Ideally, all homicides should be investigated to determine whether or not they were justified. In the case of a Kansas City woman, she claims that after she was assaulted she was able to access her defensive firearm and shot the offender. If the investigation shows that she did not know the offender, the shooting will likely be ruled justified. Probably . . .
According to police, a woman in her 60s answered a knock at her door and a man who she didn’t know asked for someone the woman had never heard of. When she told him he had the wrong house, the man reportedly forced his way inside.
Once inside, the woman told police the man sexually assaulted her.
After the attack, police said the woman claimed the man started to leave the room and she was able to get a hold of a gun she had and shoot the intruder.
Just because the attacker was leaving the room is doesn’t mean he wasn’t prepared and willing to continue the attack. A common pattern that’s seen in defensive shootings is that the attacker becomes distracted or complacent, allowing the victim to fight back effectively.
The report then goes on to mention this unrelated fact:
(Police Chief Darryl) Forte said this is the 94th homicide in Kansas City this year. He also said a handgun was used in 81 of those homicides.
What’s the purpose of this little factoid, especially one that lumps together all homicides, justifiable and unjustifiable together? It seems designed to make the guns somehow responsible for the killings. This is a manifestation of the discredited “progressive elite” model of modern homicide, where most people (aside from the progressive elite and state agents), are considered to be murderers in waiting, needing only an easily available weapon to complete the equation. In fact, the vast majority of murders are committed by a small minority of people with long histories of violent behaviour.
One could ask, how many of these homicides involved the use of automobiles to transport the murderer? I suspect that the number is as high as the number of those which used handguns.
If the accessibility of guns increased the chance of homicides, then homicides should go up as the number of guns goes up. This does not happen. We often see the number of homicides go down as access to guns increases. John Lott has repeatedly shown this in his book, More Guns Less Crime.
The way to decrease homicides is to decrease the number of violent people who are likely to commit homicides. The immediate solution is to allow people to defend themselves, which also has the tendency to reduce the number of violent criminals. The medium term solution is to lock up the violent criminals so that they can’t prey on the innocent. The long term fix is to assimilate those in the violent subcultures in America into the mainstream through the time-tested methods of church, personal responsibility and the requirement and reward for honest work.
Institutions that degrade honest work as “exploitative,” evade responsibility for personal actions by validating excuses for bad behaviour, and foster illegitimate distrust of the criminal justice system all contribute to higher crime rates and homicides.
©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.