Civilian Gun Self-Defense
The Right to Defend Yourself

National Summary had the opportunity to interview Clayton Cramer of Civilian Gun Self-Defense about the gun owners rights, self-defense, and gun control groups. Clayton Cramer and Pete Drum scour the news wires and media outlets to track down articles about civilians who use guns in self-defense. This web site demonstrates that such incidents are actually quite common.

This interview provided plenty of interesting insights to the problem of violent crimes in our society as well as the right to defend yourself. Below are his responses to our interview questions. And National Summary would like to thank Clayton for his time and effort for this interview.

Web Site: Civilian Gun Self-Defense    

Q. Please give us a little bit of personal background about yourself.

I'm a software engineer in Boise, Idaho – although I only moved here at the end of 2001. I was raised in California, and I raised a family there. I have a BA and an MA in History, from Sonoma State University, a small liberal-arts (and let me emphasize, "Liberal") university north of San Francisco.

Watching the way that gun control was used as a political football radicalized me. I've written six books; the first five had been published, and the sixth is in the contract negotiation stage right now. Three of the books are related to gun history, but the others are not. My web site www.claytoncramer.com has excerpts from the five published books as well as dozens of both scholarly and popular articles.

My second book has been cited as an authority in both a federal court case, USA v. Emerson, and in a Rhode Island Supreme Court dissenting opinion this year.

Q. And also give us a background about your personal interest in guns.

I grew up in Los Angeles. I didn't have much interest in guns at all. But over the course of a couple of years, just about everyone that my wife and I knew was the victim of a violent felony. This changed my attitude quite dramatically. I taught myself what I needed to know about California gun law by reading through the Penal Code and the decisions of the courts – and I was surprised at how strict California's gun laws were.

My first gun was a Colt Government Model, .45 ACP.

I can't claim to be particularly a gun enthusiast. I know a good bit about them, and I've done a lot of historical research into the right to keep and bear arms. But I think of a gun as a necessary tool. I would prefer a world where guns weren't necessary. I would also prefer a world where houses didn't need locks – but I know what is and isn't realistic.

I can admire and enjoy a finely made piece of machinery, and it doesn't matter if it is a gun, a vertical mill, or a telescope – but I can't claim that I particularly enjoy collecting them, and shooting them is more of a necessary chore than something that I look forward to doing.

Q. What inspired you to create a website about civilians using guns for self-defense?

You can thank Professor Donohue of Stanford, who is strongly anti-gun. A couple of years back, during an email exchange, he claimed that "real" defensive uses of guns are extremely rare. He claimed that nearly all supposedly defensive gun uses by civilians are situations where a gun wasn't necessary for self-defense. "Sure, every ten years some old lady in a wheel chair who couldn't use a bat or her fists shoots someone, but that is at least as rare as Hattori." (Hattori was the Japanese exchange student shot to death in Baton Rouge.)

You can see my exchange with Donohue.

I started keeping track of defensive gun uses at that time and Pete Drum, my co-blogger, now does most of the work on this.

Q. What have been the biggest challenges to maintaining your web site?

Figuring out how to get trackbacks to work reliably!

Q. What has been the greatest satisfaction you have gotten from your web site?

Seeing people point to it as evidence that civilian gun self-defense in America isn't rare. It is actually quite common.

Q. Generally speaking, how does law enforcement tend to view civilians using a gun for self-defense?

In my experience, most police officers are pretty positive about law-abiding adults having guns. The discomfort starts as you go up the chain of command and you deal more and more with people who have not been street cops for a long time.

Q. From your observations, how do criminals tend to view civilians using a gun for self-defense?

I won't claim to have much information on this, but it seems that criminals aren't so different from the rest of us. They don't want someone shooting at them, but they want to be able to defend themselves if they are attacked. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean that they can't be a victim, too.

It is conventional wisdom that a lot of gun self-defense is criminals defending themselves from other criminals. While the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog does have examples of that – and cases where, if you read between the lines, you get the impression that this is what happened. These seem to be a lot scarcer than I expected – or at least news organizations don't cover criminals shooting at criminals as often as they cover decent person shooting at a criminal.

Q. Why do so many organizations, churches, politicians, etc., tend to view gun ownership as almost being criminal?

There are multiple reasons for this and I am reluctant to give a single answer.

Some people are hostile to self-defense because they fundamentally do not see that there is any legitimate need to use deadly force. These are pacifists, and while I disagree with them, I can at least respect their commitment to turning the other cheek.

But there are also false pacifists, who believe that the use of deadly force is wrong – but are prepared to call the police out (who bring deadly weapons with them) if they hear a burglar breaking in. Even worse are the ones who don't mind having the police threaten deadly force to enforce gun control laws – because they consider the use of deadly force wrong.

Most people who support restrictive gun control, in my experience, are not in either category. They have been told, repeatedly that gun control will reduce violence, and many believe (because it makes them comfortable) that if you aren't a criminal and you aren't violent, then no one will want to hurt you. It sounds so attractive that many decide to live in this little dream. I confess that I found the idea attractive, once upon a time. Then reality intruded.

Q. Why do some people have an inordinate fear of guns; perhaps more so than of criminals?

For the same reason many people will not wear seatbelts. It is a reminder that driving a car is dangerous, just like living in most big cities is dangerous. A gun is a tangible reminder that there are bad or at least confused people out there who might decide to hurt them – and there is nothing that the police can do to prevent this attack.

Q. Groups that oppose private gun ownership attempt to persuade the public that our country would be safer and less violent without guns. What is your honest opinion about that?

Many of the leaders are false pacifists who claim to believe that all violence – both aggressive and defensive – is morally equivalent. They are false pacifists because they support the use of governmental violence to disarm law-abiding adults, while claiming to oppose all violence.

Many of the members of these organizations are not pacifists, real or false, and do not share the fanaticism of the leadership. The more that we can explain both the pragmatic and moral arguments against restrictive gun control to the members of these organizations, the less effective these organizations will become.

Q. Do you think that groups and people who oppose private gun ownership are harder on law-abiding citizens who obey the law than on violent criminals who have a total disregard for society and human life?

There's a bit of variation on this. Some of the gun control group leaders really do believe that violent crime is a horrible thing and think of gun control as a strategy for reducing violent crime. Such people (and I suspect that they are a majority of gun control supporters) really do want violent criminals to be locked up. But they would also prefer that guns go away in the hopes that it will make fewer violent criminals, so that there won't be a need to imprison so many people.

As you get into the leadership of gun control groups, there seems to be a bit of a change in attitude. Many of the leaders honestly seem to think that there is no such thing as a dividing line between "violent criminals" and "law-abiding adults." They insist that the distinction is racist and that almost anyone with access to a gun may suddenly turn into a violent criminal.

The reason that so many of the gun control leaders are on the left end of the spectrum is that there is a reluctance to admit that the severe problems of black America were aggravated by the social spending of the Great Society. It is easier to imagine that the problems of the inner cities are because of the presence of guns, especially handguns. Rather than admit that the problems in black America are dramatically worse than in white America – and guns are, if anything, more common in white America than black America – these blinkered leftists imagine that white America must also have a severe violent crime problem which requires disarming just about everyone.

Q. What can you say about the hypocrisy of people who are against gun ownership, yet still rely on them? For instance, like Michael Moore since his bodyguards have been known to carry firearms.

Don't compare Michael Moore with a sincere gun control advocate. Don't compare Michael Moore with anything sincere.

Some gun control advocates (such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, who used to have a concealed handgun permit in San Francisco, but apparently doesn't now) are genuinely fearful of violence. She had the misfortune to be present when the bodies of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk (both shot to death with a handgun) were found.

Q. What is your opinion about firearm safety and minors?

You can childproof guns by locking them up – and you should. You can gun-proof children by teaching that guns are serious, and require adult supervision – and you should. Don't kid yourself that because your kids were decent and responsible at 10, that they might not do something stupid, irresponsible, or suicidal at 15. Those are very hard years.

The government shouldn't be running around trying to be the parent – but parents need to show a lot more responsibility in how they store firearms so that the government has no excuse to pass laws.

Q. What is your opinion of minors using guns during a crime?

Bad idea. I'm reluctant to suggest a hard and fast rule on how to punish them.

Q. In today’s political environment, do women have tougher time in getting exposed to using guns for self-defense?

I think so. Some of this is probably innate; there are differences in aggression between the sexes that are hormonally based, but cultural conditioning of women to be caregivers is probably the bigger issue.

Q. There are a number of moderates, independents, and undecided voters who want a balance of good laws that make sense when it comes to gun ownership. What would you have to say to them?

Let's talk. Once the notion that there is a RIGHT of law-abiding adults without mental defect to own and carry a gun is generally accepted and the courts demonstrate that they are prepared to strike down the more extreme restrictive laws (such as California's assault weapon ban, and the remaining state "may issue" concealed weapon permit laws), it will be a lot easier to work out compromises to simplify finding criminals engaged in gun running.

Q. And finally, to play devil’s advocate, how would you define a gun nut? Is there certain behavior or extremes involving gun ownership that should not be tolerated at all?

People who think that pictures of naked women (or naked men) go well with guns need to work through their juvenile problems.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.