There are 132 violent crimes occurring every hour of the day across the country. That comes up to 3168 crimes a day and 22176 in a week. Coming in at over a million violent crimes a year, the U.S. is one of the most violent countries in the world and yet we aren’t even allowed to fight back in some states. With violent crimes taking place all around us, how are we supposed to defend ourselves? When do we allow the citizens to fight back against criminals and actually take a stand against violence? With these statistics, it’s no surprise that one of the most talked about subjects in the U.S. right now is the topic of self defense. Under what circumstances is one allowed to take the life of another and should they be allowed to do so at all? There are many people who shoot others just to claim self defense and get off scot-free while there are those who are actually attacked and end up behind bars for fighting back. Although there are those who abuse the law to get away with crimes, the amount of lives saved outweighs the amount of lives taken. It’s been proven across the country that allowing citizens to defend themselves helps lower crime rates and even prevent crimes, while areas without proper self-defense laws see increased crime rates since victims can’t fight back. If we, as a country, really want to try and put a stop to violent crimes everywhere; the first step we need to take is allowing everyone to use lethal force to defend themselves against someone if that person is actively trying to injure or steal from them.

In the debate about whether or not to implement stronger self-defense laws, one major question people have is if the laws would even be constitutional. It is, after all, stated that everybody has the right to life. The problem with this argument is that in 1895 the Supreme Court already ruled that a victim “was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.” The Supreme Court is the final say in interpreting the Constitution, if they say that it is within the Constitution to defend yourself then there shouldn’t be any debate here. Another instance where the Supreme Court rules that self-defense is a constitutional right is in the District of Columbia v. Heller case of 2008. The Supreme Court stated that “a weapon could be used ‘for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.’” Their reasoning was that since the second amendment allows citizens to own a firearm, it also implies that one can use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes. Since the Supreme Court ruled twice that the self-defense laws are constitutional, there shouldn’t be anymore controversy or argument about if they actually are. Self-defense laws are constitutional and have been proven to be so multiple times.

Now that we know self-defense is constitutional, we need to ask ourselves if implementing these laws will actually have any effect on crime rates. Another major topic in the fight for self-defense is the idea that even if we implement self-defense laws the crime rate will stay the same, criminals will still be criminals, and law-abiding citizens aren’t going to pull a gun on someone, even if it is in self-defense. The fact is however, that areas with self defense laws see a decrease in crime, whereas areas without self-defense laws see an increased amount of crime. In states where self-defense laws are passed, crime rates drop since criminals now have to consider the possibility of their victims fighting back; and even though their victim may not fight back, the mere possibility of it deters most criminals. One quote by the Federal Bureau of Investigation actually shows that “the murder rate dropped significantly between 2005 and 2009” which is the same time frame when 25 states passed laws favoring self-defense. This significant drop in murder rates proves that self-defense laws that allow for the use of lethal force actually do make a difference in helping to prevent crimes and also help save lives. One other fact is, as Alfred Grimaldi said, “the people who are inclined to violence aren’t going to obey a law just because you pass it.” There are already laws in place that outlaw murder and robbery but just because a law is in place doesn’t mean that everybody is going to follow it. We need to make sure that we do give the law-abiding citizens a means to defend themselves so that they don’t become victims for following the laws put in place. Criminals will always be criminals and no matter what we do they will always find ways to get a weapon. We need to accept this fact and, instead, start working on giving every person a way to defend him or herself. If we don’t give people ways to defend themselves the crime rate will actually go up. As we can see in the District of Columbia. D.C. has very strict gun laws and because of this the crime rates are nearly double when compared to the rest of the country. The higher crime rate is due to the criminals knowing the victims most likely won’t have weapons to defend themselves, making  decision to commit crimes much more attractive. In D.C. the average amount of rape is more than double than the national average, the amount of robberies is over 5 times a much, and the amount of murders is over 3 times as much. From these statistics, we can see that restricting the general population’s ability to defend themselves causes an increase in the amount of violent crimes in the area. If we gave each citizen a way to properly defend themselves from criminals, the amount of crimes in an area would go down since the criminals now have to consider the fact that they themselves might end up getting injured as well.

Even if none of the previous claims are compelling, there are many cases where people use guns to discourage criminals and prevent anyone from getting harmed. One study conducted by the Committee on Law and Justice proves this by showing us that “30.2 percent of all individuals involved in a robbery between 1992 and 2001 were injured,” while only “12.8 percent of victims possessing a firearm suffered an injury.” The same type of figures apply to assaults with “57 percent [of victims getting injured] versus 28 percent [when the victim had a firearm].” These statistics show how providing people with a way to defend themselves helps lower the amount of people who end up getting injured during violent crimes. If everyone had a way to defend themselves at all times, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the amount of injuries per year due to crimes would be nearly cut in half. Also, not only would providing firearms for the general public cut down on the amount of injuries from violent crimes but it would also help to actually cut down the amount of crimes that occur. The federal crime survey puts the amount of defensive-gun-use incidents at just above 100,000. Even by conservative estimates, 100,000 crimes stopped by gun owners is extremely large. These were all crimes that were stopped by law-abiding citizens using their weapons for self defense and the defense of those around them. Only 31% of all Americans actually own a firearm and even less people carry them around on a daily basis. If this small percentage of people are stopping 100,000 crimes a year alone; how many crimes could be prevented if everybody had a way to fight back? Another way we can see armed citizens helping prevent violence is through a study conducted by the Cato Institute that found, in a randomly selected sample of 5,000 cases, 1,227 had the aggressor flee the scene due to an armed civilian. That’s 1 in 5 cases where people defended themselves against murder, rape, or robbery. 1 in 5 is a huge number, and could definitely be better if every civilian was armed. All of the evidence presented shows us how effective people are at defending themselves, and how many lives are saved when a victim is in possession of a weapon of their own.
One argument that many anti-self-defense advocates will reference is the idea that the self-defense laws are abused by lots of people who try to justify unjust murders and killings. The problem with this is that it is based off of the association fallacy (if one then all). They believe that just because a few abuse the laws, we should get rid of the laws entirely because eventually everyone will abuse them. No parent should ever be denied the right to defend his or her children and no woman should ever be denied the right to defend herself against a violent, sexual predator. While there are those who claim self-defence to be set free of their crimes, the amount of people who genuinely defend themselves from those who intend to do harm is much greater. I do acknowledge that people try and abuse the law all the time but the benefits of the law far outweigh the negatives. “Hindsight is 20/20” and when we look on the situations after-the-fact, of course we can point out where both parties went wrong. But in that moment when you are the victim and someone is threatening to harm you, decisions have to be made within a split-second to ensure that nobody you know and care about is injured. We have to put ourselves in the victim’s situation and seriously ask ourselves what we would do if our families or friends were threatened. Even though there are those who abuse the laws, we can’t deny a lawful citizen the right to defend him or herself just because there are a few who exploit laws that were created with good intentions.

Another argument that skeptics might have is that we don’t need guns since the police will protect us, that is what they’re here for after all. While I do agree that one should always try to contact the police before taking matters into their own hands, the police aren’t going to be at your doorstep in an instant. Even though policemen and women will protect us in the case of an emergency, it’s going to take time for the police to get there and by then it may already be too late. During a home invasion seconds can mean the difference between life or death; and when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Nashville, the city with the fastest police response time in the country, arrives at the scene in a blazing fast nine minutes. The problem with this is that if someone is in your house trying to hurt you, nine minutes is feels like an eternity. So even though the police may eventually show up and protect you, you still need a way to defend yourself in case something does happen within those nine minutes. The police have your safety as their number one priority, but they aren’t going to be at your house in an instant.
If there is an imminent threat to you or anyone around you, it should be perfectly within your rights to use lethal force to protect yourself and those around you. Not only is it constitutional with the Supreme Court ruling so on multiple occasions, but it is also the duty of any lawful citizen to fight back against a criminal and subdue them using as much force as necessary even if it means using a firearm. In areas like California where self-defense laws do allow citizens to fight back, we have seen huge drops in crime rates since criminals know that their victims could possibly fight back. Conversely, areas like D.C. where self-defense laws are extremely restrictive have higher than average crime rates across all categories. By legalizing the use of lethal self-defense across the country, we could lower the average crime rates everywhere by huge amounts. It has already been proven to work in areas where laws like these have been implemented where there are now countless cases of where normal civilians used firearms to stop crimes already in progress. Even though some will still argue that stronger self-defense laws will mean more murders, the amount of evidence showing us that that’s not the case is overwhelming and it’s time we start applying these ideals to the rest of the country. The bad guys will never stop being bad guys and no matter what we do, there will always be those who try and exploit others for their own gain. We now need to make sure that those kinds of people don’t have any power over lawful citizens and stronger self-defense laws are the first steps we can take as a country towards a future not only free from crime, but more importantly free from fear.