Laws, Regulations and Policies Don’t Make Us Bulletproof

Laws, Regulations and Policies Don’t Make Us Bulletproof

One of the most profound arguments in the Second Amendment debate that our opponents never seem to get is that no law will ever make us bulletproof. I suppose this case could be true for those who are not necessarily involved in the struggle directly, but support government interventions via other means. These could be in the form of restraining orders and the dreaded “Zero Tolerance” policies. Neither of which have ever saved a life, in fact it can be successfully argued that they have cost lives.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that more laws, regulations and policies (LRPs) won’t make us safer there is that sector of society that wants to put their collective heads in the sand and ignore the truth. No other state in the nation could be more proof of that than Massachusetts. In 1998, the legislature passed what has turned out to be the worst in the nation gun laws. Since then, the “get tough on guns” LRPs have resulted in a disastrous outcome. All one has to do is review the evidence at www.massgunlawreform.com/evidence.html and witness the drastic increase in violent crimes committed with guns in the last decade.

To a great extent, restraining orders and zero tolerance policies aren’t having a much better track record. While we can argue that restraining orders serve their purpose to an extent, in severe cases they do nothing to actually protect the potential victim. Since law enforcement can only get involved if a protection order is violated it is often too late and the only thing left to do is the paperwork.

The point is that no official government document is going to stop a bullet, knife, baseball bat or anything else for that matter. If there is truly a need for someone to get a protection order then shouldn’t that be only the first step? People who are in fear of their safety, and perhaps their lives, should not be relying on a piece of paper. Both the government and the petitioner are being irresponsible if they believe otherwise.

The same is equally true of these so-called zero tolerance policies most commonly found in schools and many work places. The one alarming fact with these policies is that if a killer targets you at one of these places, you have a near zero chance of surviving.

The common theme here is that LRPs may make some feel good or safe, but what happens when they eventually fail to stop an attack? The sad answer is normally one or more victims with grieving families looking for answers.

It is unfortunate that in our modern society here in Massachusetts, criminals, psychopaths, etc. can virtually count on a potential victim or even a group of victims to not fight back. People have become so reliant on government that far too many have completely surrendered their own responsibility.

Ultimately, our lives and safety are ours to defend or lose. Any kind of so-called preventive or responsive measures offered by our government should only be considered complimentary to our own ability or at least efforts to defend ourselves. By the way, that includes escaping the situation. The logic has always escaped me when, for instance, a school policy is to hide under a desk in case of attack when there is a perfectly good first floor window to escape out of. If your life depends on escaping then do it, but if your life depends on you or a group to fight back in order to survive than people need to start doing that too.

Sadly, adults and most importantly children through LRPs are being discouraged from doing what used to come naturally. Even our own Massachusetts Attorney General has been in the media telling the public that the state does not encourage self help! What sort of message does that send to the public? Perhaps more importantly, what message has that attitude sent to the criminal element? Unfortunately, we already have witnessed the answer to the latter.

It is clear we have a lot of work to do here in the Commonwealth in reforming the existing LRPs, but I am afraid that is only going to part of the job. The other part might even be more difficult to change and that is the social attitude towards defending ourselves. Somehow we must gather together and re-teach modern society that self defense and the defense of others is not violence - it is rather the means to stop violence.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 4/22/2011 5:52 AM Erik wrote:
    "People have become so reliant on government that far too many have completely surrendered their own responsibility."

    Well, when you have a jury awarding a sizeable amount of money to a woman that spilled hot coffee on herself, due to her own carelessness (as well as many other "liability" lawsuits that should never have made it), how can anyone actually expect people to be responsible for their own actions? Especially when it is easier and more beneficial to blame someone else? We live in a time of frivolous lawsuits that award people thousands of dollars because the neighbors dog peed on the lawn. This needs to stop, and only when it does will people start to hold themselves responsible for their actions.
    However, I can't wait til a victim of a violent crime sues the state as an accomplice (ok, maybe too far fetched, but the media attention would be interesting to watch), stating "well, had the State of Massachusetts let me carry my lawfully owned firearm (that I am licensed to carry) on the Blue Line going into Revere, I would never have been raped."
    I mean, are there any criminal liability charges that can be brought against the state for enabling the criminal element?
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.