A lot of folks debating the gun control issues like to 'what if' scenarios of self defense to suggest that gun owners would tend to come out on the losing end of encounters with criminals. I heard this story today and thought about that.
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder
In searching for the text of the story itself I turned up many pages of similar stories in the last year.
Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot
UPDATE: Woman forced to shoot intruder to protect herself and children
Alabama Woman Shoots Home Intruder to Protect Herself and Her Ax- and Knife-Wielding Daughters
I noticed several common factors in these stories:
- In most cases the assailants knew the women were in the home.
- The police were called but had not arrived in time to protect the women.
- In many cases the assailant was warned the victims were armed but proceeded anyway confident they could overcome them.
You rarely see these stories in the national media or discussions on the gun control. My search turned up over 1100 pages of results, many of the results were the first story as it has gotten national attention at the local news station level but there seemed to be a fresh story on each page I went through. These are people who would be dead or worse if gun ownership were banned, so it seems that no matter how much you want to what if the stories the self defense argument that is supported by the Supreme Court is a valid and legitimate argument.
This natural right of self defense reflected in the 2nd Amendment is considered so predominate that a recent appeals court ruling overturning a state law forbidding the carrying of handguns for self defense outside the home said that even if you could conclusively prove that banning guns would reduce gun crime and deaths overall the state still did not have the right to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry for self defense.
An Important Victory for the Right to Keep and Bear Armsthe Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts. If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.