Considering the ongoing tragedies involving attacks on innocent people, and especially children, I decided to offer another perspective to the debate. Having discussed the principles behind the right to bear arms in my previous post, I’d like to offer some thoughts about the practicality of the situation that we face in the United States.
First, nothing except the grace of God can EVER provide absolute security. Neither widespread guns, nor destroying all guns on the face of the earth, nor allowing guns to only law enforcement/military will stop the violence against innocent people. There is no way to monitor the mental health and intentions of everyone in the world to prevent them from such acts. What we can talk about is deterrents, but never real solutions.
One reason for this is variability. We can GREATLY reduce such acts through our actions in our own homes (in raising our children) and through dedicated daily service to others (see my post on Restoring Liberty: (http://wp.me/p1qldX-14)). Although I believe this will have an incredibly significant impact, if many people were to act on it, I also recognize that the growing trend in the world is to reject God and to reject absolute truth, including an objective morality. In other words, we are teaching our children moral relativity, which means there is no right or wrong. We teach them to reject their internal compass, their conscience, by demonizing the feeling of guilt and teaching rejection of that feeling and the use of self-medication, instead of teaching the need to correct actions in order to overcome feelings of guilt.
Relying on parents throughout the world to teach morality is our greatest hope, but this will not result in consistent behavior, because that is largely what we have now. In addition, we cannot suggest that governments should be charged with raising children, because they have proved to be the greatest incubators of anti-social behavior.
Second, there are deterrents in a free society and deterrents in other societies. Free societies are those which provide the individual right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny, foreign invasion, and immediate personal threats. This was addressed in my previous blog about The Right to Bear Arms (http://wp.me/p1qldX-1q).
In societies that lack this freedom, citizens are constantly exposed to threats against their persons and the threat of tyranny from the government. They are the weakest in their ability to protect themselves from foreign invasion. Such societies also assume the enormous task of constantly guaranteeing the safety of all of their citizens at all times. This has never been possible, but our societies have greatly neglected their responsibilities in this regard. Every person who is killed by another person, who did not have adequate means for their defense at their legal and unfettered disposal, is a BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF GOVERNMENT.
If a city or state creates a rule that does not legally permit others to carry with them the means for their personal defense, that city or state assumes the responsibility for their lives and MUST provide defense against the loss of life. If any are killed under such circumstances, who did not have the legal means with them for their own protection, that is evidence that the city or state DID NOT PROVIDE DEFENSE against that threat. For where law enforcement was not present, or even died in the effort to protect, the individual, or a group of armed individuals, may have had greater success in preventing their own murders.
The burden of a government, or other body, for protection is even greater, when people have a legal obligation or duty to be at a specific location, or when a person’s presence is necessary to maintain their own welfare. When attendance is required or necessary, but does not allow individuals means for protection (such as a firearm), those preventing the means of personal protection have assumed a greater responsibility for the protection of life. In this case, the person is not able to decide not to attend, such as at a private residence, a private business, or even at a public park. Instead, the person is not reasonably able to maintain safety by remaining in a location where he is able to protect himself from threats.
If it is possible for the burden to become greater than ensuring there is no loss of life without the individual means for protection, this responsibility is the greatest when those without the ability to protect themselves even WITH a weapon, such as children, are required to be at a specific location.
This is where we are in the United States. Those very locations where we are REQUIRED BY LAW to go and to SEND OUR CHILDREN are the very locations where we are BARRED from the MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE and the defense of our children. These are also the locations where our children are the most vulnerable, for they tend to be the least secure of all of our institutions.
Our governments have proven their inability to protect people against murder even in areas that have the greatest protection available, such as courtrooms and military installations. Locations which have strict policies on firearms and measures to ensure people are not armed.
While I will fight the legal battles for a restoration of our right to bear arms in the United States, it seems that we will be facing increased encroachment on these rights and, with that, a decreased ability to protect ourselves and our families.
What I advise, is that victims of violence and their families–where there were barriers to the right to obtain, carry, or use firearms, including the costs and necessity of obtaining a permit, harassment about having a firearm, restrictive public locations that would necessitate leaving a firearm in a car, or violence occuring at schools (preventing the individual or staff from securing the means of protection)–should file lawsuits against all those who impacted those abilities to carry the means for their own protection.
The government has a responsibility for public safety, but where it is unable to fulfill that responsibility, it violates our natural right to life to prevent us from lawfully protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.