Tag Archives: Crime

Self-defense: 71-year-old woman uses legally-owned gun to fight off robber

Guns are for self-defense against criminals
Guns are for self-defense against criminals

This story is from the Washington Free Beacon, and it’s a good reminder why we should let law-abiding citizens own legally-purchased firearms.

Excerpt:

A 71-year-old woman was able to fight off a man who tried to steal her car on Sunday.

Janet Willis told a reporter a man entered her store around 5 a.m. and demanded she give him the keys to her car. “He said, ‘I want your car,’ I said, ‘so do I,’” she told the Morgan County Citizen.

Instead of handing over her keys Willis pressed a panic button under her counter. Unfortunately the assailant saw her press the button and became agitated. He then threatened to kill her.

When the man became distracted by a customer Willis was able to grab her 9mm handgun. “When he turned around I said ‘I’ll blow your guts all over this store,’” she told the paper. “Then I led him out.”

She kept her gun pointed at the attempted robber as he ran out and got into a car he had apparently stolen at another point. That car had a flat tire and the sparks created by driving on the rim caused the stolen car to be set ablaze. Shortly thereafter the suspect, 21-year-old Prince William Dennis, was arrested by police.

“I admire her for doing what she did to thwart the robbery,” Captain Chris Bish of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office said of Willis. “I’m grateful for the outcome.”

Willis said this was not the first time she had defended herself with a firearm. Three decades ago a man had threatened her life but she was armed with her Colt .45. “I asked him, do you want this (the pistol) or do you want the door,” she said to the publication. “He chose the door.”

Indeed.

And notice that no shots were fired, in either of the cases she talked about. Guns are not owned by bloodthirsty people who are anxious to shoot other people. Guns are owned by normal law-abiding people who don’t want to be robbed, raped or murdered by criminals. It’s especially important for women and the elderly to own guns, because it equalizes the differences in physical strength between men and women, or younger people and the elderly. We have an entire political party that champions leniency for criminals. They want to let them out early, not punish them, let them do whatever they want. Law-abiding citizens have to have some way to defend themselves from the compassion of the pro-criminal party’s policies.

Learn about the issue

To find the about guns and self-defense, look in the academic literature. Here are two books I really like for that.

Both of those books make the case that permitting law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense reduces the rate of violent crime.

New study: in one year, gun owners stopped hundreds of crimes

Gun ownership up, gun violence down
Gun ownership up, gun violence down

My friend Michael posted this article from the Daily Caller, and I think it will be helpful for people who support gun control to understand what the effects of disarming law-abiding people would really be.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis.

TheDCNF concluded its analysis as President Barack Obama announced Tuesday another push by his administration to tighten federal gun control laws in an attempt to curb gun violence.

While Obama quotes the more than 30,000 gun deaths in a year — omitting that 60 percent are suicides, 6 percent are gang related, 3 percent are accidents, and the vast majority of the rest occur in urban areas — The DCNF found that a noteworthy number of kids, the elderly, and women successfully defended themselves against criminals by use of gun fire.

The DCNF analyzed 195 random incidents where gun owners used firearms to save their lives, and often the lives of others. We wanted to know, not just how many perpetrators were killed, but how many potential victims were saved.

[…]Of the nearly 200 cases we analyzed, people carrying guns saved at least 283 potential victims, whether it was a man protecting his family from thugs or a 9mm-toting grandma warding off a burglar in her living room.

In 60 of those cases, the single gun carrier was the only potential victim. In 43 cases, there were 2 potential victims. In nine cases there were three victims and in nine more cases there were four or more victims.

In 74 cases, it was unknown how many potential victims were present but it can be assumed there was at least one.  If the 74 potential victims followed the same distribution as the other cases, then the number of potential victims would actually be at least 335.

In one case, four Florida men put on masks and grabbed weapons in a planned burglary attempt of a Melbourne home in June of 2015. When one of the men came inside, he held a woman and her child at gunpoint. As the woman protected her child with her own body, the homeowner pulled out his handgun and opened fire on the robbers. The criminals fled, one injured, and the three victims were left unharmed.

The data shows that little less than a third of the people defending themselves with guns were women. Of the 173 cases where gender is known, 133 were male and 40 were female.

I’m all for gun ownership by law abiding citizens, but I am really for gun ownership by law-abiding female citizens. It is very important to me that women be encouraged to cancel out the disadvantage of lower upper body strength by carrying a concealed weapon. If a man tries to hurt a woman, she should be able to defend herself. Men need to learn to behave, and guns help women to teach them the lesson.

Consider this case:

Young people used guns for self defense as well. In September of 2014, an 11-year-old Oklahoma girl awoke around 4 a.m. to find that a man had broken into her home and stabbed her mother. The girl grabbed a handgun and shot the man twice, saving her mother’s life. The mother said she had just taught the daughter how to use the gun for self defense the week before.

I left the link in so that you can click it and read the news story.

Finally, I know that some of you will cringe at the idea of firing a weapon at another person. And I agree with you!!!! My hope is that many crimes will be avoided simply by displaying the gun in order to deter the attacker.

Look:

Gun carriers were able to defend themselves usually without killing the suspect. Of 217 suspects in our analysis, 148 survived their encounter with a gun carrier, whether they survived a gunshot wound or simply fled. The remaining 69 were killed, so more than half the suspects involved survived.

According to John Lott’s study (see below for link), it’s actually very common for the gun owner to get the attacker to run away once the gun is displayed to the attacker. The gun is rarely fired.

Now I’ll tell you my story. I actually worked next to a building where a woman used a legally owned concealed carry weapon for self-defense. One of this woman’s co-workers noticed that she had an expensive wedding ring and an expensive watch. The co-worker hired three people to rob the woman. She came into the office very very early in the morning (this was a Friday morning). When she arrived at the office, she got out of her car and walked towards the front door. She noticed a man in a hoody had gotten out of his car and was walking towards her. The engine of his car was still running and the door was open. He walked right past the front door of the building and kept coming towards her. She pulled out her handgun and pointed it right at him and told him to get back in the car and leave the parking lot. He did so… and later we found out that he actually had a gun in the hoodie. She wrote down the license plate number and all three of the people in the car were arrested and charged. No shots were fired.

What was interesting was the response of the politically correct people in my building. An e-mail went around warning us all that we were not allowed to carry guns and how it was much safer that we not carry guns, and so on. But it was obvious to everyone that this gun had saved the woman from being robbed, and possibly worse. We found out later that the person who hired the thugs were also brought to justice.

It is life experiences like this that caused me to change my position on guns. I actually used to be against them, until I read the John Lott books and studies, and had these experiences of seeing how people used guns to deter criminals. This was not part of the culture I grew up in, and neither my parents nor my family owned guns. It was just a case of changing my mind once I was confronted with the evidence. The people I know who are anti-gun never could answer the story of what happened to that woman. I would ask them – what would you do to save her? And they had no answer. There is no answer. Either she defends herself or she is robbed at gunpoint, and maybe raped, and maybe murdered. That’s what gun control really means – the criminals do as they please, with impunity. Criminals don’t care about the gun control laws. Only the law-abiding people are disarmed, and that causes more crime, not less crime. Which is why big Democrat cities like Chicago, New York and Baltimore, have the highest violent crime rates in the USA.

Crime rates in major cities, all Democrat-run
Crime rates in major cities, all run by anti-gun Democrat politicians

By the way, here’s an example of a French citizen using a legal handgun to ward off a man with a baseball bat.

Again, no shots were fired. Nobody was hurt. That’s why people own guns – to avoid violence, not to cause violence.

Learn about the issue

To find the about guns and self-defense, look in the academic literature. Here are two books I really like for that.

Both of those books make the case that permitting law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense reduces the rate of violent crime.

Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes than the general public?

Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.
Kathryn Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant.

So we had a case in the news where an illegal immigrant who had been arrested and deported numerous times was allowed to stay in the U.S. thanks to San Francisco’s very Democrat “sanctuary city” policy. All the people running for the Democrat presidential nomination support sanctuary cities, and amnesty for illegal immigrants as well. But how do these policies affect American taxpayers?

Breitbart News has the numbers from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Excerpt:

While illegal immigrants account for about 3.5 percent of the U.S population, they represented 36.7 percent of federal sentences in FY 2014 following criminal convictions, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data obtained by Breitbart News.

According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

Now a lot of those convictions will be related to immigration… what happens when we take those out?

The sentencing rate is still higher than normal:

Eliminating all immigration violations, illegal immigrants would account for 13.6 percent of all the offenders sentenced in FY14 following federal criminal convictions — still greater than the 3.5 percent of the population illegal immigrants are said to make up.

All that crime is not only dangerous and expensive, but we have to pay for the fails and law enforcement to catch them, too. Now, let’s review Hillary Clinton’s views on illegal immigration.

The Washington Times reports that she favors amnesty:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Tuesday that if elected, she would try to expand President Obama’s deportation amnesty to more illegal immigrants, saying this administration has left out a number of aliens who deserve to be granted legal status.

Speaking in Las Vegas at a Cinco de Mayo meeting focused on immigration, Mrs. Clinton also called for granting attorneys to illegal immigrants facing the complex immigration system, and said she would like to re-examine detention to ensure more illegal immigrants are released as they await deportation.

Mrs. Clinton delivered on just about every question from immigrant rights activists, who had been pressing her to reject Mr. Obama’s detention policies and go beyond his amnesty.

The Daily Caller reminds us that she also supports sanctuary cities:

Clinton last weighed in publicly on sanctuary cities during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?” Clinton was asked by Tim Russert during a Sept. 6, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College.

“Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she responded.

Clinton said she backed the sanctuary city concept because without it, illegal immigrants refuse to cooperate with police because they are afraid of being deported.

“Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement,” Clinton said. “The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton again expressed her support for sanctuary cities in a 2008 interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?” O’Reilly asked.

“No, I’m not,” Clinton said, eliciting a shocked response from the host.

I’m all for more skilled immigration, but that’s not what is happening on our southern border. If Hillary becomes president, that situation will only get worse.

What does the Bible say on the issue of self-defense vs gun control?

Theology that hits the spot
Theology that hits the spot

Reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem speaks on the Bible and the right of self-defense.

About Wayne Grudem:

Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.

Grudem served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is a co-founder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is the author of, among other books, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, which advocates a Calvinistic soteriology, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the body-soul dichotomy in the nature of man, and the complementarian (rather than egalitarian) view of gender equality.

The MP3 file is here.

The PDF outline is here.

Topics:

  • what about turning the other cheek? doesn’t that undermine self-defense?
  • what does Jesus say about the right to self-defense in the New Testament
  • did Jesus’ disciples carry swords for protection during his ministry?
  • why did Jesus tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords?
  • what about Jesus stopping Peter from using force during Jesus’ arrest?
  • shouldn’t we rely on police instead of our own personal weapons?
  • what about brandishing a handgun vs actually trying to shoot someone?
  • what are violent crime rates in pro-gun USA and in the anti-gun UK?
  • does outlawing guns cause violent crime to increase or decrease?
  • do academic studies show that gun control decreases crime?
  • do academic studies show that concealed carry laws decreases crime?
  • what do academic studies show about defensive handgun usage?
  • do many children die from guns in the home compared to other causes?
  • doesn’t the US Constitution limit the usage of guns to the army and police?
  • what did the Founding Fathers believe about lawful ownership of firearms?
  • What should be the goal of someone who uses a weapon in self-defense?

This is a good example of applying the Bible to real life. We need more of that!

65-year-old woman uses legally-owned gun to deter 23-year-old man who tried to rob her

Guns are for self-defense against criminals
Guns are for self-defense against criminals

First, let’s see this news story from the CBS local news.

Excerpt:

Police say a 65-year-old woman shot a man who tried to rob her Monday night, leading to that man’s arrest.

Michael Bontaites, 23 of Manchester, was charged with attempted robbery and held on $5,000 bail. He was charged and arraigned Tuesday at Elliot Hospital, where he had gone for treatment after he was shot.

The incident began after the woman noticed an unknown dark-colored sedan following her as she was driving home from her job around 11:30 p.m. Monday night, which she said gave her “heightened concern.”

“Your instincts will tell you. Your gut will tell you when something isn’t right,” the woman, who did not wish to be identified, told WBZ-TV.

The Manchester grandmother said the sedan followed her into the parking lot of her apartment complex on South Porter Street and parked near her. When she left the car to walk into her building, she said a man in a dark hooded sweatshirt got out of the sedan, ran to block her path, and reached out to grab her.

The woman, who holds a valid concealed carry gun permit, pulled a handgun from her pocket and shot the man once in the chest at close range.

[…]The woman tells WBZ she has had her permit to carry for 10 years.

“No one has the right to do that to anybody,” she said of the would-be robber. “And if you can defend yourself, all the power to you.”

Now, over at the Manchester Union Leader, we find out that this guy was actually able to avoid serious jail time for a previous crime:

The alleged mugger shot on Monday by a Manchester grandmother once threatened a woman with a knife after an automobile accident, according to records.

Michael Bontaites, 23, who is now in Valley Street Jail with a bullet wound in his chest, pleaded guilty to felony criminal threatening after a June 2012 traffic accident on Route 28 bypass in Derry, according to a Rockingham County prosecutor. Derry police say he got out of the car with a knife in hand, had words with the driver and passenger and then drove off.

Bontaites was facing felony charges that could have landed him in prison for 3 1/2 to seven years. But as part of a plea bargain, he agreed to six months of incarceration at Rockingham County jail. The sentence also called for an anger management evaluation and a year of probation.

Liberals are always trying to release criminals early – in fact, Obama recently released a whole bunch of criminals. That’s what Democrats do. The Obama administration has released convicted drug offenders. The Obama administration has released radical Islamic terrorists. The Obama administration ran guns to Mexican drug cartels. Criminals released early have murdered cops. Illegal immigrants with prior convictions murdered an innocent woman. Radical Islamic terrorists slipped through security screening to murder more innocent Americans. And so on.

Democrats are not serious about protecting the public – they even opposed sanctions against sanctuary cities. But now all that pro-criminal behavior is being taken a step further, and it has something to do with the self-defense story above.

Obama’s gun ban

What if the old woman in the story was not allowed to own a firearm? Well, it turns out that this is exactly what Obama would like to do.

The leftist Washington Post explains:

The most legally problematic part of the White House statement involves persons who are, in the terms of Gun Control Act, “adjudicated as a mental defective.” 18 U.S. Code sect. 922(g)(4). Under the Social Security Act, a beneficiary can designate a personal representative  to manage payments and interactions with the Social Security bureaucracy; for example, a widow who has no experience in financial affairs might designate a family member as her representative.

Should any Social Security beneficiary who has designated a personal representative be considered “adjudicated as a mental defective”? This question was raised by an Obama administration proposal in 2015. It was resisted by a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress. Imposing a gun ban on Social Security beneficiaries who have designated a financial representative would contradict almost half a century of established interpretation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Nobody who advocated for the 1968 gun law suggested that it would have any impact on Social Security beneficiaries.

The Tuesday White House “executive action” regarding Social Security was simply an announcement of a plan to promulgate a regulation according to the ordinary process. Because a new regulation has not yet been published in the Federal Register, it is impossible to say whether the White House plan is constitutional. The devil will be in the details.

So, if you are collecting Social Security, and you have designated someone to be your personal representative, then the Obama administration thinks that maybe you shouldn’t own a gun, and be able to defend yourself from criminals. So I guess if the older lady in the news story happened to be in that situation, then maybe she should just let herself be robbed, raped and murdered, instead of fighting back.