Virginia Beach Victim Couldn't Arm Herself Because of a City Policy. The Shooter Simply Ignored It.
The day before Kate Nixon was killed by Dewayne Craddock in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, she spoke with her husband about taking a gun to her job for protection from Craddock but chose not to because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.
According to The Virginian-Pilot, Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Jason Nixon, Kate Nixon’s husband, recounted the couple’s conversation Monday in an interview with WHRV radio’s “Hearsay with Cathy Lewis.”
The evening before the shooting, Kate Nixon was specifically discussing whether she should “take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She was afraid for her safety because of Craddock and one other person.
However, because of the city policy, Kate Nixon went to work on May 31 without a weapon.
That same day, Craddock, a city public utilities engineer, ignored the city’s anti-weapon policy, took his gun to work and killed 12 people, including Kate Nixon.
“The night before it happened they had that discussion,” Martingayle said, according to The Pilot. “There was obviously something big going on.”
Craddock had been acting oddly at work and had physical altercations prior to that day, The New York Times reported.
Whatever her reason, Kate Nixon was afraid to go to work. She wanted to protect herself. And her best option for protection would have been to either stay home or carry a firearm.
If she chose the former, she would have lost her job and she could not have stayed home indefinitely.
In the latter case, she could have taken a firearm, but risked criminal prosecution or losing her job for violation of the policy.
It is anecdotal evidence for sure, but it illustrates how regulations meant to protect often are what strip citizens of their best means of protection.
A law-abiding Kate Nixon chose to obey the policy. A law-ignoring Craddock brought his weapon and murdered Nixon and her co-workers.
We can never predict what would have happened that day had Kate Nixon had had a gun. But if that policy were not in place, two things would have been different for sure.
First, one would suspect that Nixon, and possibly others, would have been armed, and therefore the outcome on May 31 could have been very different.
Second, Craddock wouldn’t have had confidence that he was walking into a building full of unarmed targets. Surely, that would have given him pause or caused him to not commit his act altogether.
No policy can ever eliminate evil. But since we know evil is present, it makes the most sense to me to give the good people of America the best means with which to combat it.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
