Exercise Your Right
“The police cannot be everywhere at once.” That statement would seem common sense to most people. In fact, if you do a cursory internet search of that sentence, you will find that it is an admitted truth from the President of the United States to the local police chief. You will find it admitted in newspapers, criminology research journals, police department websites, and by individual cops.
When we hear about crime-related tragedies we do not hear reasonable citizens ask, “Where were the police?” Reasonable citizens know the police cannot be everywhere at once…nor do they expect them to be. The reasonable citizen knows that crime respects no boundaries. Crime does not wait for a police presence before it tries to infect our communities; it wants an advantage, not a fair fight. The Orlando bar, for example, was a gun-free establishment. Patrons need to disarm before they go in or they are committing a crime.
It's rare when a crime is committed in the presence of a police officer, but it's always committed in the presence of its victims. Police frequently respond to crimes only AFTER they have happened, AFTER the citizen has been victimized, AFTER victims have been shot. That is not a knock on cops, it just is what it is.
Who IS Responsible for YOUR Safety?
This introduces a really serious question: who IS responsible for our safety when the police are not there? When someone comes to break into our homes, who do we turn to for help? When someone pulls a gun and attempts to rob us while we are walking down the street, what do we do? When some nut decides to walk into a crowded establishment bent on as much murder and mayhem as possible, how do we protect ourselves? The answer has profound implications for a free society.
It's ridiculous to suggest that we leave our fate in those circumstances to chance, hoping some lunatic--religiously motivated or just plain crazy--will choose not to harm us or our loved ones. It's equally ridiculous to leave the fate of our families, homes, and community in those situations to law enforcement when it admits that it “cannot be everywhere at once.” Who, then, fills the void? Us? Our neighbors? Something else?
We MUST Be Free to Protect Ourselves
A variety of ideas have been suggested: encourage citizens to observe, monitor, and report suspicious activity in their communities. Heck, our own government leaders coined the phrase “if you see something, say something.” Neighborhood watches, expensive surveillance equipment, and security guards have been offered as possible solutions. Or, and I just love this one, put up a "gun-free zone" sign. None of them, however, would've stopped the Parkland school shooting, the Orlando bar shooting, or any other shooting, whatever the motivation...none.
And then there is the "gun control" argument. "Since we have the police to protect us, we have no need to carry firearms for self-defense" the argument goes. Nonsense. There were 17 students killed in Parkland and over 100 victims in that Orlando bar. The school in Uvalde, Texas was full of law enforcement officers, who stood idly by while defenseless CHILDREN were being shot. The government has already admitted it cannot protect you, the “police cannot be everywhere at once,” remember? The argument that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because we now have police officers or standing armies has no merit. In a free society, the citizen must be free to protect themselves and their families, not hope help will get there in time.
Stop Crime, Not Solve it After the Fact
That is what I want—what we should all want—the freedom and resources to stop a crime at the point of attack or even earlier. Once my loved one has been murdered, the sanctity of my home has been violated by a burglar, or my community has been ransacked by a riotous mob, "catching" the person who did it becomes a secondary—and very distant—concern. I want my loved one back, the sanctity of my home and peace of my community restored.
Resolution after the fact is not what I want. Do the families of those killed in Parkland, Orlando, or any other shooting, find comfort in knowing the gunman who killed their loved one is also dead? Or has been apprehended? No. The loved one is still dead. In short, I want crime prevention and crime deterrence, not criminal apprehension--and there is a very big difference.
All of life's good intentions, well wishes, positive thinking, and pixie dust are no match for a determined criminal. You are on your own. YOU are responsible for your safety and the safety of your loved ones. As a wise sage once said, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." And that is just not good enough.
