Czech Republic just announced that its citizen should protect themselves from terrorists: by taking matter into their own hands. A German entrepreneur invented a new chastity belt aimed to protect women from sexual assault. An 74 years old American grandma protected herself form an intruder. And robbers at a gun shop learned their deadly lesson:
Contrary to unpopular belief, self defence is a right. If you can’t defend yourself, you don’t have the right to your life. Just like how in totalitarian societies, your life is not yours to live, but for the people who decide how you should live. Because a civilised society understands the inalienable right to your life, liberty and property; to ensure the continual exercise of these rights requires the ability to retaliate objects which endanger your rights.
In a place where defending yourself is illegal, evil triumphs and chaos ensures. Take the most simple example, pepper spray or mace are classified as a weapon in Arms (Restricted Weapons and Specially Dangerous Airguns) Order (1984), thus possession of firearms, explosives and “device designed for the purpose of discharging any lachrymatory, deleterious, or toxic gas, smoke, or other stupefying or overpowering thing capable of rendering any person either wholly or partially incapable of resistance (other than any device designed and intended solely for any medical, surgical, veterinary, scientific, agricultural, industrial, or other similar lawful purpose).” are restricted. Of course, under the Arms Act (1983), section 4 (1) stated:
For the purposes of this Act, the Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, declare—
(a) any weapon (including an airgun) to be a restricted weapon; or
(b) any airgun to be a specially dangerous airgun.
Now let’s look at Crimes Act (1961) section 48 which stated “Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.”
The logical fallacy of only allowing one group of people to own a specified weapon, in this case the police, is the assumption that police are omnipresent at all the crime scenes, but an average person would realise this is simply not possible. If a woman uses pepper spray against a potential rapist, she is the one who would be convicted, not the rapist who instigated the use of force. Of course there are several alternatives: the victim could learn martial arts, victims could use other weapons or stop attempted rape from occurring in the first place.
The first alternative is good, but what if the attacker has his own weapon (he is already committing a crime) and your arm to arm combat cannot overcome it (e.g. knife)? Not only would you need to call for help but it will probably be too late when help arrives. I call it the sitting duck scenario. The second alternative allows the victim to wield weapon, say a sharp object like high heels. High heels induces more lasting damages than pepper spray could ever do when it is used appropriately and it is not even listed in the restricted schedule! Other more harmful weapons when used correctly include umbrella, brick/rock, pens, keys and broken bottles. Should they also become restricted? The last scenario assumes everyone behaves rationally and are non-violent, but the reality goes against a simple feminist fantasy.
But sadly this is the reality some places are facing now: A Danish girl faced charges for illegally carrying pepper spray in Denmark and the assailant was not charged because he fled the scene.
Guns are the most vilified of all weapons, the common arguments are that it is designed to kill or that you don’t need “big guns” to feel safe, therefore it should be banned. Let’s dismantle the arguments first. There are multiple types of guns, but what’s the purpose behind the different types of guns? Is it hunting (rifle)? Or is it for self defence (pistol)? Or signalling (flare)? Or entertainment (water)? The argument simply failed at the object identification stage because they have no grasp of distinction between categories of the items in a group. The second argument again didn’t understand there are situations where such an item may be needed, for instance shotgun can used for bird hunting because of its low range and high propellant mass. Different types may be used for different games such as rifle for deer hunting. And to supplement the arguments, why do they think banning guns will magically make the people who reject the regulation stop possessing guns? As soon as there is a ban, a black market is created where the same forbidden commodity is traded. Not to mention the fact that guns can be produced at home with improvised components. Banning guns simply will not stop the people hellbent on getting guns obtaining guns,one way or another. The fact that most mass shootings occurred in gun free zones is glaringly inconvenient for the indignant control freaks.
If you really wanted to kill someone, you don’t need guns. Trucks had killed plenty of people in Jerusalem, Berlin and Nice within 12 months. Machete, hammer, axe, knife, poison, etc. also committed horrific mass murders. Even a piece of paper used incorrectly may cut a person’s throat or be used as fuel for arson. So the progressives are not helping anyone by their pretentious altruistic thinking of saving life, it’s a conformist second hander virtue signalling.
Those advocates of a pacifist policies are not helping anyone but themselves to feel more virtuous than others. Just ask them, why are they not concerned about Obama aiding Iranian nuclear development, Clintons supplying arms to terrorists in Libya or Australians training terrorist Indonesians?