In the wake of a tragic shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school last month, the debate over gun rights and gun control in America has once again surged to the forefront of public discourse. The incident, in which a transgender gunman killed two people and wounded nearly two dozen others, has sparked renewed calls from gun control advocates for tighter regulations. Yet, as The Daily Signal points out, these proposals have drawn sharp criticism from those who argue that such measures would not have prevented this particular act of violence—and might even restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to defend themselves in similar situations.
Charlie Kirk, a polarizing figure often associated with divisive rhetoric, once famously declared, “We should thank God for giving us Donald Trump and giving us our country back.” While his statements have been the subject of heated debate, Kirk’s approach—arguably more suited to the battleground of ideas than that of violence—has been invoked in discussions about how best to address the nation’s deep-seated disagreements. As one commentator noted, “Charlie Kirk was a purveyor of divisive, noxious nonsense, but he should have been debated down, not gunned down.” This sentiment underscores a crucial point: the importance of engaging in robust, civil debate rather than resorting to violence.
The Minneapolis shooting, which occurred in August 2025, has reignited familiar arguments on both sides of the gun debate. According to The Daily Signal, gun control advocates “predictably doubled down on their constant calls to impose every restriction imaginable on peaceable gun owners.” The article contends that none of these proposed regulations would have saved a single life in this instance. Instead, it argues that such measures risk undermining the rights of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from criminal violence.
This perspective is rooted in a body of research suggesting that defensive gun use is far more common than many realize. Almost every major study, including the most recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has found that Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually. A 2021 study from the Georgetown McDonough School of Business offered a more precise estimate, concluding that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States each year. These numbers, though the subject of considerable debate, are frequently cited by those who argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not merely theoretical, but a practical necessity for millions of Americans.
The Daily Signal highlights a series of defensive gun use cases from August 2025 to illustrate this point. In Harvey, Illinois, two men opened fire at a large gathering inside a home, injuring five people, including a 4-year-old boy. The violence ended only when an armed guest—legally carrying a concealed weapon—returned fire, killing one gunman and injuring the other. Police confirmed that all the injured guests are expected to survive.
In Jacksonville, Florida, a 25-year-old man found himself and his family threatened during a road rage incident. When a driver brandished a gun at him, the man exchanged fire to protect himself, his mother, and his aunt. The assailant was wounded and later arrested on attempted murder charges, while the man who defended his family was not charged.
Other incidents from that month further illustrate the diversity of situations in which Americans have relied on firearms for self-defense. In Bryan, Texas, a man with a history of mental health issues attempted to take a truck occupied by a family. After a physical altercation, the driver was able to retrieve a gun and fatally shot the would-be carjacker. In Elkton, Maryland, a resident and his neighbor managed to de-escalate a home invasion threat and detain the suspect until police arrived, using the prospect of lethal force as leverage.
On public transportation in Philadelphia, a concealed carry permit holder was attacked by another passenger in a seemingly random assault. The victim, fearing for his life, fatally shot his assailant. Police described the shooting as an “[attempt] to save himself from further serious injury.”
Some cases involved particularly vulnerable individuals. In Joliet, Illinois, a pregnant woman was home alone with her infant daughter late at night when an intruder broke in. She armed herself, hid in a closet, and fatally shot the intruder—who, as it turned out, was on parole for previous burglaries and may have specifically targeted her home.
In rural Milan, Indiana, a woman noticed a suspicious truck in her driveway and called her husband, who was nearby. He returned home, blocked the truck, confronted the intruder in the family’s garage, and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The suspect was later charged with unlawful entry and drug offenses.
Houston, Texas, saw an especially dramatic confrontation when two men impersonating police officers—complete with bulletproof vests and badges—attempted to force their way into a home. The homeowner, suspicious after noticing the men’s ski masks and unmarked vehicle, refused to let them in. When the impostors began shooting through the door, the homeowner returned fire, fatally striking both. Neither the homeowner nor the child inside was injured.
Other examples from August include a Virginia State Police special agent who fatally shot a would-be intruder after a physical altercation in Portsmouth, a father in Lauderhill, Florida, who returned fire after being shot in the back while carrying his baby in a car seat, and a domestic violence incident in Harris, Michigan, where a man was fatally shot in self-defense after assaulting members of his household with a knife.
These stories, while only a fraction of the defensive gun use incidents that occur each month, are offered by The Daily Signal as evidence that lawful gun ownership plays a significant role in safeguarding American lives. The article argues that tragedies like the Minneapolis school shooting, while horrific, are statistically rare compared to the frequency of defensive gun use.
Yet, the debate remains deeply contentious. Gun control advocates maintain that stricter regulations are essential to prevent mass shootings and reduce overall gun violence. Critics, however, counter that such measures often fail to address the root causes of violence and may inadvertently disarm those most in need of protection. As the nation continues to grapple with these issues, the stories of both tragedy and survival serve as powerful reminders of what’s at stake for millions of Americans.
In the end, the question remains: how can a society balance the urgent need to prevent senseless violence with the equally pressing imperative to safeguard the rights and safety of its citizens? For now, the debate rages on, fueled by each new headline and every personal account of lives saved—or lost—by the presence of a gun.
