Does being a member of a “civilized society” require that the “civilized” give up their right to protect their own person and property in favor of the collective protection of law enforcement?
That is really what the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment folks are saying. Leave it to the police. Shelter in place, cower down and hide under your desk or lock yourself in the bathroom. Don’t engage an attacker. Don’t get involved.
In short, be docile and pray you aren’t the victim of choice. You don’t need a Red Ryder BB gun – you’ll just put your eye out.
We have all seen what happens when seconds count and the police are minutes, sometimes many minutes, away (in Detroit, it could be an hour).
We have also heard the statements from public officials and police noting the need for the cops to “up-arm” with military hardware due to better armed and more vicious criminals, yet in the face of the up-arming strategies of law enforcement, the public is told that we must disarm, that we have no or extremely limited rights to possess and carry weaponry.
So what are we supposed to believe?
Using the same reasons as the police forces do, it would seem that no citizen should be denied the right to own a weapon just as capable and deadly as the police arm themselves with.
Humans are animals, and as such are subject to the same stimulus/response behavioral modification as all animals. When humans are denied the ability to protect themselves, they lose the skills and confidence necessary to do so – and the animals that prey on the general public also learn that these people are the most vulnerable. There is no greater confidence builder for a violent criminal than to know his potential victim will be unarmed – especially in the case of sexual assault of a woman or the abuse of a child.
What it comes down to is this – every time any one of us rolls up an on-ramp to a major thoroughfare during a rush hour, we are placing our lives in the hands of thousands of other drivers. We trust that through the requirements of licensure that each driver possess a minimum level of skill at operating a vehicle and that they have at least enough common sense and decorum to obey the laws and operate their vehicle safely. We also expect that the have performed enough upkeep to assure that their vehicles are not an imminent danger to others on the road.
Because of these conditions, we have an expectation of the behavior of other drivers, a predictability of sorts.
It is the same with guns. If guns were as ubiquitous as cars or cell phones and every American was trained in their safe use, the fear of them would disappear. We would no more worry about our neighbor down the street owning a gun than we would backing our vehicle out of our driveway each morning.
The paranoia of the anti-gun crowd is driven by fear, ignorance and distrust of others. There rationale is that if they disarm everybody, then they aren’t at risk. If they just ignore threats and put up enough “gun free zone” signs – that will prevent guns from being brought into those areas and there is no need for individual ownership of guns.
Since the police are telling the public that even the smaller cities and towns need SWAT and they need body armor, automatic weapons and bomb resistant military surplus MRAP vehicles to “protect” us, that argument falls flat.