Blog

Denying a Means of Self-Defense

According to a web posting by The Guardian in the United Kingdom, FBI Crime Statistics show that in 2011, 8,583 murders were committed with firearms in the United States. That is down slightly from 8,874 in 2010. Politicians, following recent highly publicized mass shootings in the US, are taking these gun-related deaths seriously with a surfeit of state and federal legislation aimed at tightening gun controls. Implied in gun control logic is that it benefits law-abiding citizens. This logic is greatly flawed. Gun control has the potential to harm many.

The basis of that flaw lies in the nature of law enforcement, which is essentially conducted after-the-fact. This circumstance does not lessen the contribution of the professional men and women who serve and protect the public every day, but reflects the inherent inability of law enforcement to determine whether a crime is to be committed so that action can be taken to prevent it. True, some arrests have been made of those who, for example, intended to launch terrorist attacks, but they are the exception to the rule. Being able to make those arrests, moreover, requires the dedication of a level of resources that is available only for the highest national law enforcement priorities.

So we are left with the reality that most crimes will not be prevented. To be sure, after the crime is reported, ideally the police will investigate, identify suspects, and make arrests. The person charged will face trial, and the jury will decide guilt or innocence. While this process is necessary for our society to feel secure and justice to be served, it would be of absolutely no value to me as I lay face down, my last breath forming small bubbles in a spreading pool of blood.

There are gun control advocates who would deny me the handgun that might enable me to defend against the commission of a violent crime. (Unfortunately, as has been substantiated time and again, bad guys don’t give one whit about gun control laws other than their possibly making acquiring weapons a little more difficult and costly.) Their reasoning seems to be that because others use handguns to commit heinous acts, I must forfeit the ability to protect myself. They offer no one any assurance of protection from violent crime because they can’t. In the hope that some crimes might not be committed, every law-abiding citizen is to be rendered defenseless with the only legal remedy being the potential posthumous prosecution of the criminal. In this way, gun control truly has the potential to harm many innocent people by denying them the right to self-protection.

In the face of the reality that no one can protect me but me, I will keep my handguns. If people wish to disarm themselves, so be it. Let them deal with the violent, well-armed criminal as best they can without a handgun, in which pursuit I wish them luck. They will need it. I, however, will not willingly allow myself to be a helpless victim by disarming.