Self-Defense

What kind of idiot holds a hostage drill without informing the people involved that it's a drill?  It seems that schools are gun-free zones so that the administrators can conduct "drills" like this without fear of a student or professor defending himself.

It's a pity no one fought back.  If someone had, the right lesson might have been learned.

Gun-free zone or not, had I been there, someone would have been hurt.  Possibly me, possibly the "attacker", probably both.  You don't need a gun to defend yourself... but it sure does help.

To the new gun owner: Welcome to the growing number of Americans who are taking responsibility for their own safety.  You may find this hard to believe at first, but gun ownership for self-defense is not as hard as it might seem.  The media has invested a great deal of effort in showing you the risks of gun ownership, but rational examination of the evidence reveals a different story.  Please, allow me to respond to your specific concerns:

How many families, with children, own a gun?  According to the National Center For Health Statistics, 34% of homes with children, house a gun.

To keep some perspective, let us not forget that this means millions of households with children and guns -- millions of households that are managing to do so safely and without incident.

Caucasian families represent the highest percentage of firearm ownership, than any other ethnicity. In fact, it is more than double the percentage of any other race. I was shocked to read this. No matter what purpose the firearms serve, the fact is, that they are still present in many homes in the US.

I am shocked that the racial makeup of firearms owners was considered worthy of comment; what possible use could this information be?

The stories of children being injured or perishing because of gun accidents are ever increasing. This is what scares me most. Statistics show that 2.6 million children, who live in a home that contains a firearm, have access to them. Gun control is obviously an issue that needs to be better executed.

In America, we recognize that the preservation of liberty requires citizens to act responsibly, without the government imposing itself.  The measures required to "better execute" gun safety by government mandate rather than personal responsibility would require eviscerating the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution, all of which are valued as important and vital civil rights.  Instead, we ask individuals to educate themselves and their children on how to voluntarily store and use firearms safely.

This policy has resulted in the risk of a child dying from an  firearm accident being substantially lower than the risk of a child drowning in a swimming pool. 

I would have responded with more detailed statistics, but the CDC's cause-of-death website appears to be down.  If it comes back up later, you can use the instructions here to get decent information.

Furthermore, the AACAP, claims that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend, than kill someone in self defense. That is a staggering statistic!

Statistics that are "staggering" are also often misleading, especially when they are raised in the context of gun control.  Various organizations and individuals responsible for pushing the anti-gun agenda have produced and popularized many "statistics" that are significantly flawed.  I recognize the "22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend" as a restatement of discredited research done by Arthur Kellerman.  Here are just a few of the flaws in Kellerman's research:

• The best estimates indicated that over 90% of firearm uses in self-defense occur without firing the weapon, much less killing anyone. 
  
• The original research did not track "family member or friend" deaths; it tracked deaths that were "known associates".  People who fall into that category include abusive ex-husbands, abusive ex-boyfriends, and the drug dealer down the street who you called the police on last week.
• The original research counted suicides using the firearm.
  

There were far more flaws in the original study than I have mentioned here.  I tracked down the AACAP's paper on firearms in the home which does in fact cite Arthur Kellerman for that statistic.  It may also be worth noting that Kellerman's original study claimed killing an acquaintance was 43 times more likely.  Although Kellerman has reduced his claims in response to criticism, the methods he uses remain fundamentally flawed.

What is your opinion on the subject? Do you think that we are foolishly letting our fear drive our decision regarding purchasing a gun? Would you keep a firearm in your  home? Do you think the possible safety a gun can offer, is worth the risk of hurting/killing a child?

There are risks associated with everything.  Your risk of your child dying in a car accident on the way to school is probably greater than the risk of your child dying from in a firearm accident.  You can make sure of that by storing your firearm responsibly (so that it is not accessible to younger children) and making sure that older children are trained and raised to understand and respect the firearm, rather than fear it.  ("Forbidden fruit" is very attractive to children, so the firearm must not be forbidden completely; instead it should be respected, stored securely, and its use supervised). 

Firearms are very effective defensive tools, and while I cannot speak to whether your specific situation warrants fear, I can say that it is better for parents to be able and willing to protect their children than for parents to abdicate that responsibility to police.  The risk of a child dying from a firearm accident in a responsible gun owner's home is much, much smaller than it is usually portrayed in the media.  Be aware of that, take responsibility for your safety and your children's safety, and you should have no reason to regret your decision.

It seems one of our state senators wants to introduce a Castle Doctrine bill.  This is pretty old news, and it may well have already passed, but what I would like to know (and don't have time to research myself) is what the specific changes are.  Does anyone have the text of the proposed legislation handy?

Hat tip to Blogonomicon.

SayUncle has the full report on the effectiveness of victim resistance to crime.  Thanks for hunting it down!  And thanks to Justin Buist for hosting a copy.

Two recent events (an advisory opinion from West Virginia and legislation recently passed in Oklahoma) have sparked a discussion of whether resisting (violent) crime is good public policy, deserving of special legal protection, or not.  I recalled seeing some statistics from the Department of Justice that implied "resistance with a firearm" was the course of action least likely to result in injury when faced with a crime of violence. 

I was planning to dig up those statistics and make the point myself, but it seems someone else has decided to do the analysis for me, in the form of a study from the Florida State University Department of Criminology: Resistance is Not Futile; Rather It is Highly Effective.  The study actually makes a number of points that I had considered, but not yet analyzed, including the potential for confusion between the sequence of self-protective actions and injury.  In other words, a simple statistical analysis mind find that resistance and injury are correlated -- but it won't be able to tell you whether the victim was injured because they resisted, or resisted because they were injured. 

The press release for the study makes it clear: injury followed self-protection only 10% of the time, and were usually minor.

Unfortunately, I only have the press release... not a copy of the whole thing.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia presents, for resolution by this Court, the following certified question: ?Whether the right of self-defense is a 'substantial public policy' exception to the at-will employment doctrine, which provides the basis for a wrongful discharge action?? Following a review of the parties' arguments, the record presented for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. In this regard, we find that the State of West Virginia recognizes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine whereby an employee may defend him/herself against lethal imminent danger. However, an employer may rebut the presumption of a wrongful discharge based upon an employee's exercise of his/her right to self-defense by demonstrating that it based the termination upon a plausible and legitimate business reason.

A West Virginia court has ruled that self-defense does not constitute a reason to fire an employee -- even an at will employee (meaning, one who can normally be fired without cause).  The employee in question stopped an armed robbery with his bare hands.  I'd call that heroism and promote him, rather than firing him, but that's just me.  7-11 seems to think differently.

While I'm not a fan of their thinking, I'm reluctant to suggest that firing an at-will employee is an offense worthy of damages even when the firing is clearly not justified.  That's an issue I'm still very uncertain about.  Not because I don't think people have the right to self-defense, I just think that the employer may have the right to cease employing that person -- no matter how stupid I think it would be for them to do so. 

Still, even if the decision overreaches, it's a clear victory for our side.  I'll have more to say on the decision once I've read through the whole thing, and thought about it a bit.

UPDATE: After glancing through a little more of the decision, it becomes apparant that this is not a ruling on a case per se.  It's a ruling on a question of law certified by the lower court, which requested guidance from the Court of Appeals.  It's a rare, but not unknown, move when the law is not clear on an issue, and it can avoid a later reversal.  Thus, what we have appears to be a ruling that firing someone for self defense can be illegal, but is not necessarily illegal in this case.  The lower court will still need to hear and decide the case in light of the opinion from the Court of Appeals.

UPDATE: There's some good analysis at Of Arms & the Law, the Volokh Conspiracy, and Stop the Bleating!.

UPDATE: You may also be interested in Property rights vs self-defense rights which covers similar issues.

UPDATE: A commenter nitpicked the headline (Virginia rather than West Virginia), so I corrected it.  The body had the correct usage.

If you've been wondering exactly what the new law means, check out Kopel's analysis.

Have you sworn not to let it happen again?

Deborah Courtney (DACourtney@earthlink.net) is looking for you:

"I am actively searching to cast 26 victims of crime to be interviewed for a TV show, both male and female, who may have been accosted, assaulted, mugged, car jacked, or had any other crime perpetrated upon them, that would like to take control back in their life and be empowered through personal safety and awareness training, and a firearms class, as well. The person must be willing to share what happened to him or her on camera, and then we will all go and receive a $1200 training course for FREE at Front Sight, in Nevada, and then we are to be interviewed as to whether the personal safety and firearms training has made us feel more safe and empowered, or not."

I got the story from The War on Guns, where David Codrea has more.

I've written before (Part 1, Part 2) about people making themselves feel safer by negotiating with themselves to take some sort of ineffective action in response to a threat, thus avoiding the necessity of facing their fears.  Rather than take effective action, many people prefer to take action that makes them feel better.   So, head on over to this article from Publicola that covers the same theme.  I'm designating it the honorary Part 3, because it's just that good.

Remember, prayers, demonstrations, support-the-victim rallies, golf clubs, flashlights, candlelight vigils, and so on will not save your life from a violent predator.  They just make you feel better.  That feeling of safety is an illusion.  It is meaningless.  You are still just as helpless as before, until you take active steps to protect you life.  Steps like getting a firearm, and carrying it.

H.R. 47 reaffirms the basic truth that citizens have a right to use a gun in defense of self, family, and home.

It enforces that right with serious "teeth." Should a person be deprived of their right to self-defense with a firearm, that person can bring an action in court against the United States, any State, or any person. Anti-gun prosecutors would be personally liable for their wrongdoings -- and the wronged party can demand compensation and reimbursement of legal fees.

The Gun Owners of America are going on the offensive, pushing the "Citizen's Self-Defense Act". The intent is to protect your 2nd Amendment rights by allowing people persecuted (or even prosecuted!) for using a firearm in self-defense to sue the prosecutor and recover damages. You might want to contact your legislators about this bill.

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. 'nuff said. The UK needs to come to their senses, fast, because their civilization is rapidly falling apart.

Courtesy of The Smallest Minority and No Quarters comes this article in the news.telegraph advocating a right to self-defense in the UK. And doing it with some very graphic, shocking pictures. The people who are willing to commit these crimes are willing to do anything they need to, and it's hard for 80-year-old women to effectively defend themselves... without a gun.

David Blunkett has given his backing to The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to change the law to give homeowners more rights to protect themselves against burglars.

The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was "deeply sympathetic" to those who thought the law should do everything possible to help householders against intruders - and signalled that government action was likely.

This might be just a floater, rather than a serious change of policy, but even vague rumblings are welcome at this point. England has been heading in the wrong direction for a long time and it's about time they started considering a change of course. Check out the comments from The Smallest Minority on this issue as well; he's had a running argument with a left-wing blogger about self-defense in England that's worth reading back in order to understand the magnitude of this change.

AN ELDERLY widow told yesterday how she fought off two teenage burglars with a 3ft-long antique sword. Jean Freke, 80, grabbed the 100-year-old army officer's dress sword - which belonged to her late husband's father - after the robbers broke down the front door of her home. The pensioner - who suffers from angina - challenged the pair but was punched to the ground by one of them, while the other ransacked her home searching for valuables. Jean feared she going to die until she she managed to get to her feet and grab the blade and point it at one of the men. The pair ran off empty-handed as she yelled: "Get out of my home".

Three cheers for Granny!

A Chinese martial arts expert was in custody yesterday after turning the tables on four burglars armed with knives, killing two of them and seriously wounding a third.

The 28-year-old man, known as "the doctor" for his practice of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, managed to seize one of the two knives carried by his assailants and saw off the entire group with the ferocity of his reaction.

Magistrates in the central Italian town of Empoli are now seeking to establish whether his self-defence constituted an excessive use of force.

Now this... THIS is self-defense! What kind of idiotic police department would want to charge this guy?

A bill to allow New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns has cleared its final committee and now heads to the House floor for a vote, possibly as soon as today. The House Appropriations and Finance Committee on Wednesday amended the bill to raise the age for obtaining a gun permit from 21 to 25. The committee then passed the bills along to the floor by an 11-to-6 vote.

On September 11, passengers armed only with cellphones and courage succeeded where a multibillion-dollar military failed. Does their achievement mean that 50 years of American defense policy is all wrong?