Citizen Gun Ownership:
The Ability to Defend
Last Update: 13 October, 2023
What the Issue is:
The issue is about whether or not individuals should have the right to own firearms.
Why this Matters:
With firearms being the main weapon of warfare for hundreds of years, whether you have the right to own a firearm is essentially a question of whether individuals have the right to be significantly armed or relatively defenseless.
As for defenselessness, many weapons which approach the effectiveness of firearms are typeically often prohbited in jurisdictions which prohibit or severely restrict firearm ownership.
Evidence that a Government war on private gun ownership is real:
What the Problems with Gun Ownership Restriction (aka Gun Control) are:
Police/Military can't be expected to reliably defend you in time.
The gun control lobby has been maintaining this usually-unspoken but strong underlying assumptiont hat you dont need a gun because police will come quickly enough when we need them. It is false because:
In theory, Government security forces physicaly can't be there immediately, howevermuch they want to. They usually need to drive their, park, and get to you. Any wait, even a twelve minutes reasponse time, must feel like an eternity when you're being shot at, especially if you have no means to defend yourself, and is obviously enough time for a villain to pull a trigger and leave. In a regional disaster, they would logically be too overwhelmed to respond to most people at all.
In practice, police and/or military have sometimes failed to arrive quickly including reports of waiting for an hour or more in many well-known crises where people were being shot at. For example, that was the reported wait in the Las Vegas mass shooting and the 7 October, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel). It actually starts from the phone call: it's now a modern phenomenon that many people get put on hold when they call the emergency response line (eg. 911).
When police do arrive, they can be reluctant to intervene immmediately, such as to wait for backup or create a perimeter before going in. Example articles:
Government (including Police) accepts no legal obligation to defend you. Laws vary by region and time, but generally police aren't legally obligated to respond to your cry for help: not at all. Example article: Can You Sue The Police For Not Coming When Called?
Gun control favours villains over victims. It only disarms residents who abide by the Law. A determined villain has time to get a gun before a shooting, but a disarmed Public would be vulnerable. Anyone with a gun has a big advantage over even a crowd of disarmed innocent people, especially to catch them in an enclosed place like a school, theatre, or concert. This is why mass shootings are most successful when dealing with disarmed groups of people. Mass shootings generally only stop when someone with a gun arrives and shoots the villain. Until then it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
In theory and practice, we shouldn't have to rely only on the police to save us:
Police expect you to cooperate with robbers, and presumably other criminals as well, presumably on the unspoken reason that they can't be there in time to help you. The basic idea is that if the criminal has a gun and you don't you're helpless so you must comply. Example article: LAPD Asks Residents To ‘Cooperate And Comply’ With Robbers
Would it be better not to be helpless and forced to give in to any demands of any armed assailant at any time?
Gun owenership discourages mass attacks against citizens whether terrorist or military. After the 7 October, 2023 attack on civilians by Hamas, Israel relaxed gun ownership laws, as well as started distributing weapons to citizens, almost as though an admission of disarming citizens was a mistake.
Police have sometimes been known to shoot the person they were called for help. Just because they were called for help, doesn't mean that they necessarily see it your way.
Gun ownership restriction favours Government and that's not always a good thing becvause Government can go insane. They keey their own law enforcement armed and armoured. Normally this isn't a problem, but if Government ever tried to do something atrocious, as it has many times in history, the Public would have no physical way to defend ourselves.
Nations where the Public is unarmed are usually the most oppressive, and it's not uncommon for such governments to kill their own people. This is, for example, what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany: first disarmed, then exterminated. Some other historical references are in this video: Comedian and genius JP Sears with important history lesson: Gun control
Government is evidenced to be linked to the cause of some school shootings or terrorist attacks.
Gun control programs are target peaceful and violent people the same without distinction. Like with cars, guns are only a tool, and it depends on which hands they are in. Our gun laws should reflect that.
Corporate Attacks on Legal Gun Ownership
Dec 09, 2022: Gun Shops And Customers Claim Credit Card Firms "Restrict" Firearm Purchases
What the Solution Is:
Adults should be permitted to own firearms until and unless their behaviour proves them unworthy: something likewe already do with licenses to drive vehicles (which are no less dangerous than firearms).
Reasons to be Armed:
There are numerous examples where violent crime was abruptly stopped by a legal gun owner who happened to be on the scene and carrying his or her weapon. One of them: Armed Robbery Stopped by Armed Customer
Communities Pushing Back