"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." -- Paul Johnson
In the raging gun control debate in this country, the subject of defensive gun use is one that the gun control lobby would like to keep away from the ears of the general public. After all, if there were more lawful defensive gun uses by common, law-abiding citizens than there were violent crimes committed with firearms by criminals, then the whole premise of their argument would simply fall apart. The entire basis of the anti-gun argument is that more guns leads to more violent crime.
Unfortunately, for gun control advocates, the reality is that defensive gun use is a very common occurrence. According to our own federal government's National Institute of Justice (US Department of Justice), there are at least 1.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) that occur in this country every year. Dividing 1.5 million DGUs by the number of days in a year (365) nets an average of 4,109 defensive gun uses every single day in this country. That is an average of 4,109 innocent victims that were able to defend themselves successfully against being murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed. Contrast this number with the 34 individuals that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York claims lose their lives to gun violence every single day and you can see the clear utilitarian benefit of a lawfully-armed general populace.
Even when factoring in all violent crimes as reported by our own federal government's Bureau of Justice Statistics (US Department of Justice) that are perpetrated by violent criminals with firearms--a total of 303,880 (832 per day) in 2008 (see Table 7), one can still see that there is a clear utilitarian benefit to the phenomenon of common, law-abiding citizens being armed in society.
However, these are facts that the gun control lobby doesn't want the general public to know about. After all, if guns were used almost 5 times more often by common, law-abiding citizens to stop violent crimes than violent criminals use them to attack and/or kill innocent victims, then the gun control lobby's primary argument would simply fall flat on its face.
But let us examine the phenomenon of defensive gun use on more personal terms. After all, citing cold, hard statistics hardly puts a human face on the reality and benefit of a lawfully-armed general populace. The gun control lobby likes to harp on news stories showing how guns are used in violent crimes every single day. However, when news stories appear regarding how common, law-abiding citizens were able to use legally-owned firearms to successfully defend themselves againt violent crime, the gun control lobby is virtually silent.
The truth is, defensive gun use is so common in our society that even pop-culture phenomenon, Paris Hilton, has experienced its benefits first hand. Just this past August, as a stalker tried to break into her house armed with two large knives, it was her quick-thinking boyfriend, Cy Waits, who came to her aid and held the would-be attacker at bay with a gun for half an hour before the police finally arrived to arrest the man. Just imagine what would have become of Paris Hilton should her boyfriend not have been around and she was not armed to be able to effectively defend herself. In the half hour it took the police to arrive, they would have likely shown up just in time to roll out a body bag and the tabloids would have just as likely reported on the earth-shattering news that one of the most well-known pop culture icons of our time had been violently murdered.
Contrast this story of lawful defensive gun use by a high-profile celebrity with the murder of a well-known movie star, Sharon Tate, and her friends, on March 23, 1969. These were the infamous Charles Manson murders that were so gruesome that they left an indelible mark on the social consciousness of our nation and redefined the term "Helter Skelter" from the beloved art of the Beatles to the thoughts scribbled in blood of a homicidal madman. Had the eight-months pregnant Tate or her friends been readily armed that day, the outcome of that horrendously violent crime could have been drastically different and society, at large, would have remained a little more innocent, at least for a time.
Or, take the instance of an armed robbery of one of Hollywood's most well-known and talented young actors, Kal Penn, of Harold and Kumar Go To Whitecastle fame. Penn had resigned from his position on the ever-popular TV show, House, to pursue a career with President Obama's Administration. However, because of Washington DC's draconian gun control laws, the violent criminals don't care if their victims are celebrities or not because there is virtually no chance that they will encounter a lawfully-armed citizen while preying for innocent victims on the street. Hence, Kal Penn fell victim to armed robbery and will, hopefully, carefully evaluate his own personal stance on Right-to-Carry laws if he has not done so already.
Contrast Penn's experience with that of one of our country's most beloved Presidents and former Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan. Years before he took office, Ronald Reagan knew the value of being armed as a law-abiding citizen firsthand in 1933 when he saved a 22-year old nursing student, Melba King, from being robbed at gunpoint. So, despite the gun control lobby's best efforts to characterize the phenomenon of lawful defensive gun use as some sort of rare occurrence, one can see that the reality is entirely different from their rhetoric, even as we merely examine the life experiences of just a few public figures.
Every day, common, law-abiding citizens who are not famous and lead perfectly normal lives find themselves in situations where they are faced with violent criminals and have no choice but to defend themselves with their own legally-owned firearms. For instance, despite facing the overwhelming odds of being caught off guard and facing down three armed and violent criminals, this common, law-abiding citizen was able to successfully defend himself from being robbed while withdrawing money from his local ATM.
Or when 72-year old, Jack Crawford, defended himself against three violent home invaders who cracked him over the head with a baseball bat. Crawford found himself faced with no other option than to defend himself with his gun, sending his assailants running in the opposite direction.
Or when 93-year old, Eileen Purcvynski, fires on a home invader to defend her own life as he forced his way into her house and approached her in her bedroom late at night.
Or when an armed Samaritan steps in with his gun to defend a Marine and his wife from a mob of 20 intent on assaulting them outside of a movie theater.
Or even when this well-trained, 11-year old girl, Alyssa Gutierrez, found herself alone at home, and facing down three burglars who pried her front door open and were about to force their way into her house.
Or when this pregnant mother, Randy Fairley finds herself facing a home invader and holds him at gunpoint until the police arrive.
This author could literally provide you with hundreds of additional, real-life examples. As you can see for yourself, the truth is, lawful defensive gun use is a reality that happens very regularly every single day in our society. As much as the gun control lobby would like to keep the general public's eyes off of this fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates that common, law-abiding citizens are capable of defending themselves effectively against violent criminals with firearms in both private and public settings. And with more and more of the gun control lobby's myths being publicly debunked every day, it is time for the American people to see the reality of defensive gun use clearly for what it really is--a benefit to society that reduces the incidence of violent crime in the world we live in today.
Comments