Guerrilla Defense or Totalitarian Tyranny: The Debate on Gun Bans and Society

M. Anderson, you're delusional. A rational person would not disagree that the 'safer' country is the one that bans guns, and that argument is utter rubbish. Take, for example, North Korea, a country that, despite strictly prohibiting guns, is far from a secure and peaceful place. It's a stark contrast to Switzerland, known for its high level of safety and low levels of crime, even with the widespread ownership of firearms.

Authoritarian prohibitionists often tout their idealized world view; they imagine themselves as rational and fair rulers who would ensure peace and order. However, the reality is that these visions are often shattered when real leaders are in charge. Authoritarian regimes, by nature, aim for total control and do not hesitate to use extreme measures to maintain power.

The Safer Society and Personal Responsibility

The safer society is one that emphasizes personal responsibility and broadly promotes safety through various means, including the regulated use of firearms. The well-regulated militia mentioned in the US Constitution is one such example, which includes not just the possession of firearms but also the skills and knowledge needed to use them responsibly. This approach underscores that firearms, when used responsibly, can contribute to a safer society.

Germany's history during the Nazi era provides a poignant counterexample. The Nazi party banned the possession of firearms for all but members of the party, which, while ensuring compliance and control over the regime's supporters, left non-Nazis defenseless and at a great disadvantage. This illustration demonstrates that blanket gun bans do not necessarily equate to a safer society, as they fail to protect individuals and their property.

The Dangers of Authoritarian Prohibition

Authoritarian regimes often begin with strict gun bans as a means to exert control over their citizens. However, this approach often leads to two undesirable outcomes: a society that becomes utterly dependent on the government for safety or, alternatively, a society that becomes a police state where individual freedoms are severely curtailed. The latter is a stark reality in places like Australia during the C19 pandemic when draconian measures were implemented to curb the spread of the virus.

It is important to note that authoritarian regimes do not stop at gun bans; they expand their control over other aspects of life as well. The goal is to maintain absolute power and quell any dissent. This history lesson is crucial when evaluating the long-term consequences of extreme gun control measures.

Global Perspective: Arm Every Citizen?

Many countries that severely restrict gun ownership are surprisingly willing to arm their citizens to support the Ukrainian military in opposition to an aggressor. They believe that arming the citizenry can help stabilize Ukraine and oppose an external threat. However, the same strategy is not applied to their own citizens. This inconsistency raises significant questions about the true motives behind gun control policies and the willingness of governments to protect their own people.

In conclusion, while there are dangers to living in a society with widespread gun ownership, the context is critical. The government must be checked by the same means the citizens have. In places where guns are banned, the danger lies in the unchecked power of those in authority, who may be more tempted to abuse their power when they no longer have to fear resistance from a similarly armed populace.