“What Would You Do With A Brain if You Had One?”
Vol: 16 Issue: 25 Saturday, January 25, 2003
I was watching a news report from my hotel room when I heard a report of such incomprehensible stupidity that it took my breath away. Is there anybody in America who doesn’t remember the Van Damme case in which a six-year-old girl was abducted from her bedroom by her next-door neighbor? Her body was found in the California desert. She had been brutally beaten to death after having been raped.
Or of Elizabeth Smart, the pretty little girl in Utah who was abducted from her bedroom and has never been heard of since? Or Samantha Runyon, also six years old, abducted from her front yard, also brutally beaten, raped and murdered.
The list could go on and on and on. To it, we could have perhaps added the names of two children in Brooklyn, had the children’s father not had a gun. A gun he purchased legally in Florida and for which he had applied for a permit in New York.
A permit that would certainly have been granted.
When Ronald Dixon saw a burglar outside his bedroom in the hall, he told his wife to call 911. While Mrs. Dixon was on the phone to police, Dixon saw the burglar enter his two-year-old son’s bedroom. Dixon was faced with a terrible choice.
There is little doubt in my mind that Dixon was aware of Van Damme/Runyon/Smart/Klass etc., etc. and what could happen in the time it would take for the police to arrive to protect his family.
Dixon did what any responsible father would do — what the fathers of the now-dead children most likely agonize over not being able to do in time — confront the burglar before it was too late for the kids.
Dixon said the burglar — who had an extensive rap sheet — called out to somebody downstairs, doubling the danger facing Dixon’s family.
Ronald Dixon wasn’t some crackhead or drug dealer. He was a man who, according to his lawyers, worked 80 hours per week at two jobs to support his family. A man who played by the rules and did everything right.
He confronted the burglar. After the burglar called out to his alleged accomplice (police did not find a second man) he charged Dixon, who fired his weapon twice, wounding the burglar and possibly saving the lives of his wife and children.
He told the interviewer on Fox News, “I knew that if he was able to get me, there would be nobody standing between him and my family” — a statement of fact so simple and so profound that expanding it would do it disservice.
Put yourself in his position for a second. What would you have done? Allowed the burglar to enter your two-year-old’s bedroom while you hid in your bedroom waiting for police and hoping they’d arrive in time? Or put yourself at risk by confronting an intruder in your child’s bedroom, not knowing his intent or how well armed he might be?
A hero, right? A man who did what a man is supposed to do, right? This is a FATHER whose home had been invaded, his family put at risk, his TWO-YEAR-OLD SON in the same room as a burglar of unknown intent?
Wrong. After police arrested the wounded burglar, they arrested Ronald Dixon. The charge? Defending his home with an unregistered weapon.
Never mind that the gun was purchased legally for home defense. Never mind that he had submitted all the papers. Never mind that he would not have been denied the permit. Never mind that he had already called the police. Never mind that the burglar was IN HIS SON’S BEDROOM. The GUN was not yet entered into the system.
The Brooklyn District Attorney offered Dixon a deal. Plead guilty to a crime and he could get weekends in jail.
(Maybe even in the same cell as the burglar. They could reminisce about that night just before Christmas when they first met in Dixon’s hallway. Wouldn’t that be cozy.)
Accepting the plea bargain would give Dixon a criminal record. Among other things, it would mean he could never legally register a handgun in New York State. The next time, he’d have to hide under his covers until police arrived. Or charge the burglar and hope he could overpower him.
The weekend sentence would cost Dixon one of his two jobs for sure, and maybe both of them. His kids would know that their dad went to jail for protecting them. They’d also know that during the weekends, they are absolutely defenseless while their dad sat in jail.
His attorney rejected the deal and Dixon awaits trial for a ‘crime’ that could mean a whole year on Riker’s Island.
For defending his family with his own gun, legally purchased, bought and paid for with the money he worked 80 hours a week to earn.
This is what ‘politically correct’ means. A prime example of liberal fascism at work. It stems from the belief that guns kill people, rather than recognizing that guns are inanimate objects incapable of killing anyone without a person first deciding to make that choice.
One could fall into a dumpster filled with guns and not have a single one shoot him in retaliation. You can insult a gun’s heritage and parentage without fear the gun will get mad and shoot you. You can slap a gun around, and even take away its bullets and it won’t shoot you for it.
The gun control lobby points out that handguns were designed for only one purpose — to kill. Ok. Agreed. A squirt gun wouldn’t have served Ronald Dixon very well.
The burglar that entered Ronald Dixon’s home was taking a calculated risk that Dixon would NOT have a gun. If he had known for sure that Dixon was armed, it is unlikely he’d have chosen that home for his midnight visit.
There are two kinds of burglary, from the perspective of law enforcement. There are ‘cold’ burglaries like when a burglar enters an unoccupied home or business, and ‘hot’ burglaries, where the burglar enters an occupied home.
According to FBI statistics, the incidences of ‘hot burglaries’ are much lower in areas where most people have a ‘house gun’ (like in Texas). The number of ‘hot’ burglaries rises in urban areas that have much stricter gun control laws.
In Canada, where handguns are all but outlawed, or England, where they are totally outlawed, the incidences of hot burglaries is turned upside down. While 20% of US burglaries are ‘hot’ burglaries in Texas, in places like New York, or countries like Canada and Great Britain, the figure exceeds 80%.
The 2nd Amendment arguments about who ‘the people’ might be that have the ‘right to possess and bear arms’ has been taken to the outer extremes of insanity in attempting to interpret it to read exactly opposite to what it says. I won’t attempt to reinvent the wheel here — it says what it says and I don’t see any other way to interpret it.
It provides for a well-regulated militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. One does not cancel out the other.
So instead, let’s look at the logic, or lack thereof, of the gun control argument itself.
Passing laws against guns means Ronald Dixon is a criminal for possibly saving the lives of his children. But making guns illegal isn’t much of a deterrent to a career criminal like the burglar who victimized the Dixon family.
Surely the anti-gun lobby doesn’t believe that a criminal will discover his handgun is illegal and will therefore commit armed robberies using a baseball bat or a knife? If they do, then why haven’t we outlawed the possession of baseball bats and knives?
It’s so simple-minded it makes you wonder if those who hold to this idiotic view need someone to help them tie their shoes for them before they set off for work in the morning. How can somebody this stupid hold a job? It scares me to think they are allowed to drive a car.
It’s been said, and I’ve quoted it many times, that a ‘liberal is a conservative who hasn’t yet been mugged’ — and to my mind, this story proves the accuracy of that statement.
The left’s agenda is well-meaning, if incomprehensibly naive. It is the result of a systematic brainwashing over a period of decades in which every story in which the bad guys use guns gets banner headlines. And every story in which guns save innocent lives gets buried.
Do you remember the story of the high school principal in Pennsylvania who shot a would-be school shooter at a dance with his legally registered personal firearm? I thought not.
Or the shooting rampage in Killeen, Texas than ended when one of the potential victims shot the bad guy and ended the killing? Instead, all we heard about was the bad guy and what he did with HIS gun.
There is a bumper sticker that explains, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
I offer as evidence Ronald Dixon, breadwinner, family man, a guy who works two full time jobs to support his family — and an OUTLAW facing a year in jail — not for shooting a burglar — but simply for having the gun.
Musing Right Along . .
A beautiful morning along the Crystal Coast. Still cold, but sunny and clear. Gayle and I are continuing to enjoy our getaway, although we have just about broken our budget. We went to a local supermarket and picked up some frozen dinners and breakfast cereals (the room is generously furnished with a small fridge and microwave) so that we can extend our stay until Thursday, when the mercury is forecast to reach sixty degrees.
We’ve continued to mingle and listen as more and more Marines in the area are getting their deployment orders.
In Morehead City, the local paper reports the entire Army reserve unit there has been called to active duty and mobilized for service.
The classified ads are filled with ads like this one. “Got my orders – use my deposit and take over payments on my 1200 square foot home’ – these ads tugged at my heart.
I know what they mean, and what it is like. They mean young families being separated – wives and children being sent back home to live with the folks for the duration, incredible financial and emotional hardship ahead.
Many of these young defenders of our liberties will lose their lives, some, tragically, will lose their families, too many will forever lose the ability to sleep peacefully through the night. Pray for them. Love them for what they are.
For they are the best among us.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13