Politics, Self Defense, Lethal Force 7 Comments
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about one question:
If confronted with a lethal force situation and it came down to you or them, could I pull the trigger?
I have pretty much concluded that, even though I value human life about as high as one can possibly value it, when it comes down to my life, or more importantly, the life of my son and wife-to-be, I wouldn't think twice. I have sworn to protect them and I have a natural right to protect my own life. If it came down to it, I'd rather spend 25 years in prison for doing everything in my power to protect myself or my loved ones than see them suffer, either from physical pain or from my own death.
The question I have is, why is it that our own government is so intent on limiting my methods of self-defence? Why is it that, because I'm Canadian, the government does not believe I should have the right to protect myself within the means of my training?
In the US, and their RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) policy is the only thing I would ever consider moving there for, you can, in most states, carry any handgun for the purposes of self defence. For Open carry, meaning there is no attempt to hide the fact you are carrying, most states require no licensing. Anyone, short of people who have had their rights revoked for criminal reasons, can do it. For a fee and some training, 40 states will accept a Utah concealed carry permit. Why does our own government not see its own citizens as responsible for their own life? Why do they insist on micro managing and insisting that the Police are the only ones who are capable of protecting us? They try, they really do, and I respect them for doing their best, but there's just no way they can be at every situation as it arises, they just don't have the manpower. The only person available to stop the situation, is the victim themselves. How would you feel if you had to watch your child or wife get raped at knife or even gun point? Now how would you feel if you or someone else were able to stop the attack? They don't have to kill the person, but just the fact that a person pulls a armament, would be very convincing to stop the attack. If the attacker runs away, great, provide a description to the Police and let them do their work. Bearing arms does not mean you will have to kill every criminal out there, but it offers alternatives and very convincing methods of stopping an attacker before they start.
There is some very convincing statistics out there that show that complete bans of handguns, and guns in general, do not lower crime, but actually raises it. Why? Think about it. Who follows the letter of the law? Why criminals of course! No, the innocent people like you and me. So disarming civilians is, in fact, disarming the good and responsible people of this country, and ensuring that when a criminal wants to commit a crime, they will have little to no resistance, since they will have guns and their victims won't.
Does that make sense? You will never in a million years stop weapons from being on criminals. They are cowards, they need some sort of advantage to make their money. Guns, knives, anything, they will have it and your only defence will be the Police, that will most assuredly show up too late.
I fully support firearms courses that show the safe way to arm yourself, that show when it is legally and morally justifiable to use deadly force, and that show the safest possible way to handle and draw firearms. Don't just license and release. Make them responsible for their actions, like a drivers license.
If you're a criminal and there's a possibility the person you are about to attack is armed, are you maybe going to think again? Maybe even give up and leave it?
It just seems to be a little more proactive than "call the Police and hope they show up in time".
Ok, comment away!