A recent Wall Street Journal article makes claims about justifiable homicides using false or at least unproven assumptions. From wsj.com:
It’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it.
In 30 states, it often requires only a claim you killed while protecting yourself or others.
There are several assumptions wrapped up in the opening sentences. First is the assumption that it is never necessary or justified to kill someone. The phrase “get away with it” implies the person was not justified. Even though the article is about justified homicides, the authors, in the first sentence, imply that justified homicides are not justified. Why the literary double-speak? It is because the premise of the article depends on convincing the reader that justified homicides were not justified.
This is a progressive article of faith. It is not sustained by the facts. In a previous article at AmmoLand, this correspondent explained two different models of how homicide happens, at least in Western society.
The first model, which I call the “Progressive Elite” model, has these basic assumptions about criminal homicide and its causes:
1. The majority of people, except for the exceptional elite, are just moments away from committing a criminal homicide. They have poor impulse control and fly into rages which escalate into homicidal rages if a weapon happens to be present. For this reason, only those in the elite, who have become experts in government through the attainment of public office, employment by police agencies, or attendance at ivy league schools, should be allowed access to weapons that might be use when these uncontrollable, emotional fits, strike. Just a few months ago, it was reasonably summarized by David Frum at thedailybeast:
Most gun casualties occur in the course of quarrels and accidents between people who would be described as “law-abiding, responsible gun owners” up until the moment when they lost their temper or left a weapon where a 4-year-old could find it and kill himself or his sister.
2. The second model, which I call the “Trust the People” model, holds that the vast majority of criminal homicides are committed by a tiny fraction of society, that they are easily identified by their past history of violence, cultural set, and lack of civilized values and discipline instilled by a stable home life.
John Lott notes that it is the second model that has triumphed:
Actually, as I showed in More Guns, Less Crime, about 90 percent of adult murderers have a violent criminal record. About 89 percent of juvenile murderers have a criminal record for serious crimes.
— In 2010, there were 36 accidental deaths involving kids under age 10. Most of those children were also shot by adults with criminal records. Accidental deaths are very small portion of total gun deaths.
A well-known academic on the dynamics of homicide, who has written books on how to reduce murders, David Kennedy, agrees that most homicides come from a very small percentage of the population:
While homicides result from a variety of factors, the vast majority are committed by a small, violent and often gang-affiliated segment of society.
The Wall Street Journal article embraces the first philosophical view, no matter how much the view has been discredited. From the article:
With more guns in more hands, families are grieving loved ones lost to quick-tempered killings, often involving law-abiding civilians, with no one held accountable.
In the above quote, another progressive assumption is revealed. The assumption is that more guns equal more problems. There is no proof that more legally owned guns equal more problems. It is more correct to say the rate of legal gun ownership is not related to the rate of illegal homicides. A recent paper from Europe reinforces this fact. In the United States, the number of firearms per capita goes up and up while the rate of homicides goes up and down. The progressive model for homicides assumes ordinary people commit most homicides. It is a false assumption.
The Wall Street Journal article states a person can “get away” with killing someone with “… only a claim you killed while protecting yourself or others.” This is incorrect. All homicides are investigated. Claims of self-defense have to be consistent with the physical evidence.
Under the “Trust the People” model of homicide, the death of violent criminals reduces the number of people prone to homicide, protecting others from their attacks. The death of violent criminals at the hands of their victims acts as a deterrent to others prone to violent attacks.
The Wall Street Journal article posts examples where the authors frame the justifiable homicides as unnecessary. A detailed examination shows a different view, where the examples likely stopped illegal homicides.
The Journal authors refuse to use an example where murder and/or maiming were stopped, and justice served by the laws protecting victims. Consider the Gabriel Mobley case in Florida in 2008, where a black man was viciously attacked. He shot and killed his two attackers. Video evidence confirmed Mobley’s actions as justified. Mobley had a concealed carry permit. Mobley escaped unjust punishment because Florida law provides immunity for self-defense.
The numbers used by the Wall Street Journal article are highly suspect. The FBI’s definition of justifiable homicides is derived directly from the progressive model. The FBI collection misses about 80% of justifiable homicides. The WSJ article admits the data is incomplete.
In essence, the WSJ article is a symptom of the different models of understanding homicide. the WSJ article exemplifies the “progressive” leftist model. Understanding of justifiable homicide as defense of the innocent exemplifies Natural Law philosophy as used by the proponents of lawful self defense.
Most murders are not committed by ordinary citizens, but by violent, out-of-control people with a violent criminal history. Most justifiable homicides are by people protecting themselves from the small fraction of violent offenders in society.
Gun Rights Groups Target Connecticut’s Assault Weapons Ban for Supreme Court Review
FPC Calls on President Trump to End Defense of Federal Gun Control Laws
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Defining “justified” as “unjustified” makes as much sense as defining a mentally ill man as a woman. Apparently, words mean only whatever we want them to mean at the time we use them. Time honored definitions are out the window. Unless something changes in a very large way and soon, we are screwed as a culture
Simply an article written by a journalist that has NO IDEA what they are writing about. Clearly this someone that has never had to use a weapon to save their life. It is so easy to look at such situations through rosy glasses till it is your family depending on, it is your job to keep society safe or it is a criminal that is intent on taking your life. Also after going through the process after a shooting where EVERY action or statement you made is examined, I don’t think ANYONE would think the process is anything but highly… Read more »
Fight fire with fire. If having more guns makes for more gun deaths which is what one of the authors claims, then more guns also mean less crime and criminals because one can eliminate the other. UC Davis completed a study and stated that more guns MAY cause more gun deaths. They didn’t say it did. Isn’t it nice how they always avoid using statistics from one of their recognized sources, a college, when it doesn’t produce the outcome, they want. For instance. More guns held by staff in schools means less mass school shootings. The proof is the shooters… Read more »
Well done. And thank you for using clear terminology to describe the lack-of-thought process involved in the WSJ article. Progressive is the correct term. Liberal is not the correct term. Progressives believe all control must be in the hands of an Ivy League educated, carefully selected elite who populate a massive bureaucracy spread across all institutions of our once free land. There is nothing liberal about that approach to government. But on to the point. Progressives have long believed all kinetic power must be controlled by the state. First, they do not trust the commoners like us with any form… Read more »
I shot a man in 1990 who had a record form 1959 he had a gun and had just got out of jail for armed robbery 30days earlier. We had a 10 round exchange and both missed once.