On Gun Defense

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater

I had been searching for this for, what seems like, years. When gun debates come up, there is always a reference to self defense. I have Googled, Yahoo!ed and Binged and have never been able to see what a clear cut gun defense looked like until I ran across this story in the Washington Post.

I have always given gun rights advocates the benefit of the doubt and thought that the main stream media was unfairly shying away from gun defense cases because of some code of honor, political leanings or liability reasons. When I read this article, I was astonished at some of the things I discovered from it, such as:

1. This was not a personal assault on the street, but a home invasion that required the victim to retrieve a gun from a safe and hide with her children in an area of this house that she hoped would be out of harm's way. There was no concealed carry involved.


2. The victim has remained very private about the experience. No talk shows, no interviews, no publicity at all. The only statements made were from the police reports.


3. All of the boasting has come from outside sources such as the NRA, Fox News and talking head radio shows.


4. It has become apparent that crime will probably be mitigated and reduced in that neighborhood. Not because everybody is packing firearms, but because crime mitigation procedures such as Neighborhood Watches, a larger police force and security measures are being implemented.


5. The biggest resulting braggadocio in the neighborhood has been the Walton County Sheriff, Joe Chapman, who was reduced to name calling in court calling the perpetrator a “dirt bag”.


6. The perpetrator was shot 5 times in the chest and face with a .38 caliber handgun and still was able to escape in his car until he crashed a few blocks later. He survived, was convicted and sent to prison.


7. The perpetrator was a resident of the community where he committed the crime.


8. The perpetrator’s wife now possesses a gun to protect herself in what has become an arms race.

A news item like this would be in the best interest of the news media, the gun lobby and the NRA to promote this kind of account. Yet, things like this never seem to make it into any kind of press. Instead, mass shooting tragedies are arrogantly passed off as acceptable losses and any attempts to reduce gun violence are written off as bothersome irritation. It has become dangerously obvious that concern for the security of gun activists' armaments far exceeds their concern for the security of the society in which they live.

The picture that was painted by this incident didn’t follow the Hollywood script types of stories that gun activists like to paint. It is becoming more apparent that the scenarios that gun activists portray are, at best, anecdotal and incredibly rare and the reality invokes images of trauma rather than heroism.

This narrative goes contrary to concealed carry rationalizations. This is a clear cut case of domain protection, and not personal assault. This story reinforces my belief that aside from military or law enforcement professionals, those who arm themselves in public, and mentally and emotionally prepare themselves to take a life suffer from paranoid delusional fantasies. I think it’s worth noting that in the cases of military or law enforcement, their carry is not concealed.

My observations are further supported by the exceedingly zealous views of rabid gun activists who believe that the solution to every conflict is to shoot their way out of it. I am convinced that ordinary citizens that insist on concealed carry for protection are directly parallel to 40 year old male virgins that carry condoms. They will probably never use them, but they entertain a fantasy that their moment can come at any time.

It would seem that the NRA would be better served by representing the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy ownership for hunting, target shooting and domain protection. Instead, they feast on the fringe implementation of paranoid fantasies to justify their cause. The American Civil War is over. It's time we quit treating our nation like a war zone.

Comments

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well that's a given that surviving a home invasion is about self-preservation and protection of your family, not heroism. Anyone who thinks they're going to be John McClane when they're in danger probably shouldn't own a gun...

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Well that's a given that surviving a home invasion is about self-preservation and protection of your family, not heroism.

Which would embody the true nature of the word defense.

Anyone who thinks they're going to be John McClane when they're in danger

Yet, that is the Hollywood style script that the NRA and the gun obsessed would like to project as their rationale for concealed carry.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I did not see anything in the story about the woman warning the intruder to back off before she opened fire. She clearly acted more out of an emotional reaction than out of rational thought. That can be seen by the fact that she emptied the gun into the guy, save one missed shot.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

She clearly acted more out of an emotional reaction than out of rational thought.

She was told to shoot by her husband. She was on the phone with him at the time. This guy is in prison for the crime, so obviously, that point is kinda moot now. There was no question that this was a home invasion and the life of their children was threatened. Courts tend to give a lot of leeway to the homeowner in those cases.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

So, it was not passion. She was just following orders.

I saw nothing in the story that would lead me to believe that the lives of the children were in danger. Perhaps I missed something.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I saw nothing in the story that would lead me to believe that the lives of the children were in danger. Perhaps I missed something.

You missed the fact that guy broke into the house?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The decision to defend herself and her children is based on the idea that being assaulted or killed is an undesirable consequence that can be avoided by self defense. If you follow the logic, it is a very rational decision.

Emptying the gun into him is also pretty sensible. It is reasonable to continue defensive actions until the threat can be confirmed to be neutralized. Even after taking all those bullets, the intruder was still mobile, still a threat.

You may be correct that the woman had an emotional reaction in the face of mortal danger. I wouldn't condemn her for that. In my view, it's understandable, and it didn't prevent her from getting the job done.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It does not seem like defense to me. It seems like an excessive use of force.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Emotional reaction? Well, duh, imagine that.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

She should learn to be more rational, they're just a couple of 9 year olds after all.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That cat clearly needs its own gun!

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Yes. Equal rights for cats.......unless they're gay. That would violate the Defense of Kitty Act.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"unless they're gay."

So Nyan Cat is right out I take it.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So, the millions of American's who hold concealed weapons permits are equivalent to " ...40 year old male virgins that carry condoms."

I think you inaccurately characterize these people. I have plenty of friends in Michigan who have a concealed gun permit, and none of them have Rambo fantasies about it. All of them have those permits in the hope they don't ever have to use them, but would rather not be left at the mercy of a criminal in that rare event that they hope never occurs.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I have plenty of friends in Michigan who have a concealed gun permit, and none of them have Rambo fantasies about it.

I live in the Chicago area, which isn't exactly White Picket Fence, USA. And your friends feel the need to be in an advanced state of preparedness ( much like the 40 year old virgin)? Based on what and whose experience?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Well, one carries because he was likely saved by a guy with a gun several years back in another state. Many others frequently travel to dangerous areas of Detroit or Flint. Some have the permit so they don't get in trouble for how they carry and transport their weapons while hunting.

I live in the Chicago area, which isn't exactly White Picket Fence, USA.
You live in Englewood? Or perhaps Humboldt Park? You ever seen anyone shot where you live?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

This looks like a good place to mention the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Study (2007-2011; released earlier this month) on the subject: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) The interesting thing about this study (which gun control advocates have been oddly quiet about; personally, I think you're missing an opportunity here) is not just that gun crimes are down 39% from 1993, but also that someone finally produced a fairly reliable number of DGUs. In the past, this has been a very elusive number ranging from over a million a year to mere hundreds, depending on the data used and how the numbers were crunched.

On page 12 we see that between 2007 and 2011, there were about 235,700 incidents in which the victim of a nonfatal violent crime used a firearm in self-defense. That is 58,900 incidents a year. I am not sure what 'nonfatal violent crime' means, but my guess is it just means no one- victim or perpetrator- died. Now, we can't say how many of these were over-reactions; the survey did not address that. All we have is Table 11, which shows that the majority of victims offered no resistance like good little noble victims, and more people used weapons other than firearms to defend themselves far more than they used firearms. Table 11 also shows that firearms were used by victims of violent crime about eight times more than by victims of property crime.

58,000 people a year is hardly what I would call a paranoid fantasy. Of course, this is for all cases of self-defense, not conceal-carry alone. That data is not tracked, although if we could come up with a viable number and assume the 0.8% figure applies universally, we could estimate how many DGUs are by CCL holders.

I will leave you with one more article to ponder: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UagsVNLqm6M (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UagsVNLqm6M)

"But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

All we have is Table 11, which shows that the majority of victims offered no resistance like good little noble victims, and more people used weapons other than firearms to defend themselves far more than they used firearms.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”

Which would indicate that the right-to-carry is an ineffective method of crime mitigation and minimally effective method of personal protection.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

At least one expert believes that CCLs are not the Wild West-causing bugaboo you think they are, too, though.

EDIT: not to mention the number of states adopting 'shall issue' conceal-carry laws increased dramatically about the same time (24 states since 1991; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States) and look for the blue states). I cannot claim there is a correlation because no one (to my knowledge) has attempted to prove a correlation. This also means that you cannot claim no correlation, however.

There's also a study conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2011 that showed that two-tenths of 1% of all crimes in the state (120 out of 63,679) were by CCW holders. This is Texas we're talking about here. If we can't create this perfect storm of out-of-control cowboy wannabes that the gun control advocates keep claiming will happen, then no one can.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

58,000 people a year is hardly what I would call a paranoid fantasy. Of course, this is for all cases of self-defense, not conceal-carry alone. That data is not tracked, although if we could come up with a viable number and assume the 0.8% figure applies universally, we could estimate how many DGUs are by CCL holders.

I would say the breakout of personal vs. domain protection would be pretty important in this case. I would tend to agree that domain protection with a gun is a reasonable precaution, much like a fire extinguisher would be. However, constantly lethally arming yourself as a protection would not be, much like constantly carrying a fire extinguisher would be.

Also, there is another number that would be incredibly helpful. That would be successful vs. failed DGU's. Successful DGU's would go in DGU category, but failed ones would just be buried in the crime statistics.

Regarding the 58,000 people? Considering the cult like fervor of the CCW, I would still stand by my statement of delusional paranoid fantasy. Considering 58,000 people out of a population of 330 million, that calcs out to seventeen thousandths of a percent. That doesn't sound unreasonable.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

If you consider 58k to low to worry about, then why do you find domain protection to be reasonable?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing: no one has the right to tell someone they should willingly be a victim if they potentially don't have to. So what if even one person a year cannot defend themselves from injury or death, at home or elsewhere? If you were to tell me it is my duty to be that guy, I'll laugh to your face. That strategy only makes sense if you're a sparrow.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I've been too emotionally and mentally exhausted to deal with politic of late, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't address this...

The onus of proof is not on the NRA and it's members/allies to show that guns are good. It is on gun control advocates to prove that they are bad. They are the ones in the position of trying to justify infringement on a specifically enumerated constitutional right, and as such their policy proposals should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as stricter censorship laws or a new poll tax.

Gun control advocates would have us believe that the story you linked to would have turned out better for all involved if the homeowner had simply given the perpetrator what he wanted, and I''m sorry but that is a conclusion that I simply can not countenance. They attack using the rhetoric of "If it saves just one life" but then write off incidents like the one above as paranoid fantasies and then hold up south Chicago as a shining example to be followed by the rest of the country to follow. Is it any surprise that anti-gun control advocates have drawn the obvious, and perfectly rational conclusion, that gun control was never about the guns or public safety but about control? A best at best gun-control advocates are simply naive, at worst they are making a cold calculation of self interest because they imagine that they could one day be in the shoes of the perpetrator and they don't want their victims to be able to respond in kind.

As for your suggestion.

The NRA tried that, it was called the 70s 80s and 90s. The result was a series of lost political battles and the shattering of rural Democrats as a voting block. In other words, it was a losing position. Fact remains that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target-shooting, it is about bearing arms. That's what rallies the votes and that's really what at the core of all of this. Gun control advocates believe that we should sacrifice autonomy to maintain an illusion of safety, I do not.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

The onus of proof is not on the NRA and it's members/allies to show that guns are good.

The entire and sole purpose of guns is to inflict death. That is bad. That is all the evidence you need. Everything else is just spin.

BTW, I agree with the woman's actions and would encourage this as a template in cases such as this.

And calling people naive doesn't negate your delusional paranoid fantasies that shooting your way out of any conflict is the only solution to any problem.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The entire and sole purpose of guns is to inflict death. That is bad. That is all the evidence you need. Everything else is just spin.


This is simply not true. One might as well try to argue the entire and sole purpose of knives is to slit throats.

...and even if it were true there are occasions were inflicting death, or the threat there of, is a perfectly rational and moral response.

And calling people naive doesn't negate your delusional paranoid fantasies that shooting your way out of any conflict is the only solution to any problem.

For that housewife and her two kids it wasn't a paranoid fantasy. Either incidents like the above occur or they don't. You may feel that the world had been a better place had she been raped, murdered, or whatever the perpetrator had in mind when he broke in, but I respectfully disagree.