On the third of this month, the quick thinking of a Syracuse store owner illustrated the importance of our Second Amendment right. That is, the right to keep and bear arms.

Last Tuesday, Court Street convenience store owner Kaied Hindi defended his store from a handgun-wielding, would-be robber. Hindi possessed no weapon when he protected his store, but what took place illustrates, in part, why every law-abiding citizen’s right to carry a fire arm should be preserved.

As the robber entered the store, Hindi was in the back room saying his daily prayer. Meanwhile, his son worked at the cash register. Just before 9 p.m., the robber entered the store and picked up a drink to bring to the counter, but instead of buying the drink, he pulled out a gun. With the weapon on Hindi’s son, the thief motioned for the cash.

Hearing the commotion, Hindi came out of the back room armed with a cellphone, but he did not call the police. Instead, Hindi held a cellphone open as if it were a gun and pointed it at the robber, uttering these words: ‘Get out and put the gun down; if you shoot my son, I shoot you.’ The ruse worked. Convinced that Hindi was holding a loaded weapon and willing to use it, the robber relented.

Hindi later said, ‘When something happens, always, I pray for God to make it safe’ in a statement to WSYR-TV. This brings us back to the 2008 campaign trail when then-Sen. Barack Obama explained his trouble capturing the Pennsylvania working-class vote. He said, ‘It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’

It is unfortunate our president would be surprised by the existence of a man like Hindi – a devout person, clinging to the closest representation of a firearm he possessed.

Hindi, a Palestinian from Jerusalem, is clearly not anti-immigrant or against people who aren’t like him. He and his son suspect the would-be robber was the same man who previously came into their store short on cash. A week before the robbery, they compassionately allowed him to purchase a drink 50 cents short. Regarding this, Hindi said, ‘We’re good with the customers. We help everybody. If they are poor we help them.’

Clearly, he is a man with empathy toward all people, not antipathy. He is someone who would possess a firearm to protect himself, his family and his business, not to express his frustration.

Although Obama was not talking about Hindi, his generalization about why people are religious or why they own firearms is terribly inaccurate.

Conservatives believe a number of things about gun ownership. First, we believe firearms serve as a tool for individuals to protect their rights. Second, we believe the right to own firearms protects the people from dictatorship and would protect Americans in the case of foreign military occupation. Third, we believe restrictions on lawful citizens’ gun ownership protect criminals and endanger the public. The events at the convenience store illustrate two out of three of these beliefs.

These events show how someone can lawfully use the threat of a weapon to protect their rights. Hindi compelled the thief to leave only by acting as though he had a firearm. He did this to protect his right to live, his son’s right to live and their right to operate a business free from criminal threat.

Granted, even if he had a firearm, his actions could have gotten him killed. Because of this, the anti-gun crowd would likely say he should have instead used his phone to call the police. However, sometimes the police are not there and cannot arrive in time. Because of these cases, notwithstanding the risk, law-abiding Americans should have the option to carry a firearm and the freedom to protect their own rights when the government cannot.

The second point illustrated is gun restrictions on lawful citizens enable crime. Suppose liberals turn America into a gun-free zone. In this alternate universe, the robber comes into Hindi’s store and pulls out a handgun. As he is about to demand all of the money, he sees the government ‘gun-free zone’ sign hanging behind the counter. Anti-gun activists believe the robber would respond, saying, ‘Oh, well, this is embarrassing. I see we are in a gun-free zone. I better leave now.’ Surely, no one reasonable believes this would be the case.

If the left turns America into a gun-free zone, the only people without guns will be those who follow the law, and as a result, criminals will be empowered and law-abiding citizens will be disenfranchised.

Michael Stikkel is a sophomore computer engineering major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu. 

Published on April 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm