While most of us were preparing to celebrate with friends and family on New Year’s Eve, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley of Oklahoma was defending herself and her 3-month-old infant from a pair of armed intruders.
(From Good Morning America)
McKinley had just lost her husband to cancer on Christmas day. On the day of her husband’s funeral, a man named Justin Martin dropped by and identified himself as a neighbor who had come to say hello. McKinley refused to allow him access to her home, and he went away. On New Year’s Eve Martin returned, accompanied by a man named Dustin Stewart and a 12-inch hunting knife. Both men began to circle the property, looking for ways in, and then began attempting to break in. McKinley gathered a 12 gauge shotgun, a pistol, locked herself and her baby into her bedroom and dialed 9-1-1. Through the 21-minute phone call, McKinley repeatedly asked if she was allowed to shoot the men if they broke into her home. The operator responded with, “"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby.”
When Martin eventually kicked in the door and came at McKinley with the hunting knife, she shot and killed him in response. Stewart later turned himself in to the police.
Given the released details of the story, I find it impossible to fault McKinley for her actions. Had she not had the shotgun that she used to slay her would-be attacker, we would probably be reading a very different headline right now:
Recently-Widowed Oklahoma Mother Raped, Murdered in Front of Own Child
Instead, we are reading the story about how a terrified woman protected herself and her child from two men who clearly did not have noble intentions towards her. In this situation, the police were not going to arrive in time to save the day: McKinley lives in an area that has a very long response time, so she could not count upon the cavalry.
This is one of those situations that the more rabid members of the right like to use to illustrate their belief that everyone should be armed and packing at all times, and that only us “liberal dooshebags[sic]” believe in any form of gun control. In these situations, it’s very hard to argue with that. There is a visceral response to this kind of story. I admit I have difficulty having any sympathy for Martin in this case, even though the man was clearly deranged. He was presenting an imminent threat to the life and limb of two people. He chose to assault a young mother (with a very deadly weapon) and he paid the price for it. I do feel terrible for his family. I feel worse for McKinley, who will now probably require quite a bit of counseling to accept the fact that she’s killed another human being, even in self-defense. I do not envy the nightmares she will experience where the situation goes from worse to worst. I hope that she will recover quickly.
I also hope that any wrongful death suit brought against her for this is laughed out of court and the offending party is slapped REALLY hard on the back of the head.
None of this, however, changes my overall stance on gun ownership in America. Unlike some people who occupy the left side of the political spectrum, I have no problem with private firearms ownership. I just want some common sense rules applied to it. For example, I believe that before one can own a firearm of any sort one should be required to pass a comprehensive safety and maintenance course similar to what we do before issuing someone a driver’s license. Since a car is a tool and a gun is a weapon (do not argue with me that a gun is primarily designed for any purpose OTHER than killing living beings, I will laugh in your face; Airsoft, paintball and the weaker bb guns do not count as firearms in this instance, though if grossly misused they can certainly cause harm,) some further restrictions, primarily to prevent people convicted of violent felonies and the safety of children, are also warranted. In addition, nobody needs to own a fully automatic assault rifle, a submachine gun or an antitank weapon (or other military-grade ordnance.) Depending on the day of the week, I’m also tentatively in favor of psychological tests. Some people just cannot be trusted with a firearm, sadly.
I do not wish to ban guns by any means. I happen to like shotguns as a home defense choice. They’re intimidating (the sound of a pump action is unmistakable and will brown the pants of anyone who hears it), ergonomically stable, and easy to use, even for a novice marksman. They’re also (usually) too large to be easily handled by a small child and aren’t generally kept loaded when not in use. Ammunition is also easily manufactured and inexpensive, but that’s another story. In McKinley’s circumstance, gun ownership also makes more sense from a security perspective: she lives in a more rural area and cannot count on a reliable law enforcement response to an imminent threat.
To me, this story doesn’t illustrate the need for us to be armed nor the idiocy of a belief in gun control laws. What it DOES illustrate, however, is the perfect circumstance for a reasoned debate about the subject, and the type of situation where the application of deadly force was justified by a person who was clearly left little choice: the defense of a helpless being.
Good luck, Sarah.
(Note: "liberal dooshebags" is courtesy of the Yahoo! comments section of this story. If you ever want to read unfiltered right-wing trolling writ large, I cannot recommend it enough. If you wish to retain your sanity, however, don't.)
Do you agree? Do you disagree? Would a taser or pepper spray have been a preferable (and nonlethal) alternative, or can you think of situations where deadly force is justified? I offer this comment space for a reasoned debate about the subject. I ask only that it be kept civil.