Defining Defensive Gun Use
Accurately counting gunshot injuries and gunshot deaths is relatively easy. You simply count up the number of people injured and killed by bullets over a given period of time. Counting defensive gun uses is much more difficult. First, we need a good strong definition of “defensive gun use”. Presumably, a defensive gun use is one in which a gun prevented or forestalled a bad outcome. But this means we know a bad outcome was about to happen – that a bad outcome was a certainty. And a “bad outcome” for one person might be good for someone else. Finally, we also have to know that a gun was instrumental in altering that “bad” and certain outcome. In practice, it is very hard to determine these things absolutely. In some cases, it is obvious. If you are sitting in a crowded restaurant when someone enters waving a gun and loudly announcing that “this is a stick-up. Give me your money.”, and you pull out your conceal-carry handgun and shoot the person dead, it should be obvious to all that a) a crime was in progress, and b) the use of a gun interrupted the criminal activity. And the instance was witnessed by others, who can verify that this event clearly qualifies as a defensive gun use.
But what about the case of two men who get in a verbal altercation and pull out their guns and start shooting at each other. Both will claim they were using their guns to prevent an act of violence to themselves, while those not involved in the altercation might well wonder if the two men both used their guns criminally to attack another. Or what about the person walking to their car in a dark parking garage: they hear footsteps behind them, and fearing an attack, pull out their gun and point it at the person behind them, who then runs away. Is this a mugging that was averted by the presence of the gun, or did a jumpy gun owner just threaten an innocent passer-by?
The difficulties in ascertaining what is and is not a defensive gun use were highlighted during the recent George Zimmerman trial. Mr. Zimmerman used his gun to shoot dead someone he said was physically attacking him. That the use of a gun prevented Trayvon Martin from engaging in any further (alleged) criminal activity is beyond question. What is unknown is whether there was any criminal activity going on at the time of the shooting. A criminal trial was held, during which Mr. Zimmerman alleged that Mr. Martin attacked and beat him, but this was never proved. Trayvon Martin himself is dead and therefore unable to tell his side of the story. Much of the public feels that Mr. Zimmerman murdered Mr. Martin in a fit of racial animus. However, Mr. Zimmerman was found at trial to be not guilty of any criminal gun use, and for the state of Florida, and police of Sanford, Mr. Zimmerman's shooting of Mr. Martin is therefore a verified defensive gun use. Strangely, neither the gun industry nor gun enthusiasts have wanted to promote Mr. Zimmerman as a paragon of public safety.
Meanwhile, in another case, a Florida mother was is serving a 20 years sentence for her use of a gun to protect herself from an abusive husband who had threatened her with bodily injury. Marissa Alexander had a common law marriage to a man who had repeated physically beat her, and against whom she had been granted the protection of a restraining order. During an argument with her husband, Rico Grey, Ms. Alexander reported that Mr. Grey told her “If I can't have you, no one will” and then became physically abusive. Ms. Alexander said she got a gun from another room and pointed it at her husband, who continued to walk towards her. Fearing more violence from her husband, Ms. Alexander fired a shoot into the wall behind her husband, who turned and ran from the house. Now, on the face of it, this would seem to be a perfect defensive gun use: an attacker with a documented history of violent behavior, a wife who has been beaten in the past, a lethal threat, and an altercation involving physical violence; all put to peaceful rest by the use of a gun: violence stopped, no one injured. Yet, Ms. Alexander was charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and a judge ruled that she had insufficient proof for a “stand your ground” defense. She was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison. So, for the state of Florida, and those keeping count, Ms. Alexander's is not a verified defensive gun use, but was a proven case of a criminal use of a gun.
These two cases show how difficult it is to verify and count defensive gun uses. The one case that seems a perfect example of defensive gun use is found after thorough investigation to be a criminal gun use, and the other case that seems initially to be a criminal misuse of a gun is found to be a verified defensive guns use. And the difference in outcome of these two cases, and in determining officially what is and what is not a defensive gun use seems to be: the presence of the “attacker” to tell their side of the story. In the Zimmerman case, the “attacker” Trayvon Martin is dead and cannot contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin was engaged in a criminal attack. Ergo: Mr. Martin was involved in a violent criminal attack and Mr. Zimmerman properly defended himself with a gun. In the Alexander case, the “attacker” Mr. Grey survives the incident to tell the police that he intended no harm to his wife. Had Ms. Alexander shot Mr. Grey dead, she might well be out of jail today, and receiving the “Defensive Gun Use Person Of The Year” award from the NRA. But because of this conflicting testimony, Ms. Alexander is found guilty of criminal use of a gun.
Now ask yourself: if the courts and the police cannot make good judgments about what is and what is not “defensive gun use”, how should researchers define a "defensive gun use" for their surveys?
|