Making self-defense illegal is a bad idea, part three.

In part one I introduced the questions. You will find all the questions at the end of this text. In part two, I mainly touched on question no. 1 and question no. 5. Those questions deal primarily with the second group of prohibitionists, those who are interested in power over others. Now I'm going to focus on the first group, those who are afraid of what can happen without a firearm ban. These people, unlike the other group, have good intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the devil is in the details. Therefore, let's start with question no. 3, what are the reasons for a firearm ban?

If you have good intentions with the firearm ban, these intentions should be something like reducing the number of deaths, injuries, and threats. It is a goal that you can share with the absolute majority of people who do not want firearm bans. Even if there is no agreement on how this goal should be achieved. If you are for the ban, you should also ask question no. 5, what are the risks of introducing a firearm ban? As well as question no. 6, what is the root of the problems, what are the symptoms and how should the problems be addressed?

So, the problems related to firearms are that people can be shot and threatened by people with firearms. And that accidents can happen. The root of the first problem is that some people choose to threaten and or hurt other people. The root of the other problem is that people make mistakes. How does a firearm ban address this? People who choose to threaten and harm others are not motivated by the fact that they can access firearms or that they are in possession of firearms. Their motivation is to take something that does not belong to them. For example, someone's life or wallet. They do not care about their victims, they ignore their conscience, or they lack a conscience. They want to do something wrong. You can do lots of things that are wrong without using firearms. You can kill people with your hands. Does that mean that we should cut off everyone's hands?

When it comes to the fact that people sometimes make mistakes, I do not see how a firearm ban addresses that. People cause car accidents, should we ban cars? A firearm ban does not address the root of the problems. People being shot and threatened by people with firearms are symptoms. A firearm ban can be compared to a liposuction surgery to treat obesity. The symptom is obesity but why is the person overweight? How should the person avoid becoming overweight again? It would be even more idiotic to give the whole population liposuction, regardless of whether they are overweight. That's what a firearm ban does. Even if you are not a person who wants to take something that does not belong to you, you should be prohibited from having firearms. Even if you handle your weapon safely, you should be prohibited from having firearms.

What unwanted problems can occur when a firearm ban is introduced? Try to think how you would be affected if you were a criminal that lacked a conscience. Because you do not have a conscience, you do not care about your victims. Because you are criminal, you do not per definition follow laws, this includes a firearm ban. You know that most people are law-abiding and have a conscience. Do you think they are going to walk around with a gun under there west? Probably not? How big is the risk that you will get shot if you try to rob, rape or kill someone? Lower than it had been without the firearm ban, right?

When it comes to question no. 5, what are the risks of introducing a firearm ban? I pointed out in the former text that the risk is that people who want power over others can more easily exercise their power if their victims are defenseless. I gave examples of an organized mafia and political tyranny. In addition to these examples, the law-abiding people are at risk of robbery, burglary, abuse, rape, murder, and terrorist attacks. Since nobody wants to get shot, an armed population has a deterrent effect. 

But a population that is not allowed to arm themselves are not only exposed to a higher risk, they are also unable to interrupt the perpetrator or perpetrators during ongoing crimes. Imagine if some of the victims of the terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015 had been armed. How many lives could they have saved? It obviously took too long for the police to get to the scene. Gun-laws did not protect the 130 dead and 350 injured. The terrorists had automatic weapons despite the fact that it was and is illegal in France. On the other hand, the terrorists were helped by the firearm ban because their victims were law-abiding citizens who were not allowed to carry firearms.

1. Why do some people want to ban grown-up mentally sane people from having guns for self-defense?

2. If adult people who are mentally sane aren't allowed to take responsibility for themselves, then who will be responsible for them? Who does not fit into the above group?

3. What are the reasons for the prohibition of firearms?

4. How will you maintain the firearm ban and try to solve the problems that can be caused by firearms without creating unwanted problems?

5. What are the risks of introducing a firearm ban?

6. What is the root of the problems, what are the symptoms and how should the problems be addressed?

7. Can you achieve a situation wherein no one gets shot? If yes, what price do you have to pay?

8. Do gun ban advocates propose a violent or non-violent solution?

9. What have the consequences of prohibition always been?