Arguments Advanced by Proponents of Arming for Self-Protection
1) Reaching for a gun can save a victim’s life Gun ownership advocates consider keeping a
firearm at home or at work (especially in stores) as well as routinely carrying around a legally registered concealed handgun to be a rational and reasonable means of protecting an individual from the constant yet unpredictable threat of violent crime. Advocates of armed self-defense tend to cite examples such as these three, which illustrate how lawfully owned guns can be wielded to successfully protect life and property:
A 34-year-old man breaks into a home but the occupant fights back, causing the intruder to flee empty handed. The suspect then shows up a few miles away, and knocks on a door saying he was just assaulted and needs help. As soon as a 72-year-old woman lets him in, he throws her to the floor and begins choking her. Her grown son hears the commotion and runs to his bedroom to grab his legally owned gun. The home invader follows him and lunges towards him. The son fires and kills the intruder; the mother and her son sustain only minor injuries. (Walsh, 2014)
A man taking his girlfriend to dinner steps out of his car in a restaurant parking lot. A concealed- carry permit holder, he usually leaves his handgun in his vehicle, but this time he takes it with him. A few moments later, a masked man rushes up to his girlfriend with what appears to be a gun. The man tells his girlfriend, “Get down, get down!” and fires four shots, wounding the assailant, who is arrested after being discharged from a hospital. His girlfriend tells a reporter, “I don’t know what
would have happened if he hadn’t had the gun,” and calls him her hero. (Nipps and Lang, 2011)
A 64-year-old man waiting for a bus is accosted by a 50-year-old stranger with a knife. The robber stabs him repeatedly in an attempt to steal his pos- sessions. The older man screams, “I don’t have any money! Leave me alone!” A man driving by wit- nesses the attack and intervenes in behalf of the victim by pulling out a concealed handgun he was legally carrying. The armed onlooker detains the robber at gun point until the police arrive. Besides robbery, the attacker is charged with attempted first degree murder. The victim is treated at a local hos- pital and is expected to survive his severe wounds. (Stennett, 2014)
Advocates of arming for self-protection cite cases like these as evidence to demonstrate how firearms can serve as “equalizers” that enable other- wise disadvantaged victims or courageous bystan- ders to emerge victorious from life-and-death struggles with stronger and ruthless foes.
2) Gun ownership instills peace of mind Advocates believe that people armed with
guns at home and concealed handguns when ven- turing outside will feel more confident to go about their daily business without being fearful. Although Americans own guns for a number of reasons, self-protection is becoming a more fre- quently voiced reason.
When asked if gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime or does more to put people’s safety at risk, the major- ity of respondents (57 percent) chose “protects people” while far fewer (38 percent) indicated “puts safety at risk,” with a very small proportion (5 percent) unsure in 2014 (Pew Research Center, 2014; Doherty, 2015).
A growing number of Americans believe that having a gun in a home makes it a safer place to be. A poll in 2014 showed that nearly 65 percent of respondents felt that a gun makes a home safer, up sharply from just 35 percent in 2000 (McCarthy, 2014).
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 459
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
3) Would-be criminals might think twice before attacking a target who could turn out to be armed
Advocates advance a deterrence rationale: Just the prospect that the intended targets would be prepared for battle might dissuade some potential predators from trying to start trouble. Would-be assailants might become reluctant to accost anyone since they do not know who is actually legally car- rying a concealed handgun. The general public con- sequently will benefit from a reduced victimization rate. Advocates assert that firearms are used by intended victims for self-defense more often than they are used by predators to commit crimes. Advo- cates suspect that the number of lives saved by guns might exceed the number of lives lost to bullet wounds annually. The crime-inhibiting effect of gun ownership by potential targets counterbalances the lawbreaking of gun-toting criminally inclined persons (see Kleck, 1991, 1997; Will, 1993; and Witkin, 1994; and “Concealed Guns,” 2012). Pro- ponents believe that communities known to be heavily armed won’t be viewed by burglars and rob- bers as attractive places to operate, and that a well- armed populace can serve as an effective backup for local law enforcement (Reynolds, 2007). Gun pro- ponents claim the growing presence of armed citi- zens has helped to deter crime ever since the second half of the 1990s (sloganized as “more guns, less crime”) (see Lott, 1998; and NRA, 2012). (But a blue ribbon commission found no conclusive evi- dence that the passage of “shall carry” laws had any impact on local crime rates in the states that had adopted this approach [Vines, 2004].)
4) Just brandishing a gun may be sufficient to cut short an attack
Advocates argue that if an assailant begins to approach what he anticipates will be an easy mark, the mere sight of a firearm in the hands of the target might intimidate this offender into retreating and aborting his plans. The crime will be categorized as an attempt and not a successfully completed act.
5) Firing a gun may save a victim’s life In a life-or-death struggle, a gun can improve
the victim’s odds of surviving a battle with an
armed and dangerous, more physically powerful foe, proponents of carrying concealed weapons insist. Furthermore, a law-abiding citizen could wound, capture, and hold an assailant at bay until the police arrive and thereby successfully “solve” his own case (see ProCon, 2012).
It is difficult to find estimates of the number of assailants that victims felt they had to shoot during crimes in progress in order to protect themselves. The FBI tracks the number of violent felons killed by victims that were deemed legally permissible by the police and, if necessary, the courts. In 2013, private citizens under attack had to resort to deadly force to prevent grave bodily harm or even to save their lives in over 280 incidents. In nearly 225 (about 80 percent) of these kill-or-be-killed con- frontations, the victims fired guns (as opposed to dispatching their foes in other ways) according to the UCR (FBI, 2014) (see the discussion of “justifi- able homicides”).
6) People ought to take responsibility for their own safety and prepare to defend themselves and their families from criminals.
Self-reliance is necessary to supplement the basic protections provided by the police. Officers cannot effectively reach everyone under attack in time during crimes in progress, especially in the midst of crisis situations. The government can never guarantee the safety of all of its citizens at all times and places. Consequently, protecting oneself and one’s family is not just a right but an obligation. Some advocates of armed self-defense as well as self-reliance go as far as to argue that intended targets have a “moral responsibility” to fight back if their property, lives, families, and communities are in danger. To do this effectively, law-abiding citizens need to be trained and to be equipped with guns as equalizers. The existence of police departments does not relieve individuals of their obligations to protect themselves, and officers cannot be depended upon to serve as personal bodyguards. Readiness to resist an assault on one’s dignity is a prerequisite for self-respect, as well as a deterrent to crime (see Snyder, 1993; and Will, 1993).
460 CH APT ER 13
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
A small town in Georgia has had an ordinance in effect since 1982 that requires every household to possess a gun for self-defense (Gray, 2013).
Counterarguments Advanced by Critics Opposed to Arming for Self-Protection
A number of groups and organizations can be con- sidered to be part of a movement to promote the view that gun ownership is risky and needs to be discouraged or at least more tightly controlled. They point out that over 30,000 lives were lost because of bullet wounds in 2010. For every person who dies, two others survive their wounds, leading to an overall toll that approaches 100,000 Americans injured or killed due to firearms per year. Over the years from 2005 to 2010, despite the drop in crime rates, on average 33 people a day were murdered by gun-wielding assailants. Nearly 50 people a day committed suicide during those years by using guns. And about two people died accidentally each day from gunfire (Law Center, 2012). In response to all this bloodshed, the movement in opposition to arming for self-protection cites a number of reasons for rejecting going around armed as a means of self- protection: More deadly weapons in private hands will lead to more suicides, accidental injuries and deaths, minor disputes spiraling out of control into shootings, and needless suffering (see Fox and McDowall, 2008; Luo, 2011b; and ProCon, 2012). Specifically, the opponents of arming for self- protection put forward the following arguments.