William The Coroner’s Forensic Files

Sunday, 28, September, 2008

I Should Know Better Than

Filed under: Social Commentary — williamthecoroner @ 10:55

To read the editorial section of the Cleveland paper. If the paid writers don’t piss me off, the letters to the editor will raise my blood pressure.

Today, we had a woman writing to complain about the “castle doctrine”. That new law strengthening the right of Ohioans to have firearms in their homes (and occasionally automobiles). This woman is concerned that having the ability to defend themselves will cause Ohioans–wait for it–to feel bad.

Guns are so powerful and evil that only trained police officers can be trusted to use them without suffering devastating psychological trauma. Because, you know, people might DIE.

People will die. Everyone will die. Even I will die, though I know that’s the last thing I’m going to do.

Think about it.

I respect her desire not to use or carry a firearm. I do not respect her thinking, nor will I allow her fears to strip me of my constitutional rights because she (or I might feel bad).   I work with and around armed individuals for a significant portion of the day.  The government paycheck isn’t magic, there are bozos with badges as well as bozos without badges.  It is a fundamental principle not to restrict people’s actions because of what they might do.  It is perfectly permissible to restrict people’s actions on the basis of what they have done, but what they might do?  Mr. Orwell, what was the definition of thoughtcrime again?

And if you start restricting the rights of others to make people feel better, to prevent them from taking actions because you, the collective you know better, where do you stop?  Let’s get rid of automobiles, they’re dangerous, discourage walking, pollute, and can be used by drunk drivers.  Let’s go and control people’s sexual expression, because we know better.  Let’s make sure everyone goes to bed at ten pm, and gets up at seven, and has a good breakfast, and calls their mommy promptly.

Or we can mind our own business, have people act like adults, and take responsiblity for their own actions.  Their OWN actions.  I can’t handle other people’s actions.


  1. There is one in every crowd, normally THOSE are the ones the papers pick to print, just to get a reaction from the people like us. I just ignore them, or ask them if they have insurance, or a fire extinguisher; if they say yes, I ask them why, that is what the police and fire departments are for…

    Comment by Old NFO — Sunday, 28, September, 2008 @ 14:56 | Reply

  2. Don’t they already do that in many instances?
    Restrict what you can do/say/wear because it “might” bother someone? Every word is now suspect of being offensive to another human being, the way you walk, the way you look at someone, the way you dress.
    Even now some states are letting people get new license plates because it might contain an offensive shorthand used on text messaging. Excuse me but it’s getting out of hand.
    But hey, what do I know. I’m just an average citizen losing more and more of my rights “for the good of society.”

    Thanx for letting me sound off.

    Comment by Easily Lost — Sunday, 28, September, 2008 @ 19:45 | Reply

  3. I doubt that letter writer will put up Shalom Zone signs and post a note by the doors stating:

    “Come on in, all miscreants who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. I don’t have a gun because it would make you feel less welcome.”

    Comment by Somerled — Monday, 29, September, 2008 @ 02:57 | Reply

  4. Or we can mind our own business, have people act like adults, and take responsiblity for their own actions. Their OWN actions.

    Jeez, personal responsibility is so retro! It’s much better to let Big +Daddy Government handle all that stuff for you.
    Now gimme my free stuff, and turn on “America’s next Top Slunt.”

    Comment by crankylitprof — Monday, 29, September, 2008 @ 07:13 | Reply

  5. The “Castle Doctrine” was a little more complex than that. Basically, it says you can shoot someone who’s anywhere on your property and behaving in a threatening manner (using the home owner’s subjective interpretation) with impunity. You don’t have to drag them back inside your house after killing them; whereas, before, you could only shoot an intruder who was fully inside your home.

    I live in Ohio, and haven’t heard of any crime problems as a result of this law.

    We did have an incident several years back where a group of kids from a “nice” neighborhood tormented a man they felt to be “weird” by throwing rocks at his house, shouting obscenities, ringing the doorbell and running, etc. One day the guy snapped and shot one of the teenagers, a popular cheerleader, in the head. She survived, but with brain damage.

    I’m not sure what became of the case, legally, but today the Castle Doctrine would give him immunity from prosecution because she was on his front door stoop, terrorizing him.

    That’s my understanding of the practical application of this legislation. This was not related to any Second Amendment violation prohibiting people from owning guns. We have had that right all along. Ohio also has a limited “concealed carry” law which was enacted several years ago, also a separate issue from the Castle Doctrine.

    Comment by mhf — Wednesday, 1, October, 2008 @ 11:42 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: