Police crime scene
(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Previous Post
Next Post

Don’t look now, but Chicago is looking like it might be the defensive gun use DGU capital of the US. There have been at least forty-six Chicagoans who have used a gun since January 2021 to protect themselves. To put that number in perspective, HeyJackass pegs the number of officer-involved shootings as 30 in the same time period.

Keep in mind these are just the incidents I could find that made the news. How high is the actual number?

Number Of Chicago Defensive Gun Use
Location of incidents where someone has used a gun for self-defense since January 2021.

Many special interest groups like Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown gun control operation want you to believe that we need stronger gun laws and even mention Chicago in their anti-gun propaganda. They say the claim that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” is a myth.

They might want to try tell that to the woman who was outside a Chase in November when a man tried to carjack her. She told CBS News . . .

Thank God I had my gun, or I’d probably be dead right now. …

I had just come out of the bank and was sitting in my car about to lock my door to pull off in leave, and he opened my door and put a gun in my face and when he saw me get mine, he looked surprised – and I started shooting, and he started running.

The CDC produced a study in 2012 and the results weren’t something the Obama administration or his anti-gun allies wanted to hear.

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.

For whatever reason, that was the last time the CDC tried to do a major study on defensive gun uses. Yet another survey estimated that an average of 1,029,615 households use guns every year for self-defense in the five-year period they studied. 

The Crime Prevention Research Center recently published an article with a long list of cases in which good guys with guns stopped armed psychopaths who were on a shooting spree. Dr. John Lott wrote the book More Guns, Less Crime and concluded that, “Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when people are facing a criminal by themselves.” 

You might even say that God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

This is the part that people who think guns don’t save lives don’t understand…or refuse to acknowledge. You virtually always face a criminal on your own. By the time someone dials 911, it’s too late. In other words, you are your own first responder.

But back to the Windy City. Prospects for less violent crime there don’t look good. The number of people who are applying for positions with the Chicago Police Department is abysmally low and if you look at a graph of the number of cops, it looks like someone jumped off a cliff.

Data like this should keep Chicagoans up at night . . .

Kourtney Redmond is The Illinois State Director of the National African American Gun Association and the President of the 761st Gun Club in Chicago. I showed him the map of locations where the defensive gun uses I was able to identify have occurred. he said . . .

When looking at where most of the self-defense situations in Chicago take place, they often happen in impoverished neighborhoods on the south and west side (black communities) of our great city. People that support gun control all too often do not have to stay in these neighborhoods.

The police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens who are not in custody. The black community in Chicago is starting to realize that. Gun ownership in the black community has grown exponentially. Leading those numbers are black women. We, like every other community, want to exercise our Second Amendment Right to self-defense, which the constitution grants all citizens of this great nation.

Chicago crime scene shooting
A Chicago Police detective collects crime scene of a shooting. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)

The fact is, crime is going to continue to rise in Chicago and other cities, given undermanned and demoralized police forces like the CPD, widespread decarceration, zero bail laws, and “progressive” prosecutors who let many violent criminals walk. That means the number of defensive gun uses will rise too, as good guys with guns increasingly use them to defend themselves and their loved ones.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Let me get this straight. People are attacked and they defend themselves. I’ll alert the media.

      • I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE…..,

        >>>>>>> http://Www.BizPay1.com

    • Don’t bother those aren’t the stories they want to sensationalize. Can’t have good news getting air time.

  2. Same old Far Right Wing bullshit. The real facts are that guns get shipped into Chicago from states with lax gun laws and sold to people who should not have guns. Two different Chicago studies proved this beyond all doubt.

    If more guns made us safer the U.S. would be the safest country on earth but we are the most violent Industrialized Nation on the planet with the most deaths from gunfire among the Industrialized Nations.

    Besides the gun problem we have had wages stagnate over the last 50 years while the super rich increased their wealth by over 920%. We have become a Nation of have not’s. The American dream has become extinct and the younger generations realize they are way less off than their parents and grandparents were. Greed monger Businessmen under Reganomics, which believed in “trickle down” economics impoverished the working man by busting Unions and shipping high paying manufacturing jobs overseas with the use their of slave labor.

    A recent Harvard study found that if you are among the lower working class your chances of moving up the economic ladder are far greater if you go to Socialist Canada that has a more fair and affordable educational system and one that has been so successful that it has integrated immigrant children in less than 2 years. Far from hurting Canada’s economy the immigrants have made the Canadian economy thrive much to the chagrin of America’s rabid , racist, Far Right who hate and despise immigrants and refuges. Capitalvania under Herr Drumpf and his Nazi Jack Booted regime actually reduced immigration in the U.S. to a trickle and during a labor shortage.

    The divorce rate in Capitalvania U.S.A has sored in the last half century forcing children to grow up with neither parent in the household as both often work 2 and even 3 low paying shit jobs with no benefits, no retirement, and not even any holidays off. Mental illness, hopelessness, and drug addiction and crime has soared all leading to the breakdown of the family unit.

    Capitalvania has now gone the way of Ancient Rome. Just as Rome fought to many wars of rape, pillage and conquest that bankrupted the country and had vast amounts of corruption in government, so too has Capitalvania. In Rome the rich bought up all the farm land and ran it with slaves and put the people on welfare. They gave them “bread and circus” to keep them from starving to death and or turning to revolt. The people even refused to serve in the military forcing Rome to rely on mercenaries who soon betrayed them. Does this all sound familiar. Well it sure as hell should.

    Yes the unrest, violence and break down of society is a complex one and guns have only made the country far worse to live in than it otherwise might have been. A safe society is not one armed to the teeth because the naked ape soon uses its firepower on itself. Other nations have mental illness, poverty, and often far more immigrants and refugees, but they are not knee deep in blood and bullets. Only the depraved and paranoiac Far Right refuse to see this or believe it.

    Next time you have to shoot your way to your mail box and back into your home ask yourself the question “What the hell happened to the country I used to live in when people had high paying jobs and you could walk down the street at midnight and run almost no risk of violence or death’? Its gone with the wind, we now live in a National Insane Asylum.

    • Which states have these “lax” gun laws?
      Wasn’t aware that states could circumvent federal law.
      Purchasing a weapon taking it across state lines and selling to someone who shouldn’t have one it’s already a violation of the law it is called a
      “Shadow Purchase”.
      We have more than enough gun laws already they need to be enforced. Bangers who use guns should not be let back out on the street that might go a little ways to stopping the violence.
      What we need is criminal control.

    • You are right, of course, to observe the change in the fabric and social interactions over the last several decades. My colleagues and I were reminiscing about our high school marksman’s club. We had our own range, used our own .22 bolt action rifles, and occasionally won a tournament. Needless to say, bringing guns to school today is not an option. One of the main causes, though, lies in the cities controlled by Democrats for many election cycles; they scream racism but have no one to blame but themselves. Just take a look at the statistics of repeat offenders, “non-sentences”, crime among, and perpetrated by illegal aliens and you get an understanding of where some of this rot starts.

      • No doubt working from home (his mother’s basement) and the name on the upper left of his paychecks reads: The Trace.

    • Dacian, we do need more gun laws in the books. Shipping guns into Chicago absolutely needs to stop. We need to enact legislation to criminalize these offensives.

      *checks gun laws* oh, never mind they already have laws for that.

      Your quote-“What the hell happened to the country I used to live in when people had high paying jobs and you could walk down the street at midnight and run almost no risk of violence or death’?…….Let’s turn back time shall we, with each year we go back, gun laws are removed. So this time you speak of would have less gun laws, so I think we would finally agree that we need less gun laws. And before you bring it up, I know you will bring up the assault weapons ban, which had no statistical affect on gun crime. With the assault weapon ban, gun crimes were already on the decline before the ban and continued to decline after the ban was removed.

      Your quote-“If more guns made us safer the U.S. would be the safest country on earth.”….if I had a nickel for all of the gun laws that made me safer, I would probably robbed of that 1 nickel.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead. Same old shi* different day? Guns are “shipped into Chicago?” if they were “shipped into Chicago” as you allege they would be going to FFL’s. Nice try.
      The problem is that not enough people are carrying to make us safer.

    • How long have you been a member of the Communist party? You leftist remind me of the guy who farts in the elevator and points fingers at the other guy. The left is destroying our nation and blaming it on those things that would save us. The left is pure evil that must be destroyed.

      • What exactly IS the difference between HOMICIDE and MURDER?
        The word ending ‘CIDE’ indicates a deliberate act.

        • Homicide is the killing of one human by another. Murder is the unjustified killing of one human by another.

        • Mark N is correct, as an attorney should be.

          From my own personal experiences in my state i’d like to add…

          Homicide is a category, murder is a subset of the category.

          Homicide is a broad term used to categorize several cases/instances subsets where a crime was committed against a person. Another subset of homicide, for example, is manslaughter (e.g. killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder). And yet another subset of homicide is called ‘justifiable homicide’ (what is called ‘self-defense’) meaning basically the killing of a person in circumstances which allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt.

          I’ve been though the ‘self-defense’ legal wringer several times in my life, when the bad guy died it was legally called/ruled ‘justifiable homicide’ as the circumstances were such that it was ‘self-defense’ thus ‘justifiable’ under the circumstances thus no criminal guilt or blame assigned. In my state, no civil liability either as a decision of ‘justifiable homicide’ self-defense protects one from being sued or assigned civil liability for the act and the outcome.

          It may vary in definitions a little state to state to state, but overall basically this is it.

        • To add to what I wrote above…

          In my state, a ruling of ‘self-defense’ (even if no one was shot or killed) removes civil liability.

      • They are are also confusing the issue by calling suicides “self murders”. That way they can count it as an murder.

  3. quote: which the constitution grants all citizens of this great nation.”

    Come ONNNN man you are a GUNwriter. Get this right.
    The Constitution GRANTS us nothing. It does, however, name a few specific examples of our RIGHTS< given us by the same God who made us and will one day judge us all, then tells GOVERNMENT and everyone else to back off and LEAVE THEM ALONE. Government do NOT "grant" us anything.

    • What you’re saying is true from a certain point of view. Yes, the rights of personal self-defense and overthrow of oppressive authorities are based upon natural law, and the Constitution was originally written to affirm and guarantee that. But what about those who don’t believe that to be the case? Therefore the Constitution as a legal instrument grants them in absence of any divine/natural/moral impetus. Had a bill of enumerated rights not been written, you can bet your shiny hiney that every last one of them would have been erased from memory and practice long ago.

      • Natural law does not mean you have to believe in a supreme being, just that self protection is natural and should not be limited.
        Since the Bible was the one book that any educated person of that time studied and quoted, it was in the lexicon of the time.
        Many of the people that signed the Constitution were not particularly religious, George Washington went to many different churches, so as not to make one more important the another. Thomas Jefferson decided to cut all the miracles out of the New Testament in order to have a book he believed in without faith. These men were not any more moral than today’s man, many had mistresses, visited prostitutes and drank to excess – they were men that had the normal problems of men everywhere. The only reason our Creator is mentioned is that was the way they spoke.

        • The founders were/are considered Deists. Religious fervor is inconsequential.

          Natural law cannot exist in a universe ruled by entropy, just as “nature” cannot exist (in any form humans would recognize) in a universe controlled by entropy. A universe that is generated by “nothing” cannot exist. “Nothing” means absolutely nothing is preexisting, i.e. “the laws of Nature”. “Nothing” does not mean, nor imply, “Nothing, except….”. Even the

          The founders were quite clear about a God being nature’s creator:”…assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”; “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…”

          It is highest sophistry to declare that since the constitution of people convinced of the existence of “natures God” does not once state “God”, “God” has nothing to do with the justification and authority of a “nature’s God”. If the founders were wrong about the source of their authority and justification for the constitution, the entire concept and document is invalid, unjustified, completely lacking in authority for existing, much less for controlling government. Without an authority and justification beyond “nature” (i.e. some sort of supreme entity), humankind simply operate under the law of the jungle; power then becomes the sole arbiter of right and wrong.

      • Natural rights are granted to all of human kind by God, the founders recognized that and protected those rights with the Bill of Rights. Whether you as individual choose to believe in God, or have some other religion, or are a secularist has no bearing on those founding documents.

  4. When I get my copy of American Rifleman every month, the first column I read is The Armed Citizen. It always gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

    I look forward to many DGU stories in the media. Hopefully such events will become so widespread, the media can’t ignore it. Once criminals realize more people are determined to defend themselves, we may see the same reduction in crime we saw in the twenty or so years before the 2020 terrorist riots and the COVID scam.

  5. And I hear constantly how “Chiraq has strict gun laws”. Not particularly for a blue city. I hear it on FOX,here and newz nuts. Defensive gun use is generally positively noted. Who duh thunk? I guarantee they ain’t handing in their gats to slow Joe…

    • Chicago’s gun laws are the same as the rest of the State of Illinois ever since McDonald v. Chicago. That case eliminated a 20 year ban on the possession of handguns in the City. There was another case, don’t remember the same, where the 7th circuit essentially forced Illinois to adopt shall issue CCW.

      • Chicago gun laws are not the same as the rest of Illinois. There are many restrictions in Chicago that do not apply to the rest of the state. In Chicago you cannot own an AR15. You can outside of Chicago.

  6. How could this be? Our resident “gun expert” (sic) says that most of the time when a good guy confronts the bad guy, the bad guy wins. I guess he is lying yet again? When does dacian, the Dunderhead, get his ideas?

  7. “But what about those who don’t believe that to be the case? Therefore the Constitution as a legal instrument grants them in absence of any divine/natural/moral impetus.”

    The above escapes all too many people. Without the proposition that there is a God of the universe, a supreme power, then it is “the people”, through elected officials, who grant “rights”; rights subject to majority rule (whether simple or super).

    Those who believe there is a God active in the affairs of humans, and those who do not hold such belief, the conversation over rights is two trains, on two tracks, passing in the night. Without an acknowledged agreement regarding the existence of “rights”, both sides are following logic patterns that can never be reconciled.

    The founders warned us that there are no benign governments, thus the need for a national constitution. And eternal vigilance.

    • My right to self defense is mine by virtue of my existence. As is yours. Beliefe in any particular deity is not required. The particular beliefes of that that founded this country does not change that one way or the other.

      “Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force”

      That is not true because a particular person said it. It’s true because that is reality.

      • “My right to self defense is mine by virtue of my existence.”

        Nice proclamation, but legally insufficient. The appeal to a higher being identified in the DOI was designed to take rights out of the hands of government, out of the hands of strong arm humans.

        Lacking a supreme law that supersedes humans, all that is left is the natural law of governments (raw power). The founders upended millennia of political theory; intentionally. Every other theory of politics centers on a single leader, or a government, as the source of all “rights” and privileges.

        The founders put a Creator at the center of all things natural, because otherwise power alone determines what is “natural”. The founders put the “rights” of monarchy subordinate to “nature’s God”. This made monarchy (any sort of tyranny) subordinate to a higher power, thus making government subordinate to “nature’s God”.

        Without an unassailable authority of “natural”, “natural” becomes what is permitted by other humans; temporary social norms. Without an unassailable authority of “natural”, the founders had no recognizable justification for rebellion, or establishing a representative form of government.

        Without a supreme entity, the founders were no different from any other renegade group that wrested power from the formerly all powerful. (which is my entire point)

  8. “The founders warned us that there are no benign governments, thus the need for a national constitution. And eternal vigilance.”


  9. That’s not news. Because one good guy with a gun didn’t stop one event, so it obviously never happens. Give em all up, send your children to indoctrinating schools where they are left alone and helpless for hours each day, and use your phone to record and report crime. Stupid gun nuts. Why won’t you just give up your right to defend yourselves already?

  10. Something the anti gun crowd loves to preach is you have only a slim chance of stopping, shooting or defending yourself from an armed attacker. Well, I would rather have a slim chance of stopping the threat, or possibly killing an attacker than be unarmed and have no chance.
    Was the unarmed victim once long ago. And once I got out of the hospital, I pulled my 1911 out of the safe and put it into an IWB holster. That was in 1987. Since I had to go down to my in town properties today, I have the same 1911 in my belt right now. Otherwise I would be wearing a revolver on a separate gun belt. In fact, the only time I’m more than arms reach from a weapon is when I have to go to a government office, or I am flying somewhere.

    • A t-shirt I saw in the 1970s – “Do unto others, then split.”

  11. “Keep in mind these are just the incidents I could find that made the news. How high is the actual number?”

    Likely far higher, based on my personal experience. I’ve drawn a weapon twice in about 30 years. One time, at a traffic light someone just opened my passenger side door and started to climb in, while jabbering about where he needed to be taken, as if I was a frick’en yellow cab or something. As soon as he saw me clear leather, he went into full retreat out of my car. I didn’t even get to the point of aiming at him, as soon as he saw it was a gun, out he went. Had he entered my car, Florida law considers that would be a good shoot, because your vehicle is considered an extension of your private home by state law.

    After that, you can bet your ass I don’t drive anymore unless I verify all vehicle doors are locked.

    The other time, I was doing some interior painting and renovation work for the next-door neighbor of a buddy of mine when a just walked in moving to ward me rapidly. In a not-happy voice as I was beginning to draw, I told him in a half-growl “You need to leave the house.” Just like the other time, as soon as he saw me begin to draw, he pivoted like a dancer and walked right back out and disappeared.

    Both times I briefly considered calling the cops immediately after the fact, but blew it off as unnecessary.

    If either of those happened today, I absolutely would have called the cops. Both events took place in an area not considered to be a particularly ‘bad part of town’.

    But times have changed, and it’s a totally new environment now, sad to say…

    • Yes, the actual number in higher.

      Less than 1% of valid self defense defensive gun use (DGU) makes the news. The majority of incidents take a lot of digging to uncover through, and further investigation of, the various police reports and in most its not obvious from the way the report is written there was DGU. For example, a report may only say, basically, a home occupant reported an attempted break in and when police arrived the bad guy was gone but not include the fact the home occupant had a firearm and physically encountered the bad guy and its because of that the bad guy ran away if a shot was fired or not. Over 80% of bad guys shot in valid DGU who show up at emergency rooms, their cases are never tied to a specific incident and the person who used the valid self-defense DGU that ended with that bad guy getting shot doesn’t report it for fear of being arrested and charged, or fear of the legal hassle and cost or having to go through the legal system and hiring a lawyer which is a cost they can not afford, even though it was valid legal self defense.

      Overall, valid legal self defense by DGU, categorically, is the most under reported event there is so the actual number is really much higher. Less than 5% of valid legal self-defense DGU is reported to police because of the fear of the legal system “mountain” they will be possibly forced to climb to justify their right to protect their lives or the lives of their family even though in most valid DGU self defense no shot was fired.

    • Find it funny how some people supposedly suffering from mental illness suddenly become acutely aware their surroundings and of impending danger at the sight of the car speeding at them or gun being drawn.

  12. Times HAVE changed, and by coincidence today is Biden’s 500th day in office… Hooray. Gee, how did that go – are you better off today than you were…..

  13. To put that number in perspective, HeyJackass pegs the number of officer-involved shootings as 30 in the same time period.

    That count of 30 appears to be officer involved shootings that result in a wounding or killing.

    I infer that because there isn’t any shootings that resulted in nobody getting wounded which I would think would happen quite a bit?

    I’d like to use this stat because it sounds compelling but I don’t think it is apples to apples.
    However, I’d imagine that the true number of all shootings (injury or not) is probably publicly available somewhere for the digging.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here