Some clever stick has assembled a collection of defensive gun uses (against guns) and posted it on LiveLeak.com. Eleven minutes and twenty-seconds of win. Is it enough to convince the gun-averse that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Hell no. They’ll see this montage—well, they won’t but you know what I mean—as proof that civilians cause gunfights. Live and learn? If only. And only if they were there. And maybe not even then. [h/t Jim]

Recommended For You

39 Responses to Defensive Gun Use of the Day: NOW Do You Believe Us Edition?

    • Looked like it to me. Those three were screwed without the gun. The guy was more than a match physically for the two men and he looked like he meant business.

  1. Someone (NRA, you listening) needs to produce a half hour or hour weekly reality TV/video show with all these surveillance videos of the perps beating feet for the exit as soon as someone in the shop produces a gun. Can’t get enough of watching what brave souls these guys be when they are not the only person in room with a weapon.

    And it should be required to do a follow-up report on what happened to these guys after the incident – dead, wounded, caught, prison, etc. People need to know final outcomes otherwise there is no deterrence.

    • Maybe, but we need to avoid falling into the trap of “proving it.”

      My wife is a pediatrician. She faces nutty ant vaccine rational that is identical to anti-second amendment rationale all the time. The number of cases where you can prove/show a vaccine prevented harm are one in a million to the actual numbers of harms prevented, which is only present in estimated ranges.

      Yes, there are thousands of kids and adults killed or harmed, or debilitated by vaccine reactions. But there are millions and millions saved. The rub is you can’t but rarely actually show instances of those saved.

      It is a similar situation with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. As an anecdote, when was in my college I worked at liquor stores. In the area I worked in there was a rash of armed robberies of liquor stores and gas stations (low markup makes for having a lot of cash and late hours make them targets). The police chiefs in a couple of towns announced that they were recommending all these stores be armed. Those armed — and those unarmed – were all protected as robberies stopped. No one was ever caught, no robbers shot by anyone, just the idea armed store owners scared the robbers.

      There were no videos, because there were no instances of actual defensive shooting, just the knowledge that a store owner might be armed ended the robberies. Those ARE crimes PREVENTED by gun ownership.’

      So you have several classes of defensive use:
      1.Documented firing in self defense
      2. Documented brandishment in self defense
      3. Undocumented bradishment in self defense
      4. Crimes not occurring due to knowledge by criminals of increased citizen gun ownership

      Just guessing they are probably .01%, .1%, 1%, and 98.98% of crimes prevent, respectively.

      #3 is estimated at 500,000 to 3 million and the anti gun people even deny estimate in the same way anti-vaccine people do — and that is even before you get to #4!

      So it is great dramatic footage but le’ts not fall for the trap of having to “proving” numbers.

      PS: By the way, as any liquor store owner knows, and as you can see from the videos, joe biden’s shotgun would be next to impossible to wield from behind a counter (unless it was sawed off like we had).

      Any anti second amendment person claiming they would be happy with seven rounds and not 17or more in the most modern weapon possible, facing two or three gun or knife wielding assailants, is lying through their teeth. Often a couple of shots is enough, but as you can see often they stay and shoot back as well.

    • I can see it now, a DGU version of The Soup where we collectively laugh at the pinwheeling perps as they ricochet their ways as speedily out the door as possible, pants hopefully heavier.

    • I actually do not think a full time show about this would be a good idea. Criminals could learn how to become more effective against people protecting themselves. They could possibly see what ways the perpetrators went wrong and adjust their methods to not use them. While one would like to assume bad guys are not as smart as the good guys, the reality is they very well can be.

    • DGUs don’t make national media. They make local media, briefly, and then disappear. It’s not just anti-gun bias though. It’s also anti-boring-story bias. DGUs are usually stories of people avoiding tragedy and therefore the opposite of dramatic. That plus the favored anti-gun narrative means that DGUs slip quietly by, while criminal shootings get shouted from the mountain tops for months.

  2. As well worn as my tinfoil hat is, I’ve never actually bought that the media is malicious in ignoring DGU. I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt that a bad guy running away from an armed citizen doesn’t sell as many papers as bloody shirt waving….

  3. Geez people, the solution is obvious; those stores obviously didn’t have the magical gun free zone sign on the front door; it works even for those that can’t read with the universal picture of Berretta 92 with a circle and slash through it.

    Oh, wait a minute; we don’t live in a Harry Potter world where magical wards and symbols actually work.

    Yep, better to have a gun.

  4. Maybe it’s just me, but Mr. Hoodie-wearing pixelated face’s voice seemed kind of familiar. I know it was an actor; not Hollywood, and I saw his part several years ago. Perhaps someone working his way through law school?

  5. Or, alternately, this is an argument to make sure gun sales are properly regulated. Shop owners and security personnel have little trouble getting permits anyway. The people we want to regulate are the guys on the far side of the counter.

    • —“Or, alternately, this is an argument to make sure gun sales are properly regulated. Shop owners and security personnel have little trouble getting permits anyway. The people we want to regulate are the guys on the far side of the counter.–”

      Dave, that is False and pretty ignorant. Several of those in the video look to be carry people, including in offices. In MANY states and cities they can’t or with new laws passed wont be able to get licenses to carry (NY, NJ, MD, DC, Ma, Ct, etc etc).

      Are you under the impression that those those thugs doing the robbing generally bought their guns legally, or will do so if “forbidden.” Virtually NO guns used in crime come the “loophole” the anti gun whackjobs are calling for. It will just make it more difficult/impossible for legitimate users.

      By the way the type of laws you are advocating FORCE my wife and I to own two guns for our home instead of the one gun we prefer. My wife can pass NCIC, has several NRA pistol training certificates, is a RSO, and is committing a FELONY in my jurisdiction if she transports my pistol to the range locked in a lock box, locked in my trunk with no ammo in the vehicle whatsoever.

      The liberals lauded that law when it was passé in my jurisdiction — and never realized it forces families happy with one gun to buy and own several if they have more than one adult household member! Two or three times as many guns in the crime circuit if our house is burgled when we are not home!

  6. I think what bothers me more is that the conversation shifted from mental illness to guns. In the first few days after Sandy Hook, there was a real chance that society might (for once) try to make sure that mentally ill people obtained the help they need. After just a few short weeks, that idea was long forgotten, and replaced with a pointless (and endless) gun debate.

  7. Every animal in these vids deserved to get dropped the same as the last one in the compilation. Sick people walking around thinking they are entitled to take the lives of others just to steal some of their property. And these are the people we should be protecting with the law, rather than their victims? Sick, just sick.

  8. What I learned: That I need to re-evaluate the thinking that there will be only one perpetrator to deal with when the SHTF. Damn near every one of those incidents involved multiple perps.

  9. Nice collection. If somebody really had the time though I’ll bet they could make something that was several hours long, like as long as a movie (even longer but at that point people would get the point), and I think that might be more effective.

  10. Great video and something that should be done weekly on this site instead of the new trend to TMZ the place with nonsense like was posted here last week.

  11. Now if we could just stop providing healthcare to these criminals after they get shot we would reduce our crime rate drastically in the U.S. but cutting down on repeat offenders.

  12. This is the best example of why limiting the number of rounds in a magazine isn’t just bad thinking, it’s downright dangerous thinking. The law abiding get 7 rounds vs criminal duo’s with 15 each/30 rounds between them? Laws limiting the defenders to 7 rounds per, is nothing but bullet welfare for criminals.

  13. Agreed, this shows distinctly WHY you need more than 7 or 8 rounds. Multiple attackers require multiple rounds to effectively deal with the situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *