Self-defense is a basic right. If someone attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself. Yet strict gun control regulations interfere with that right because ordinary citizens abide by the law while criminals acquire guns illegally. That leaves the law-abiding at a distinct disadvantage... After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene immediately they are urgently needed.

Some people support gun control regulations because they believe that the average citizen is either incapable of using a gun in self-defense or may use the gun in a fit of anger over a petty matter. Those assumptions are false. The clarity here has grown so strong that even President Obama has chided gun control advocates to accept that almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible.

1. Disarming Law-Abiding Citizens Encourages Criminal Activity

You want what you want, and you want the freedom to have that without being coerced. The trouble comes when criminals decide they want what you have. They believe it's unfair that you should have it when they don't and the way to remedy this unfairness is to take it from you, by force if necessary.

A criminal taking what he want from you by force is far easier if you don't have a gun. Ask any woman who has been raped - or a parent whose little girl has been raped - if they wish they'd had a gun to deter the attacker, and most will say yes. The Brady Center are fanatical about disarming people, but I hope the parents among their most devout supporters get some real clarity on how best to protect their children.

Yet this does not mean you have to carry a gun, or that you have to self-sabotage by being defenseless. The right to protect yourself just means that seniors, women, and the weak do have the means to defend themselves if they so wish.

2. Do You Have the Option to Protect Yourself?

In Kennesaw, Georgia, city leaders passed a law 30 years ago requiring that every household have at least one gun. Yet it's entirely optional, you're automatically exempt if you're morally opposed to guns, and so is anyone who can't afford to buy one. Years ago, they were ridiculed, now they're at the next stage of violent opposition. You'll change your life when you get the profound accuracy of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Kennesaw enjoyed a very steep drop in violent crimes when the ordinance was passed. The crime rate has dropped 79 percent, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. Kennesaw now enjoys one of the lowest crime rate of any comparably sized city in the country.

Yet although - hopefully - politicians understand that criminals don't obey the law, many of them pretend that more laws to disarm the law-abiding population will stop criminals. So politicians ignore what works, and advocate yet more laws to be ignored. Maybe I'm becoming cynical rather than just skeptical, but what on earth could be the reason?

3. Governments Ignore their Failure to Protect You

Gun control advocates ignore the inability of government to even perform their most basic task of protecting its citizens: the endemic problem of government failure. When the law is broken, rather than pass yet another law to be broken, the secret of success is to ask: why is that law broken? Is the government trying to do too much? Is there another way? Government advocates usually decline to recognize that in doing less, it could become more effective in enforcing existing laws.

Part of the problem is that ever more laws seem to be the government's answer to more or less all problems. Yet since the government can't even police the laws already on the books effectively, isn't it dangerously naïve to believe that yet more laws will do much if anything about the cause of the problem?

Why do unscrupulous politicians ignore government failure and press for yet more laws? Is there any reason other than they don't like guns in the hands of private citizens? It seems that governments everywhere want the population disarmed. Why? Do they fear a backlash? Aren't the policies they implement entirely just?

4. Does Disarming - or Arming - Citizens Stop such Massacres?

Most such Sandy Hook shooting sprees occur in ostensibly "gun-free zones," such as schools, and movie theaters. Yet gun-free zones are only gun-free for those who obey the law, criminals don't. So would yet more laws be obeyed?

How to stop a mentally insane criminal from initiating a shooting spree? Does anybody know? But if the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook had been armed, would the slaughter have killed so many innocents?

Can an armed citizenry stop such massacres? Yes indeed. If you wait for the police to arrive, many will already be dead. When armed citizens are around, many lives are saved. That's why the Harrold School District encourage their teachers and staff to carry guns to protect their children.

Gun control advocates rarely mention shooting sprees where, as the Wall Street Journal explains: mass murders were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991); the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997); the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998); the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007); ...

This WSJ article continues:

[Don't kid yourself] “gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon."

Food for Thought

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th president of the U.S.A.

** Your Next Step **

The violent crime reductions benefit everyone when law-abiding, responsible citizens are encouraged to be able to defend their families and themselves from violent criminals, rapists, refugees, and terrorists. When women and seniors are armed, they can defend themselves from attacks by usually young, male and stronger violent criminals.

Of course, there’s no sanction or penalty if you choose not to be able to defend yourself. Despite misrepresentation and media misunderstanding, Discouraging Criminals is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.

All our products are fully guaranteed, these time-tested secrets of success are delivered electronically - no waiting for delivery.