We live in dangerous times; why can’t we defend ourselves? Australia’s restrictions on “non lethal” weapons, such as pepper spray, mace and personal tasers is a very big issue we have to talk about. Now we do have a right to self – defence, given, BUT because of such restrictions we do not have the right to ‘practical self – defence’, a term commonly used by Senator Leyonhjelm of the liberal democrats. This is wrong, a fostering of a helpless populations at the hand of anyone with a slightly more superior weapon than your own fists (not hard to find!)
In the last two months alone we have seen a sharp incline in terrorist incidents world wide, ranging from the mass bombing in Manchester, to the London bridge attacks. London itself a country that has ruled against the carrying of fire arms, relies heavily on it’s “saviour” the government to come to it’s aid in times of need, and despite the hard work of those in the force, often they are too late.
Besides, it’s not like we’re even pushing the right to carry firearms, no, we are pushing the right to defend ourselves with NON – LETHAL weapons, so why is the government afraid to give us that right?
Well it’s quite simple, apart from the usual rhetoric around the fact humanity can’t be trusted with these devices, the fact remains, from the governments point of view, people are best kept in order not by mutual respect, but by a dominating force. I don’t know if you’ve realised, but these days it’s not a rarity to see a cop on every corner, at big events police out numbering civilians, and at demonstrations authoritarian – like instructions on what can and can’t be done. At face – value to some, these might seem like a good thing, but history shows this is a slippery slope to total control. Here are some examples from the Texas Review of Law & Politics ;
- TRLP shows that Mao Tse-tung used guns to take control of China in 1949. Thereafter, he “disarmed the Chinese people” yet simultaneously claimed to rule in their name. Then, with a government that was armed to the teeth versus a people who had no means for self – defence, Mao “perpetrated the largest mass murder in the history of the world, killing approximately 20 million people.”
- France pushed gun control because they feared an uprising, especially from Communists or anti-colonial insurgencies. Therefore, just as Democrats in 19th century America took pains to keep slaves from arming themselves and rising up, so too France took pains to be sure those within their protectorate could not rise up against them.
- Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and immediately began pushing for total power—for complete control of every aspect of government. One part of this pursuit was ridding himself of political and state enemies, and one way to accomplish this was by disarming those who could be described as “enemies of the state” or dangers within the state. In October 1933, bans on the possessions of firearms by “persons dangerous to security” were drafted. One month later—on November 21—a more detailed draft made clear that National Socialists would enjoy the ability to buy firearms but other persons would not. We all know the atrocities that followed after that…
I want to bring your attention to an incident that made headlines in the US the other day, a father at home with his wife and daughter, woke up to see two escapee fugitives had entered his house. Both men were in jail for murder and were attempting to rob this family, the father with the will to protect his household, loaded his gun, took it down and confronted the fugitives. Surprise, surprise the prisoners lay down on their stomachs and waited for the police to bring them home. A simple example of a man who was trained and permitted to handle a gun, and used it in accordance with the law that allowed him to protect himself.
Why doesn’t our government trust us, it doesn’t make sense…essentially from a logical point of view those passing these laws have one of two thoughts;
- People are stupid, they cannot be trusted and therefore should not be given the responsibility of carrying a self – defence mechanism, lethal or not. After all you’d have to be a fool to believe that the underworld can’t attain these weapons, and that the only victims at the end of the day are law abiding citizens.
- It’s part of a bigger movement to allow for more control over the population, leading us into a society of helpless individuals who may very well obey anything in the face of a dominant force.
I personally think the first is what most politicians claim, but the second is what those with warped views envision…Now on to facts, lets look at some statistics below that show the numbers associated with violent crimes 1993 and 2013…we can see a figure of 12186 in sexual assault in 1993, now at a staggering 19992 in 2013? So women (and men) who can no longer defend themselves in what is undoubtedly a rise in sexual assaults should simply submit to these laws? Manslaughter, same deal, no real change in fact in some instances exceeding pre – gun law era yet any rise would not be met with armed civilians? ARMED robbery, at it’s highest in 2011…POST – GUN LAW ERA, little to no change since then ? These stats clearly show the little impact these law had on violent crime, and more importantly the specific rises in some crimes due to people not being able to defend themselves…
One thing is for sure, this isn’t be discussed at the higher levels of government, instead the only discussion going on is weather intelligence agencies should have the right to decrypt our social media messages, and by law demand service providers allow vulnerabilities in the security of our privacy online. Hope is not however lost, with Senators like David Leyonhjelm who often brings up such fallibilities in Australian restrictions.
I want to use theloudlibertarian.com as a voice for those who agree that we should continue to discuss these issues, and that Aussies have the right to self – defence, so ensure you support the cause by listening to our most recent podcast and also subscribing for free.
The Loud Libertarian