Gun Control Group Goes Ballistic

The ironically named Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence has gone ballistic.

First, let me clarify. "Going ballistic" is a term that was originally used to describe guided missiles that have lost use of their guidance systems, and which continue to fly unguided, turning a "smart" missile into a "dumb" one. They follow a ballistic trajectory, like any other unguided projectile. That's what they meant by "gone ballistic."

The Brady Campaign has gone ballistic with their most recent effort. They are taking out newspaper ads in several cities, and passing out flyers at Miami International Airport. The content of these ads and flyers is intended to frighten away potential visitors to the area, in an attempt to force Florida to repeal its new law removing the duty to retreat before using lawful force in self-defense.

Yeah, Brady Campaign, good thinking. Florida is going to repeal its law to get you to stop publishing idiotic and misleading ads. (If I were a Florida official, I would consider suing them for wrongfully causing harm to their tourist trade.)

As usual, the anti-gun zealots show absolutely no remorse for making wholly misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Taking away the duty to retreat does not mean that people can start blasting away whenever they want and not have to worry about being prosecuted-- although you would think this is precisely what the new law will do if you were to listen to the hysterical shrieking from the Brady bunch and other anti-gunners.

All the new law means is that people who are confronted with an attacker who has the intent, means, and opportunity to do grave bodily harm will no longer be required to run away first.

Any of us who have had any defensive firearm training at all (or who have even done much serious thought about it) realize that if we can run away, that would usually be the best choice. Shooting the attacker is the last resort-- escape, if possible, is a better option.

The problem with a law that requires running away first is that it is not usually possible to do so without suffering the wrath of the attacker. If victims could always escape, no one would ever be successfully attacked; the intended victims would just leave, every time (assuming they are able-bodied).

The lawful citizen who carries a revolver or pistol for his or her own defense already is at a disadvantage in a lethal attack (although not nearly so much as an unarmed person). The criminal picks the time and place of the attack, and waits until conditions favor him the most. The intended victim doesn't learn of the attack until it has started, and he has to instantly devise a response to an attack the criminal may have taken considerable time in planning.

The last thing that citizen who is trying to survive needs is some law, written by legislators who are not there in the parking lot or garage, on the street, et cetera, that says that everyone has to try to run away first, regardless of circumstance. Such a law tilts the balance of power in the criminal's favor.

I question the motives of anyone who thinks a duty to retreat is a good idea. Why do anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign consistently support laws that tilt the balance of power in favor of the criminal? Every time there is a law to disarm victims, to extend how long the lawful have to wait before getting a gun, to limit the places where the good guys can carry guns, to restrict how the lawful can use guns, they're right there arguing in favor of such a law. I am sure they are not so stupid as to believe that the criminals are going to follow any such law, so obviously, their efforts are quite universally slanted toward empowering criminals.

Let's look at that. If you were a criminal, would you be more or less likely to attack someone if you knew he had a lawful duty to run away before he could use force against you? Would you, the criminal, support a law that restricted how people could defend themselves against you?

If lawful defensive shooters actually obeyed the duty-to-retreat law, undoubtedly many of them would be maimed or killed by the attacker they tried to run away from. People that were armed and capable of stopping an attack would still fall victim to the criminals. The whole point of carrying defensive arms would be thwarted-- which is obviously what the Brady bunch wants. If they can find some reason to say that defensive arms don't help save lives, they can make the case that carrying arms should be banned. And they don't care how many good people have to be killed by criminals to achieve that end.

Now let's look at the other side of it. What possible good could come from a law that requires the lawful to run away before shooting in self-defense? The only thing that would potentially come from that would be the preservation of criminals that think it is okay to inflict grave harm on others at will. It would not stop wrongful shootings of people who are not attackers; with or without the duty to retreat, lawful self-defense requires that there be a grave and immediate threat before lethal force can be justified.

So, it boils down to a choice between preserving innocent victims of crime at the expense of the lives of their criminal attackers, or of protecting violent criminals from defensive action from their intended victims.

The really silly thing here is that many states, like my home state of Arizona, never had a duty to retreat. The new Florida law repealing the duty to retreat will go into effect on the first of October, 2005, and from that point forward, Florida's lethal force laws will be like the laws we've long had here in Arizona. I don't see any news stories that Brady is going to be "warning" people about the danger of armed Arizonans. Our lack of a "duty to retreat" has never been a problem.

But then, anti-gunners have never been particularly concerned with truth or reality.