When a tragedy like yesterday's massacre in Binghamton NY occurs, libertarians need to be careful to not say "I told you so" to people who are hurting. It can be hard, because we do keep warning that these things are an inevitable consequence of "gun control". The fewer good people who are armed, the more bold the bad people become.
That doesn't mean we stop holding accountable the tyrants who enable these horrific acts with their counterfeit "laws" against effective armed self-defense. Remember that most people, for whatever reason, can't see the logical outcome of victim disarmament "laws". The politicians and enforcers, however, do know they help madmen kill unarmed innocents. Yet, they keep repeating "don't resist; don't arm yourself. Leave protection up to the professionals". It is almost as if they want you dead. Why would they do that?
Unlike some people, I doubt most of the victim disarmament pushers really want you dead. They want you disarmed for the same reason -the ONLY reason- anyone wants someone else disarmed: to do things to you that you would not permit if you were able to resist effectively. Whether it is to steal your money, your home, your right of transportation or your self-ownership, you might be more dangerous to fleece if you had "claws". They can't keep milking you for "taxes", labor, and votes if you are dead. They need for you to keep lending an air of legitimacy to the established kleptocracy with your vote (even if it is by voting for the lesser of two evils). They also want you to be afraid. They want you to crawl to them for your protection when an event frightens you. They need you to think you need them.
However, there are some who would prefer that you were dead. People who take responsibility for their own protection shine a harsh light of reality on the failure of the state. The minority who doesn't roll over for crazed attackers reminds us all that "give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life.
There is no liberty, no self-responsibility, no civilization, without the people being willing and able to meet the challenge. "It can't happen here." Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of your children, on that? Will you be cowering under a desk, or will you at least put up a fight? Don't look to the government; this is up to you. I am asking YOU.
Comments
[quote] ...give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life. [/quote]
Sorry, Kent, but that doesn't "work" either. Any attack on my property is an attack on my life as well. It doesn't matter what they "want." What they will GET is my best effort to stop their attack, period. I will NEVER "give them what they want."
You are right. Any money (or other property) that is stolen was bought with part of your life that you will never get back. It's time you could have spent with your children or reading a book, instead of working your "job".
Of course, I would still be more likely to hand over a few dollars than to allow a thug to get the upper hand where he could more easily kill me. The state has a big problem with regular folks killing thieves and vandals, though. "SS&S"
Oh, and I don't think it is EVER possible to know for certain that killing you isn't a part of "what they want", no matter what they claim. Treat any threat as a death threat.
Binghamton is just one more reason, in an overwhelmingly long list of reasons, for sane and sensible gun policies. If the episode teaches us anything it is that we need more, not less, gun control.
I would rather give them my purse then take a chance of them harming my family. I can always replace what's in my purse but I can't ever replace my family. Of coarse if they attack my family they will have all my wrath come down on them HARD!
So, PPE, in a state like NY, where there are already more draconian gun "laws" than most places, how do you explain things like this massacre happening? Or on Universities where guns are prohibited? Or in places of business that have strict "no gun" policies? Or at malls where guns are prohibited? Why do things like this not happen at gun shows? Or at tje mountainman rendezvous that I have attended where EVERYONE is heavily armed (and not just with the visible black-powder weapons)? I'll tell you why: bad people need disarmed victims in order to kill a bunch of them without resistance. An armed society is a polite society; a disarmed society is no longer a society at all, but is a prison camp where the biggest, meanest thugs rule everyone else.
Even my mother, who disagrees with me on most things, heard of this massacre and said: "Why would this make anyone talk about more gun control? Don't things like this demonstrate the foolishness of being unarmed?"
What you call "sane and sensible gun policies" I call genocide waiting to happen. It is perverted, evil, and only monsters could advocate it. How much victim disarmament is enough? How many deaths will it take to satisfy your blood lust?
app2branch- I agree. The problem is that a person who is willing to steal has already demonstrated he has no regard for you. He may not want witnesses. Unless you are psychic how will you KNOW that after you hand over your purse, he won't kill you so you can't identify him later? It is a risk he may not be willing to take. Are you?
PPE,
Though I'm curious as to just what the "long list" of reasons for "sane and sensible" gun control might be-I'd like to take a different tack. Do you really think people are stupid?
I'm serious about this. Advocates of weapon control seem to think that by eliminating a certain type of tool, they can prevent malevolent action-this is absurd.
In Middle-age Japan and Okinawa the Shoguns outlawed weapons(swords, bows, long knives...etc.) to everyone but the Samurai class. This was a brutal military society where such things were possible. In a strange coincidence, the most lethal forms of unarmed combat ever developed, were developed in Okinawa and Japan.
The British tried to disarm the Irish-that went well.
The Nazis, The NAZI'S, could not sufficiently disarm the French population to make it safe for an Officer to travel France-the French Resistance-and they used anything they could, not just guns.
And of course, bin Laden's boys were smart enough to find alternate means, despite dramatic security, of hijacking an airplane. And if the story of flight 93 is accurate, the passengers on that plane managed to improvise the means to defeat the improvisation of the hijackers.
I was, and this should come as no great shock, in jail for a bit once and can tell you that despite absolute prohibition and the potential for felony charges, lethal weapons are procurable in jails, readily.
Face it, and I know this contradicts with the "progressive" worldview, you share the planet with about 6 billion of the most dangerous creatures to ever exist-with or with out guns.
If you wish to delude yourself, go ahead, I could care less, but if someone chooses to attack me I will have some means of defending myself-even if it's nothing more than the sharpened handle of a spork....:)
And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!