As those that honor the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment, know, lawful, defensive uses of firearms garner scant media attention. Such success stores just don’t fit the standard media narrative of “guns bad.” When these fortunate, and very common, incidents are mentioned, details are often scarce, and attention to factual detail is not a priority, as was in the case in this recent defensive gun use in Chicago. Local station Fox 59 reports:
A Chicago woman with a concealed carry license killed an armed robber Tuesday morning, WGN-TV reports.
Police say the 25-year-old woman was standing at a corner and possibly waiting for a bus in Chicago’s Fernwood neighborhood when a man armed with a weapon tried to rob her.
The woman showed the robber her gun and shot him in the neck.
WGN-TV reports he ran from the scene. He made it one block before he stopped, and he was transported to Christ Hospital where he later died. Police say he was 19 years old.
The woman has a concealed carry license, and she shot the robber—who had his own gun—but that’s pretty much the end of accuracy. The robber and the victim were black, and the robbery attempt took place in a bad part of Chicago (is there a good part?). He pulled the gun on her and wrestled her to the ground, where she managed to draw her handgun and shoot him in the neck. He got up and ran away, and she ran from the area a short time later.
Blogs whose authors are glad an honest young woman wasn’t injured, and another predator will prey on the innocent no more, expressed that sentiment, and noted yet another of as many as two million lawful defensive gun uses each year. This, of course, did not sit well with the left, as The Federalist reports:
A 25-year-old woman in Chicago defended herself against an armed attacker with her own legally concealed weapon. But according to Think Progress’ LGBTQ Editor Zack Ford, “’That’s not how justice works.’ [skip]
Yet, Ford’s sympathy lies not with the victim of the attack, but with the assailant who he labels a ‘would-be mugger.’ Ford’s logic concludes that a woman must first determine the motives of her attacker before she has the right to defend herself.
What is Think Progress? The invaluable Discover The Networks explains:
Think Progress is a ‘project’ of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a ‘sister advocacy organization’ of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress(CAP) and CAP’s entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matterswebsite edited by David Brock.
Think Progress is an Internet blog that ‘pushes back, daily,’ by its own account, against its conservative targets, and supports the APAF agenda: to transform ‘progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.’ Think Progress promotes an agenda identical to that of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
‘What We’re Fighting For,’ says the Think Progress website, are: ‘Social and Economic Justice,’ ‘Healthy Communities,’ ‘Global Leadership’ and ‘A Secure America.’ These terms are code for an agenda that is anti-capitalist, suspicious of the American military, obsessed with multilateral restraints on U.S. power, and distributionist in domestic fiscal matters.
Let us, gentle readers, fact check Ford’s reflexively leftist tweet:
* No one is “thrilled,” but many are glad she was unharmed because she was lawfully armed and prepared to defend her life in a bad part of Chicago against a vicious thug. It is highly likely this woman was not the only victim of this ex-predator, and had he succeeded, she would not have been the last. No rational person is glad for the death of another, but it is entirely rational to be grateful a criminal who could easily have killed that innocent young woman will never again commit such crimes.
* Ford’s idea of “justice” has nothing to do with actual justice under the law. It is, to him, a matter of social justice. When attacked, particularly by a minority, one should simply give them whatever they want and, because of unspecified past injustices to which these criminals have never been exposed, allow them to do whatever else pleases them.
* The legal reality is the victim was facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. That’s not theft, but an imminent threat of murder. Faced with that, she was legally authorized to use deadly force in response. To argue that her attacker was merely trying to commit theft, and therefore, she should meekly submit, ignored reality, common sense, the law and logic. It is the reflexive response of an anti-liberty/gun zealot ,and leftist apologist for vicious criminals. Ford would rather she be dead, and then robbed, than allow her, or any honest, law-abiding citizen to be armed to protect themselves and their loved ones against the imminent threat of death.
* The victim, struggling with a much larger, stronger criminal, on the ground and trying not to be shot, managed to overcome him and live. The only reason she is alive is because of her concealed handgun and the will to use it. Ford would apparently have it otherwise. He would have her, and all women, at the mercy of male thugs, people who prove, by their actions, they have no mercy.
One can only imagine the blowback on this, but it was sufficient to cause even a hard leftist like Ford to hastily backpedal:
Translation: I’ve destroyed the evidence and I hope it is flushed down the memory hole.
First Translation: I don’t really think people have the right to defend themselves, and particularly not with guns, but I got caught in a gaffe—I actually told the truth about what I really think—so I have to try to get the heat off.
Second Translation: I don’t talk about violence between blacks in Chicago or elsewhere, unless I can blame it on white people, but I really screwed up by telling the truth, so…
First Translation: That absolutely was my intention, and that was exactly what I said, but I got caught, so…
Second Translation: I’m finally telling the whole truth—I don’t believe in self-defense—so I’m ignoring the fact the victim was not at all safe, and the only reason she’s alive is her gun. I’m also ignoring the fact that guns in the hands of the law abiding are never the problem, but I’m happy to disarm them because criminals are an important leftist constituency.
Translation: See how well I use “I’d like to buy the world a Coke” buzz words? I bet the suckers buy it. “Good faith” means the law-abiding give up their guns, which will absolutely end gun violence against criminals, and ensure the government can do whatever it wants without resistance from annoying, deplorable normals.
The thread accompanying his faux apology contains comments suggesting Ford is sincere, and even noble for admitting his “mistake.” While it is possible for leftists to change their spots, it does not take place in an instant, nor should anyone take an apology made under duress as an indication of sincerity and future intentions. To be sure of such tings takes time. Consider this from the Federalist article:
It should also be noted that this is not the first time Ford has taken a stand against female victims. Think Progress actively supports policies forcing women to share public bathrooms and showers with men, who for all we know are ‘would-be muggers’ and ‘would-be rapists.’
Ford’s knee jerk, angry response is fairly representative of those that share his philosophies, which equally fairly encompasses the Democrat Party, the Media, and organizations like Think Progress. Perhaps he is sincerely sorry. Perhaps he said things he didn’t mean. Perhaps he believes that “gun violence” will be magically eliminated by disarming the law abiding who commit no violence by any means.
Oh, and note this Ford tweet, posted the day after his victim scolding tweet, and the same day his supposedly sincere “apologies” were posted:
Oh yeah. Can’t have anyone glad for the second Amendment and the means of self-defense. Let’s make it fair, take everyone’s guns away and let hulking male thugs attack diminutive women. That way there won’t be any violence, or at least, it won’t take long, and the thugs won’t be in any danger. Ford is really, really sorry, and he’s absolutely going to change his ways.