Successful Self Defense

Yet another example of a legally armed citizen defending themselves successfully, this time in Akron, Ohio.

Defensive Gun Use - An Important New Study

The Cato Institute has just released an important new study, written by Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett: Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens. The authors surveyed defensive gun usage as reported in news media stories, categorized the events, and discussed trends they identified. While this study does not purport to be complete, it does seem to lend support to the idea that armed citizens exercising their rights to self defense has real social value. Many of the most common arguments against armed self defense are refuted. It should be read by anyone interested in the subject.


I wonder how long it will take Joan Peterson to deny the study, dismissing it as nothing but a collection anecdotal that are statistically meaningless, even though she uses the same technique herself on her blog?

Testimony of Joyce Lee Malcom in Favor of H.R.822

This document contains the testimony of Joye Lee Malcolm, Professor at George Mason University school of law comparing the approaches to self defense of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This brief testimony compares two approaches to crime prevention and public safety, the American approach of permitting armed citizens to carry weapons for protection and the British approach of disarming subjects of guns and all other means of defense with the promise the state will protect them.

I have never read a better short summation of the reasons justifying laws allowing citizens to be armed in public than this.

This is a must read document.

Norway, Active Shooters, and Common Gunsense

Joan Peterson, in this post on her blog Common Gunsense covered the recent mass shooting incident in Norway.  Her position in her post is very understandable given that Ms. Peterson has relatives in Norway, is consistent in her view that guns in public create more harm than good, and given the horrific tragedy perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.

In her blog, Ms. Peterson writes:

"Some of the chatter coming from the gun rights extremists pointed to lack of security on the island. If only, oh if only, someone on that island would have had a gun, things would have been different"

To which I replied:

Many, if not most police departments now agree that active shooters must be confronted with force as quickly as possible in order to end the attacks.  We self-defense proponents think that an armed civilian could have provided that force.  This chart of active shooter incidents bear out that some active shooters have indeed been stopped by armed civilians:

http://excalibersecurityservices.com/documents/100323_incident_analysis_spreadsheet.pdf

The presence of an armed civilian, or a off-duty police officer might not have prevented the tragedy in Norway, but could the presence of an armed civilian made it any worse?

I would like to explicate a bit on the data contained in the incident analysis located  at the link above, and explore further how resistance to active shooter incidents can help resolve them and minimize loss of life.

First let me emphasize that I do not know if the incident analysis is comprehensive, but I am going to treat it as a representative sample of the incidents in the last thirty years and seek to answer this question: "Can victims of an active shooter attack resist effectively to stop the attack?"

Upon examination of the 50 listed incidents, one thing immediately falls out of the data: people finding themselves in such an attack are on their own:  64% of the attacks were ended when the shooter chose to stop.  Victims of these attacks must use their own resources, or depend on luck, to survive in most cases.

In 18 cases people attempted to intervene to stop an attack, sometimes police, sometimes civilians, both armed and unarmed. These attempts were successful 83% of the time.  One very surprising thing is that even unarmed civilians were successful 80% of the time. While that appears to be as effective as the armed police success rate, I believe that the armed police rate is artificially low: the one failure by the police to stop an attack occurred at Columbine High School, where police did not follow the modern active shooter protocols.

But, to get to the heart of the matter, do firearms make a difference in the results?  Armed counterattacks were successful 87% of the time, on average.  In addition, armed civilians were successful in their counterattacks 100% of the time.  Armed police were successful only 80% of the time, but their rate would be 100% if not for the fact that older procedures were used at Columbine High School.  This data shows that am armed civilian has a 20% better chance of stopping an attack than an unarmed civilian, and that the armed civilian is just as effective as the police.

Clearly, resisting an attack can have a major beneficial outcome, no matter who resists. So I have to modify my stance expressed on Common Gunsense.  History shows that any kind of resistance by victims can be very successful, but armed resistance stops these attacks almost uniformly.  Only two armed counterattacks, by the police I might add, failed to stop these attacks: the one at Columbine where police chose to contain the scene instead of engaging the shooters, and the one in Fayetteville, NC, where police shot and wounded the shooter, who then went on to kill more victims before police stopped him.  Civilians have a 100% success rate stopping these attacks.

So yes, Ms. Peterson, I am now very confident in claiming that an armed person, either a police officer or a civilian, would have stopped the attack on Utoya and saved many lives.

Panama City School Board Shooting - Comments At Greg Laden's Blog

I am sure that everyone has heard of the shooting at a Panama City,FL school board meeting. If not, you can read about, and watch the remarkable video of the incident in the Washington Post. Greg Laden posted these comments about this incident on his blog. The one I take particular issue with is this:

Clay Duke tried to kill several school board members, but missed from a distance of between 6 and 8 feet with his Smith & Wesson pistol. Indeed, over 25 rounds were fired in the small public space, all aimed from a short distance, and only one fatal shot occurred. This puts an end to the idea that if everyone in every public meeting had a pistol that the bad guys would be easily dispatched. 

 

To which I replied on his blog in the comments section:

Your comments about the marksmanship of the shooter proving ANYTHING about the ability of other people being able to stop this attack with lethal force is simply ignorant.
You completely disregard any consideration about the level of training that the shooter may or may not have had. If he was really trying to shoot the people seated at the desk, then his level of training was absolutely minimal, bordering on non-existent. He had target shooting conditions, and he missed. He was either a bad shot, or he deliberately missed.

Either way, he is not excused, because potential victims cannot know what his intent might be, so if armed, they would be completely justified to shoot back.

I can assure with complete confidence that the shooters lack of competence DOES NOT in any way invalidate the possibility of any one of the victims from being able to shoot the assailant and stop the attack. Your assertion is actually nonsense because all of the victims were unarmed, and their level of training is unknown.

Any implication from this incident that armed self defense is worthless is in fact worthless

To which, Greg Laden replied:

Left Coast Conservative: You completely disregard any consideration about the level of training that the shooter may or may not have had.
Of course the level of ability or training matters, an that is exactly my point! When the average gun-nut moron comes around screaming that if only everybody had a gun there would be no shooting, they are of average ability. Some can shoot, some are like Mr Clay. This is not a difficult concept.
I can assure with complete confidence that the shooters lack of competence DOES NOT in any way invalidate the possibility of any one of the victims from being able to shoot the assailant and stop the attack.
Oh, that makes me feel much better. I just watched a guy on a video empty his extra large clip a few feet from a concentration of people and the only hit he could manage is when he put the barrel of the gun to his own head and pulled the trigger.
Your assertion is actually nonsense because all of the victims were unarmed, and their level of training is unknown.
I'm talking about the hooting ability of the assailant, the gun nut with the gun, not the victims, who did not have guns. Jeesh.
Any implication from this incident that armed self defense is worthless is in fact worthless.
No it isn't. On the other hand, any implication that the average gun nut who comes by screaming about how everybody's gotta carry a gun or we iz all dooomeded is .... well, just look at your idiotic comment!

So, let me take these points one at a time:

1. I don't claim that if citizens were armed, that there would be no shootings. I do claim, that citizens can defend themselves and very possibly stop the attack. Look at what Mr. Duke did when met with resistance: he shot himself. This is not an uncommon reaction.
   
2. Once again, just because Clay duke was a lousy shot, does not mean everyone is a lousy shot. I just spent a day in a defensive shooting class and any one of the students in that class could have shot at and hit Mr. Duke from the positions of the board members, especially since they would had the board meeting table to rest their hands on while shooting.
   
3. I know you were talking about the shooting ability of Mr. Duke, but you project his lack of marksmanship on everyone else to discount the value of armed self defense.
   
4. And hence my claim that your opinion is worthless for judging the value of armed self defense. Remember, it was an armed man that ended this incident, a man with training available to anyone, should they seek it out.
   

Greg Laden, it seems to me that you think anyone who advocates armed self defense is a gun nut, and idiot, and that they would use their firearms in a irresponsible and ineffective manner. The record shows that you a simply wrong about that:

Learn About Guns
The Bluff

There are many more examples that can be easily found. My core assertion is this: with proper training, any one of the people at the meeting could have quickly ended the attack. No one who carries a gun in public should do so without training.

Some People Just Don't Get It

Even after the Heller decision in 2008, and the McDonald decision last month, some people just don't get it that in the United States, firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, but a civil right.  Rebecca Berg, for example, writing in the Columbia Missourian, states in her July 22, 2010 column:

We don’t need 100 percent gun control, but some increased limits would be a positive step.  Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need them the most, while allowing states more power to dictate specific regulations.  After all, isn’t the right to bear arms only acceptable when it does not infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

News flash Ms. Berg, but handgun bans in urban areas are exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled, not once, but twice, are unconstitutional infringements to the civil right to keep arms for self defense. While I agree that my right to keep arms does not indemnify me from having to justify my use of arms in self defense, prohibiting ones right to keep arms for any lawful purpose is not constitutional. 

Your column is full of fail.

Anti-Gun Article on Feministing

I learned about this condescending article on Feministing from Learn About Guns. Granted that this is a really old article, I thought I would reply in the hopes that my contribution might help. Here is my reply, as posted on that site:

Samhita,

Perhaps you should read this article. Go ahead, I'll wait...

So, what do you think now about a woman defending herself in suburbia? My point, and Dr. Hupps as well, is that violence can find you whether you are prepared for it or not. While you don't actually advocate that guns should be banned, your condescending tone to those who choose to arm themselves is revolting. Other people who replied to this article have noted the condescension as well. hippychik7:

It is true that maybe I am not in great danger of violence at any one time, but if a woman can be trusted to determine and CHOOSE to have an abortion, then I think she should be able to choose when to carry a gun.

Absolutely! To us gun owners, and advocates of armed self-defense, it is all about responsibility. Taking responsibility to protect ourselves, and taking responsibility to not harm others while we carry guns. Charlton Heston, past president of the NRA, that group you despise so much, said this well:

... There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys. ...

Where can one carry a gun on one's property?

California law places many restrictions on where one may carry a loaded gun, but it is clear that inside one's home or on one's private property, a person can carry a loaded weapon. Does this mean that i can carry a gun in my front yard? It is assuredly private property, but is it also a public place?

I have recently learned of case law cited in "Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms" that indicates that this may not be allowed:

...the conclusion of a California court that a private drive was a “sensitive place,” thus bringing a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon under the Heller safe harbor,⁴⁹ seems a stretch.

49. People v. Yarbrough, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674, 682–83 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (rejecting challenge to conviction for carrying concealed weapon, and stating that “[t]reating as criminal defendant’s concealment of a firearm under his clothing on a residential driveway that was not closed off from the public and was populated with temporary occupants falls within the ‘historical tradition’ of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons in publicly sensitive places”).

So, while the author of the paper seems to think that the California courts may be carrying the prohibition a little too far, it is valid case law, and it makes me cautious about carrying a weapon in my front yard, my driveway, or even inside my garage when the garage door is open. I don't know about my backyard, but this is California after all.

Armed Self Defense - Yes It Happens

When anti-gun folks ask for an example of a gun being used in self defense, one in which it was not taken away from the defender and used against them, one in which lives were saved, then point them to this link.

This story has already made the rounds on the blogs, but I wanted to post it here because it is so clearly an illustration that guns in citizens hand do save lives, and that when you are confronted with violence, calling the police may not help, so you must be prepared to meet that violence with a violent response.

Pretty stark choice, but the animals in this home invasion were pretty clearly going to kill everybody in the house: "He said he had enough". But not before having a bit of fun with the women.

So, to all you rabid anti-gun people out there, and to all you rabid pro-gun people out there, it is not a black and white issue, but a complex one with many shades of gray. One story in which guns were used for evil, and in which guns were used for good.

Great - and sad - article.

I found this article about a very sad, but all too typical situation on a new blog: Big Hollywood.

I'm Against Guns And Violence Unfortunately Reality Has Intruded On My Delusional Paradise.

My first reaction was to think about how much I loathe southern California, and my second was to remind myself that these stalking situations happen anywhere. It also reminded me that there is a funny little exception to the prohibition to carrying a concealed weapon.

People that have a restraining order against an individual can carry concealed weapons in the state. No other approval is necessary. I think they have to carry a copy of the order to prove to any officer that stops them, but it is legal.

California gun law is curious mixture of strict prohibitions and occasional freedoms.