An altercation outside a Dublin bar at 4:30am that goes bad? Who could have seen that coming? Journalist Eugene Maloney sure didn’t and was killed by a single punch. “While he didn’t die because of his work, his death has still raised major concerns over an increasingly violent society that has left devastated families struggling to cope with sudden loss. Joan Deane, chair of victims support group AdVIC, said, ‘It’s certainly no secret that a lot of young people are out roaming the streets when they are drunk, and sometimes when they’re on drugs.’” Maloney’s problem was he lived in Ireland where armed self defense isn’t an option (legally). Even if he’d been packing he probably wouldn’t have seen the guy behind him who delivered the fatal blow. But  . . . deterrence. And the extra situational awareness that [usually] accompanies concealed carry. You’ve heard it before: avoid stupid people things doing stupid things in stupid places. Oh, and remember: the way the enlightened bon vivants who occupy MAIG and the other dank corners of the Gun Control Industrial Complex view things, this little tragedy went down just as it should have.  [h/t Billy W.]

Recommended For You

30 Responses to It Should Have Been a DGU: One Punch Edition

  1. Actually I think the Irish version of the Supreme Court was either in the process of reviewing or ruled in favor of the right to self defense. However, concealed carry is definitely a no go.

  2.  “Oh, and remember: the way the enlightened bon vivants who occupy MAIG and the other dank corners of the Gun Control Industrial Complex view things, this little tragedy went down just as it should have. ”

    That is, unless it is their lives in danger. Then in that case it is guns out and blazing.

    Remember, they have a RIGHT TO LIVE BUT NOT US LOWLY PEASANTS!

    I loved that press release where it stated because of all the perceived threats that “High-level” officials encounter (when and where? & more importantly why?) that they desrve the utmost in security.

    Uhhh, well, we the people, as the “Highest-level” of persons (circa B.J.F.s’ assertion “…Now I return to the ruling class.”), deserve every last available means of self-defense as they claim thwy deserve, need, whatever.

  3. Ban fists!

    Seriously though, MAIG aren’t the only ones who downplayed the how dangerous assaults by “unarmed” assailants could be. People die all the time from punches, kicks, being thrown down into hard surfaces, etc. There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

    • It really is remarkable how many people believe our society – and by that I mean most of the industrialized world with some very notable exceptions – is more violent than it was in the past. When discussing gun rights with friends and family who are pro-gun control, almost every single one of them is shocked when I tell them our homicide rate is half of what it was 20 years ago, when they thought nothing of letting their kids roam around the neighborhood all day without a tracking device implanted on them. 24/7 news and the internet is creating far too many people who are more than willing to trade a liberty for the illusion of security.

  4. The Queen likes her subjects subjected, and defenseless. I’m sure she’ll attend the lad’s funeral.

    • “The Queen likes her subjects subjected, and defenseless”
      Could you direct inquiring minds to a reference that supports your statement?

    • Actually, while British royalty do serve a necessary part in the running of the Commonwealth, they’ve little direct power.

      They were unable to stop the slow, national suicide which started right after the war, with rifles being dumped into the sea or used as rebar.

      The Queen Mother, Queen and various other Nobility have often talked — at times railed — against Statism, wimpism and civilian disarmament, but while they may guide they cannot force.

      When Northern Ireland laid own their arms and agreed to a seat at the table, they insisted on making their own laws [with specific reference to remaining an armed society, even citing the U.S. as an example] and she cheered, applying what influence she could to the meeting of that demand.

      The U.K. is a democratically run nation, but there are no Constitutional safeguards against tyrany by the majority — and with tyrants ruling the rookery that’s unlikely to change.

      She did have strong words with Blair, but of course couldn’t fire him.

      The Queen laments the state of her subjects and dominion, but cannot directly assist them or repair it.

      • EDIT: Before being Queen, Elizabeth was a truck mechanic on the front lines during the Big One. Charles is a qualified soldier with considerable experience, Andrew has played dodge-missile in a helicopter.

        The Windsors, the Tudors and so on have always lead from the front, a thing our politicians might wish to emulate.

        If only the Constitution of 1688 had put restrictions on Parliament — instead of just the Monarchy — so that they could not invalidate any part of it they wish on a whim.

        A disarmed people violates the Constitution and English Common Law, but Parliament can do that.

        We didn’t invent RKBA. Part of what set the Revolution motion was the attempt to disarm us, in contravention of British law. We lost our temper and threw down the gauntlet in response to a double standard imposed by Parliment.

        Much of what we are we owe to them, even though they’ve now lost their way even more than we.

        Hell with it. Probably noone’s reading this anyway.

    • Dublin is in the Republic of Ireland. Last time I checked they were no longer part of the United Kingdom The Queen and the Parliament in London had no authority over them. Perhaps you have some new information that I missed that The Republic has decided to rejoin the UK. I am surprised no one else caught this obvious error.

  5. Crap. Had he been in Belfast, things might’ve been different.

    Northern Ireland has some of the best gun laws in the world.

    • You sure on that one, Russ? My ancestral home requires a police issue permit, no rifles over .22, and a handful of proficiency and safety tests before you can own anything resembling a big boy gun.

      • I didn’t say that they had 2A, but they’re pretty good.

        While a permit is may issue, in practice it’s shall issue – unless you’re a known brawler.

        It’s pretty much left to the dealers to ensure that people know the Four Rules and such, and things work out pretty well.

        Yes, one needs to provide a reason, but “because I’d like to have a good means of self defense” is accepted without question. You needn’t prove any specific danger or such nonsense.

        They’re far better than the rest of the U.K, and better than about a third to half of our Sates, Republics, Commonwealths, territories and District.

    • IIRC, in order to carry in Northern Ireland one needs a permit, which is “may issue.” To get one requires a proof of need, two references, a medical history and membership in a club or permission from a landowner to shoot there. Gun safes are required and have to be fastened to a building. Less than 3,000 people are licensed to possess “Personal Protection Weapons” out of a population of 1.8 million.

      In other words, yes, Northern Ireland’s gun laws are better than any in the Empire, but that is faint praise. The best gun laws in Europe are in the Czech Republic with about 250,000 permits in a pop of 10 million or so, but it’s no bed of roses there either.

      • Yeah, I’m not saying that they’re perfect; they’re not.

        However, far more people could be armed there, as there’s virtually no red tape and no social stigma to gun ownership.

        And I’ll insist that as world laws go they’re in the relatively-free camp — unlike much of the U.S.

        ‘Course, a serious war of self-determination only just more-or-less ended; they’re still skittish. There are likely also quite a few weapons lying around whose existence is known only to their owners.

        In Belfast at least a handgun is easily possible — unlike New York City.

        BTW, as silly as it sounds “personal defense” and “personal protection” differ. The first is for any gal who feels uncomfortable at night, while the second is for a credible threat or security concern. For the latter, even fully automatic weapons are acceptable.

      • EDIT: To the best of my knowledge; things might’ve changed.

        Anyway, even Londinum likely beats New York…

        • Russ, it’s unfair to compare any other place to the insane asylum that is New York City.

          BTW, hoplophobic MA has a pop of 6.8 million, of whom 750,000 have some kind of permit for pistols or rifles, and at least 250,000 have class A licenses to carry.

        • Hanguns are for fighting your way back to your rifle, which you should’ve been able to legally own in the first damn place! Stoopid Irish! 🙂

  6. He was coming out of a pub at 4:30 in the morning? Wonder what his blood alcohol content was? Would he have been in any kind of shape to have used a gun to protect himself with?

  7. Closing time for pubs in Ireland is between 11:00 pm and 12:30 am, depending on the day of the week.

    The article says that the deceased “had been at a party with friends,” so who knows.

  8. Wait a minute. Lots of people, especially civilian disarmament advocates, keep telling me that fists (punches) are not dangerous and certainly are not a “valid” reason to use a firearm for self-defense. How can this be?

    /sarcasm

    This is the second example in the last two weeks or so where an attacker punched a victim and the punch caused the victim’s death. Can someone please explain how an attacker — who has nothing but fists and is of sufficient stature — is not a threat capable of producing great bodily harm or death? And let’s up the ante. An attacker could have martial arts skills as well which means their feet (kicks) are capable of much more devastating blows than their fists. So why is a victim supposed to take on an attacker in hand-to-hand combat when the attack is a de-facto statement of the attacker’s intent to commit great bodily harm?

    Methinks it is time to adjust our notion that an “unarmed” attacker is only a serious threat after the attacker has inflicted great bodily harm or death. In my view it should be legally justified self defense for a victim to draw and point their gun (without shooting) an aggressor who has no visible weapons other than their fists and feet.

    • It is the law in most US states that you need not wait until an attacker has actually caused serious bodily injury. The question seems most often to come down to how reasonable it was for you to assume the attacker had the ability, and immediate intent to cause such injury. An attacker using only fists often disguises that intent. This is one reason that alertness and knowledge are valuable. If you sense harmful intent and move away, but the person changes direction with you and closes (and you can convince a jury this happened) then odds seem to improve. If the attacker had no natural purpose to be in the area, that can help. If he has a record of such attacks, that may or may not prove useful. In general, the issue raises Ralph’s comment about training courses…that they ought to ofter courses in retreating safely, too.

  9. “Nothing good happens after 2:00AM.”

    Unless you’re looking for a perfect world, some people are just gonna get killed sometimes… gun probably wouldn’t have helped, and might have ended up in the hands of the killer. That’s not to say it’s a reason to ban guns, it’s just not like this specific example would have been helped by one…

  10. “You’ve heard it before: avoid stupid people things doing stupid things in stupid places.”

    I suspect that “an altercation outside a Dublin bar at 4:30am” would meet that definition. In fact, an altercation outside any bar at any time probably meets that definition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *