In Defense Of Deadly Force

Gun ownership is somewhat like Mr. Obama's Gov'ment Healthcare: it divides people into two groups. One group is completely for it, the other is completely against it. I don't think that we will ever agree on them. I have not received any flaming comments lately, so I thought that I would write something provocative and see what happens.

Gun Owners Are Nuts

A few days ago I listened to a state politician’s tirade against guns, calling every gun owner “a nut”, and “one who would shoot up the town at the slightest assumption of provocation”. Obviously, being elected to a state office does not have a pre-requisite of being rational. This man was clearly off the deep end.

It’s Not How Fast You Are …

Years ago I watched a Western movie in which a pipsqueak of a gunfighter forced an old codger into accepting his challenge. After the gun smoke cleared, the codger stood holding his hand on his bleeding ribs, saying, “It’s not how fast you’re with a gun, but where you put the bullet…” The pipsqueak lay in the dust before him.

Trained Killers

I went through basic training in one branch of the US armed forces. I succeeded, in theory, to a certain level, and I attained the badge of “expert rifleman”. What that meant then is that I could have maybe seven hits out of ten shots. The ones, who had more hits, were destined to specialize in becoming snipers if their demeanor could handle it. Becoming a sniper was neither my inclination, nor within my skill.

Some years later when I went through police academy one of the qualifying tests was what was called, “tactical”. I already knew where I was in reality: so-so, with respect to hitting the target. At the beginning of the test, my first target was a steel silhouette, one hundred yards away (three hundred feet, or 91.44 meters), which would pivot if I hit it with a bullet from my handgun as I was running to complete the test in the allotted number of seconds. I tried not to play John Wayne, so I stopped, aimed, and fired. Sonofagun! The target pivoted with a satisfying “plink” half a second after I pulled the trigger. I may have made history there, but I considered my prior mediocre achievements with respect to hitting the target, and attributed it to chance. The rest of the time, and later on the force when I had to re-qualify repeatedly I was adequate, but never that good. We have never been encouraged or tested to do fast draw, and I can think of several reasons for that.

Let’s face it; we were trained to be killers in both cases. In the armed forces it was part or the entire job. With the police, well, it was another situation with far more implications. Under the best of circumstances a police officer will never kill another human. Yet we expect him to disarm and arrest a dangerous or deranged criminal who is in a position to do great harm.

First consideration is whether I should pull the gun out of the holster at all. Next, making sure that I have a clearly defined target, and finally, whether to pull the trigger. The only times these considerations don’t apply is when the deadly danger is unavoidable: someone points a gun at me, wields a two-by-four within a short distance of my head, or drives a car at me deliberately, and so on. On the job it causes an automatic reaction of moving out of the line of fire and responding with whatever it takes.

Off the job, it is just like with the rest of you: if someone points a gun at me, he is not asking for a verbal answer. If he is, that is a really stupid and deadly way to go about it. Not my fault if he gets hurt. There are gray areas. Even when I see a person about to shoot another, I must evaluate the situation. Does the gunman pose a threat? Does he mean to kill? Most of us have never experienced this, and never will. Not having a gun in your possession all you can do is duck, keep your eyes open, and try to remember what takes place as someone is being killed. If you survive, you can tell the police about it. If you have a gun, you may be able to prevent a murder or a rape.

The perpetrator’s life is worth less than the victim’s, regardless of what the politically correct bleeding hearts try to tell you. If a woman does not ask to be raped, and she is being raped, the perpetrator of this crime forfeits his life, whether by the action of an armed citizen, or the jury after months or years of judicial deliberation. In my state, justifications for using deadly force are self defense against clear and deadly force, defense of another person against clear and deadly force, and stopping an on going or about to occur rape. However, regardless of how guilty a criminal might be, if he is running away after a crime, there is never a legal justification for deadly force. Pity.

Those of you who think that only the police should have guns may be right to a small extent. In an ideal law-abiding society with no criminals, even the police need not have guns. Then again, we would have no need for the police either.

We do not live in an ideal society. Making the possession of guns illegal is useless, because criminals and deranged people don’t abide the law, and will use guns as you and I use a fork with a meal: as they deem necessary. If a criminal knows that I may be armed, he is less likely to start anything illegal in my presence. That is the real purpose of being armed. Oh, and another: being prepared to use it when warranted.

Why Have Guns?

A gun is the choice of offensive weapon for today’s criminal. It’s small, any idiot can use it, fits in his pocket, and easy to obtain without a permit or traceability. Once on the job to use it, whether he escalates to the use of automatic weapons and bombs, or stays with a single handgun, it is unlikely that he could be disarmed or killed by using kind words, pepper spray, or a baton.

There have been several mass murders in the last two decades, none perpetrated by a man licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Take the Columbine incident as an example. The two killers, Harris and Klebold, were psychotic teenagers. In addition to legal and illegal guns they used propane tanks, nails, and explosives in homemade devices to add to their arsenal. Yes, it is illegal to bring a firearm to a school campus, but they were not concerned about that. After all, who was going to stop them? The propane tanks and nails are not specifically mentioned in federal or state statutes as being illegal on campus, but as I said, these killers were not worried about being legal.

My point is that killers will always find a way, and a legally armed citizen may be able to stop them. Somebody might get hurt in the process; then again, mass killers want somebody to get hurt. I would rather take a chance on having an armed citizen there as a deterrent or to minimize the damage, even if an innocent bystdander gets hit. We will never know what the outcome would have been with the presence of a couple of armed teachers, but I doubt it would have been worse. These killers did gun down an unarmed teacher who was trying to help the students to get away. I have been in hostage rescue situations, and can tell you that the bad guys can and should be disabled early in their transgression before they do their damage. You will get a different view from official police organizations, but only because they have to cover their asses with respect to law suits, which is why the swat team at Columbine did not go in there and take out the perps at the beginning. Individuals of the force will back me up on this.

Living Or Dieing By Your Decision

A philosophical argument on this issue would be based on my right to take another human’s life. Gun ownership is not a philosophical issue. I could use a propane tank, a pipe bomb, a motorized vehicle, a baseball bat, a knife, or anything to kill one or more people. Having a gun has little to do with my deranged motive.

My argument is not philosophical; rather, it is based on reasonable judgment. As such, you will have a counter-argument, and we may never agree. Keep in mind, however, that, you are, as an adult, responsible for your own actions. Also keep in mind that you are not responsible for the actions of another person. For example, a criminal in action is responsible for his own deeds. You cannot "cause him to do things", neither are you responsible for what he does. All you can do is sit back and wait for him to do his evil deed, or end his life abruptly if you have the means.

Since your mommy and daddy are not there to keep you from coming to harm, that responsibility is yours. The police is somewhat effective in crime disposal, but less so in crime prevention. They simply cannot always be there to protect you. Sometimes it is best if you protect yourself until the police arrive. If you live to tell them about it, you have done well.

To be sure, taking a life in self-defense or in the defense of another person is a tremendous responsibility and a life-long burden. Some people cannot live with it. I do not advocate killing, but as lawyers tend to say, “there are mitigating circumstances”.

Or as I say, “sometimes the lowlife asks for it”. Harris and Klebold asked for it, and since nobody complied (the swat team was still outside waiting for the bean counters to decide), they themselves satisfied their own need. However, between the time they began their methodical hunting and killing of unarmed people, and their self-inflicted exit, they had done much damage. I can’t help but think that even one armed person would have reduced their effectiveness in killing.

I know, it takes balls to intervene in a violent situation. But when someone is obviously going to kill me, and I have a gun, what could I lose? What would that heroic teacher at Columbine have lost by shooting back? Certainly not his life. He died of several gunshot wounds anyway. Having a gun he may have prevented some killing.