Two Stories This Week Prove Armed Citizens Protect Not Only Themselves, But Also Their Communities

defensive gun use

Defensive gun uses can serve two purposes: the first and most important is to preserve the lives of victims and would-be victims. The second is to get criminals off the streets.

This Monday in Dallas, two armed robbers jumped a man’s fence with the intent to rob the home. Fortunately, the would-be victim stood a chance against the two assailants because he had a gun. He shot at the suspects, hitting one in the abdomen, after which both men fled.

Later, the injured suspect was arrested when he showed up at a hospital for treatment. He’s expected to recover, and hopefully, a combination of questioning and review of the homeowner’s surveillance footage will lead to the arrest of the second suspect.

On that same day, another one-against-two burglary defense occurred at a home in Washington State. Though the cases aren’t related, they have similar takeaways. In the Washington incident, a man walked out of his home and saw his trailer hooked up to a stranger’s pickup truck. With a gun in one hand and his phone in the other, the man walked up to the truck. As he did so, two burglars emerged from his garage.

The homeowner ordered the two to freeze, firing one shot into the ground, and pointed his gun at one of the men. That man (later identified as 46-year-old Donald R. Brown) stayed and followed directions while his “friend” ran off. After Brown was arrested, deputies found property belonging to the homeowner in Brown’s truck and home. They also believe they know who the other burglar is and are looking for him.

Unarmed, each of these homeowners, outnumbered by their attackers, could have been seriously harmed or killed. In addition, the job of tracking down all four of these suspects would be significantly more difficult for police. Defensive gun uses aren’t only vital for defender’s, they also benefit to the entire community.

 

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    BIL loves these stories. Says they prove gun owners are a murderous lot. No amount of crime, or injury justifies a gun owner being judge, jury and executioner. Every alleged (or videoed) criminal has a right to open trial. All the intervention needed by a rational people is to warn-off a possible attack, or push to force the alleged attacker to abandon the attack, or step-in and separate people fighting, calling police to take control of the situation. BIL says no one can know the mind of another, especially in an emotionally-charged situation. People have reasons for their actions, even crazy actions, and deserve the opportunity to explain themselves in court. Self-defense killings deny possible criminals the due process of law. And, as we like to say, a person is presumed innocent until convicted at trial. Using a gun in self-defense is admission that the defender intended to deny the alleged aggressor the right to a fair trial, and deny their natural, civil and human rights to freedom and safety. BIL is convinced that the desire to own a firearm is self-evident proof that such person should be denied possession of a firearm.

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      I wonder whether your BIL’s tune will change, if it happens to him?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        BIL is privileged to live in a very classy, gated community. Believes the police keep evil away from the neighborhood. Only goes into the “nice” parts of town, to avoid confrontations with the criminal element (an element entirely of Republican making). BIL says crime is so rare that he knows no one effected by it in his entire life, and that is true for almost every person in the country. The likelihood of a regular person needing a gun for defense is almost incalculable.

        1. avatar Owen says:

          BIL you’re so silly. What do you think came first people or the court? I’ll give you a hint: the people created the court.

          Just be cause there is a formal system that can deal with criminals, it does not mean that we can’t deal with them directly.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You’re so silly.”

          About what?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          WTF is a “BIL”? So shoot me.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Brother-In-Law.

          Guess I was trying to be too hep.

          No….”hep” is what you do when assisting someone else.

          Guess I was trying to be too kewel

        5. avatar PsyGuy says:

          Your brother in law should
          * Seek psychiatric help for his phobia
          * check his privilege
          * hope the love of his life is never threatened and/or raped and he has a chance to kill the person
          * Quit transferring HIS feelings to other LEGAL and level headed gun owners
          * Seek psychiatric help for his phobia (again)

    2. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …who’s BIL?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Brother In Law

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          You married into that family, or your sister did?

          EDIT:
          Oh, how presumptuous of me, I assumed your brother’s orientation when I left out the possibility the idiot is your brother’s husband…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Oh, how presumptuous of me, I assumed your brother’s orientation when I left out the possibility the idiot is your brother’s husband…”

          Maybe a vague “Brother-In-Law” serves everyone’s purpose?

    3. avatar Dave Lewis says:

      Sounds like my BIL. Some time back he informed me that “only the state (i.e. government) has the authority to use violence in our behalf.” His argument was that when we created government we somehow removed the right of private persons to exercise self defense. I don’t think that’s in old English common law. It certainly isn’t in the Constitution. Why do our kin – sister in my case – marry such idiots?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Why do our kin – sister in my case – marry such idiots?”

        I was told they had great chemistry. Making me think they created their children in the lab

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Are the kids rational, or are they like *him*?

          …cause I got me a BIL like him, except he;s pro-2A, just a pompus asshole in every other way.

          And his kids are like *him*…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Are the kids rational….”

          My observation on that has always been, “It depends on what ‘is’ is.”

      2. avatar DesertDave says:

        Stupidity has far surpassed Baseball as the national sport. There is a crap load of idiots out there and they procreate like crazy!

      3. avatar Risky says:

        You should have slapped him across the face and said “Better call your representatives!”

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      And how people from the ‘hood gonna get money for they clothes and stuff . . .? White people got more than they need. Givin’ up some of it just balances things out.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Here, have some boolits!

        1. avatar Jeremy D. says:

          I almost spit out my drink when I read this. Comment of the day material

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “White people got more than they need.”

        Here goes that whole “assumption” thing, again.

    5. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      what about the right to safety of the victim? Ever ask BIL about that? Or do we all just have to right to be victims.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “what about the right to safety of the victim?”

        Oh, BIL has that covered. Guns drive all the crime in the country. If there were no guns, things would be fair, and people wouldn’t need to commit crimes to obtain the money and property they need in order to be full participants in life, the economy, and politics.

        He once told everyone, “If there had been no guns among the first Europeans to arrive on the continent, we wouldn’t have all these problems because the non-violent indigenous peoples would have killed all the explorers, leaving the continent in the hands of a noble and honorable people who knew how to get along with each other, and the white conquerors, with their ability to kill the locals, made the tribes envious of each other, so to get more stuff the locals had to ally with the whites, and get guns to kill other tribes, people are a virus on the planet and should be reduced to no more than 500,000 worldwide.” *

        *(He actually says all that in one sentence, in a rush of breath.)

        1. avatar RVTMav says:

          Hey Sam I Am ,
          May you could ask BIL what He-(We) should do about knives?
          After all, the last FBI posting I’ve read about this, there IS 4 Times the number of people KILLED with Knives, than ALL Rifles (Not just the Scary ARs, AKs) but ALL Rifles combined!
          Or is he cool with knives?
          LOL

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          BIL thinks the English are onto something banning knives outside the home. But he likes being the Turkey carver at holidays, so inside the home is OK.

          Fortunately, he is a Dallas Cowboys fan.

    6. avatar PosseMan says:

      BIL obviously suffers from cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.

    7. avatar neiowa says:

      You forgot about eliminating the bail system. It b descminatin agin da po foc in da hood. And shet.

    8. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      What a great example of palming cards. The anti-people love rhetorical cheats.

      – You’ve probably heard of “motte and bailey”. Make the huge, riduculous claim. When pushed, retreat back to the similar, defensible, tiny claim. Then when nobody’s looking creep back out.

      “Reasonable compromise” and “common sense gun control” are retreats. “Confiscation” and “disarmament” are the big claims they’ll hold until you push back.

      The counter is specifics. And judo their sloppiness – every time they say “limited”, “You mean confiscation, like you were talking about a minute ago…”

      – You’ve heard on “undulating lies”, which are a similar claim / non-claim dishonesty, with the same words having an obvious, common usage meaning, and a different meaning that can be lawyerly force-fit.

      The thing you first understood, they’ll deny. If you push back, anti responds: “That (Obvious, common, natural -ed) isn’t what I meant.” Then they’ll force some twisted meaning you through their crafted lawerly language.

      The counter is to stand on your initial understanding — make it their problem. “Well, that wasn’t clear at all. Maybe try saying it better the first time, so you confuse people less.”

      – BIL there is palming a card. At least three, that I noticed. He’s using the results of arguments not made, and assertions not stated.

      The counter is to tag back up on the omitted stuff. Palmed cards are always ridiculous — that’s why they try to not say them. The mistake is to argue with the conclusions three steps removed. That’s where the anit’s want to talk; that’s why they charge ahead to get there.

      “Really? Where does it say having trial by jury eliminates yr right to self defense when a jury isn’t around? I missed that part. Aren’t those both in the same set law, next to each other, even?”

      Deflating any of their tricks will piss them right off — be ready for that, but not a good look on them. You gotta keep yr wits. They’ll keep trying to get back to where they were headed. That’s all they have, and they certainly don’t want a “conversation”, so…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I just pulse BIL now and then to make him say silly stuff in front of a bunch of people (who are relatives, or friends of BIL). Not often enough to set off family feuds, but when someone who I think hasn’t heard him before, or in awhile. It’s a technique I learned as a fed, and used to get two “supervisors” placed in other positions, and out of my face.

        If I push too far, BIL will resort to, “Guns kill people. That’s it. No one needs a gun and you can’t make me change my mind.” Hopeless case, but sometimes entertaining.

        (I know, it’s the same as pulling legs off a grasshopper)

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          Oh, that’s no sin. Unlike grasshoppers, messing with anti’s is doing Bog’s work.

          “I just pulse BIL…”

          Where’d you pick up “pulse”? It’s worked for me as a useful tell that someone has law-enforcement or intelligence, interrogation training.

          “…to make him say silly stuff in front of a bunch of people (who are relatives, or friends of BIL). Not often enough to set off family feuds, but when someone who I think hasn’t heard him before, or in awhile.”

          Nice calibration.

          Never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake. Corollary, create opportunities for your opponent to makes mistakes. (Chess people smarter than me identified this as Bobby Fisher’s fundamental strategy.) When they sputter and look dumb, they discredit themselves, thus their position. So…

          “Hopeless case, but sometimes entertaining.”

          What’s that Alinsky line about a good tactic being one your people enjoy? Tweaking the knuckleheads is better than being bored.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Where’d you pick up “pulse”?”

          Early military concerns with EMP hardening of metal buildings.

      2. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        Their compelling arguments are incoherent.

        Their coherent arguments are un-compelling.

        Cheats are all they have.

  2. avatar MKV says:

    You forgot to add Shannon’s post about good guys with guns being a myth.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Do you mean the one from the Giffords organization? Her name is Gabby Giffords.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Her name should be Daffy Giffords.

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          You’re despicable. 😉

      2. avatar Gralnok says:

        I often see bumper stickers reading “Gabriel Giffords Continues To Inspire” and I just shake my head and drive away. Surviving a bullet to the head is inspirational. Trying to remove the right to self defense and the ability to resist tyranny, not so much.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I will argue that we have a minimal duty to look-out for the well-being of our fellow man. It is a good thing every time an armed citizen is able to affect the capture of a violent criminal.

  4. avatar Chupacabra says:

    I know Glocks are reliable, affordable, easy to use, and very popular…I like them. But aesthetically speaking, you could choose a better picture.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Looks okay to me. Of course, I own a Hi-Point, so I guess I’m aesthetically blind.

  5. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    In my case it is the SIL, she has been mostly converted by my late brother, but still tends to vote for the enemy. Her parents are far worse, but there is little damage they can do in CT since it has fallen to the enemies of freedom.

    1. avatar surlycmd says:

      I’m not so sure, Senator Murphy is a particularly necrotic part of the legislative body.

  6. avatar Robert Powell says:

    in giffords case one has to have a brain in the head to hurt,, or better said NO BRAIN-NO PAIN.. most liberal meat-heads are just that all meat,no brain…

  7. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza'," Oberst von Burn says:

    Although it’s good, I don’t think “and get criminals off the streets”, would work in court? If it does my barrels going to be hotter then a shotguns on opening day

  8. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    there’s a subset of people out there that unequivocally believe that nothing bad happens if guns magically go away. No facts, no evidence, no data, nothing will dissuade them. they approach all problems from a simple black or white answer. nuance escapes them. guns are bad, so if there are no guns ( sprinkles magical fairy dust) there is no bad.

    Arguing with them or trying to reason with them is pointless and a waste of time. nothing you say will change their minds. Unfortunately, even an event such as a home invasion, car jacking or attack by a larger force STILL will not change their mind. They will insist on being a willing participant in their own attack, most likely their own death. they will try to reason with the attacker, under the assumption that there is just some kind of misunderstanding, and they are convinced in their own minds that they will dissuade the attacker with common sense.

    Their death will come as a surprise to them. they cannot fathom another human wanting to use violence against them because they cannot fathom using violence to protect themselves. it is the worst form of self projection.

    You may as well just let nature take its course. it’s all part of the circle of life.

  9. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Is no one going to comment on the warning shot?
    Neither criminal threatened him.
    They just “came out of the garage”
    I see little legal reason to even let off a warning shot, much less shoot one of them. And what if the warning shot had ricochet off a stone and hit a neighbor?
    Here in Florida, warning shots were only recently legalized.
    If both burglars had run off, he had no legal justification to shoot at fleeing criminals.

  10. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    wow. I’m glad I live in a free state. Washington State in the future? Perhaps not so much.

  11. avatar pg2 says:

    Gun ownership is an individual right. Don’t get caught up in the “community” agitprop, it’s a well set trap that we will lose.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email