Why all true citizens need their own guns

[Cariboo]

Why all true citizens need their own guns - Life & Leisure - Birmingham Post

Why all true citizens need their own guns
Jun 7 2006 Birmingham Post

Shootings continue daily and knife crime has reached epidemic proportion. Here Dr Sean Gabb from the Libertarian Alliance explains why he believes we need more guns to make us safer

The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable. Everyone agrees something must be done.

Just about everyone agrees this something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes, the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime.

Now, this whole line of thinking is nonsense. We already have some of the strictest controls in the developed world on the carrying of weapons.

We also have some of the highest levels of armed crime. Indeed, we are reaching the point where we shall need to show proof of identity before buying knives and forks.

If we want to do something about armed crime that has any chance of working, we need to rethink our entire approach. I would suggest that, instead of trying to remove weapons from society, the authorities should allow us to keep weapons for defence and to use them for defence.

I am not talking about the right to carry baseball bats or pepper sprays, or even various kinds of knife. These have their uses for defence - but not against a determined criminal who may be younger and faster and more experienced in close fighting. I am talking about the right to arm ourselves with guns - and to use these where necessary to protect our lives and property.

This is not a new approach. It is, rather, a return to the old policy of our country. Until the end of the 19th century, anyone in Britain could walk into a gun shop and, without showing any licence or any form of identification, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as he wanted, and could carry loaded guns in public, and could use these for selfdefence. The law not only allowed this, but even expected it. We were encouraged to take primary responsibility for our own protection. The function of the police was simply to assist.

We should go back to this old approach. We should go back because it is a question of fundamental human rights. The right to keep and bear arms for defence is as fundamental as the rights to freedom of speech and association.

Anyone who is denied this right - to keep and bear arms - is to some extent enslaved. That person has lost control over his life. He is dependent on the State for protection.

The default reaction to this argument is to cry out in horror and ask if I want a society where every criminal has a gun, and where every domestic argument ends in a gun battle?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is to say that more guns do not inevitably mean more killings. There is no evidence that they do. What passes for evidence is little more than an excuse for not trusting ordinary people with control over their own lives.

Take armed crime, both professional and domestic. Britain had no gun controls before 1920, and very low rates of armed crime. Today, Switzerland has few controls, and little armed crime. Those parts of the US where guns are most common are generally the least dangerous. There is no necessary correlation between guns and armed crime.

Focusing on professional crime, gun control is plainly a waste of effort. Criminals will always get hold of guns if they want them. At most, it needs a knowledge of the right pubs to visit.

Plainly, the maniacs who carried out the recent drive-by shooting in Manchester do not seem to have read the Firearms Acts 1920-97. They do not seem to have noticed that most guns are forbidden, and that the few that are allowed must be licensed. All control really does is to disarm the honest public, and let the armed criminals roam through them like a fox through chickens.

Indeed, free ownership of guns may often reduce armed crime. The current round of official gungrabbing began after the Hungerford massacre back in August 1987. But the wrong lesson was learned then. Just consider what might have happened had someone else beside Michael Ryan been carrying a gun in Hungerford High Street. He might have been cut down before firing more than a few shots. As it is, he killed nearly 20 people before armed police could be brought in to stop the shootings.

Think of the burglaries, rapes and other crimes that might never happen if the victims were armed, and therefore able to deal with their aggressors on equal terms. Anyone can learn to fire a gun. And nothing beats a bullet. As the old saying goes: "God made men equal, and Smith and Wesson make damn sure it stays that way."

But let us move away from armed burglars and rapists and the occasional lone psychopath. We need guns to protect us from the State. So far from protecting us, the State is the main aggressor.

A low estimate puts the number of civilians murdered by states this century at 56 million - and millions of these were children. In all cases, genocide was preceded by gun control. How far would the Holocaust have got if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been able to shoot back? How about the Armenians? The Kulaks? The Chinese bourgeoisie? The Bosnians? In all previous societies, guns and freedom have gone together. I doubt if our own is any different.

I conclude with our own society. Our authorities have so far done nothing to disarm violent criminals. There is nothing they can do in the future to disarm them. This being so, can you seriously agree with the argument that you should be disarmed, and therefore powerless to defend yourself and your loved ones against the armed street trash who are beginning to turn this country upside down?

Laugh at me. Call me mad. Call me evil. But just remember me when you or your loved ones are being raped, or mugged, or dragged off never to be seen again.

n Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. It exists to put the radical case for freedom in social, economic and political matters. Its web address is The Libertarian Alliance, London.



Read More Why all true citizens need their own guns - Life & Leisure - Birmingham Post

[kenkell1]

Excellent read. Thanks Cariboo

[the rifleman]

This argument has been put forth many times, and often with good statistical evidence to back it. Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears.

If the training and safe handling of firearms was taught starting at a junior high school level, there wouldn't be this unreasonable fear of firearms. They would be looked at with no more apprehension than a dangerous tool, such as a chainsaw would be, and taught to be handled with respect. I'm not suggesting that high school kids should carry firearms, but it would be preparing them for an age when they would be able to.
There was a time when firearms were carried openly in public by many, both long guns and handguns..They served a practical purpose, that being self defense, or for hunting. They could not expect law enforcement to protect them against criminals, any more than we should today.

It's odd, how over the last 100-150 years that attitudes about firearms have changed so drastically. The most drastic attitude changes seems to have taken place in just the last 40 years. I wonder what spawned that change?

Was it the horror that many veterans witnessed in the war? Was it the church...nope.

It was the advantage's that Government's could gain in being able to control, and suppress, an unarmed society. Disarming people really cuts down on revolts, and the possible overthrow of dictators. With only the chosen few being armed, IE Police, and Armed forces, it does give governments a decided advantage. The ones with the guns make the rules..

[Cariboo]

Originally Posted by the rifleman

The most drastic attitude changes seems to have taken place in just the last 40 years. I wonder what spawned that change?

Here in Canada I will lay a lot of the blame at the feet of the Trudeau liberals. In the late 60's the liberals were promoting a very insidious type of Marxist society that while outwardly promoting equality took responsibility away from individuals in favour of government control.

Historically, English Common Law required citizens to be responsible for the safety of themselves and their family. Socialism however strongly suggests that members of society rely on the government's police for their protection. Part of the subtle re-education of the population includes the assumption that weapons of any sort are morally wrong and that it is better to die at the hands of an attacker than it is to injure someone in self-defense.

What a lot of well-meaning - but uneducated - Canadians fail to understand is that the police provide very little protection for the average citizen and that their primary role is to root out the criminals AFTER they have committed their crime and try and put them before the courts for justice.

[Reddog]

I have gone and now returned good to be back , I believe we as hunters and shooters are partly to blame for the state we are now in.We started to hide and cover and were to a degree shamed by the public for being gun toting rednecks propagated by the media frenzy.Polytech, Columbine etc. we were part of the national spotlite so rather than meet it head on we started to cover up,no more rifle racks in pickups ,shooters were to a degree looked at with disdain.I agrre with Boo that the Liberal government smelled weakness and followed public opinion to garner votes and the rural communities who do not have great representation were sacrificed in order to enhance the city anti's vote.The present gun laws are a reflection of this and damn if we didn't come close to pushing back,credit to the BC NDP members who did not change their vote .I wrote them and to Peter Stouffer in the maritimes who did change his vote.The one bright side is I am personally seeing a small change in some of the younger people thinking that maybe hunting and shooting is not a bad thing hell it might even be fun,and firearms are not bad, people are bad.Ottawa needs to hear that voice as well, my rant for the day,

[DLM]

Yep! nice discussion on how we got to where we are today but how do we get back to where we were?
I liked growing up in the 50s and 60s.

[Cariboo]

Originally Posted by DLM

.... how do we get back to where we were?

Well ..................... have you got an hour or two??

We can start by taking our lifestyle out of the closet where we have stuffed it the last few decades out of respect to the non-firearm owners in our society.

[~SteadyGirl~]

Its how 'we' live. The masses live in cities and have little or no daily need for firearms. The majority have lost touch with how to protect and defend the bottom line..themselves. It is a very vulnerable way to live.

There might be a few rifles in closets in this neck of the woods, but most of them are by the front door, beside the bed, in the trucks, horse trailer , tack shop. Because its part of life.

Some people aren't capable of much and would be down right scarry with firearms.

Promoting the life that lends itself to firearm ownership would help alot.

People from Vancouver ect... often ask me what attracts me to the kootenays. I put it in words they can understand. "One stop sign to get to work in the morning" because they just don't get it.. they don't get life. At least not the way I see it.

[the rifleman]

Originally Posted by DLM

Yep! nice discussion on how we got to where we are today but how do we get back to where we were?
I liked growing up in the 50s and 60s.

Personally, I don't think we can ever get back to the way we were in those years. Society has changed so much, and a whole new generation has evolved since then. The new generation simply isn't interested in hunting, and shooting, etc. as there are so many new means of recreation.

Like Steady mentions, the majority of younger people are now city oriented, and have no roots whatsoever with the land anymore. It was only a few generations back that many Canadians were either homesteaders, or the children of homesteaders. Firearms use, and hunting were simply handed down from Father to Son/Daughter in those days as a means to put meat on the table..
As job opportunity's presented themselves in the city's, folks moved off the homestead. Hunting, (which was considered a chore, not a recreation), was no longer required to put meat on the table. You could simply buy it from the corner store, now you had the income from the new job. Their children were spared the need to have to hunt to eat meat. Sure, many took up hunting as a recreation, but it was no longer a requirement.

So along comes our children, two, three, or even four times removed from the homesteading era. Hunting and shooting is completely optional to them. Today it is purely done as a sport, or for recreation purposes. It's a pretty rare individual that needs to hunt these days.

Further bashing from the media, the animal rights movement, government regulations, and fear mongering from the anti's, have dissuaded even further, the new generation from taking up hunting/shooting, even simply as a recreational sport! I seriously think our sport is dieing, and never ever, will reach the level it once was.
To a degree, we, are partly to blame for that, (depending on your age/generation). We may have been the last generation to have had the opportunity to keep the ball rolling. Many of the hunters, target, skeet, trap, etc. people, that now have children in their 20's or 30's, have failed to really inspire their kids to take up the sport. (I know there are exceptions, OK) The numbers will continue to decrease, as time goes on.

It could be that the only chance of any resurgence, may be if we teach our grandchildren the love of the sport..if we can pry them away from their X-Box, or Wii..

[~SteadyGirl~]

Originally Posted by the rifleman

It could be that the only chance of any resurgence, may be if we teach our grandchildren the love of the sport..if we can pry them away from their X-Box, or Wii..

My friends two year old daughter knows how to get into apps on my iphone. we had to cut her off,... and she's TWO

When my chubby little 20 yr old stepbrother / recluse asked for a game for his Xbox for Christmas.. I gave him one of these THEN!

I went to basspro and bought him a fly rod and reel, line, yummy little flys, book on fishing in soutwestern alberta, and a copy of the regs and information on how to get his fishing license. Along with a new man scent and high end sheet set..so maybe one day he can bed a lady LOL!

Its not a rifle but it is a start.

[partsman]

Originally Posted by ~SteadyGirl~

My friends two year old daughter knows how to get into apps on my iphone. we had to cut her off,... and she's TWO

When my chubby little 20 yr old stepbrother / recluse asked for a game for his Xbox for Christmas.. I gave him one of these THEN!

I went to basspro and bought him a fly rod and reel, line, yummy little flys, book on fishing in soutwestern alberta, and a copy of the regs and information on how to get his fishing license. Along with a new man scent and high end sheet set..so maybe one day he can bed a lady LOL!

Its not a rifle but it is a start.

That sounds like a great gift to give, and yes it is a start.
One day he might just come to realise how lucky he is.