There is no legitimate debate about the use of firearms to protect ourselves, as the fact there is evil in the world requires that there is a efficient way to minimize its effect on the potential victims of those wanting to do them harm. A gun is the best tool for that purpose.
Not only is self-defense a right, it’s a responsibility that individuals, families, businesses and institutions need to take more seriously. For that reason the idea of designating areas as gun-free zones is at best ignorant and irresponsible, and at worst, criminally negligent.
To have people at potential risk in a building open to the public, or a public venue, without the means of stopping an attack that could end their lives, is the height of irresponsibility.
For that reason we need to start asking questions of places we go to concerning the safety factor involved. All businesses, for example, may not be able to afford security, but they can all people to carry firearms with them in the stores for protection.
To not allow that is to essentially provide the environment for a killer to go on a shooting spree, where there is no defense against it. The police have shown in a number of circumstances that they don’t have the will to confront and take down an active shooter. And even if they did, the time it takes to get there means the majority of the damage has already been done.
How to up the odds of survival
In most instances the best way to defend ourselves against potential life-ending attacks is to do our homework before we go somewhere. If a store or institution doesn’t allow for self-defense, or provide meaningful and effective deterrents of their own, then it’s my view that we shouldn’t go to those places.
We shouldn’t go somewhere where there is no defense allowed against a serious threat.
What I mean is, if we wait until we’re at a venue or building that is being shot up, there isn’t a lot to do to minimize our chance at survival, depending on how things are set up, meaning if there is a place to hide from the attacker.
In other words, the best way to ensure survival from an attack is to not go to a place that doesn’t allow us to defend ourselves, or have armed security in place to rapidly and effectively respond to the shooter.
If you research recent history, those that have defensive measures in place significantly limit the amount of casualties.
Church buildings and defense
Over the last several years there have been a number of people attacked while attending church services. Those that have had armed security have had very few casualties, while those without a means of defense have been slaughtered.
Outside of the spiritual message and being taught and adhered to, the next important thing to me would be to find out what type of security measures are in place if an active shooter situation arises. If there are none, it could end very badly for us and our families.
After the recent school shooting I saw some conservatives and Christians talking about trusting God for protection rather than guns. That makes absolutely no sense, although it sounds spiritual at first.
Who could argue with the idea of trusting God if you’re a Christian? The problem is it’s not really trusting God that they’re concerned with, but virtue signaling to those that are attacking them.
What type of person says they have such an understanding of God that they know whether or not He will protect them under those circumstances?
How about the 26 people killed in a Texas church? Did they lack the faith to trust in God’s protection? According to the people asserting God’s protection in place of taking responsibility for our own protection, that is what happened. Why this is deceptive is because there are times when we are very aware in some circumstances that the hand of God does protect us and others. There is no doubt about it. The problem lies in declaring this as a substitute for taking responsibility for our own self-defense.
On the other hand, when churches that have armed security in place have been attacked by shooters, the casualties have been limited. There’s only one way to stop a shooter, and that’s to take him down with lethal force.
I’ve mentioned several times when writing about this or interacting with others, that while God can in fact protect us, it’s something that can’t be assumed to be in play in every scenario.
For example, do we stop working to pay the bills or buy food because the Bible talks about God being our provider? Most of us know that would be silly, and yet the same assumption is made about defending ourselves when talking about God protecting us.
In one case we’re to work to supply our needs, even though God is our provider, but in the case of self-defense, we’re to assume God’s protection rather than doing our part in the process. Why? Because few question our part in working to supply our needs, while many reject being responsible for the safety of ourselves and others because guns have been demonized rather than the wickedness in the hearts of the murderers.
Many don’t understand the connection between personal responsibility and self-defense, even though it’s quite obvious.
Another reason you have to take personal responsibility is because you can’t count on the government to protect you, as some wrongly do. Look at the extraordinary failures of numerous authorities in dealing with the recent school shooting.
Broward Sheriff Scott Israel even tried to deflect the blame for the refusal of his deputies to confront the killer while children were being shot, by attacking the NRA.
Bottom line is we can’t count on the police for our own protection. That is one area we don’t outsource unless we have the resources to hire our own security.
There is also very little being mentioned about this school not having some faculty armed to deal with that specific type of danger, as other schools in the nation do.
Self-defense is a right and responsibility all of us have in the face of a world that has many evil people in it that are willing to harm and take the lives of others.
There will always be a large number of casualties in shooter attacks unless there are armed people willing and able to defend themselves and others in those circumstances.
While trusting God is an admirable trait, like other areas of life, we’re required to do our part in preparing for whatever it is we are tasked with, and that means in the case of security, that there first, needs to be force of arms to deal with it, and second, ongoing training to maintain skills at high enough levels to deal with whatever comes our way.
All schools, churches and other places where people gather need to have armed security on hand that can deal with a deadly shooter and minimize the number of casualties that are inflicted on them.
An unrestrained shooter will kill until there are no more ammo or people to murder. We have to make sure shooters in the future will think twice about taking on armed citizens or security forces that are ready to do what it takes to protect themselves and those they’re responsible for.
If a business or institution refuse to allow firearms on their premises or don’t have armed security, we’re all taking a risk if an active shooter arrives on the seen. For that reason call up and ask what the policies are of these places.
At least you’ll know there are more risks than normal if guns aren’t allowed in buildings or events that are targets of mass murderers, and can make an informed decision when weighing the risks versus rewards of the situation.