How private ownership of firearms helps us against crime

Now that I finally have the time, I'll continue where I left off and promised.

Today's topic is on how firearms can help to protect us versus crime. It is a supplement to the previous posts on "Why a gun?", which by the way will get a condensed version as the next post.

Oh, and yes, happy Merdeka day.

Now on to business.

This article assumes you agree with the previous posts I have blogged up and support this movement. Firstly, there are two main methods in which private ownership of firearms serves us. They are Deterrents (Prevention) and also act as Protection (Cure).

As a deterrent, firearms keeps criminals away by presenting a physical threat against said criminals. Since force is one of the few things most criminals will understand, this is a deterrent that they will recognize. This deterrent is exactly the same as those presented by (armed) guards or policemen, except personally-owned firearms will actually be there to protect you since those people mentioned cannot be physically there to deliver their services most of the time, as discussed before. And of course, the first person to be able to make a difference is the victim him or herself, so there we go.

The concept is that firearms deter criminals from choosing a target because the common criminal is not looking for trouble; They only look to gain for themselves with minimum hassle. Thus, when citizens are allowed the means to resist them powerfully and effectively, they will be forced to either:
Spend a lot of time finding a "safe" target,
or find no victim at all and choose to give up.
Obviously the latter is the most favorable.

This deterrent would apply a protective umbrella over every person in the whole country. Why? Because criminals will never truly know who has a firearm, and who does not. They will have to assume that EVERYONE is armed, and that is the true value of the deterrent factor of mass private ownership of firearms. Even those who would not take up this moderate responsibility will benefit to some degree.

The end result is that it potentially causes a large number of criminals to be forced to give up their ways simply because the risk is too great. There will always be hardcore criminals, but these are a fraction of the total. The expected net decrease in crime would be a worthy end to the means alone. It would not work immediately and not perfectly, but will show its true effectiveness over time after some occurrences and cases of the next way firearms serve us:

As direct protection against crime, every firearm is still a functioning way of backing up your deterring threat when push comes to shove, and the criminal ignores your threats. In fact, said deterrent wouldn't even exist unless people are capable of performing real action on that threat. A firearm in your private ownership does both jobs.

Firstly, as discussed before, a firearm is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, which allows even the weakest and most frail citizen to stand up against even the toughest evil criminal. If we were not civilized, we would be asked to defend ourselves with our bare fists and sticks and stones. It does not require strength nor stringent training to be used effectively, unlike martial arts which actually require deep study before a person is only marginally ready to face a real life situation. Asking people to take a little half-witted stint in a martial art to prepare them for real life self defense is a serious injustice. They will more than likely make the situation even worse by pissing off the criminal who sees through their facade. A firearm will generally not pose such a problem.

Violence isn't necessary. To resolve a situation, one may still yet again call on the power of deterrence possessed by being a gun owner. A firearm is a versatile tool to be used in many ways. They may still chose to chase away the criminal peacefully, be it in the home or outside, or they can force him to surrender and later be handed to the police bloodlessly. However, there will be times that the criminal breaches this final barrier and decides to attack in the face of all these threats. In that case, the final option, that is shooting the criminal to stop him, will certainly NOT be an unjustified or immoral act. You could say that such a criminal is beyond redemption, or even if he wasn't, we should still consider the present as most important and that they are now threatening a valued lawful citizen of the country. We should consider our priorities carefully.

In any case, the police should always be summoned to take care of the rest in the aftermath. Its their real job, and you've made it easier for them because now they just have to file the death of a criminal, instead of filing the death of You and having to deal with your family and other problems created.

End result at this point? Lesser criminals shy away, crime prevented. Hardcore ones press their attack, many fail and are either sent to prison or sent to Hell. Either way, it is the best short term practical outcome, until they can be truly eliminated via Education and advanced care of the poor.

I will cut it short here, and continue in the next post with a more specific view of home defense and personal defense outside of the house with firearms. There I will address some certain so-called issues as well as myths regarding the matter, and further push the cause. The righteous cause to have reasonable access to private ownership of firearms.