Good Guys/Gals with Guns – A Twofer

Today, we have two incidents that illustrate graphically why there are times when nothing else will do. Guns can and do save lives, contrary to those gun control people who, regardless of what they say, want to confiscate our weapons. According to them, incidents like the two chronicled here just don’t happen, and both shooters should have called 911 instead of relying on a handgun.

Pregnant mom thwarts intruder

From:,  by Jazz Shaw,  on Jan 11, 2017


This story comes to us via our sharp-eyed colleague Bob Owens at Bearing Arms and it’s a heartwarming tale to be sure. A mother of one in Phoenix with another child on the way was awoken this week in the wee hours of the morning by the sound of breaking glass when a would-be burglar or assailant attempted a home invasion. Unfortunately for the intruder, he picked the wrong house. The details from the local ABC outlet describe just how bad of an idea this turned out to be.

Police say a woman woke up to the sound of a man breaking into the back window of her home. The woman grabbed a gun and fired in the direction of the man attempting to gain entry.

It does not appear the suspect was hit by the gunfire, and the suspect fled the scene. It was not immediately known if the suspect left the area on foot or in a vehicle.

Looking at some of the comments left at the local outlet it sounds as if there were readers who felt that the woman was somehow deficient because she failed to actually hit the target and the home invader most likely escaped unharmed. That, to me, seems rather short-sighted and overly critical. From the sound of things, the house was dark and the woman didn’t want to get too close to the intruder. For all she knew he may have been armed as well, so why get into a close quarters shootout? The end objective of any home defense action is to save your own life and the lives of your children (both born and unborn) while thwarting the suspect’s attempts. Nobody in the home was injured and the attacker was driven off. Sounds like a win to me.

Bob Owens digs a bit deeper, though, and really gets to the heart of why access to defensive firearms is important, particularly for those who are less physically capable of defending themselves.

The harsh truth of this world is that there is no equality in nature. There will always been people who are younger, bigger, stronger, and more ruthless than you are, just as there are those who are going to be smaller, older, more physically delicate, and of a gentler nature.

Firearms are a tool that allows those more vulnerable souls—such as this young mother and her children—the opportunity to defend themselves against human predators. She could not reasonably expect to use a stun gun, chemical spray, impact, weapon or edged-weapon, or even a 911 call to police in this situation without a great risk to herself and her unborn child, not to mention her existing child.

What she needed to keep her children safe was a firearm. The time to call the police was after she had dealt with the threat.

Bob is, of course, exactly right. The world isn’t a “fair” place, no matter how much the rainbow and unicorn contingent might wish it to be so. There are evil people out there who will prey on their fellow man given the opportunity. Some citizens are simply not as physically capable of combat as others and firearms – combined with proper training and safety precautions – are the great equalizer in this formula.

The more criminals run into homes with armed occupants, the more likely they are to think twice before doing it. And as Bob points out, the police can’t be everywhere at once. Even if the mother in this story had dialed 911 immediately, it might have been too late by the time they arrived had she not possessed the tools to see to her own security. (Independent Journal Review notes that the average response time varies from city to city but averages anywhere from nine to fifteen minutes.) This woman saved herself and her children and we should keep in mind that a delay of fifteen minutes in this situation could have amounted to the rest of her life.


Good Samaritan with Gun Kills Man Beating State Trooper (DRT)

Perp refused order to stop smashing wounded officer’s head into pavement

From:,  on Jan 12, 2017

An Arizona state trooper is alive today because a gun-toting stranger came to his rescue as an assailant smashed the trooper’s head into the pavement Thursday.

A 27-year Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper came upon the scene of a rollover crash on Interstate 10 in Tonopah, Arizona, early Thursday at about 4:20 a.m. A woman had been ejected in the accident and later died.

Then the officer, who has not yet been named in news reports, pulled over to investigate and block off lanes of traffic with flares.

Suddenly a man ambushed the trooper and shot him in the right shoulder, according to Arizona’s KPNX-TV 12. The assailant continued to attack the wounded officer, smashing his head into the concrete.

“The suspect is getting the better of the trooper and is on top of him and striking the trooper’s head on the pavement,” said Arizona DPS Director Col. Frank Milstead, who provided details of the incident to reporters.

That’s when an unnamed Good Samaritan, who had been traveling toward California on the interstate with his wife, quickly pulled over to help.

The passerby asked the trooper if he needed assistance, and the officer replied, “Please help me.”

“That person retreats back to his vehicle, removes his own weapon from the vehicle, confronts the suspect, giving him orders to stop assaulting the officer,” Milstead said.

But the attacker refused to stop beating the trooper.

So the Good Samaritan fired a shot, killing the suspect and saving the officer’s life.

He then picked up the officer’s radio and requested help. The trooper is now conscious and in stable condition at a local hospital. He is expected to undergo surgery on his shoulder.

“I don’t know if my trooper would be alive today without his assistance,” Milstead said, thanking the Good Samaritan.

He also noted that the officer had been “heroically” responding to a collision in the middle of major traffic while it was “pitch black” outside.

“Everybody wants to make this job seem easy, that anybody could do it,” he said. “Well, I will tell you that not everybody can do this job. You have to have a servant mentality, and you have to have a sense of confidence about yourself and your ability to react in a moment’s notice. It is the unknown that causes the problems with police and bad people.

“These are good men and women who go to church with you. They go to Costco at the same Costco you do. They’re your neighbors. The media tries to make us somehow different than everybody else in society. We’re not. We’re just the ones who are here to serve and protect you. We’re the ones who will give our lives to protect somebody who can’t protect themselves.”


Ask yourself what would have been the likely outcome if neither the pregnant mom or the Good Samaritan had access to a gun? The gun control lobby likes to say that we gun rights people are constantly exaggerating the number of times that the defensive use of a gun results in a positive outcome for the gun owner. Well, here’s a study that was funded by (gasp!) the Obama administration:

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

That’s roughly in line with the Gun Owners of America estimates of about 2.5 million times a year that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals.

I know that the gun control goons don’t want to hear it, but I’ll say it again, guns can and do save lives.


Categories: General


13 replies

  1. So many of these stories, Garnet. Stats don’t say how many citizen lives are saved with defensive arms use. 2.5 million cases though. That’s HUGE! Thank GOD For the 2nd!


  2. God made man. Colonel Colt made them equal.


    • Exactly Brian. I am particularly sensitive to that “equality” thing since my age, size, and breathing difficulties put me at a great disadvantage if confronted by a younger, bigger aggressor. My personal carry weapon evens out the playing field.


  3. Excellent post, Garnet.

    As you probably know, I watch a lot of true crime shows. It is awful to see the horrific crimes that are perpetrated against people who were caught defenseless by their attackers (usually women). Not everyone could have been spared but many of them could had they been armed and prepared.

    The Second Amendment fight has been sidelined by high-profile, mass shootings that make the national news. What people aren’t seeing en masse are the local papers where the thousands (or perhaps millions) of stories of attacks are being told. This dynamic distorts the reality of what’s going on as well as people’s perceptions about the nature of gun use. Every story that gets told and passed on may help to change that trajectory.


    • You’re right about the mass shootings, they’re all over the news and stay that way for days. And even after several days, the gun control people co-opt them to take advantage of the publicity to yell for more gun control.

      It is unfortunate, but individual incidents of defensive gun use occupy only a few column inches in a newspaper or a 30-second mention on radio or TV. But there is a source that does accumulate those seemingly forgotten cases into a website. It’s called Defensive Gun Use and just click on that link and you’ll see 65 cases reported so far in January 2017.


  4. Perhaps it wasn’t so apparent at the actual scene, but it seems like it would have been obvious to the Samaritan that the trooper needed help. He wasted precious time by having to return to his vehicle to get a gun, but by the same token, civilians aren’t trained to quickly assess the situation.

    The attacker had to be a nutjob or on drugs, because normal people wouldn’t see that situation as an opportunity to attack an officer – most people wouldn’t even think along those lines.

    Still, in both situations, it’s good they had guns and were able to fend off their attackers. It’s our right and there could have been multiple deaths had they not exercised that right – something the gun control nuts will never understand.


    • I had exactly the same thought, Kathy. When you see a state trooper having his head banged into the road surface, that ought to be a clue that he needs help. I’m glad the good guy did finally retrieve his gun and dispatched the perp, but only after another half-dozen or more additional head-bangs got administered while he did so. He should have exited his car with gun in hand.


    • Allow me a few observations, based on training and personal experience working closely with LEOs for 24+ years.
      Many have commented, on multiple sites presenting this story, about the civilian asking if the trooper needed assistance, and returning to retrieve his weapon from his vehicle.
      First, let’s look at leaving his weapon in the car. Rule #1 – and as Jim Varney would say, “Tattoo this on your brain, Verne.” – NEVER run up on a police officer with a gun in your hand. Bad things can happen.
      Yes, the trooper was obviously at a disadvantage, but the good Samaritan had no way of knowing to what extent. He could not know the trooper’s arm was disabled, and the trooper may have drawn his own pistol to stop the person pummeling him against the pavement. (Think George Zimmerman under attack by Travon Martin.)
      The trooper had originally been attacked out of ambush. He had no way of knowing if his assailant was acting alone. Having dispatched that first threat to his life, he could easily mistake a second person with a gun as a threat also, with tragic consequences.
      That brings us to his asking the trooper if he needed help. By stopping to ask before intervening, he immediately let the trooper know that he was not there to backup the first attacker, but the trooper if needed. Charging headlong into, what for the trooper was, a life or death struggle, without first identifying himself as an ally, could easily have lead to the same errant impression just noted, and similar bad outcome.
      No, folks, made no error. His series of actions were most appropriate for the situation that was transpiring when he arrived. I will even go so far as to characterize his response as near textbook perfect.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Another issue some have raised was that the good Samaritan did not immediately use the trooper’s radio to call for backup and medical after the shooting, but waited for a second person to stop and do that.
      Now the following is only conjecture on my part, as no information has been released about him.
      I believe he may be former, or current, military, based on what we do know.
      I have driven that stretch of highway at night. To say it is “pitch black” out there, especially on overcast nights obscuring the moon, is an understatement. That he was able to put multiple shots on a target in such close proximity to the downed trooper, under those bad lighting conditions, demonstrated marksmanship beyond capabilities of your average plinker. He is surely someone with more than minimal training.
      In the aviation world, there is a very concise checklist for pilots when things go sideways — Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. That is to say, first fly the plane, then look for a safe landing place, finally advise ground controllers of situation and intentions. Combat troops have a similar SHTF playbook. First put down the threat, then secure the perimeter, finally report back to command.
      The good Samaritan had just been through a very stressful situation. Like the trooper, he had no way of knowing if there were more bad guys lurking in the dark. I suspect he was making defensive scans of the area to ensure there were no others, and maintained that posture until the first responding DPS unit was on scene.
      Leaving it to another call it in, and start first aid on the injured trooper, makes perfect sense in my mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Good points, Saltwater, thanks for weighing in with some explanatory information. We learn something new every day. My answer of exiting the car with gun in hand assumed that I could see what was in the immediate area and had seen enough head bangs to tell that the trooper was getting overwhelmed. If visibility was really that bad, that may well have been a mistake, but still, it was an honest answer and probably what I would have done – perhaps to my determent.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, that would be the natural response for most people, myself included at one time. It took training and real-world experience, coupled with honest input from LEOs, for me to adequately understand what they might perceive under such circumstances. They would rather take a few extra blows from a bad guy than injure a well meaning, but overly anxious to help innocent.
        It is that warrior mindset which made working beside them an honor and pleasure; and why I will always #BackTheBlue.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: