There is a gun store not too far from my house, where in addition to selling firearms, ammunition, and accessories, they also have an indoor shooting range. For a small fee, you bring your guns and spend a whole hour target practicing.
The only thing they ask in return is that you mop up the shell casings when you are done.
In the state where I live, you do not need a license to carry a concealed firearm. The laws are not the same everywhere, but in 27 states—mine included—legal, law-abiding residents are allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. These are so-called “constitutional carry” states that interpret the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution literally (as it should be).
Some of the remaining 23 are “shall issue” states, which means that government must give you a permit to carry a firearm if you apply for one. The only condition is that you have no criminal record.
A few states have stricter laws, and some places go even further by making it practically impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit. New York City, e.g., does not even recognize the permits issued anywhere else in the state of New York, despite the fact that those permits are given out on terms that are draconian compared to “shall issue” states.
As an American, I take my right to own and carry firearms for granted. For me, it is not a matter of some bold declaration of liberty from government oppression, as gun critics often try to claim. It is entirely about my personal freedom and my right to responsibly protect myself and my loved ones, should the need to do so occur. It is no more controversial than someone carrying currently legal items for self-defense, or a homeowner who uses a makeshift weapon like a hammer to fight off an intruder in his own home.
Even though I grew up in Europe, after more than 20 years in America I find it impossible to accept the rationale behind the arguments that my gun-critical European friends often make. I am told that if there were no guns, there would be no gun crimes. This is true from a strictly logical perspective, in the same sense as if there were no cars, there would be no drunk driving.
If there were no children, there would be no pedophilia.
The reductio ad absurdum notwithstanding, one need only visit a major European city to see how moot this point really is. London has earned a reputation for high crimes, yet Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Apparently, criminals find other ways to do harm to innocent people.
For many years now, Sweden has been plagued by a high rate of gun violence, despite it being practically impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy a firearm.
American states and cities with strict gun laws are also the ones with the highest rate of gun-related crimes. New York is a notorious example, but so is Baltimore in Maryland. California, which boasts some of the toughest gun laws in America, is home to endemic urban decay, including out-of-control crime.
The city of Washington, D.C., forces you to meet 23 different criteria in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, presumably to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yet that very same city is a cesspool of armed robberies, carjackings, and other gun violence.
In short, the problems in America are primarily concentrated to the cities with several million people where laws restrict guns and law enforcement more than they restrict criminals.
Generally, living in one of the constitutional-carry or other shall-issue states is safe and peaceful. Larger urban areas have their fair share of crime problems, but they are no more intrusive on daily life than in similarly sized cities in Europe.
That said, when crime happens, having access to a gun can make a world of difference. There was an incident when someone tried to get into our house in broad daylight. I was the only one home, and when I realized what was happening I retrieved my gun and waited on the other side of the door.
Fortunately for the intruder, he realized that someone was home and took off.
Only once have I been targeted by a robber. It was in the parking lot outside a grocery store. All I had to do was let the prospective robber know that I was armed and ready to draw my gun, and he backed off.
When I tell my European friends about these incidents, they sometimes remark that it would have been better to surrender to the intruder or the robber and let them take whatever they demanded, instead of putting yourself in a situation where you could end up killing someone. This is a strange argument: it relies entirely on two absurd premises, the first of which is that the home invader was actually just going to steal something and be on his merry way. For all I knew, he could have been a mentally unstable drug addict with his own gun or knife in his pocket. He could have chosen to kill me to leave no witnesses to his crime, or to kill me simply because he was mentally unstable.
The same is true of the robber in the parking lot. How could I know that he was not going to force me to drive off, and then leave me for dead on the outskirts of town while he absconds with my car?
The second absurd premise against full-force self-defense is that criminals in some way or another have rights. But why should a man who assaults a woman have the right to live through the experience, when he may or may not end the rape by killing her?
Why should a robber have the right to take another person’s money, driver’s license, car, credit cards, and other personal belongings, without risking being killed in the process? What gives someone who invades another person’s home the right to do so without risking lethal resistance?
A criminal only has one right: to a fair trial (if he makes it that far). Any attempt to mitigate the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals opens a slippery slope of compromises between the rule of law—a cornerstone of civilization—and savagery. The more room we grant criminals to obtain what they want through coercion against law-abiding citizens, the weaker we make the fabric of civilized society.
But is it really reasonable that criminals should die for crimes that do not end in the death of the victim?
This question is, again, based on adverse moral reasoning, namely that we have to await the consequences before we can defend ourselves. But the defense against a criminal does not take place after the fact:, after the fact, it may be too late. The moment the home invader breaks through the door or the window, the homeowner has the right to act. The second a woman realizes that the approaching man is about to assault her is the moment when she has the right to defend herself. At that point, she does not know if he is going to steal her purse or if she is going to die.
There is one more issue downstream from the question about reasonable defense: can law-abiding citizens exercise the same discernment as the police would, or that would be applied in a court of law? Or, to be more blunt: if I kill a man who is trying to invade the home where my grandchildren live, is not his death an excessive punishment?
Again, this kind of moderating question is based on the premise that the criminal somehow has rights attached to his actions. Anyone who believes that this is the case should immediately propose to the appropriate legislature that criminals’ rights be codified into law. Maybe it could state that “a home invader has the unalienable right to steal as he pleases, abscond without getting killed by the homeowner, and face the consequences only if he is apprehended.”
To put some perspective on this point, consider a case from Connecticut many years ago. Two escaped fugitives broke into a home and took the father, the mother, and their teenage daughter captive. For many hours, they tortured the man while sexually abusing the mother and the daughter. When the father managed to escape and ran to get help, the fugitives tied up the women and set fire to the house.
Connecticut has strict gun laws, but it is also one of those states that restrict the conditions under which people can defend themselves in their own homes. Even if you have obtained the permit to have a firearm in your own home, you cannot just use it to stop an invader as he tries to get into your house. You have to take measures to show that you tried to put distance between yourself and the intruder.
In short: the criminal has rights that restrict the freedom and safety of law-abiding citizens.
My state has no such laws. If I am over at my son’s house watching my grandchildren, and someone tries to break in, I can kill that person on the spot with legal impunity. The truth is that I would do it anyway, even if the law was not on my side; there is nothing more important than the safety of my grandchildren.
Which, again, brings us back to the key point here: what is really the fundamental value we are trying to preserve when we restrict—or do not restrict—the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms? If the law would prohibit me from having a gun on my hip while watching my grandchildren, and if someone invades the house, then what value is protected by stripping me of the opportunity to defend my grandkids? How is that value more important than the safety of children?
But if individual citizens are allowed to carry firearms and use them for personal safety, are we not opening a can of worms that would lead to vigilante justice? In fact, is that not an example of vigilante justice?
Anyone who makes this argument should stop and ask himself how they would act if they had access to a gun and were attacked by a robber, a home invader, or just a maniac out to assault someone at random. Would you consider it an overreaction to defend yourself and potentially save your own life? Would you misuse your firearm and exact justice beyond protecting yourself?
I asked these questions to a proponent of strict gun laws. I was told that “I would act responsibly, but I don’t trust other people to do the same.” Not only is this an arrogant attitude toward others—one that other people reciprocate—but it is also an argument for the total prohibition of motor vehicles in private ownership. If law-abiding, responsible citizens cannot be trusted with firearms because some people use (often illegal) firearms to commit crimes, then law-abiding, responsible drivers cannot be trusted with cars because others drive drunk.
Rather than trying to restrict the ownership of firearms, we should encourage it. We should train kids in school, e.g., from the age of 16, in how to safely handle handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. We should make it mandatory that all citizens regularly participate in firearms practices, under the supervision of expert instructors.
And, most important of all: whenever we make laws, we should always do so in order to protect the fundamental values of civilization, not to erode them. The crime chaos in many big cities in both America and Europe is evidence as good as any of what happens when we take our eyes off the cornerstones that build freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Firearms and Freedom
There is a gun store not too far from my house, where in addition to selling firearms, ammunition, and accessories, they also have an indoor shooting range. For a small fee, you bring your guns and spend a whole hour target practicing.
The only thing they ask in return is that you mop up the shell casings when you are done.
In the state where I live, you do not need a license to carry a concealed firearm. The laws are not the same everywhere, but in 27 states—mine included—legal, law-abiding residents are allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. These are so-called “constitutional carry” states that interpret the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution literally (as it should be).
Some of the remaining 23 are “shall issue” states, which means that government must give you a permit to carry a firearm if you apply for one. The only condition is that you have no criminal record.
A few states have stricter laws, and some places go even further by making it practically impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit. New York City, e.g., does not even recognize the permits issued anywhere else in the state of New York, despite the fact that those permits are given out on terms that are draconian compared to “shall issue” states.
As an American, I take my right to own and carry firearms for granted. For me, it is not a matter of some bold declaration of liberty from government oppression, as gun critics often try to claim. It is entirely about my personal freedom and my right to responsibly protect myself and my loved ones, should the need to do so occur. It is no more controversial than someone carrying currently legal items for self-defense, or a homeowner who uses a makeshift weapon like a hammer to fight off an intruder in his own home.
Even though I grew up in Europe, after more than 20 years in America I find it impossible to accept the rationale behind the arguments that my gun-critical European friends often make. I am told that if there were no guns, there would be no gun crimes. This is true from a strictly logical perspective, in the same sense as if there were no cars, there would be no drunk driving.
If there were no children, there would be no pedophilia.
The reductio ad absurdum notwithstanding, one need only visit a major European city to see how moot this point really is. London has earned a reputation for high crimes, yet Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Apparently, criminals find other ways to do harm to innocent people.
For many years now, Sweden has been plagued by a high rate of gun violence, despite it being practically impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy a firearm.
American states and cities with strict gun laws are also the ones with the highest rate of gun-related crimes. New York is a notorious example, but so is Baltimore in Maryland. California, which boasts some of the toughest gun laws in America, is home to endemic urban decay, including out-of-control crime.
The city of Washington, D.C., forces you to meet 23 different criteria in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, presumably to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yet that very same city is a cesspool of armed robberies, carjackings, and other gun violence.
In short, the problems in America are primarily concentrated to the cities with several million people where laws restrict guns and law enforcement more than they restrict criminals.
Generally, living in one of the constitutional-carry or other shall-issue states is safe and peaceful. Larger urban areas have their fair share of crime problems, but they are no more intrusive on daily life than in similarly sized cities in Europe.
That said, when crime happens, having access to a gun can make a world of difference. There was an incident when someone tried to get into our house in broad daylight. I was the only one home, and when I realized what was happening I retrieved my gun and waited on the other side of the door.
Fortunately for the intruder, he realized that someone was home and took off.
Only once have I been targeted by a robber. It was in the parking lot outside a grocery store. All I had to do was let the prospective robber know that I was armed and ready to draw my gun, and he backed off.
When I tell my European friends about these incidents, they sometimes remark that it would have been better to surrender to the intruder or the robber and let them take whatever they demanded, instead of putting yourself in a situation where you could end up killing someone. This is a strange argument: it relies entirely on two absurd premises, the first of which is that the home invader was actually just going to steal something and be on his merry way. For all I knew, he could have been a mentally unstable drug addict with his own gun or knife in his pocket. He could have chosen to kill me to leave no witnesses to his crime, or to kill me simply because he was mentally unstable.
The same is true of the robber in the parking lot. How could I know that he was not going to force me to drive off, and then leave me for dead on the outskirts of town while he absconds with my car?
The second absurd premise against full-force self-defense is that criminals in some way or another have rights. But why should a man who assaults a woman have the right to live through the experience, when he may or may not end the rape by killing her?
Why should a robber have the right to take another person’s money, driver’s license, car, credit cards, and other personal belongings, without risking being killed in the process? What gives someone who invades another person’s home the right to do so without risking lethal resistance?
A criminal only has one right: to a fair trial (if he makes it that far). Any attempt to mitigate the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals opens a slippery slope of compromises between the rule of law—a cornerstone of civilization—and savagery. The more room we grant criminals to obtain what they want through coercion against law-abiding citizens, the weaker we make the fabric of civilized society.
But is it really reasonable that criminals should die for crimes that do not end in the death of the victim?
This question is, again, based on adverse moral reasoning, namely that we have to await the consequences before we can defend ourselves. But the defense against a criminal does not take place after the fact:, after the fact, it may be too late. The moment the home invader breaks through the door or the window, the homeowner has the right to act. The second a woman realizes that the approaching man is about to assault her is the moment when she has the right to defend herself. At that point, she does not know if he is going to steal her purse or if she is going to die.
There is one more issue downstream from the question about reasonable defense: can law-abiding citizens exercise the same discernment as the police would, or that would be applied in a court of law? Or, to be more blunt: if I kill a man who is trying to invade the home where my grandchildren live, is not his death an excessive punishment?
Again, this kind of moderating question is based on the premise that the criminal somehow has rights attached to his actions. Anyone who believes that this is the case should immediately propose to the appropriate legislature that criminals’ rights be codified into law. Maybe it could state that “a home invader has the unalienable right to steal as he pleases, abscond without getting killed by the homeowner, and face the consequences only if he is apprehended.”
To put some perspective on this point, consider a case from Connecticut many years ago. Two escaped fugitives broke into a home and took the father, the mother, and their teenage daughter captive. For many hours, they tortured the man while sexually abusing the mother and the daughter. When the father managed to escape and ran to get help, the fugitives tied up the women and set fire to the house.
Connecticut has strict gun laws, but it is also one of those states that restrict the conditions under which people can defend themselves in their own homes. Even if you have obtained the permit to have a firearm in your own home, you cannot just use it to stop an invader as he tries to get into your house. You have to take measures to show that you tried to put distance between yourself and the intruder.
In short: the criminal has rights that restrict the freedom and safety of law-abiding citizens.
My state has no such laws. If I am over at my son’s house watching my grandchildren, and someone tries to break in, I can kill that person on the spot with legal impunity. The truth is that I would do it anyway, even if the law was not on my side; there is nothing more important than the safety of my grandchildren.
Which, again, brings us back to the key point here: what is really the fundamental value we are trying to preserve when we restrict—or do not restrict—the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms? If the law would prohibit me from having a gun on my hip while watching my grandchildren, and if someone invades the house, then what value is protected by stripping me of the opportunity to defend my grandkids? How is that value more important than the safety of children?
But if individual citizens are allowed to carry firearms and use them for personal safety, are we not opening a can of worms that would lead to vigilante justice? In fact, is that not an example of vigilante justice?
Anyone who makes this argument should stop and ask himself how they would act if they had access to a gun and were attacked by a robber, a home invader, or just a maniac out to assault someone at random. Would you consider it an overreaction to defend yourself and potentially save your own life? Would you misuse your firearm and exact justice beyond protecting yourself?
I asked these questions to a proponent of strict gun laws. I was told that “I would act responsibly, but I don’t trust other people to do the same.” Not only is this an arrogant attitude toward others—one that other people reciprocate—but it is also an argument for the total prohibition of motor vehicles in private ownership. If law-abiding, responsible citizens cannot be trusted with firearms because some people use (often illegal) firearms to commit crimes, then law-abiding, responsible drivers cannot be trusted with cars because others drive drunk.
Rather than trying to restrict the ownership of firearms, we should encourage it. We should train kids in school, e.g., from the age of 16, in how to safely handle handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. We should make it mandatory that all citizens regularly participate in firearms practices, under the supervision of expert instructors.
And, most important of all: whenever we make laws, we should always do so in order to protect the fundamental values of civilization, not to erode them. The crime chaos in many big cities in both America and Europe is evidence as good as any of what happens when we take our eyes off the cornerstones that build freedom, peace, and prosperity.
READ NEXT
End Scene
How Trans Activists Won the Election for Trump
Putting Down Our Parent Civilisation: Do We Live in the West, or Euthan-Asia?