“Gun violence” is supposed to be bad. Right?
Not long after the New Year, a woman in Loganville, Georgia, was working in the upstairs office of her home when she spied someone lurking outside.
The suspicious man, Paul Slater, was about to break into her home with a crowbar. Fortunately, before he could do that, the woman hid herself and her two nine-year-old twins in an attic crawlspace. Unfortunately, Slater found out where they were hiding. Fortunately, the woman had a gun; as soon as the intruder menacingly presented himself, she shot him.
Alas, after shooting six times and hitting Slater five, the woman ran out of bullets. But she had the presence of mind to tell the would-be assailant that she would fire again if he moved. Then she took the kids to a neighbor. The thug tried to escape in his car, but was too seriously injured to get far.
“My wife is a hero,” her husband told WSB-TV. “She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as a responsible, prepared gun owner.”
Responding to the fact that the invader was only partly subdued before the gun owner ran out of bullets, Glenn Reynolds (“InstaPundit”) says: “See, this is where one of those ‘assault weapons’ might have come in handy.”
An InstaPundit reader expands upon the point: “What if there had been multiple attackers? Then that 30-round clip suddenly seems appropriate.”
Indeed. And disarming the just sure seems like a poor way to reduce gun violence.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.