We can argue any or all of the points above for hours, but there’s one thing that, on a philosophical level, you will never be able to make me concede:
That intentionally making yourself weaker in the face of danger and aggression is somehow more civilized, moral, intelligent, or enlightened.
You’re not the better human by not fighting back. You’re not the better human for choosing to have no claws or teeth. You’re not the better human for delegating responsibility your personal safety to some underpaid guy or girl with a tin badge. And you damn sure don’t get to claim a halo for your attitude.
(Emphasis in the original.)
To expand on Marko’s point (especially the one he brings up at the end of his post), you are demonstrably less civilized, moral, intelligent, and/or enlightened if you force people – against their will – to disarm in the face of animals and humans who wish to do them harm. There have always been predators. There are always predators. There will always be predators. So long as cellular life runs/crawls/squirms its way around this planet, those three statements will remain true. However, rather than simply succumb to a world where the bigger/badder/faster/stronger predator gets what the bigger/badder/faster/stronger predator wants simply because he is bigger/badder/faster/stronger, we thinking, reasoning, rational (at times) human beings have employed that squishy gray stuff between our ears to develop tools to allow the smaller/nicer/slower/weaker members of our species to exist in our world, content in the knowledge that they would be capable of defending themselves should the situation demand it.
Stripping the capability of self-defense from people without recourse or reason turns us back to the world where the bigger/badder/faster/stronger get what they want, and the smaller/nicer/slower/weaker get screwed. That is not civilized, moral, intelligent, or enlightened.
I have long-since maintained we need to come up with a single, unifying term for "people who force other people to involuntarily be victims for predators". "Victimizers" are typically the predators preying on the victims in question, while "accessory", "accomplice", "facilitator", "abettor", and all the rest of those all lack the psychological "oomph" I am looking for, and "cowardly scumbags who want the government to disarm potential victims in the face of known predatory threats" is just too damned long to repeatedly type out.