by David Burnett
continued from page 1>>
That being said, from our research it is apparent that some crimes are more common than others.
The most frequently reported crime prevented by armed citizens has been home invasion. The 1,067 home invasions thwarted by armed citizens comprise more than one-fourth of the total count. Some involve prior contact or some form of domestic abuse, but the vast majority are apparently random attacks. Clearly, the right and ability to own firearms and have them accessible within the home is the bare minimum for self-defense.
Having firearms handy at work proves just as essential. Approximately 25 percent of documented defensive gun uses occurred in places of business.
One such case of defensive gun use in July 2009 prevented an armed robber from shooting customers. Having shot the store's owner, the gunman was preparing to shoot others when one customer pulled his "cowboy-style" .45 revolver and challenged him.
|
||||||
During the crossfire, the robber ran out of ammunition and was shot by the armed citizen.
As customers urged their armed defender to "finish off" the gunman, the citizen refused, saying later that he didn't believe he would have been justified in shooting a man whose gun was empty. The robber, who incidentally was not even allowed to legally own a firearm, attempted to flee, but later succumbed to his wounds and died.
While defense in homes and businesses gives ample reason to embrace armed self-defense, in truth the need extends well beyond these walls. Other crimes such as street robbery, carjacking and road rage make a compelling case for keeping a gun within reach when one is away from the home or workplace.
A great example is a shopper in Pennsylvania who was loading his purchases in the car when he was accosted by a gunman who demanded money. The armed citizen, licensed to carry, only pulled his handgun after the robber began shooting, and was able to put an end to the incident. An Arkansas couple faced a similar threat in a store parking lot when an armed robber tried to assault the wife and steal her purse. The permit holder grabbed his gun and ordered the man to stop. When he refused, the citizen shot the man.
These stories, and thousands more like them, clearly affirm the need for personal carry of firearms. But there is another lurking factor about defensive gun use that is seldom discussed displaying a firearm is often as effective as firing one. A few examples:
A senior citizen permit-holder displaying a gun to repel a man accosting him with a knife in a Pennsylvania eatery;
A doctor eating at a Washington restaurant, confronting a deranged robber and ordering him out;
A college student in South Carolina brandishing a handgun to fend off an enraged, bat-wielding driver.
Stories like these often go unreported, but a solid 12 percent of defensive gun uses documented by the Civilian Gun Defense blog actually occurred without a defender firing a single shot.
In fact, of the incidents where shots were fired, 16 percent did not strike the perpetrator. Of those hit, only 52 percent of the criminals died. It's a twist on what gun critics would have you believe—firearms also may be one of the best "nonlethal" weapons!
The Flipside
And what about the accidents? What about those drunken rampages, or the armed citizens who have their guns taken away and used against them, as those in opposition to firearm ownership frequently argue?
Actually, only four accidental shootings during armed self-defense episodes were documented in our sampletragic, but statistically insignificant in the big picture. In situations involving impairment, only perpetrators were acting under the influence of alcohol or mental illness. Some of these unfortunate perpetrators (usually intoxicated persons) mistakenly broke into a home they thought was theirs and were shot by a frightened homeowner. (Since impaired persons can and do pose threats, law enforcement ruled the shootings justified.)
Note that being an armed citizen does not guarantee total safety; in the 4,100 incidents, 199 defenders were shot and 31 were killed while defending themselves or others. In the reports used for this study, these numbers represent a 5 percent injury rate and less than 1 percent fatality rate for armed citizens. Because these incidents are more likely to be reported, the real rates are likely even lower. This study does not address whether these rates would be higher or lower for passive compliance.
continued >>
