Meet three women that used guns in self-defense in their own homes

What women have to say about guns and gun control has been in the spotlight since the Sandy Hook shooting. Phony so-called grassroots anti-gun rights organizations funded by activist billionaires, and real grassroots organizations of moms for gun rights and safety – such as 1MMAGC – have weighed in on what actually makes us safer.

Here are three examples in which women used guns to protect themselves in the sanctity of their homes. In each of these incidents, the woman was home alone and faced a male perpetrator. In each incident, she came out on top because she had a gun.

Duluth, GA. — An intruder who was shot and killed after a confrontation with a woman in her shower was likely stalking her for days and may have had other victims, police said.  The 53-year-old woman, who is a school counselor, was alone. “The male was armed with a kitchen knife, (and) a struggle ensued between the two of them,” a police spokesman said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom. She grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times. Police said the man ran out a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at a local medical center. Police said the shooting appeared to be justified, and that she acted in self-defense. There are no plans to charge her.

Houston, TX — A teenage girl who was home alone says she was prepared to shoot when someone tried breaking into her family home. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the perpetrator tried cracking the code to her electronic front door lock. From the inside, the 17-year-old girl heard the alarm and went straight for her dad’s Glock 19 handgun. She was trained by her dad to use it. Fortunately, the alarm scared the would-be intruder away. As word spread about the home invasion attempt, neighbors say they’re getting their guns ready too.

Glenville, PA —  A man who kicked in the front door of a York County home found a woman waiting for him with her handgun at the ready, according to police.  The 31-year-old woman was alone when she heard someone trying to force their way inside. She grabbed a handgun that she trains with on a regular basis, police said.
When the man eventually kicked in her front door and entered the home, the woman leveled the gun and told the intruder not to come any closer.  He obeyed her order and was found on the front porch of a neighbor’s home when an officer arrived minutes later. Police said he may have been intoxicated.

Some anti-gun rights groups have attempted to scare women from having guns, wrongly stating that a gun is more likely to be used on them, or in a suicide. But as Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. recently said, “firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Research shows that the sheriff – and not the anti-gun nuts – is correct.

The CDC reports that there are approximately 20,000 suicides committed with a gun each year. However, the CDC, in a report prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, also states that guns are used for lawful defensive purposes at least a half million times each year:

defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than three million per year.

These women’s stories are the real-life illustrations of exactly such defensive gun use. Clever signs and social media #hashtags don’t stop bad guys – a person holding a gun does. Smart women know they can defend themselves if they are the ones holding the gun, and that a woman who knows how to use her gun makes actual “#gunsense”.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 19, 2014).

Meet Three Women Who Used Guns to Defend Themselves in the homes

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 19, 2013 | Guns Save Lives | 0 comments

What women have to say about guns and gun control has been in the spotlight since the Sandy Hook shooting. Phony so-called grassroots anti-gun rights organizations funded by activist billionaires, and real grassroots organizations of moms for gun rights and safety – such as 1MMAGC – have weighed in on what actually makes us safer.

Here are three examples in which women used guns to protect themselves in the sanctity of their homes. In each of these incidents, the woman was home alone and faced a male perpetrator. In each incident, she came out on top because she had a gun.

Duluth, GA. — An intruder who was shot and killed after a confrontation with a woman in her shower was likely stalking her for days and may have had other victims, police said.  The 53-year-old woman, who is a school counselor, was alone. “The male was armed with a kitchen knife, (and) a struggle ensued between the two of them,” a police spokesman said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom. She grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times. Police said the man ran out a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at a local medical center. Police said the shooting appeared to be justified, and that she acted in self-defense. There are no plans to charge her.

Houston, TX — A teenage girl who was home alone says she was prepared to shoot when someone tried breaking into her family home. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the perpetrator tried cracking the code to her electronic front door lock. From the inside, the 17-year-old girl heard the alarm and went straight for her dad’s Glock 19 handgun. She was trained by her dad to use it. Fortunately, the alarm scared the would-be intruder away. As word spread about the home invasion attempt, neighbors say they’re getting their guns ready too.

Glenville, PA —  A man who kicked in the front door of a York County home found a woman waiting for him with her handgun at the ready, according to police.  The 31-year-old woman was alone when she heard someone trying to force their way inside. She grabbed a handgun that she trains with on a regular basis, police said.

When the man eventually kicked in her front door and entered the home, the woman leveled the gun and told the intruder not to come any closer.  He obeyed her order and was found on the front porch of a neighbor’s home when an officer arrived minutes later. Police said he may have been intoxicated.

Some anti-gun rights groups have attempted to scare women from having guns, wrongly stating that a gun is more likely to be used on them, or in a suicide. But as Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. recently said, “firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Research shows that the sheriff – and not the anti-gun nuts – is correct.

The CDC reports that there are approximately 20,000 suicides committed with a gun each year. However, the CDC, in a report prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, also states that guns are used for lawful defensive purposes at least a half million times each year:

defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than three million per year.

These women’s stories are the real-life illustrations of exactly such defensive gun use. Clever signs and social media #hashtags don’t stop bad guys – a person holding a gun does. Smart women know they can defend themselves if they are the ones holding the gun, and that a woman who knows how to use her gun makes actual “#gunsense”.

This article was originally published on The Brenner Brief. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh. Original publish date May 19, 2013.

NRA annual meeting: controversial Wisconsin sheriff says guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. states that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

INDIANAPOLIS, April 25 —  Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. delivered a rousing speech at the 2014 NRA annual meeting, stating that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

Clarke made controversial national headlines last year when he told residents of his county that calling 911 might not be effective, and advised them to take gun training courses for self-defense in the wake of law enforcement layoffs. His speech at the annual NRA meeting cited several incidents in which guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved their own, or a complete strangers, life.

Clarke said “The armed citizen made America free, and the armed citizen will keep America free!” Noting frustration at lawlessness, and honest people’s fear to be safe in their residences, property and neighborhoods, he said:

“As a career cop of 35 years, I got tired of seeing good people like you being raped or having guns stuck up against your heads, and your property taken. I got tired of seeing law-abiding people having their homes broken into, their cars stolen, being intimidated by thugs and gangs, and being prisoners in their own homes – afraid to go outside or  let their kids play in front of their house, because their neighborhoods were under control of the criminal element.”

Clarke decided to “partner” with law-abiding citizens to “go on the offensive against the criminal element”, adding that to do so, people needed “the tools guaranteed under the Second Amendment.” Clarke went on to say that as a law enforcement officer, he calls “the law-abiding citizen the great equalizer,” and that he “trusts the law-abiding armed citizen.”

Clarke recounted several stories from his county where people used firearms to save lives. He told the story of a maintenance worker simply doing his job who was being “savagely beaten” by 3 suspects, one of which wielded a club. Clarke said the maintenance worker later told him he thought  “he was going to die.” Fearing for his life, he pulled his handgun and fired twice, “killing two of the suspects, and saving his own life.”

In another incident, three masked men, one armed with a gun, “burst into a tavern, told the patrons to get down on the floor, and announced a hold-up.” The bar owner grabbed his own firearm from behind the bar, and killed one of the hold-up men. “The other two fled, like the cowards that they were.”

In a third incident, a good Samaritan driving home from work stopped to aid a woman who was being “violently beaten on a sidewalk by a man.” The good samaritan stopped his car, and told the suspect to stop beating the woman. The suspect charged the good samaritan, who pulled his gun from his holster, halting the suspect. “The suspect stopped his advance, and fled like the coward he was.”
Clarke wrapped up these stories by stating: “Those firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Clarke concluded by calling on citizens to join pro-gun groups, saying “We’re partners now.” He also warned them that the fight to defend the Second Amendment will be a tough, never-ending one.
You can watch the speech in its entirety below via The Right Scoop:

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication April 10, 2014).

Sheriff David Clarke Jr: Firearms, in the Hands of Law-abiding Citizens, Save Lives

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 1, 2014 | Guns Save Lives, News | 0 comments

INDIANAPOLIS, April 25 —  Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. delivered a rousing speech at the 2014 NRA annual meeting, stating that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

Clarke made controversial national headlines last year when he told residents of his county that calling 911 might not be effective, and advised them to take gun training courses for self-defense in the wake of law enforcement layoffs. His speech at the annual NRA meeting cited several incidents in which guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved their own, or a complete strangers, life.

Clarke said “The armed citizen made America free, and the armed citizen will keep America free!” Noting frustration at lawlessness, and honest people’s fear to be safe in their residences, property and neighborhoods, he said:

“As a career cop of 35 years, I got tired of seeing good people like you being raped or having guns stuck up against your heads, and your property taken. I got tired of seeing law-abiding people having their homes broken into, their cars stolen, being intimidated by thugs and gangs, and being prisoners in their own homes – afraid to go outside or  let their kids play in front of their house, because their neighborhoods were under control of the criminal element.”

Clarke decided to “partner” with law-abiding citizens to “go on the offensive against the criminal element”, adding that to do so, people needed “the tools guaranteed under the Second Amendment.” Clarke went on to say that as a law enforcement officer, he calls “the law-abiding citizen the great equalizer,” and that he “trusts the law-abiding armed citizen.”

Clarke recounted several stories from his county where people used firearms to save lives. He told the story of a maintenance worker simply doing his job who was being “savagely beaten” by 3 suspects, one of which wielded a club. Clarke said the maintenance worker later told him he thought  “he was going to die.” Fearing for his life, he pulled his handgun and fired twice, “killing two of the suspects, and saving his own life.”

In another incident, three masked men, one armed with a gun, “burst into a tavern, told the patrons to get down on the floor, and announced a hold-up.” The bar owner grabbed his own firearm from behind the bar, and killed one of the hold-up men. “The other two fled, like the cowards that they were.”

In a third incident, a good Samaritan driving home from work stopped to aid a woman who was being “violently beaten on a sidewalk by a man.” The good samaritan stopped his car, and told the suspect to stop beating the woman. The suspect charged the good samaritan, who pulled his gun from his holster, halting the suspect. “The suspect stopped his advance, and fled like the coward he was.”

Clarke wrapped up these stories by stating: “Those firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Clarke concluded by calling on citizens to join pro-gun groups, saying “We’re partners now.” He also warned them that the fight to defend the Second Amendment will be a tough, never-ending one.

You can watch the speech in its entirety below via The Right Scoop:

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 1, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Helleris self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely onreading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean “self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else” because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify this as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication November 26, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 26, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 2 comments

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes – plural – of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Heller is self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely on reading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean ‘self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else’ because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify guns for self-defense in the home only as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Polls Are In: Gun Control Loses with the American Public

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining
Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use
Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership
Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Bell Towers. (Original publication September 26, 2013).

Polls Show Americans Do Not Support Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining

Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use

Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership

Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Sep 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The trial of George Zimmerman over the shooting of Trayvon Martin has stirred national debate on race relations and on guns and violence in America. President Obama, who by many accounts has lost politically in his push for tighter gun control, has exploited the incident stating after the not-guilty verdict that “We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.”

Anecdotal stories are interesting because they’re relatable; they help us see the human side of things by putting names and faces to what can otherwise be boring information. But no serious scientist, researcher, or analyst will rely on anecdotes because for every one that makes a certain conclusion seem right, there’s another that makes a conflicting conclusion seem right. In many ways, coverage of the Zimmerman trial is about moving one agenda or narrative forward, and the gun control narrative is no different; but the facts demonstrate that citizens plus guns is not bad for society. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – both anecdotes as well as the substantial body of hard data demonstrate that the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use is the aberration, not the model, of defensive gun use

In contrast to the anecdote evidence that guns embolden overzealous neighborhood watch members to harm innocent people, consider this: In January this year, Melinda Herman shot Paul Ali Slater, an ex-con, while defending herself and her two 9-year old children in their Loganville, Georgia home. Though she shot at him six times, striking him five times, he survived. CNN reported that “Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman — whose office responded to the shooting at the Hermans’ home — said he believes the mother and her two children were in a life-and-death situation and she had no choice but to exercise her constitutional right to self-defense.”

In Magnolia, Texas, Erin (who asked to be identified only by her first name), a mother of a 6-year old boy, Kaden, defended herself against three home invaders with a gun. She shot one and the other two fled the scene. She told local Houston news reporters she believes that having a gun, “saved my life.” These anecdotes were all in the context of being at home, but what about outside of one’s home?
In July this year in Philadelphia, police say an armed man turned the tables on three gunmen who tried to rob him. The would-be victim shot at his three attackers, wounding one, and causing them to flee the scene. Investigators say two of the suspects dropped the wounded attacker of at a local hospital before also fleeing from the hospital. The local Philadelphia NBC news channel reported the wounded suspect would be charged.

The Associated Press reported in June, an armed man trying to rob customers outside an Atlanta shoe store was fatally shot by one of the patrons waiting in line to buy LeBron James sneakers. Witnesses told police a man armed with a gun tried to rob people standing outside the store when another customer drew his own handgun and shot the robber, who died after fleeing just a few yards. Atlanta police officer John Chafee says the shooter won’t be charged because investigators determined he fired in self-defense.

These stories didn’t garner the national attention the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case did, but they do illustrate the point that real life people use guns for legitimate self-defense and allow us to ask how we would feel in a similar situation.

Anecdotes can help us to relate the overall data to, but what does the data says about how often Americans defend their lives with guns? Research shows that defensive gun use is a common occurrence—a fact that’s even acknowledged by those typically opposed to gun rights. For example, gun control advocates tend to favor David Hemenway, a skeptic of gun ownership. That reliance is misplaced. Hemenway’s methodology has come under attack for among other things, refusing to release the data behind his studies, and his conclusions have even been rejected by the 7th Circuit . However, even Hemenway’s study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology suggests that defensive gun use (DGU) occurs more than 152,000 times annually. That means that even according to a leading gun skeptic with bias against gun ownership and questionable methodology, private citizens used guns to protect their lives and the lives of others in over 152,000 individual cases. And from most accounts, Hemenway drastically underestimates the number of defensive gun use.

Other researchers have found defensive gun use is more widespread. Another study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends that the correct number of DGU is between 256,000-373,000. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. Cook and Ludwig’s study was done in contrast to the classic Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU. Presumably because of how large the number of DGU in Kleck and Gertz’ study, it is widely dismissed by gun control advocates as though Kleck and Gertz were on the NRA payroll. However the study was commissioned by President Clinton and Kleck is a liberal Democrat.

A July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Moreover, the data demonstrates that firearms are used only in small portion of violent crimes. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million violent crimes in 2011, of which homicides is one type of violent crime. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a Department of Justice agency, reports “less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm. This means less than 1 out of every 10 violent crimes is committed with a firearm, and the vast majority of violent crimes – more than 9 out of 10 – is committed without any firearm.

What does this all mean? With the number of firearm homicides approximately 9,000 and less than 10% of non-fatal violent crime involving guns, the fact that research shows the number of defensive gun uses from “almost all annual survey[s]…rang[es] from 500,000 to 3 million” is significant. Even at 152,000, it’s significant. Gun control advocates would like to exploit the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to argue that guns make us less safe, but the stories of Melinda Herman, Erin a mother of a 6-year old, a Philadelphia man accosted by three armed assailants while walking alone, and attempted armed robbery while waiting in line to buy shoes tell a different story. We can imagine what if would feel like if we were in those situations with our children, shopping, or walking alone. Against the national backdrop of crime statistics and defensive gun use, these stories – not the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman one – paint the more realistic picture that guns are often used for legitimate self-defense and saving lives.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Bell Towers. (Original publication July 25, 2013).

George Zimmerman is NOT the Typical Story of Defensive Gun Use

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jul 25, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The trial of George Zimmerman over the shooting of Trayvon Martin has stirred national debate on race relations and on guns and violence in America. President Obama, who by many accounts has lost politically in his push for tighter gun control, has exploited the incident stating after the not-guilty verdict that “We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.”

Anecdotal stories are interesting because they’re relatable; they help us see the human side of things by putting names and faces to what can otherwise be boring information. But no serious scientist, researcher, or analyst will rely on anecdotes because for every one that makes a certain conclusion seem right, there’s another that makes a conflicting conclusion seem right. In many ways, coverage of the Zimmerman trial is about moving one agenda or narrative forward, and the gun control narrative is no different; but the facts demonstrate that citizens plus guns is not bad for society. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – both anecdotes as well as the substantial body of hard data demonstrate that the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use is the aberration, not the model, of defensive gun use

In contrast to the anecdote evidence that guns embolden overzealous neighborhood watch members to harm innocent people, consider this: In January this year, Melinda Herman shot Paul Ali Slater, an ex-con, while defending herself and her two 9-year old children in their Loganville, Georgia home. Though she shot at him six times, striking him five times, he survived. CNN reported that “Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman — whose office responded to the shooting at the Hermans’ home — said he believes the mother and her two children were in a life-and-death situation and she had no choice but to exercise her constitutional right to self-defense.”

In Magnolia, Texas, Erin (who asked to be identified only by her first name), a mother of a 6-year old boy, Kaden, defended herself against three home invaders with a gun. She shot one and the other two fled the scene. She told local Houston news reporters she believes that having a gun, “saved my life.” These anecdotes were all in the context of being at home, but what about outside of one’s home?

In July this year in Philadelphia, police say an armed man turned the tables on three gunmen who tried to rob him. The would-be victim shot at his three attackers, wounding one, and causing them to flee the scene. Investigators say two of the suspects dropped the wounded attacker of at a local hospital before also fleeing from the hospital. The local Philadelphia NBC news channel reported the wounded suspect would be charged.

The Associated Press reported in June, an armed man trying to rob customers outside an Atlanta shoe store was fatally shot by one of the patrons waiting in line to buy LeBron James sneakers. Witnesses told police a man armed with a gun tried to rob people standing outside the store when another customer drew his own handgun and shot the robber, who died after fleeing just a few yards. Atlanta police officer John Chafee says the shooter won’t be charged because investigators determined he fired in self-defense.

These stories didn’t garner the national attention the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case did, but they do illustrate the point that real life people use guns for legitimate self-defense and allow us to ask how we would feel in a similar situation.

Anecdotes can help us to relate the overall data to, but what does the data says about how often Americans defend their lives with guns? Research shows that defensive gun use is a common occurrence—a fact that’s even acknowledged by those typically opposed to gun rights. For example, gun control advocates tend to favor David Hemenway, a skeptic of gun ownership. That reliance is misplaced. Hemenway’s methodology has come under attack for among other things, refusing to release the data behind his studies, and his conclusions have even been rejected by the 7th Circuit . However, even Hemenway’s study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology suggests that defensive gun use (DGU) occurs more than 152,000 times annually. That means that even according to a leading gun skeptic with bias against gun ownership and questionable methodology, private citizens used guns to protect their lives and the lives of others in over 152,000 individual cases. And from most accounts, Hemenway drastically underestimates the number of defensive gun use.

Other researchers have found defensive gun use is more widespread. Another study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends that the correct number of DGU is between 256,000-373,000. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. Cook and Ludwig’s study was done in contrast to the classic Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU. Presumably because of how large the number of DGU in Kleck and Gertz’ study, it is widely dismissed by gun control advocates as though Kleck and Gertz were on the NRA payroll. However the study was commissioned by President Clinton and Kleck is a liberal Democrat.

A July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Moreover, the data demonstrates that firearms are used only in small portion of violent crimes. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million violent crimes in 2011, of which homicides is one type of violent crime. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a Department of Justice agency, reports “less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm. This means less than 1 out of every 10 violent crimes is committed with a firearm, and the vast majority of violent crimes – more than 9 out of 10 – is committed without any firearm.

What does this all mean? With the number of firearm homicides approximately 9,000 and less than 10% of non-fatal violent crime involving guns, the fact that research shows the number of defensive gun uses from “almost all annual survey[s]…rang[es] from 500,000 to 3 million” is significant. Even at 152,000, it’s significant. Gun control advocates would like to exploit the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to argue that guns make us less safe, but the stories of Melinda Herman, Erin a mother of a 6-year old, a Philadelphia man accosted by three armed assailants while walking alone, and attempted armed robbery while waiting in line to buy shoes tell a different story. We can imagine what if would feel like if we were in those situations with our children, shopping, or walking alone. Against the national backdrop of crime statistics and defensive gun use, these stories – not the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman one – paint the more realistic picture that guns are often used for legitimate self-defense and saving lives.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Jul 25, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.