Wuhan Virus, Self-Defense and the Second Amendment

Opinion by Alan Chwick & Joanne D Eisen

Minute Man Statue Concord Massachusetts Militia Colonial BEar Arms
Minute Man Statue Concord Massachusetts Militia Colonial Bear Arms

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- “The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or shooting at targets in the woods. Anybody who thinks that is nuts.” – Dave Workman, by telephone, March 2020

In the U.S., common reasons for firearms possession are hunting, sport, and collection, but self-defense truly remains the main motive underlying gun possession. So it should not be surprising in this first season of the COVID-19 virus (a.k.a. Coronavirus, Wuhan Flu) that empty shelves in the markets appear at the same time as empty shelves in the gun shops. It's not that we expect to protect newly purchased rolls of toilet paper with these guns. It's because, in these uncertain days, it's comfortable to know that one can provide for one’s family and also be able to protect them.

It should also not be surprising that there are many liberal, first time purchasers who suddenly understand the need for a weapon. One gun shop noted that about 75% of their customers were buying their first gun.

Asians have endured discrimination in the past and are again suffering new racial slurs. Facing unknown possibilities, many Americans of Asian origin are among those first-time gun owners who understand the benefits of a firearm. For a moment, let us view the concept of civilian firearms possession as an inverted pyramid. Why doesn't that unstable pyramid topple over onto a flat side? What holds it firmly upside down?

It's the concept of self-defense against criminals and tyrants. That is the incredible force that holds our pyramid firmly in place despite its precarious position. We humans have an intuitive understanding that a projectile hurled, by any means, is a perfect weapon, and that makes a firearm just perfect for protecting self and family. The weak, the aged, the ill – all benefit from the intimidating power that possession of a powerful weapon provides. Especially in a time of potential societal unrest, the knowledge that there are armed criminals leads to the understanding that any weakness can result in victimization. Defense is a major reason why 65% of male owners and 71% of female owners bought their weapons, according to a 2017 Pew Survey.

Also, Americans are fully aware that there are many tyrannical and corrupt governments, whose leaders intuitively recognize that an armed and freedom-loving populace is their greatest threat. There is no greater force in America than our desire for freedom. The Pew Survey informs us that 74% of American gun owners tie their firearm “to their sense of personal freedom.”

Because of our yearning for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness, the Second Amendment becomes almost invulnerable.

That inborn call to defend our families, and their heritage of freedom, is why we can never be disarmed. But there could be a significant future problem with the stability of that pyramid and our Second Amendment. What men have written, men can unwrite.

A mob majority cannot take it. But we need to recall that our Constitution can be changed by diligent enthusiasts and gun owners need to realize that we, as a group, stay politically quiet. There are currently 27 Amendments to our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. So we should take a closer look at what the enemies of the Second Amendment are doing. By any possible means, they know that they need to make the costs of firearm ownership appear to be way higher than the benefits. We have recently seen how easy it is for a power-crazed Democrat Party, and a determined establishment media, to propagate lies and propaganda. They have tried to create fear of guns, and gun owners, for decades. And they have been fairly successful, even among gun owners.

Many gullible gun owners support greater restrictions. According to a Pew Poll, “significant shares of owners are open” to proposals for “assault weapon” bans, high capacity magazine bans, and universal gun checks. That means that some among us are willing to trade instant self-defense capability for a promise of safety made by the enemies of self-defense. Gun grabbers know that they need to destroy the concept of self-defense before they can overturn the Second Amendment. That' only logical because hunting and sporting use of weapons is a hobby that could cause harm or death to others.

Without the concept of self-defense, we would have no legitimate right to possess a weapon. There would inevitably be an accident or murderous use of a weapon. Public opinion could quickly turn against guns and gun owners. In the U.S., a twenty-eighth amendment might become politically feasible, though the Founders did make it hard to do. But high numbers of Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) provide huge social benefits.

Possession and use of weapons, for self-defense, can easily balance the occasional well-publicized multiple murder, accidental death, or criminal use of a stolen weapon. Were it not for the positive outcomes of our civilian weapons, our Second Amendment would not be powerful enough to withstand the constant negative emotional attacks of hoplophobes – nor should it. And so there is a complex, very aggressive war in the scientific literature of firearms using surveys and statistics to determine the prevalence and number of DGUs. We need to understand this war between truth and lies. We need to understand the philosophy behind our control of life and death. We need some sunlight on all the lies. Truth makes the gun control lobby frantic.

When Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz published their landmark study “Armed Resistance to Crime” in 1995, they determined that firearms were used for self-defense over two million times per year in this country, and they noted that this was similar to data from 13 other surveys. This number was much higher than the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that found about 80,000 DGUs per year in the U.S. The NCVS data was being used by gun control folks to minimize the significance of civilian self-defense. Kleck and Gertz also found survey evidence that 400,000 people thought that their weapon had saved their lives.

They wrote, “If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns.

In 1998, prominent criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig acknowledged that “The number of civilian defensive gun uses against criminal attackers is regularly invoked in public policy debates as a benefit of widespread private ownership of firearms.”

However, they claimed that there was a positive bias that overestimated the number of DGUs of all the other surveys. And then Cook and Ludwig said, even if the surveys really were accurate, “these data do not provide sufficient information to distinguish between virtuous and objectional uses.” In other words, gun owners are not really defending ourselves and others. We are out there committing mayhem and we need to stop harming society!

More recently, in 2018, Kleck discovered that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had DGU surveys that they had not reported. Why would this happen? Kleck had an answer. He questioned their oversight and explained.” For CDC's own surveys to generate high estimates of DGU prevalence was clearly not helpful to efforts to enact stricter controls over firearms…high estimates of defensive gun uses could be unwelcome news.”

Gun banners need to do more than withhold accurate data. Hiding truth is too tacky.

One way out of this dilemma is to change the definition of DGUs. For example, gun banners can reduce the number of DGUs by defining only the actual act of pulling the trigger as a defensive use. But just showing or saying that you are armed is an important part of self-defense. By eliminating those early moments of a DGU, gun control folks can squeeze statistics to benefit the gun control argument. It does not matter if it's accurate. It only matters that it gets published and can be quoted by the mainstream media.

Here's a recent 2020 anonymous article published by the president and fellows of Harvard College that is a great example of how to twist and minimize the benefits of armed self-defense. Because of that definition, and by using data from a Harvard Injury Control Center survey, the unnamed author could say that “firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.”

No! Self-defense does not necessarily mean killing or wounding a criminal. In the same vein, the author, using data from another survey, revealed that criminals who have been shot seek medical help. And using the same faulty idea that an episode of self-defense requires a wounded criminal, the nameless author ingenuously proclaims, “To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.”

Readers, they must believe that we are fools! But their irrational lies confirm that we are on the side of truth. They can twist and torture the data all the want. That narrative doesn't hold water. The media may be inadvertently helping the Second Amendment, It looks like the media-driven fear of the Wuhan virus is counteracting the media-driven fear of guns.

We should create a new, more realistic, and more valued, understanding of the gift from our Founding Fathers, The Second Amendment.



About The Authors

Alan J Chwick has been involved with firearms much of his life and is the Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club. He has escaped from New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL (Everything22andMore.com). [email protected] | TWITTER: @iNCNF

Joanne D Eisen, DDS (Ret.) practiced dentistry on Long Island, NY. She has collaborated and written on firearm politics for the past 30+ years. She has also escaped New York State but to Virginia. [email protected]

Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TEEBONE
TEEBONE
5 months ago

“Were it not for the positive outcomes of our civilian weapons, our Second Amendment would not be powerful enough to withstand the constant negative emotional attacks of hoplophobes – nor should it.”

Absolutely not so. Rights exist not because society rationalizes whether or not they’re beneficial. They exist because they are endowed by God.

UncAl
UncAl
5 months ago

Correctly stated, this is the “Chinese Communist Party-CCP” virus, and indigenous to Wuhan because of the experimental lab functioning in that city. We all are victims, and had better realize our overly dependent connection with a country that ignores basic human rights!

pureamericana
pureamericana
5 months ago

Danger today comes in the form of NE leftist infestation of Southern free states. These fools with their urban compliant jaded ideology of freedoms, heritage, and tradition do not fit in well. Politicians use them for votes and ticking off the people of the territory that do matter. These invaders want to change that which they had no part in building, paying for and how the areas respected history came to be. Our freedoms were payed for in blood, certainly hope the hate filled left realizes reality before they push too far.

Gdubb
Gdubb
5 months ago

Any gun owner who supports Dimtard restriction laws is just another enemy of freedom. I’m glad we have millions of new gun owners in our midst – many of whom now understand the importance of an armed society. Hopefully most of these newly-enlightened 2A supporters stop falling for the left’s bullshit going forward.

UncleT
UncleT
5 months ago

Maybe we need to pass the word along that’s it completely absurd to be asking your tyrants for their permission to be armed at anytime, anyway or fashion to fight their tyranny. We have lost the true message of the 2A to begin with.

Oh, and let’s talk about a well regulated militia a bit more. People really believe that is what the National Guard and regular military is for including gun owners.

Our lack of education in this country is what is really killing our country, individual freedoms, liberty and rights.

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  UncleT

UncleT, many have lost the meaning of the whole BOR if they’re aware of it at all. My neighbor asked me to look at something on his car. I was in my lounging garb and he got a glimpse of my beater revolver as I was in an inspection pose. I turned to speak to him and his eyes were as big as dinner plates. “Do you have a license for that?!” I shared that my license was granted by God and that was solidified in our BOR for free American citizens. He was truly perplexed by that. I planted… Read more »

Glenn
Glenn
5 months ago

Good article. You mention a 28th amendment to nullify the 2nd. A bigger threat is the proposed Convention of the States, i.e. Constitutional convention. Thirty-some states have passed resolutions calling for it. If this happened, it would be sure to remove the 2nd! And many “conservatives” think it’s just dandy! We need more information for gun owners exposing this plot.

Bob
Bob
5 months ago
Reply to  Glenn

I have been a huge supporter of the COS, but if I thought there was a chance the states would use it to repeal the 2nd, I would drop my support. We all need to know more about this possibility. Is it real or just a canard to stop a COS?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Bob

, After the required number of states resolve for a constitutional convention, then the states play no further part. The Congress elected currently establish the agenda and make the decisions. Why would we support a modern Congress rewriting any part of our Constitution?

Engineer
Engineer
5 months ago
Reply to  Bob

Good day. The COS is not a constitutional convention, it is a convention of states that is controlled by the state resolutions that are used to initiate it. The resolutions are very specific in the areas that the convention may propose amendments. So far, the resolutions do not allow for any changes to the 2nd Amendment. Amendments generated at the COS must pass a vote to get out of the COS and then must be ratified by the states. Read some of the state resolutions that have passed to support a COS and you will see the areas of limitation.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Engineer

@E, There are only two methods of amending the US Constitution. Either, what you call a Convention of States (hereinafter COS) is the “Convention for Proposing Amendments” spoken of in Article V or it is nothing at all. Please see U.S. Constitution at Article V.

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago

Because it’s my duty to protect my wife, I’m always armed. It’s by extension that I will also protect the toilet paper.

Catatonic
Catatonic
5 months ago
Reply to  Nickname

You know, it’s also your wife’s duty to protect you. I hope she is also a trained shooter and protects your back like I do my husband’s. 😀

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  Catatonic

Good for you, Catatonic. Sadly, my wife suffers from the residual effects of growing up democrat and doesn’t carry. I put one in her car in hopes she can get to it, should she need it. She’s a heckuva shot and picked right up on being safe. She was excited when I got her first target pistol and she showed it to her mother. Her mother went ape-shit on her.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Nickname

, When the Comencheros come over the hill, send the mother-in-law out for a bucket of water.

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

WB, she is an overbearing, miserable, hateful woman. Angry that I should show her daughter how to defend herself. Yet, my wife still seeks her acceptance. When we finally bury the old battle axe and no grass grows over the site, maybe she’ll get the message.

Ej harbet
Ej harbet
5 months ago
Reply to  Nickname

Just hope she dont discover your new night wizz spot,lol
My mother in law was a awesome gal who i miss terribly
Vera rest in christ maam!

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  Catatonic

Will, I pictured the two of them back to back at low ready, a-la cheezy 70s detective show freeze frame.

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  Nickname

I wish you hadn’t started that. I know she wasn’t a TV actress but… Dyan Cannon. She’d have done a great, um, detective.

Nickname
Nickname
5 months ago
Reply to  Nickname

Will, just look-up ‘smokin’ in an old dictionary and there’s a picture of Dyan Cannon. I didn’t know she did a ‘Gunsmoke’. I really won’t be worth a crap the rest of the night, now. (I’m at work) Jeans and a button-up blouse or frilly dress?

jack mac
jack mac
5 months ago
Reply to  Catatonic

Will: Real Texan families protect each other. So do all real American families.

Will Flatt
Will Flatt
5 months ago

…And all of these mountains of data, all of the facts we compile, mean squat to the committed anti-freedom crowd that wants to take away ALL our rights & liberties. They intend to persist till they’ve disarmed us and left us naked against every other tyrannical aggression of The State, including democide… because every major disarmament in history preceded a democide. Something that the truly radical lefties have been planning for us for 50 years now, and continue to plan. Firearms are not merely for defense against individual criminals. They are a firewall against criminal government. One must merely but… Read more »