On Guns and Self-Defense

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

--Dalai Lama XIV

Yesterday afternoon I became aware of the mass shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Six innocent people were killed, four were wounded, and the gunman was killed by a police officer who is also among the wounded. This follows closely on the heels of the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado several weeks ago. My prayers and sympathies go out to those involved in both incidents, as well as their families. I can't, however, help but feel a personal sadness due to what I know is going to follow.

There is no doubt that sometime today we will again hear the cries of the leftists in support of more stringent gun control. Even in light of all evidence that suggests that less guns do not result in less crime, that call will be made. In fact, a preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that less guns actually equals more crime.

Take a look at two of the cities in the US that have the strictest gun control: Chicago and Washington, D.C.. These cities are among the top cities in the country in regards to violent crime. Compare those cities to cities that have less restrictions on guns and how people carry them. Those cities have considerably less violent crime.

And it makes sense. If you were a criminal, would you be more likely to attack an unknown person in a city where you knew that he or she would not be armed, or in a city where there was a great probability that they may be able to fight back with equal or greater force?

Let me point out something else:

• April 20, 1999: Columbine High School, 13 killed and 21 wounded
• April 6, 2007: Virginia Tech, 32 killed and 17 wounded
• November 5, 2009: Fort Hood, 13 killed and 29 wounded
• January 8, 2011: Tuscon, Arizona Political Rally, 6 dead and 8 wounded
• July 20, 2012: Aurora, Colorado Theater, 12 killed and 58 wounded
• August 5, 2012: Wisconsin Sikh Temple, 6 killed and 4 wounded

What did all of those events have in common? They all happened in "gun-free zones". They all happened in areas where law abiding individuals were legally prohibited from having personal firearms. They all happened in areas where the victims were left defenseless by the very laws that were ostensibly designed to protect them.

Contrast that with the conclusion from this article by Davi Barker (Google Cache copy here):

• The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
• The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.

That's pretty compelling.

Now we'll get to my personal situation. I work a night shift at a hotel. We deal in cash. We're always open. Regardless of the policies of my place of employment, I carry a firearm at work. I have a Georgia Weapons Carry license, so if you see me in public, and we're not in one of the few prohibited locations, you can be darn sure that I am carrying a firearm. I carry a firearm for the protection of myself and those around me. I refuse to be a victim. If I'm ever in a situation where I have to defend myself or others, I can, and I will.

Most of the politicians have it wrong. Outlawing guns only makes for a safer working environment for criminals. They do break the law for a living, after all. If the politicians were truly worried about protecting the citizenry, they would be finding ways to make it easier for the law-abiding among us to provide for our own protection. Maybe you've heard the saying, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". I can not rely on the police to respond in a timely manner in a life-or-death situation. I choose to be responsible for my own security, as well as that of my family.

I pray for the victims of the recent shootings. I pray that they will find peace. I pray that this kind of thing will never happen again. But until the world becomes perfect, I'll keep providing for my own security. I encourage you to look into providing for yours as well.