There Is No Such Thing as a Gun Free Society
We live in a world that is obsessed with civil disarmament. Among nations which permit civilian ownership of firearms, the United States stands almost alone. To many, both within the United States and without, this is a point of great consternation. Thus, I think it would be beneficial to briefly examine just why Americans are so attached to their guns.
It is not controversial to say that we live in a world that is filled with evil. Whether it is the Islamic State finding new and interesting forms of execution, nationalist socialists exterminating Jews and political undesirables by the millions, or simple violent crime, it is an undeniable fact that evil, especially violent evil, exists in every corner of the world. Thus, as a society, we must make a choice. Shall we address evil, or let it overcome us?
Those who choose not to address evil are called non-violent pacifists. They believe that engaging in violence, even in their own defense, sullies themselves. Thus they eschew violence in all of its forms. But is this a valid option? Can we have a society that denies all violence, and yet remains free?
Whether we are talking about neighboring states or criminal gangs, there is no shortage of organized violence that is more than willing to exploit a helpless populace. If you choose to deny violence, those with fewer moral convictions will, in short order, invade your land and oppress your people. Of course, those with material wealth will go first, as they are the most valuable targets. However, even a destitute population has considerable value in the form of their labor. Thus, choosing non-violence brings with it the near certainty of slavery. Of course, if we value a free society (and if peace is precious to us, chances are we do) we will certainly lose that free society if we are occupied and enslaved. Moreover, we cannot have a gun free society if our masters are controlling us with guns. We can see this taking place right now in Europe, with the so called “migrant crisis,” or the dominance of large American cities by criminal gangs. Whether or not slavery in the name of non-violence is acceptable is up to each of us. As for myself, I say no.
That leaves the second option. To address evil, we must be armed. There is simply no other choice. We cannot talk evil people out of their violence, as they are inherently immoral to begin with. We cannot hide from them, as this world is too small and transportation too readily available to stay hidden for long, and many of our own people who would not choose crime in an armed society would make a different choice in a vulnerable one. Thus, someone in our society must be ready to carry out violence against aggressors. This puts us in the territory of non-aggressive pacifism. Once we make this choice, one more choice is presented to us: Who is to be armed?
Paramilitaries vs Militia
Most societies choose to employ a paramilitary elite to protect the citizenry and fight their enemies. This paramilitary elite is made up of both the police and the various branches of the armed forces. That society must, of course, levy taxes against the people, as the paramilitaries must be paid, trained, and equipped. Most who choose this strategy also forbid civilians from owning weapons. Now, there are a number of advantages and disadvantages that come with reliance on paramilitaries. On one hand, it frees the majority of the population from spending the time and money necessary to arm and train themselves. Professionals also have more time to train than civilians would, so they tend to have more refined and effective tactics. However, it does not take long before either the state or wealthy private interests realize that they can make the paramilitaries do just about anything they want by either threatening or outbidding their wages. Sooner or later these paramilitaries are used against the people, and those who the citizenry trusted with their defense become their oppressors. Moreover, when widespread civil unrest, or worse, an invasion occurs, the citizenry is incapable of meeting the threat.
Militias are far less common, and far more beneficial. Among a people who rely upon militias, every able bodied man is trained in the use of weapons. Neither the state, nor the wealthy can possibly subjugate the people, as th
e militias are the people. Crime likewise drops, as criminals are far more likely to be met with the business end of a firearm than they are a terrified and cowering citizen. The probability of invasions likewise drops, as overpowering an armed population and then occupying their land is nearly impossible when a rifle hides behind every blade of grass.
Also worth noting is the fact that it is difficult to invade your neighbors when you don’t have a standing army. Wars of aggression are rarely carried out on behalf of the citizenry; Rather, these wars serve the ambitions of the rich and powerful. Even in a society in which the character of the people is virtuous, the elite may still carry out foreign wars of aggression if they have control of the army. As the saying goes, all wars are banker wars. In a society without a standing army, no agency exists by which these interests may kick in the neighbor’s front door, so to speak. Moreover, armies have the bad habit of overthrowing the civil government and installing a military dictator. Julius Caesar, anyone?
But this is not merely theory. Switzerland, for example, operates a militia in the place of a military. Switzerland has neither been invaded nor carried out a foreign war since the time of Napoleon. Not even Hitler himself invaded Switzerland, though that may have something to do with the fact that they did an awful lot of his banking. In the Swiss militia, all active duty personnel are required to keep their firearms at home. For officers, this means a semi-automatic 9mm handgun. For enlisted personnel, this means a select fire assault rifle. That’s right, they get machine guns. They are allowed carry them around in public, too.
When militia personnel are discharged, they are not required to turn in their guns. The only requirement is that enlisted personnel have their assault rifles modified to only fire semi-automatic. With so many weapons, especially automatic weapons, floating around Switzerland, one would think that it is a land rife with gun violence. Nope. In fact, until the migrant crisis, Switzerland was one of the safest countries in the world. The Swiss had so little gun violence that they didn’t even bother keeping official statistics of it. Thus, the thesis that the presence of firearms causes crime is completely bogus, but that’s another article.
So why do so many people insist on civil disarmament? Look to their incentives. Those receiving welfare benefits (single mothers, criminals, minorities) want the productive classes to be incapable of defending themselves against the government despoiling them and using the fruits of their labor to buy votes. The government itself wants to disarm you because then you cannot resist the slow goosestepping march to tyranny. Many corporations push for gun control because they are engaged in lucrative nation building overseas, and that requires a standing army and a compliant citizenry. Consider, would you choose to buy nearly $100 million in tomahawk cruise missiles just to strike a Syrian airbase on the other side of the world? Would you willingly fund the construction of a dam in Iraq? Would you pay to settle Turkish migrants, people who have a dubious track record of freedom in their own land, within your borders, or would you rather spend that money on having another child? But try saying no to these things. See what happens.
On a more practical note, consider how a gun free society might be brought about. The socialists want gun owners to give up their weapons, but it goes without saying that those gun owners do not want to give them up, otherwise they wouldn’t own them in the first place. Simply asking nicely obviously won’t do it, so there must be some kind of civil or criminal penalty, but penalties cannot be enforced without guns. Thus, police must go door to door, taking away guns from citizens who have committed no violent crimes, at gunpoint. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Do not think that those who advocate for seizing your firearms are simply ignorant. Their political convictions originate within their characters, and those characters are those of liars, thieves, and murderers. Make no mistake, people who support gun control do not have your best interests at heart. They mean to oppress you, exploit your labor, and plunder your property. They may claim virtue today, but it is a lie. You cannot afford to take them at their word and hope that they mean you well. If you wish to determine your own course through life, to live without interference from a violent master, to defend your life or the lives of your friends and family, there is no other choice than to be armed. Anything else is suicide.