Introducing a gun into a conflict is likely to lead to an escalation of hostilities
Critics believe that carrying around a deadly weapon increases the likelihood that a minor argu- ment will turn into a life-threatening showdown. The chances of a needless tragedy breaking out are heightened when gun owners are tired, fright- ened, intoxicated, and untrained. Ready access to
a gun facilitates the escalation of everyday disputes into high-stakes confrontations, as this example demonstrates:
One Sunday morning, a man is bicycling with his four-year-old son strapped in behind him. An SUV pulls alongside him, and the driver begins to curse at him for riding on a highway and slowing down traffic. They exchange words, and the driver pulls out a gun, warning, “I’ll shoot you! I’ll kill you!” The father turns away, but hears a deafening bang as a bullet grazes his bike helmet. The driver, a 42- year-old firefighter, is captured and pleads guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. (Luo, 2011b)
Some so-called “law-abiding citizens” who own guns for protection might actually use firearms to commit crimes
People who have been issued permits do not always remain law-abiding upstanding citizens. Pro- ponents of armed self-defense frequently assert that citizens who get right-to-carry permits are law- abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense, and that fears about them engaging in shooting rampages are baseless. But opponents point out that an unknown fraction of permit holders do commit crimes. Over 670 concealed carry killers have been identified from news reports and court records by a gun con- trol organization that has been maintaining an admittedly incomplete database since 2007. As of 2013, nearly 30 of these concealed carry killers had perpetrated mass shootings, and 17 had mur- dered law enforcement officers (VPC, 2014a), as these two examples illustrate:
A 39-year-old man with no known history of vio- lence or mental illness takes a two-hour training course and a four-hour safety course in order to qualify for a concealed weapons permit for his $600 9 mm semiautomatic Glock pistol. Three years later, he lights a fire in his apartment by setting about $10,000 in cash ablaze with a combustible liquid. He shoots to death two building managers who see the smoke and come to investigate. Then he stands on his balcony and fires up to 20 shots indiscriminately into the parking lot, gunning down a bystander.
V I C T IMS IN T HE T WE N T Y – F IR S T C EN TUR Y : ALT E RN AT IVE D IR EC T IO NS 463
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
After that spree, he goes down one flight of steps, kicks in a door, and shoots a couple to death. Their 17-year-old daughter hides in the bath tub, but he discovers her cowering there and slaughters her too. He begins to fire randomly until the police arrive at the bullet-riddled apartment building. They engage him in a running gun battle so he takes two people hostage. Negotiators try to talk him into surrender- ing, but eventually a heavily armed SWAT team has to be sent in to free the hostages by killing the crazed gunman. (Flor and Ovalle, 2013)
A pharmacist is stopped by a police officer for speed- ing. After the officer fills out the ticket, the video camera from his patrol car shows him briefly speaking to the driver. Then, without saying a word, the pharmacist pulls out his licensed concealed handgun and fires one shot, striking the officer in the face. The driver flees the scene, abandons his car, and attempts to break into another vehicle. He notices an onlooker and brandishes his revolver, chasing the bystander away. Then he calls his brother, a police officer, who picks him up, and convinces him to surrender to the authorities. The pharmacist’s defense, that he is burdened by mental disorders, is rejected by a jury, and he is sentenced to death by lethal injection for murdering an on-duty police officer during a traffic stop. (Wagner, 2011)
Perpetrators of domestic violence, even misde- meanor assaults, are supposed to lose their right to own firearms in many jurisdictions. And yet many offenders remain a threat to their partners and to public safety because their guns frequently are not confiscated by local law enforcement agencies (Connelly and Luo, 2011). Only a handful of states have enacted legislation that requires that guns be surrendered when a victim takes out an order of protection against a former intimate partner (Luo, 2013).