I think about stuff too much. Some of you probably get one of NRA’s magazines. Mine is American Rifleman. Within the first few pages of each issue, we see an article called “The Armed Citizen,” which reports factual cases where homeowners and shopkeepers have protected themselves from felons by the use or display of firearms. In recent months, I started noticing that of the several instances cited in each issue, the writer reported the action during the scary encounters and then stated “the perpetrator was held at gunpoint until police arrived. ”
So I thought about that too much and ended up writing a letter to that particular department of the publication, and explained that perhaps such a well respected and powerful organization should refrain from similar statements, because lots of people hold the NRA in high esteem as the protector of their firearm rights. Should the NRA, I asked, be reporting the incidents where subdued and unarmed felons are held at gunpoint by citizens? Most of those incidents involved break-ins by armed bad guys, and upon the display of a weapon by the intended victim, and in sometimes the actual shooting of the bad guy, he is subdued and “held at gunpoint pending arrival of police,” or some such wording. Although it might be argued that NRA is only reporting and not promoting holding a person at gunpoint. But I think they are promoting it, albeit vaguely. They are saying as much as possible to impart the need for the citizens to have guns, without actually saying it directly. “Gunpoint” is powerful language, and it imparts a visual message to the reader, and if the reader holds the NRA in high regard, as I do, he might say to himself, “Good for the victim. He turned that situation around with the use of his gun. He made a citizen’s arrest and kept the bad guy at gunpoint. That’s what I would do in a similar circumstance.”
Now the question I fixated in my brain I can seem to rid myself of is, what if the subdued and now unarmed felon being held at gunpoint, says, “Things ain’t working out to well for me today. I don’t think I’ll wait around here for the police to come and take me away. Later dude.” At that point he turns to leave.
What to do? Was the holding at gunpoint merely a bluff? Fine when it works, but what about when it does not work? Do you shoot the felon who has already stopped being a threat? In many of the cases the victim would have been justified to shoot earlier in the situation, but that moment has come and gone. No threat, no shooting. Or maybe I read too much into those scenarios. Maybe the bad guy had refused to leave and the gunpointing was necessary to stay safe until police arrived.
It’s a little different when an officer makes an arrest. He (the police) is already there. Upon disarming the bad guy, he goes into the restraining mode by whatever means necessary.
Anyway, I got no response to my letter to NRA; however, I’ve noted they stopped using that terminology. Now they say, “the perpetrator was detained until police arrived.”
Just a little of the rambling activity that runs through my brain.
