What would you do if there is an intruder in your house that entered in your child's room and has the intention to kidnap him or harm him? Would you use any measures to stop the intruder from hurting your child, up to lethal force? Or would you just let the intruder do as he pleases?
Well here is the bad news for you, in Europe you get arrested if you hurt the intruder. You are supposed to call the police in that situation, and pray that they show up in time and pray that it's not them who will hurt your child instead, and in the meantime, you know, the intruder can just do what he wants.
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511917/Father-Ben-Batterham-charged-murder-catching-man-looking-baby-daughter-s-bedroom-fight-broke-burglar-died-tried-make-citizen-s-arrest.html
- http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/li-man-facing-manslaughter-charge-for-shooting-killing-alleged-armed-burglar/
- http://gothamist.com/2016/05/31/bronx_man_killed_intruder_who_was_a.php
- https://downtrend.com/james/new-york-man-charged-with-manslaughter-for-killing-armed-intruder-2
- http://www.wlky.com/article/man-charged-with-murder-after-police-say-he-shot-burglar-1/3759836
I mean I am sure if you ask the intruder nicely he will leave alone your kid while you dial 112 (911 in Europe). I am sure the intruder is a gentleman that will wait until the police arrives and then gently surrender himself.
Or he might do who knows what kind of unimaginable things to your child, while you stand there helplessly waiting for the blue uniformed thugs to arrive and hope that everything will be well.
Right to Self Defense
Well the State doesn't want you to be an independent, empowered, safe human being. You are just a taxpayer slave, that is all you are in the eyes of the State. Your entire life you have been trained, indoctrinated, right from kindergarten, to be an obedient slave to authority, so when you become an adult you can go to work and pay those taxes to keep the system in perpetual motion.
So when you have any trouble, to solve it yourself, on your own, is never an option. You must always beg your master to solve it for you. And if he doesn't, like how the police sometimes show up 40-50 minutes after an emergency call, tough shit slave. But you must never take matters in your own hand, that is unthinkable.
So even if you beg your master to save you, and if he doesn't, you are still not allowed to save yourself on your own, you should just endure the consequences of your fate, but you must never take matters in your own hands, because that would mean that you are declaring your independence.
And a slave can't do that. That is the last thing that your master wants to see, his slaves running away.
Armed Citizenry?
Look I don't know what the healthy balance is between how armed a citizenry should be. Obviously machineguns have been used in many shooting incidents, mostly done by extremists, terrorists and so on.
And I don't think an armed revolt is feasible, nor I should thing that it should happen. Basically many libertarians and anarchists want a revolution. But I guarantee you, they will regret it, if one were to come. Well first of all the State has an overwhelming military force that can crush any revolution in an instant, possibly even before it happens through surveillance. Secondly, even if one were successful, it will probably be some right-wing Neo-Nazi group that would win, and that would make things very very bad. Most libertarians would participate in the revolution, but it will be quickly captured by more fanaticist groups, just like the Libertarian-Left revolution of 1917 was captured by extremist tyrannical Bolsheviks that caused massive atrocities after.
So I am really against violence, and my view would be to reduce violence on all aspects of society. A system born in violence will only create more violence. So I really think any kind of "revolution" has to be avoided at all costs, even the status-quo is better than that. I know many young people have this kind of revolutionary/rebellious attitude, but I can guarantee you, revolutions always make things worse.
So the goal is to reduce violence, systematic violence, therefore I don't really think machineguns or semi-automatics should be allowed in the current society. Now if we would live in a peaceful world, then people would not use them anyway, but in the current society I think the State has to prevent this, so machineguns should stay illegal. But to balance it out, the police should not use them either, so the militarization of the police has to be rolled back as well.
But this doesn't mean that pistols should be illegal. I think they should be legalized, for home defense purposes. Of course there will be many irresponsible people who will abuse it or be negligent about it, so it poses a risk if say some drunk guy with a pistol walks up to you at night. But it's not like criminals don't do that anyway with illegal weapons.
So if some criminal attacks you with a pistol on the street, and wants to rape you, what do you think he will let you call the police? Of course if you had a gun and you engage him, well then your life would be in danger too if you'd get into a shooting with him. But if he wants to rape you and then murder you, then you really don't have an option but to fight back.
So it really looks like in 90% of the situations the police is pretty useless. They won't arrive only after the crime, and if you are dead, then it won't really do you anything good.
So in this situation, the gun can save your life, and it might be the only thing that separates you from the grave.
Another option would be to just avoid danger all together, like not going out after 21:00, closing the doors and windows of your house, and living in fear for the rest of your life, fear of being attacked by criminals. But what kind of life is that?
So really if you want to live a decent life, not having to fear from anybody hurting you or your family, then you really need the ability to defend yourself and your family with any means necessary.
I think gun ownership laws really need to be relaxed, especially for pistols, in Europe. Given that the current immigrant wave only creates more crime more gangs, and people are defenseless, while these thugs already have illegal weapons.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
A very difficult subject, but one that needs to be discussed. Personally I think that everyone has the right to defend themselves, and so it shouldn't matter how. The notion that the government doesn't have a say in whether a person can defend his own life, but they can say how that person should do it, is contradictory.
It is either tyranny or liberty; slavery or freedom. It's not 50-50.
Yes, criminals use automatic firearms. Should that mean that they should stay illegal? The criminals are getting them anyway, so why can't peaceful citizens use them with the only intent to defend their lives?
Anyway, good post though! I enjoyed reading it. Steem on!
In USA gun ownership with immigrants created mass killings. True need defence but europe should be preventing immigration from traditionally aggressive behaviour country where they do not connect well with the culture.
Well that is the point, fix the immigrant problem, but also let the local citizenry have basic firearms rights. It's not just the immigrants who form gangs. There are gangs everywhere, and local citizens are defenseless against them.
This reminds of a time a beach security officer "protecting a device that was protecting a beach against current flooding conditions" got all cranky at me for going onto his (the sign said) closed beach. What do I care? There was no danger, nothing to threaten my life. Yet he threatened me with fines and calling the cops on me. I tell you, the only way is to stay away, and live far into the forest where no one else dares enter because ohhh the sign says,"Please, stay on trail"
Violence is that only conducted on innocence, to protect yourself, family and innocent around you, Self-Protection/Preservation is warranted... in home or public. I always carry, even in my quite town... the Police can not be everywhere, nor can they predict violence. It is in the hands of the Citizenry to protect their own... and preserve the peace.
To hell with what "They" think.
Governments have directly led to the unnatural deaths of more people than anything else the world has ever known, yet people trust Governments and hand their defensive weapons over to them. What sense does that make? We should be limiting the power that Governments have over our lives, not disarming ourselves and thus giving them unlimited power. Most people look at guns as being a tool for personal protection or for hunting, but you should really look at it as a balance of power. It gives the weakest members of society the ability to defend their right to live against the stongest on nearly equal terms. It also dissuades Governments from deciding to exterminate those minorities that they deem to be undesirable. How many times does history have to repeat itself for people to understand that when a Government wants to disarm its citizens it is not because they love you and that they are looking out for your best interest! Consider all of the genicides that have taken place and that are in progress as examples. Armed citizens are a balance of power against the advent of an abusive Government, without it you are at their mercy! I love my Country and I support and defend my Government, but I do not trust absolute power in the hands of wicked man because I have read history and I know what can happen.
Most people who own a gun never use it to shoot at a person.
They should be able to own any gun they want. Including anti-tank artillery if they so wished.
Bad people will harm others. Whether with a gun, a knife, a stick, a sock full of quarters... Gun laws do not affect this group at all. They are already committing a crime, adding one more to the list does nothing.
The govern-cement wants the sheep disarmed.
In the words of rots-children, "If they knew what we were actually doing, they would chase us down the street and club us to death".
Also the govern-cement wants people disarmed, helpless and dependent on the state.
For these reasons, we have gun control.
Further, if you look at times a bad guy pulls a gun in a carry state, the only dead person is often the bad guy. But the MSmockingbirdM never reports that.
This is why I wrote a long and comprehensive post, but I disagree with you here.
See this is the point where a line has to be drawn, I view the State as a tumor of violence, and it won't be defeated by more violence.
So people owning rocket launchers and tanks will only have 1 purpose, to facilitate more violence. And that will shift the balance, perhaps a centralized state will go away, but you will get many warlords, smaller , but just as violence factions.
Now call me crazy, but even the current status quo is better than this. I measure the size of the State in the amount of total violence or threat of violence that is inflicted upon society, and in a warzone that is pretty big.
So you didn't got rid of the State, you just created a permanent warzone.
I mean when somebody flips you off on the highway, you just take out your rocket launcher and smoke him out. I think this is just too funny to be even considered feasible.
So I am sorry, this is why I don't believe in a totally armed citizenry. Relaxed pistol rights sure. But nothing more in my opinion. Otherwise the amount of violence will increase. And we don't want that.
The State can also restrict violence not just impose it, and in this particular example it is useful to have a ban on automatic weapons.
But this has to be symmetric, so the militarization of the police also has to be reversed.
Self defense - protecting oneself from physical or emotional harm - is a moral imperative. This need not always entail physical violence however, as in the case where talking can de-escalate a potentially violent confrontation (as in NVC), or for example in martial arts, Judo is the 'way of suppleness' which from what I understand often involves redirecting the opponents own force and energy back against themselves, rather than initiating force or attack of one's own. Dale Brown is an inspiration in this regard.
That said, if someone aggresses against you through no fault of your own, in other words they start it, and you happen to be the one to finish it, hurting them in the process to save yourself, then any harm they suffer is their own responsibility.
Im in Europe, and we can use intruders meat to make goulash.
Seriously, 1st and greatest human right is to be held responsible for your acts.
It means you can chop intruder into pieces, no matter police. They will come to late anyway.
Its all about making the decision in a given moment. Theres no law and police in such moments, ever.