Ask yourself this question: Who prevents a crime targeted at you from happening?

Most people would answer, the Police. But do they? How often has a police officer stopped a home invasion? What about a mugging? How about a home burglary? What about a bank robbery? How often has a police officer stopped a murder from happening? Or a fight from breaking out in a bar? Unless they happen to be in the right place and the right time, it’s unlikely they could prevent any crime from happening.

People who live in nice neighborhoods aren’t crime free because police cars are constantly patrolling the streets. If that were the case, the city of Compton in California would be one of the safest cities in the country. The reason some neighborhoods are nice has to do with the common civil morality of the people who live there. Not because there are police there. When a crime does take place, no matter where that might be, it’s probably because a police officer wasn’t present.

… and when they aren’t present, is when a crime occurs.

The police arrive on the scene after the crime has occurred to collect the facts, write an unbiased report, and file it with headquarters, while the lawyers determine fault in the courtroom using the before mentioned police report. This may be all fine and dandy provided you or your loved one isn’t dead as a result of the crime. After all, a guilty verdict on your assailant isn’t going to bring your loved one back to life.

So in reality, police don’t actually stop a crime from happening. For them to actually stop a crime from happening would mean they would have to be everywhere, all the time. That means on your property, in your house, in a convenience store, along every mile marker on the highway, in dark alleys, in hotel rooms … well, you get the picture.


Only you can prevent a crime from happening against you or your family. If a robber enters your house, only you can stop him from assaulting your family members. If a rapist enters your home, only you can stop him. If a man tries to mug you, only you can prevent that from happening. It’s extremely unlikely a police officer will be anywhere close enough to actually respond to the crime and stop it from happening. After all, the average response time for a police officer is about 12 minutes in a major city, far greater in a rural area or if they happen to be tied up with other business. A lot can happen in 12 minutes that can affect the rest of your family’s life.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not bashing the police. They do a job that most of us would never chose to do. They do serve a great and valuable function within society. But the burden of safety is not entirely their responsibility. That burden is mostly your responsibility, that’s if you want to protect yourself and your family.

There are many ways one can protect themselves. Most would probably choose to run when possible. And that’s a very good idea if given the opportunity, but there are times when running simply isn’t possible, especially if you have elderly family, kids, and loved ones with you. Some might choose to call 911 and wait for the police, hoping that nothing happens until they arrive. Others choose to take up martial arts, or some other form a self defense class to thwart an attacker or an attempted rape. This will work when your attacker is unarmed, weaker than you, and you are not outnumbered. However, the greatest equalizer for any attack is a firearm.

Strangely, the government doesn’t like you to own firearms. In fact, a good chunk of law makers would prefer them to be illegal. Gun control advocates want to burden law abiding citizens with so many gun regulations, rules, and laws that it becomes too cumbersome to own a firearm or greatly deters people from wanting to own one. Why is this? Why does our government not want us to defend ourselves?

The perplexing misconception regarding gun ownership among law makers and gun control advocates is the notion that guns are responsible for violent crimes. This simply isn’t true. Violent crimes will occur whether guns are legal or illegal. Criminals will always find a way to purchase weapons, purchase drugs, and break the law. After all, laws don’t stop criminals from breaking the law. No gun law is going to stop a violent criminal such as a gang member, rapist, or burglar from acquiring a firearm. Laws against gun ownership will only stop the law abiding citizens who don’t break the law from being able to acquire one for self-defense.

Even more baffling are the arguments against concealed carry permits. Many states grant concealed carry firearm permits on a “may issue” basis, which means the city will issue a permit only if they think you need one. Why are the law makers making it difficult for the law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm when they know the criminals are walking around concealing all sorts of weaponry? The law-abiding citizens who have concealed carry permits are not the ones contributing to gun violence or committing crimes. So, why prevent these citizens from carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense purposes? Currently, Illinois is the only state the does not allow conceal carry permits. They rank #2 out of all 50 states with the second most gun crimes, just below Louisiana (Source: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence). This isn’t to say concealed carry laws lower gun crime, but it also shows prohibiting concealed carry doesn’t deter gun crime either.

So, again; If the police do not stop crimes from being committed and the law-makers don’t want you to defend yourself with a firearm, what are they suggesting you do instead? The police cannot be everywhere all the time.

I have yet to hear a lawmaker opposed to gun ownership answer that question.