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.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That cat clearly needs its own gun!

[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?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

No, I did not miss that fact. It simply does not imply a threat to the children.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

What you are implying is that the criminal should be given the benefit of the doubt essentially forcing the victims, the woman and the children, to assume the risks to their safety for the benefit of the criminal. Why you think anyone is due a warning before being shot after breaking into a home is a bit baffling. Anyone attempting a home invasion realizes that being shot is a risk of breaking into someones home.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

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

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There is no need to assume risk. Burglars break into houses to steal things, not to hurt people. The guy probably assumed nobody was home because nobody answered the door when he rang the bell.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

That is called the benefit of the doubt.

[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.

[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?

[stewstewstewdio.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.

Likely? That sounds awfully flimsy to me. Sounds like these guys are just looking for excuses to carry (much like the 40 year old virgin with condoms).

You live in Englewood? Or perhaps Humboldt Park? You ever seen anyone shot where you live?

I was born in the Homboldt Park area. A close cousin was raised there. No. I have never seen anyone shot, although I have been illegally threatened with a shotgun. That still hasn’t inspired me to look for any lame excuse to carry.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I'm still not seeing any evidence of necessity. Only paranoia and flimsy excuses.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Likely in the sense that he was in a bar that happened to have a man shooting people indiscriminately until he was stopped by someone who retrieved his weapon from the gun check.

Sounds like these guys are just looking for excuses to carry (much like the 40 year old virgin with condoms).

I'm not sure why wanting to protect yourself is labeled as an excuse.

I was born in the Homboldt Park area.

If that is you in the icon... that was long ago, and a different place from what it is today. So what is it about you growing up in the Chicago "area" that gives you special judgmental powers, since you never seem to have actually experienced any gun violence? You obviously don't live in a bad area. Hell, I lived in a bad area on Chicago's southside for less than a year and had to call 911 due to shootings four times that I remember off-hand.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Is that because you are drawing on all that experience of hard living in the Chicago area?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

No. Because I am seeing nothing that warrants being lethally armed for no apparent reason other than the contrived hypotheticals that you have presented.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Because violent crime is so rare, right?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, you believe what you want to believe regardless of any other information that comes your way. Excellent.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

No, because as the OP describes, it seems that these magical occurrences of gun defense that everybody seems to be so ready for are so rare.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

No. That would make me just like you. Impress me with your fantasy version of the truth.