Who is in the best position to defend the individual from imminent threat?

Man, both individually and collectively, does not have the authority or power to rid society of evil. It is obvious that man’s laws and man’s punishments are insufficient to stop someone from doing harm to another. Despite this obvious fact, people continue to believe that the solution to violence is an ever more powerful authority figure capable of enforcing more stringent regulations.

Think this through with me. At some point in history, the first violent act occurred. Society believed that it could minimize such occurrences by tasking a portion of itself to passing laws against such violence and another portion of itself to enforce those laws and apprehend and punish offenders. Yet violence continues to this very day. The way I see it, there is no conceivable, rational scenario where sufficient authority could be acquired or given to any group of men or a single, all powerful leader who could, once and for all, eradicate the possibility of a future violent act.

So who is in the best position to defend the individual from imminent threat? Who is in the best position to calculate risk, prepare for uncertainty, and protect and guard life? The individual himself. No one else. It’s true that even if all restrictions were lifted, and the individual was free to act according to his best judgement, in ways he believed would best sustain his life, so long as his actions did not infringe on that same freedom of others, violence may still be present within society. But the notion that the superior method of curbing violence is through laws and regulations that end up limiting the individual’s ability to defend himself is nonsense. This is just another scenario where I believe freedom and individual liberty serves humanity better than all the best laid plans aimed at protecting society.

This morning, at the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes used three guns to shoot 71 people in two minutes. Twelve people died. Police report that he acted alone.

Consider this. In Aurora, CO it is:

  1. Unlawful to carry concealed “dangerous weapon”
  2. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
  3. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

Maybe, just maybe, if one of those people in that theater had been carrying a weapon this tragic event could have ended very differently. Perhaps, absent laws that prevent lawful, respectable citizens from protecting themselves against the use of violent force, this deranged young man and those like him would think twice before carrying out such unthinkable acts. Gun control laws turn average, honest citizens into sitting ducks for lunatics like this.

Perhaps the old adage is correct. When guns become illegal, only criminals will have guns. What is the likelihood of a safe society in that world?


4 thoughts on “Who is in the best position to defend the individual from imminent threat?

  1. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It does nothing to stop criminals and gang bangers from acquiring guns illegally. It’s safer to be in a war zone than to be in some Chicago neighborhoods. When private citizens use guns to defend themselves, they are often charged for illegal use or possession of a gun. The government has made everything backwards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s