Guns are for the weak

by Zee

A friend of mine once told me that "guns are for the weak" implying that as civilians, we didn't need them.  I replied simply "Yes Dana, guns ARE for the weak.  Guns are for the weak to protect themselves against those stronger" - to protect us against individuals and groups who might attack, rob or kill us.  To an criminal with a gun, any potential victim without a gun *is* weak by comparison.

This is nothing new.  Mankind has been using weapons to get an advantage in combat since the dawn of time; from the caveman with a club, spear or arrow against a bear or rival tribe, to the medieval sword and shield against an invading army.  Are we more civilized that that now?  We'd like to think so, but we are not really. 

Would it be nice if criminals didn't have guns?  Sure.  But that genie is out of the bottle.  Criminals aren't going to give them up, and we the law abiding civilians need to be on equal footing with those who would use them against us.  The gun has been called "The great equalizer" and for good reason.

"Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes," argues John Lott in his groundbreaking book, "More Guns, Less Crime." Further, "reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed-handgun permits issued." Having more guns in the hands (and inside the jacket pockets) of Americans deters violent crime, including murder.

The reason for this fact is simple: Firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Being strong doesn't help much when you're dead or wetting your pants in fear because your potential victim shoved a barrel muzzle under your nose.

Take rape, a crime usually involving a stronger person attacking a weaker person.

Whereas a woman may be severely beaten, even killed, if she resists by using her fists – where the man likely has her outmatched – says Lott, "by far the safest course of action is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun."

Read more: The great equalizer

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=14164#ixzz1KGhYfDtA

And what if we *could* take back all the guns?  Magically wave a wand and they disappear?  Then criminals would *still* have the advantage over the unarmed, because criminals are the ones on the offensive - which potentially gives them forethought, planning, surprise, and improved weapons.

Unfortunately, guns are a necessity.  Not everyone will carry them.  But if enough of us do, then criminals wont know if their target is armed or not.  And we don't just protect ourselves, we protect each other.  The more armed citizens there are, the less chance the criminals will have against us.

The next time you see a CHL, thank them for being ready to defend not only their own lives, but also the lives of you and your family.