I’m heading to Beantown for a couple of days, then on the UK to watch my eldest daughter graduate from college. I’ll be disarmed throughout. I’m not happy about it. I consider a gun my best defense against a violent attack. If the excrement hits the rotating air circulation device while I’m away from my beloved Lone Star State, I’ll do what I can to protect myself, my girlfriend, my children, yes even my first ex-wife. But I’m no ninja. And the UK’s violent crime rate, the recent Tunisian terrorist attack and a general awareness of criminality fills me with no-firearm failure foreboding. And for what? Why does MA and the UK see fit to deny me my natural right to self-defense? Here are three reasons . . .
1. For my own safety
By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government makes it harder for criminals to get or carry guns, making it less likely criminals will use a gun on me. I know what you’re thinking: A) that’s ridiculous and B) since when?
Yes, it is ridiculous. Criminals being criminals, they’ll sidestep, end-run, ignore or break any and all laws attempting to deny them a firearm. This is true in both Massachusetts and the “gun free” UK. And everywhere else on planet Earth. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm has no impact on criminal access to guns.
Or does it? Common sense tells us that the greater the pool of unarmed potential victims, the more brazen the criminals. Well, more than common sense. Get yourself a degree in statistics and the strongest coffee known to man and read More Guns, Less Crime. The facts support that assertion.
The other way a gun ban protects me: disarmed citizens don’t confuse police responding to a violent crime. In other words, because I can’t carry a gun I’m less likely to be shot by the cops, who are free to assume that anyone who isn’t a cop who has a gun is a bad guy. While this approach results in “blue-on-blue” homicides and civilians mistakenly shot by police officers, it’s a net positive for society. In theory.
2. For the safety of others
By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government protects society from me. Wait. What did I do? Nothing, obviously. But it’s what I might do that must be stopped.
I might accidentally shoot someone. I might shoot the wrong person during an attack. I might let a child get ahold of my gun, who might use it to shoot themselves, a playmate or some other innocent person. I might “allow” criminals to steal my gun, who might use it to shoot someone. I might go psycho and open fire on someone who pissed me off or a random group of innocent people.
Why I’m just as much of a risk as a criminal with a gun! Then again, I might use my gun to save my life or other innocent life from an attacker. I might use it to stop a terrorist, kidnapper or robber. I might aid a policeman. Just carrying a gun – especially openly – might deter crime. But as far as the government is concerned, the potential negatives outweigh the potential positives. If bad things happen because I’m disarmed, oh well. It’s a net positive for society. In theory.
3. Because they can
By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government protects itself from legally armed citizens. I’m not saying the government has a conscious desire or indeed plan to disarm citizens (subjects in the UK) and send them off to FEMA death camps (or the UK equivalent), in case they might mount a violent insurrection. But I am saying that armed citizens are a PITA to governments bent on expanding their power. Which is, let’s face it, all of them.
It’s no coincidence that many if not most gun owners identify themselves as conservatives. Not Republicans. Conservatives. Small government types. Gun ownership is the ultimate symbol of individual sovereignty. By degrading and destroying gun owners’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms [strike the last two for the UK], big government removes the most potent symbol of opposition to ever-increasing statism. And yes, defangs the snake. In theory.
———
These arguments for civilian disarmament try to justify my disarmament while visiting The Bay State and The Land of Hope and Glory. Needless to say, I don’t buy any of them. Of course, I could choose to restrict my travel to places where I can legally keep and bear arms. But I’ve decided to take the admittedly low risk of straying off the pro-gun reservation to show my GF my old stomping grounds and commune with the kids.
When I return I will follow God’s example and bless Texas. And all those Americans clear-headed enough to reject the anti-gunners’ logic. Knowing that they will never allow themselves to be disarmed by a government that justifies its tyranny with clear-headed delusion. In theory.