© 2009 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
In recent weeks and often in the last few decades we have seen the “shooting fish in a barrel” syndrome. Someone walks into a school or church intent upon killing people. The killer picks the situation knowing the victims in these places are unarmed. Later, the police put the victims in body bags while the media speculates on the motive of the shooter.
Surprisingly, no one ever asks, “Why were the victims unable to protect themselves — why was the killer the only person armed?” The police have guns but they are not at the scene in time.
Vladimir Lenin noted, “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” That is the effect of a gun over an unarmed society.
Why in these shootings is the only person with a firearm the killer? It is because, little by little, citizens have not been allowed to keep a gun handy. Specifically, school-shooting victims do not shoot back because it is illegal for them to have a firearm.
Only those willing to break the law have a gun. The killers know their victims will be unarmed. Are they punished for having a gun on school property? Never. They typically take their own lives after they have killed innocent victims who had no chance of survival.
Joseph Chew said, “Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.”
In the Old West
In the Old West, everyone was armed. There were no “shooting fish in a barrel” incidents. In our society only the police and criminals are armed. You never see them shooting up a police station because they know the police will shoot back.
To end these attacks upon unarmed victims, there must be plenty of citizens who are ready, able and willing to shoot back. It is not enough for someone merely to have a gun ready; that person also must be able to use that gun effectively. Most importantly, that person must be willing to fight back if fate calls upon him or her.
Despite a financially depressed economy, the sale of guns and ammunition has skyrocketed. Why? Foremost, because citizens know that guns are our most effective personal defense mechanism. Further, there is the apprehension that our guns are about to be taken from us by a government that does not care if we are killed by criminals.
Three truths I know: The police will not arrive quickly enough to save us in the majority of shootings. Second, the old and infirm are not able to protect themselves from young and strong criminals without a gun. What value is there in being able to fight off an attacker who is younger, stronger and evil? Survival. Third, most criminals try hard to not get shot.
Ultimately, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is not possible despite all of the talk about gun control. Gun control protects you from being able to protect yourself. The more the government makes using guns for personal defense untenable, the more this society plays into the hands of criminals. They will get their illegal guns despite our best efforts. We cannot even keep drugs and guns out of our prisons.
A lesson in what not to do
Even worse, in the United Kingdom the authorities have gone so far to make it illegal to fight back against attackers. They believe the society as a whole will be better off if citizens take their robbery, beating or death without resistance. That approach may soon come to our society.
In 2004, the Washington, D.C. non-profit, public-policy research foundation The Cato Institute published the report, “Self-defense: an endangered right.”
“The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense.”
The rules: “You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout ‘Call the Police’ rather than ‘Help.’ Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault.”
The report concludes, “Millions of people in Britain live in fear. Elderly people are afraid to go out and afraid to stay in. The government has insisted upon a monopoly on the use of force, but it can only enforce that monopoly against the law abiding. By practically eliminating self-defense, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime, people able and prepared to defend themselves.”
Maybe our political leaders would accept their own death phlegmatically if attacked and think everyone should. Yet, they are surrounded by people who will shoot instantly to protect them. How in the world can they understand our need of self defense?
We need lots of citizens ready, able and willing to shoot back.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.