sheaf_stout Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 Long time anti-gun politician finally sees the light. Run-in changes lawmaker's stance Tuesday, May 15, 2007Phillip MorrisPlain Dealer Columnist It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspec tive on things, make you wish you could rewrite history. State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back. DeBose, who had just returned from Columbus, where he had spent the day in committee hearings, decided to take a short walk up Holly Hill, the street where he has lived with his wife for the past 27 years. t was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him. He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk. The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem. "There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday. "The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me." "At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming." "When I started running, the short boy stopped chasing and went back to the car. But the tall boy with the gun kept following me. I ran to the corner house and started banging on Mrs. Jones' door." It was at that point that the would-be robbers realized that their prey wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, Cheryl, DeBose's wife, and a daughter had heard his screams and had raced out to investigate. Other porch lights began to flicker on. The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote. DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004. DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders. "I was wrong," he said Friday. "I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife. "I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family. "I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one." DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer. "There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent. "But there obviously are far deeper problems that we need to address," he added, as he suddenly seemed to realize he sounded like a gun enthusiast. They say the definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. DeBose's CCW application will bear some witness to that notion. To reach Phillip Morris: pfmorris@plaind.com, 216-999-5086 Previous columns online: cleveland.com/columns Unrelated but also interesting - Illegal alien crooks bitten by gun toting pre-teen. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185167 Published: Apr 25, 2007 Author: nra Post Date: 2007-04-25 16:16:08 by klickitat 94 Comments Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) Isn't it illegal to leave an 11 year old at home alone. They should string the father up for putting his daughter in a situation where her life was in jeopardy. Edited May 25, 2007 by TREETOAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Isn't it illegal to leave an 11 year old at home alone. They should string the father up for putting his daughter in a situation where her life was in jeopardy. It is legal in Oregon to leave an 11 year old child home alone. they legally are to be 12 to watch a younger sibling or baby sit. child care ends at age 11. after that you would have to hire a nanny as there are no other public type options, very few if any after school programs etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 So, the first story, sort of supports the argument that a gun is NOT necessary for self defense. In fact, one could argue that if the State Rep HAD pulled a handgun out of his pocket in self defense, he could have been shot. The second story, only re-enforces the gun-control argument that handguns are not necessary weapons in society, even for self-defense, and that a firearm designed for hunting, such as a shotgun is just as effective as a handgun, if not more so, in situations where guns ARE used for self defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Badass 11-year-old girl! :tup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 so the girl shot the guy while he was running out of the house? doesn't that mean it wasn't self defense at that point? isn't she in trouble? i'm kidding...sort of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Tuesday, May 15, 2007Phillip MorrisPlain Dealer Columnist A free provocative news story and 'Joe Camel' moneyclip with every carton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Tuesday, May 15, 2007Phillip MorrisPlain Dealer Columnist A free provocative news story and 'Joe Camel' moneyclip with every carton. I think Phillip Morris must be the author. If this is the Plain Dealer that started out way back when as a Labor paper, it couldn't possibly be owned by Phillip Morris. Maybe the name of the paper is just a coincidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 So, the first story, sort of supports the argument that a gun is NOT necessary for self defense. In fact, one could argue that if the State Rep HAD pulled a handgun out of his pocket in self defense, he could have been shot. The second story, only re-enforces the gun-control argument that handguns are not necessary weapons in society, even for self-defense, and that a firearm designed for hunting, such as a shotgun is just as effective as a handgun, if not more so, in situations where guns ARE used for self defense. You first statement seems to assume that if he had a gun with him he could have been shot--but ignores the fact that he could have been shot anyway. And saying that the example of the girl protecting herself with a shotgun is proof that others who want a gun for self protection shouldn't need a handgun just doesn't make sense. I mean, can you picture the guy in the first story stopping by McDonalds with a shotgun slung over his shoulder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) So, the first story, sort of supports the argument that a gun is NOT necessary for self defense. In fact, one could argue that if the State Rep HAD pulled a handgun out of his pocket in self defense, he could have been shot. The second story, only re-enforces the gun-control argument that handguns are not necessary weapons in society, even for self-defense, and that a firearm designed for hunting, such as a shotgun is just as effective as a handgun, if not more so, in situations where guns ARE used for self defense. You first statement seems to assume that if he had a gun with him he could have been shot--but ignores the fact that he could have been shot anyway. And saying that the example of the girl protecting herself with a shotgun is proof that others who want a gun for self protection shouldn't need a handgun just doesn't make sense. I mean, can you picture the guy in the first story stopping by McDonalds with a shotgun slung over his shoulder? Your first statement implies that a criminal who is threatened is not any more dangerous than one who is not. The fact is, that in this particular scenario, the victim was NOT shot. A conclusion that a concealed weapon would have done little to change for the better, and perhaps much to change for the worse. Your second statement assumes that I was treating these two separate incidents as dependent variables, whereas I was treating them as independent variables. I understand that my argument is flawed in this respect, but each case in isolation from one another does little, in my mind, to strengthen any "pro-gun" arguments. I am not a gun-control liberal. I was merely pointing out that these two reports have very little to do with the thread's title. Edited May 25, 2007 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I agree that people act differently when threatened. I believe deciding whether you want to risk escalating a situation by pulling a gun out is your decision--not ours. I do not assume these are dependent variables. I was using the first story as an example for the argument I had against your second statement. If it makes it more clear for you I can use a different example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I do not assume these are dependent variables. I was using the first story as an example for the argument I had against your second statement. If it makes it more clear for you I can use a different example. That's the point I was driving at. I'm aware that the first story counters the argument I presented in response to the second story. But the story taken alone (without the counter example), could be used to make a logical argument in support of INCREASED gun control, based on many gun control arguments that are made today (i.e. handguns are unnecessary tools designed to kill other humans only, and claiming that they are NEEDED to protect one's home and safety is not necessarily true). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I believe deciding whether you want to risk escalating a situation by pulling a gun out is your decision--not ours. That's fine, others on the opposite side of the argument don't, however. And I don't believe that the constitution grants gun-ownership as an inalienable right free from restriction, as many gun-rights advocates argue it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I'm sorry, but I am not following you. Sometimes I am super slow, and right now is one of those times. Will you flesh out your argument #2 for me again? I am going to reread through your posts too. Hope I am not frustrating you, I just want to understand what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLCAPS Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I LOVE GUNS. NOTHING LIKE GENTLY SQUEEZING THE TRIGGER, THE RECOIL, THE SMELL OF GUNPOWDER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) You're not frustrating me at all, I hope I'm not frustrating you. I can't believe I got as into this as I did. Perhaps I'm the one who is mistaken. I just think that neither of these cases, when examined individually in a bubble, does anything to support the "right" or "need" to carry a concealed weapon. In the first instance, a concealed weapon would have done nothing to create a more favorable outcome, and perhaps would have contributed to a less-favorable one. In the second instance, the intruders were at a tactical disadvantage, and a shotgun was effective at protecting a home, a very different situation than an open air confrontation. This particular case has no bearing whatsoever on the handgun/concealed weapon argument, other than to reinforce the notion that a shotgun is a sufficient tool for protecting a home from intruders. My overall point, I guess, is that EXAMPLES that ostensibly support unrestricted gun-ownership in society, don't always do so under close scutiny, and for each one, a counter example exists. These types or arguments are less compelling to me that a philosophical argument such as the one you presented above (i.e. it is not our decision as a culture to take the gun out of an individual's hand. Edited May 25, 2007 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I LOVE GUNS. NOTHING LIKE GENTLY SQUEEZING THE TRIGGER, THE RECOIL, THE SMELL OF GUNPOWDER. I'd pop a cap in yo' ass, Owen Meany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 My overall point, I guess, is that EXAMPLES that ostensibly support unrestricted gun-ownership in society, don't always do so under close scutiny, and for each one, a counter example exists. These types or arguments are less compelling to me that a philosophical argument such as the one you presented above (i.e. it is not our decision as a culture to take the gun out of an individual's hand. Ah ha!! I get it! I agree these are not the strongest arguments for gun rights. Of course, I don't see where they are arguing for unrestricted gun ownership (the man in the first story is appying for his CW permit and everyone under a certain age (30 y/o in WA) has to also get a permit (hunter saftey) to handle a weapon) but I think you may mean that these stories won't work as fodder for someone who does believe in unmoderated free-for-all guns-in-every-home ownership. Whew, I am done thinking for the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 An 11 year old who killed two men is going to need a little counseling. I've been told that a shotgun is the business for home defense. I suspect playing a little pocket recorder with the sound of pump shotgun being racked would make an intruder scramble for the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 the one about the eleven-year-old is fiction/urban legend. google it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Doh! I meant to do that. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) I'm so glad there are few* handguns in canada!! * IF you get shot by one you likely deserved it. The reason being 3 weeks ago I ran out of my house when I hear a woman screeming. I saw a man ontop of her punching hear in the head with both hands . When I ran out side he took off. I had no idea he had left to go inside his home to find a weapon. When he came back walking slow and delibrite I had no idea he had a cooking knife concealed agaist his arm. Had it been a concealed gun he could have shot me, my nabour armed with a sand wedge and his severaly beaten mother. At very close range. Insead what happend is he charged at his mother from about 10 ft away stabbing her in the chest. MY nabor responded inturn with a devistatingly hard strike of the golf club to the back of the attacker head. Hard enough to splatter me from 8-10ft away. My point: If someone charges from ten ft away w/ a knife having a side arm wouldn't help becuse there isn't enough time to draw and fire( I know this because my wife is an RCMP officer in training and cops can't draw and fire that fast. Thats why they come out guns drawn) So us having guns wouldn't help. The attacker was a psycho, to the point that after having a large divit removed from the back of his head he still wanted to fight. If he found a gun instead of a knife he probable would have shot both of us first then his mother followed by shooting at the police. At the end of the night everyone survived, no shots fired. If there where guns, people ( the wrong people) would be dead!!! Glad the cops had guns!!!! It took a 10 of them some w/ MP5's and shot guns to convince him to get down. My story endend with 3 hours of "sleep" an 0600 wake up and a mild epic on st. Vetis dance. Somthing about a stuck rope, a stranded leader, wet rock and me soloing in my tennies. epic weekend, no shots fired. Tanner Edited May 25, 2007 by Tanner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 The second story is an urban legend see snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 What? You mean a debate on gun laws should be based on actual facts? You guys are re-writing the rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 guns attract violence. inner peace attracts love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.