be afraid of him any more. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

This is truly pathetic. This individual was confronted with a situation that should have caused her to question her prejudices against self-defense and instead we get this screed justifying her stubborness in adhering to a policy that caused her to be defenseless and afraid, despite the danger to her, despite the danger to her daughter, despite the fact that the guy in her little story is still walking the street. These people would truly rather die or see their children be killed than admit that there's a place for self-defense, not just for themselves, but for everyone else.

"If I'd had a gun, I thought, I would have aimed it square at his back, and I would have killed him."

This is a typical anti-gunner reaction. They leap from their unrealistic utopian view of guns to the other extreme of killing perps, when your life isn't in danger anymore.

I read an anecdote of a pro-gun liberal, who was a civil rights supporter in the South back in the 60's, when that really was a dangerous choice. He carried a gun and believed in self-defense. He was driving one of these utopian liberals, who was proud of opposing guns and opposing self-defense. Six months later, our guy still believed in self-defense, the utopian now believed in assassination and terrorism.

Homicide in the public interest. Case dismissed.

That is probably true, but What this dumb ass doesn't want to look at is the "responsibility" of carry. And it is an
awesome one indeed. She or he, I couldn't tell which (and maybe that says something about them too)thinks that responsibility and lawfullness is just thrown out the window
at the slightest whim or threat.
In ten years of CC I have had to put my hand on my piece once, ONCE and that when a street bum threatened me with the
".357 in my backpack" yet I didn't have to even draw because
he did NOT show it to me,again the responsibility is to the LAW. Something these folks just can't seem to get a handle on.

As bad as refusing to defend yourself is, it is nothing compared to failure to defend your children.

100 years ago, a woman could walk, unmolested, through the roughest neighborhood in this country.

Why??

Because it was clearly understood that accosting women or children was a non-starter. Every able-bodied man had a pistol on his person or a hunting rifle at hand to discourage poor behavior. Hence the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society."

A close examination of the "wild west" era will show that gun violence against common citizen was extremely rare. Law enforcement officers and criminals were the targets of the majority of gun violence. There were occasions where citizens were caught in a crossfire, but they were the exception. And certainly rarer than todays drive-by victims.

One shot, one kill.

Renee has projected her lack of judgement and self control on all of us that own guns.

To make it simple for Renee: Renee, there is one rule for carrying a firearm that any gun owner knows -- You never even swing the muzzle of a firearm past another human being unless you know with certainty that said human is about to immediately inflict bodily harm on you or a loved one.

If you had been carrying a firearm in this circumstance, your only option to act was as the person approached, presented direct contact with you, and became a threat. In that moment alone would you have had the slightest justification for targetting him.

To admit that you would lose self control sufficiently to shoot someone in the back is a good indication that you should not be carrying a gun. It, however, reflects nothing on the rest of us.

Then, as quickly as he had come, he was gone, turning away from us and heading down the street. He turned back to wave and grin a crazed grin at us, which did nothing to ease our tension and fear.

Here's the first sign of many in this article that the authors mind is severely unbalanced. The facts that he only had a finger and was walking away would signal a normal brain that there was no reason to be afraid and no reason for tension.

But urged on by our exasperation, disappointment and shock, the officer did put a call out to the area squads. He gave them a description of the man (now long gone) and told them that he had a gun.

He had done his part. We had done ours. Hopefully, this sad man will get stopped and, hopefully, he'll either be detained or given mental health treatment.

Amazing! After venting their hysteria on the police they finally come 'round to some thought of compassion for the mentally ill guy. But only after pressuring the officer to lie and put out a report that the guy was armed which just might be enough to get him shot full of holes.

Will the real sicko please stand up?!

" insight into the mind of a gun grabber."

This woman is just as bright as Phillip Andrews(~20y/o). He was confronted by a home invader, Lori Dan, a woman packing a pistol and wearing only a clear plastic bag. She invaded his ma's kitchen after shooting up a local grade shool. At some point shortly after she got there he ended up with her gun. He then gave it back to her thinking it would calm her down. After she got the gun back she shot him. She then went upstairs and shot herself.

His ma praised his act of giving the gun back as resonable, so did the IL council against handgun violence. They made this creative thinker president of their org.

What am I suggesting? That we resort to a wild west type of society, where vigilante gun slingers roam the streets taking the law into their own armed hands?

Yet another example of the typicial statist liberal twisting and redefinition of words. Self Defense, or defense of others, is not vigilantism. Vigilantisim is hunting down presumned criminals and then becoming judge, jury and executioner. If you shoot in defense of self, others, or property, you are exercing the right of self defense. If you hunt the criminals down, and don't attempt to arrest them, but rather just execute them, you are a vigilante. By making self defense out to be vigilantism, they attempt to delegitimize self defense, and along with it the ownership of the means of self defense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.