The recent shooting at Don’s guns underscores the issue of self defense and/or gun control depending upon the prism within which one chooses to review the facts of the case. For those unaware, Don Davis is one of the most renowned gun dealers in the United States. His claim to fame were the commercials stating that he didn’t want to make any money he just loved to sell guns. A firece advocate of gun rights for US citizens and the preservation of the second amendment, Davis is and was typically a first interview request for media commentary whenever the issue of gun control or self defense needed a colorful opinion lent to the discussion.
As of this week that discussion has centered on Don Davis himself as his Don’s guns location on Lafayette Road in Indianapolis was the epicenter of gun violence. Apparently a customer of the store who had been shooting within the gun range without warning opened fire on a clerk behind the counter. The employee, now in critical condition, returned fire and killed the subject. Davis, in response to the shooting used the opportunity to express that the action’s of his employee were exactly as one should expect in the defense of property and self. By lauding the action’s of his worker, Davis gave fair warning to others that those who represent a threat to the well being of others risk harm through the legal discharge of weapons he sells.
Media reports have circulated that Don’s Guns has been in the top ten of gun dealers nationwide as the store responsible for a firearm in the hands of one held in the commission of a crime. In response, Davis has stated that he follows the law in the dissemination and sale of his weapons at the point of purchase. What happens to the weapons thereafter he has no control of. As to crime within the Lafayette Square area, some citizens interviewed after the shooting stated that it was this gun location itself and not necessarily the surrounding area that gave rise to the most fear of potential violence.
Depending upon how one looks at this controversial issue, an advocate for either side of the gun control debate can use this new event to underscore their respective point of view. As such, the Don’s Guns shooting either represents yet another example as to the need for gun control in this country that allow for the killing of too many people each year or another illustration of why citizens need the right to bear arms. One may suggest that this shooting was a random act of a potentially deranged individual for which no gun control laws will prevent. Others may respond that the elimination of guns altogether would reduce or eliminate the prospect of such an individual capable of causing such a violent act.
Our society and the imprint of the second amendment will never allow America to adapt the European model of gun control where even law enforcement does not carry firearms in many instances. As a result, in my capacity as a defense lawyer, the issue of self defense in the use of firearms will remain an everpresent reality within our justice system. On a case by case basis, it is within our courts, more than any other forum, that will continue to define whether firearms aid in the self defense of the innocent or are a destructive force of those capable of commiting crime.