A Case for Resisting Your Assailant

Those of us advocating armed citizenry hear a common argument for those advocating a disarmed citizenry, if you just give the criminal what they want they won’t harm you. It’s an ignorant belief though because that’s not always the case. Take for example this incident:

Police say the two Iowa store clerks — one a mother of 11 — did exactly what Michael Richard Swanson demanded, his shotgun pointed at their faces.

But the 17-year-old St. Louis Park boy allegedly shot them anyway, plunging two north-central Iowa towns into shock and grief. It was unclear why Swanson, who has a history of assault and theft, would drive south and in the span of an hour allegedly become a cold-blooded killer.

About 9:05 p.m., Swanson put on a mask and entered the Crossroads convenience store in Algona, demanding cash and cigarettes. Clerk Vicky Bowman-Hall, 47, did what he said, but he shot her. The mother of 11 died at the Algona hospital.

Police say that about 10 p.m., Swanson entered the Kum and Go station in Humboldt, robbed it and shot Sheila Myers, 61. Myers was dead at the scene.

Even though the two clerks submitted to their attacker and gave into his demands he killed them. The idea of simply giving a criminal what they want and they’ll go away ignores the fact that crazy people are crazy. When you’re facing an armed attacker the situation is already volatile. You know one thing about your attacker, they’ve threatened your life.

In my book the second somebody threatens my life I no longer trust anything they say. Why should I believe somebody stating they are willing to kill me won’t do so if I simply give into their demands? What guarantee do I have that they’ll stick to their word? None.

Being armed gives you an option, a means of defending yourself. Obviously a gun isn’t a magical talisman that will ensure you walk away alive but it gives you far better chances than being completely helpless.

One thought on “A Case for Resisting Your Assailant”

Comments are closed.