categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

aiding and abetting criminals

“Gun control” activists are willing accessories before the fact.

What am I trying to say with that sentence? Well, consider the world around you. There are always going to be predators in this world, whether they bear more of a resemblance to the mountain lions that occasionally pick off lone joggers in the outskirts of San Diego, or whether they are more like the 300-pound “man” (and I am using that term very loosely) waiting to rob, rape, or possibly kill you. This is simply an undeniable aspect of both the natural world, and the human condition. Furthermore, there are always going to be criminals (arguably a subset of “predators”) in this world – people who think they can get a leg up on life by taking something from someone else, often by force. Again, this is simply an undeniable aspect of humanity… wishing away crime and the criminal element will not cause it to simply disappear.

Now, consider the plight of someone like me – a twiggy 6-foot, 3-inch, 170-pound lightweight, or, even better yet, someone of the fairer gender, averaging somewhere in the 5-foot, 4-inch, and 130ish-pound range. Imagine either of those individuals walking home at night, and being accosted by either of the aforementioned predators. What recourse do you think either of these hypothetical individuals would have? In all honesty and simplicity, they have none. Sure, I have a little tae kwon do in my background, but it is rusty, and I am willing to wager that the second hypothetical predator is armed, by knife or by firearm. As for the first, he already has his built-in weaponry, against which I have little or no defense. Either way, I am outmassed, caught by surprise, potentially outnumbered, and done for, assuming I do not comply with whatever the predator is demanding (and, even then, I may yet not come out of the situation alive). Even worse is the situation of the female caught in a similar situation, being lighter, less inherently strong on average, and having an even slighter probability of having self-defense training.

So what are we victims to do in situations such as those? Well, the hoplophobes and anti-rights advocates of the world would leave us with one of two options: First, we can submit, and give the predator whatever it desires… our wallets, our jewelry, our dignity, our lives. Alternatively, we can resist – against a superior, stronger, larger foe, and probably not change the end result in the slightest bit… excepting, of course, that we stand a greater possibility of being wounded or killed in the process.

But that is what those whose lives are ruled by fear would have us do – they would have us live in a world where the biggest and strongest immediately gets what he or she wants, or the smaller and weaker will pay the price. Thankfully, while we evolved to be relatively weak organisms, that evolution also developed within our noggins a remarkably advanced neural network, and putting that brain to work, we have devised a method of trying to equalize the eternal combat of larger versus smaller.

This method of at least trying to balance the playing field is nothing more complicated than the introduction of personally-portable firearms, items that have been around for hundreds of years now, and honestly have not changed considerably in that time. Arguably, knives were an attempt at creating an equality among the masses and sizes as well, but those still require the victim to allow the aggressor to come within arm’s reach before implementation, and if the aggressor is sufficiently large or willing to accept a degree of pain, a knife will not do its user a great deal of good. Firearms provided the first stand-off self-defense tool in history, that also do not require a great deal of training to implement in at least a mostly-successful manner. This is not to say that one should not train, and train often, but there is little more simple than point-and-shoot.

So what does this technologically-simplistic device do that is so great and field-levelling? To put it succinctly, firearms allow that 130-pound female the possibility to discourage or disable that 300-pound agressor without significant damage or harm to herself. Note I said “possibility”, however. If the predator is still successful in surprising its prey when it is already within arm’s reach, a firearm is of limited use. If the person doing the shooting cannot hit the broadside of a barn, he or she may cause more harm than good. However, in those instances, however rare they may or may not be, where a potential victim has the chance to retrieve his or her firearm, bring it to bear, and fire… well, the odds of survival increase considerably. Few predators, of any species, are willing to continue the hunt when their prey are lethally fighting back, especially when that lethality happens to be successful and the predator is otherwise deceased.

And yet hoplophobes, anti-rights advocates, and those people who support them would take these valuable and potentially life-saving tools out of the hands of possible victims and other law-abiding citizens, while effectively doing nothing to stop the predators and criminals from enjoying the items themselves. What on Earth am I talking about? Criminals are criminals because they break laws. It is already against the law to murder, rape, rob, mug, and otherwise assault other people, and yet criminals do it on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis. Furthermore, it is already illegal to use firearms in the comission of those crimes, and yet criminals continue to do so. Adding more laws to the books will only serve to hamper law-abiding citizens and victims, while doing absolutely nothing to discourage the criminal element – as always, the problem is one of enforcement, not of legality, and no anti-rights organization on the face of the planet seems willing to actually follow through on the laws they are supporting.

In the end, the rational for this is simple and understandable, in that none of these organizations exist to make anyone safer, or more secure, or more legal, or better protected. Instead, these organizations’ goals are nothing more than the disarming of all law-abiding citizens out of some misplaced, warped sense of fear, and due to this cause celebre, all of those organizations, all of their supporters, and all of their members are nothing more than accessories before the fact of every crime that could have been prevented had the victim(s) been armed and adequately trained. Can we enumerate these crimes? Can we pick them out of the hundreds of thousands of crimes executed every month or year? Honestly, I cannot. But considering the number of crimes that are prevented or curtailed every year by the accurate application of firepower on the part of the victim or a witness, one has no choice but to conclude that such avoidable crimes do exist. However, those crimes become undeniable unavoidable when the choice of personal self-defense is stripped from individuals, as the hoplophobes around the world would have happen. I confess I am not a lawyer, but assisting a criminal before he executes his crime (in this case, by disarming possible victims) certainly smells like “accessory before the fact”, and even if it does not meet the strict legal definition there no doubt is, the intent is certainly more than evident. The only peoples’ safety anti-rights organizations are interested in are those of the criminals, no matter how vociferously they may proclaim otherwise.

Before the potential flood of ad hominems and namecalling arrives on my doorstep, let me first say that I do not believe all people should be armed – the decision to carry a firearm on one’s person is a serious one that requires an inordinate amount of thought, mental preparation, and responsibility, and it is not a decision that should be taken lightly, or should be taken by everyone. Furthermore, just because the decision is made, that does not mean a person is ready – training, often extensive training, is required to ensure even an acceptable degree of accuracy. But it is a decision that everyone should be capable of making individually and of themselves, not a decision that should be stolen from them simply because some people lead lives filled with irrational fear. Additionally, I am not saying that a firearm in every situation would immediately result in the victim’s life being saved. However, it is already a given of what will happen if the victim is unarmed – the predator wins, whether it is through the submission of the victim or whether it is through force. With the introduction of a firearm in the potential victim’s possession, even if the predator himself is armed, the field becomes just a little more level… the forces just a little more equal. In the end, the situation of predator and prey will never be completely equal, and the field will always be rigged in the predator’s favor. However, any individual unwilling to make use of all of the tools and capabilities available to it to avoid becoming prey is passively asking for that fate… and that is something I simply will not do. Finally, it could be interpreted from some of my above comments that I am among the “give them what the want” crowd when it comes to dealing with criminals. Suffice to say that I am somewhat undecided on this rather weighty issue, though I do tend towards the “situationally-based” argument.

A person’s life is really the only thing they ever truly own, and no organization, lobbying group, or fearmongering crowd should be able to strip that person of the ability to effectively and safely defend that life. Unless we desire to devolve to the point where physical strength and mass immediately determines “right”; unless we want to live in a world where we would rather see our daughters and wives raped, our sons and husbands murdered, rather than allow a law-abiding citizen to defend himself with the tools our minds have created for us; unless we want to sign our safety and lives over to the government, which bears no responsibility in protecting them; unless we want these or a myriad of other possibilities to come to pass, we need to start recognizing those who would take our rights of self defense away from us for what they really are. At the very least, they are pawns of the criminals who would harm us, but at the very worst, they are willing, almost-complicit accessories before the fact for the worst aspects of our society, eager accomplices for those who would not only strip us of our rights, but also our property, and our lives.

Do we really want these kinds of people setting policy that could only serve to cost more lives?

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, 123beta, Stix Blog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, , Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments are closed.