Welcome to The World of Personal Responsibility

TTAG Commentator Wildfire writes:

I’d like to address a few points raised by the post Josh Moon in Hot Water Over Registering Ammo Sales to help new and non-gun owners understand the subject of firearms ownership a little better. After reading Josh Moon’s take on gun control, QL says “Hey, I should have the right to defend myself and shoot any SOB who breaks into my home and means to cause my family harm.” Some people might be offended by that remark. But let’s look at this the other way around. How could this SOB have avoided being shot? By not violating the law. If the worst happens, it was his failure of “personal responsibility.” Some would reject this perspective and say: “If someone breaks in, you should call the police!”

And what will those Second Responders bring at that call? GUNS! (No, the police are not First Responders; the victim of the crime was already there, the victim is the First Responder, whether that response is to stop the crime or soil themselves.) Here’s the big question for everyone who dislikes guns: why should a cop risk his life to save something, of such little value that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

Now here’s the real shocker to many newbies to The World of Personal Responsibility:
the police have no duty to protect individuals. Citizens cannot successfully sue the police if they fail to provide the protection that they promise. There are dozens of cases where the courts have ruled that law enforcement is immune from civil action, despite egregious police failures with disastrous consequences.

Bottom line: if you want protection from violent crime, it’s up to you and you alone to to provide it. Back to QL:

It is a little elitist. But I really don’t think people who haven’t trained in firearms should be able to have them.

Criminals tend to be less intelligent and less educated. Do you believe that law-abiding American citizens with “low” IQs who’ve also failed to reached a certain level of education shouldn’t be able to protect themselves from violent crime with a firearm? If so, drawing the line is going to be a real problem, both politically and practically.

The answer to the “problem” of people who haven’t trained in firearms, or proven themselves to public officials is, again, personal responsibility. A person who wants to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms should not be prevented from excising their constitutional rights. But they should be held responsible for the results of their actions.

Contrary to popular belief, you can “yell ‘FIRE!’” in a crowded theater—as part of a play or if there’s a fire. Otherwise, society can, will and should hold you responsible for the harm you cause by exercising your First Amendment right to free speech.

Whenever I read noob questions on gun forums about various defense scenarios, I see a lot of “get more training” responses from people who obviously think the question-asker is not mentally ready to conceal-carry.

Very, very few people truly have “all the training they need.” Especially law enforcement officers; fortunately they rarely encounter a situation where they need a gun. Anytime the best results aren’t achieved it’s natural to think “more training” may have made for a better outcome. But it’s not necessarily true.

Had one or more of the dinner at the “Luby’s Massacre” been armed, even by a poorly trained individual, many lives may have been saved. At the very first, minor armed encounter, George Hennard committed suicide.

How well trained was the vice-principal of Pearl High School,when he stopped a Columbine-like slaughter with his gun? Don’t know; no shot was fired, but the murderer was stopped.

How well trained were Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, the armed students who stopped the Appalachian School of Law murderer a few years earlier and a hundred miles from the Virginia Tech massacre? Don’t know; no shot was fired, but the murderer was stopped.

In an overwhelming number of incidents of criminal violence, like this one described in yesterday’s Orlando Sentinel, a gun stops the violent crime without a shot ever being fired. And in other cases, a gun is better than no gun.

I don’t think EVERYONE has the right to bear arms philosophically.

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson thought:

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that is their right and duty to be at all times armed [emphasis added].

More simply put . . .

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

I believe everyone you see walking our streets as a freeman, should be able to do so armed. So what about convicted felons and crazies? If they’re a menace to society, they shouldn’t be walking out streets; they should be locked-up until such time as they were no longer a menace to society.

Again, welcome to the sometimes scary world of personal responsibility.