Those who criticize and even deplore the armed citizen often seem to use totally illogical arguments and sad to say sometimes it is even the upper echelons of law enforcement and government who contribute. I wrote this to try and make various points even though much has been written along the same lines.

Let's start with this classic - here has to be one of the most absurd comments ever when applied to legal CCW actions, being almost close to suggesting that anyone wishing to defend themselves is some sort of vigilante! It raises yet again the often huge discrepancy between victim response and police response times. Quite how surviving an armed attack by shooting back can be taking the law into one's own hands I totally fail to see, when if we do as so often suggested and wait for the 'cavalry' to arrive we might already be ripe for a body bag! This is seconds vs minutes.

In this day and age any law abiding gun owner is (or should be) well aware that just engaging in a gunfight for thrills is not going to wash - and so the use of a firearm is kept solely for "in extremis" - which is as it should be. Granted there will always be a few law abiding but reckless people who will disregard common sense and the law by frivolously employing their firearm but with consequences being what they potentially can be - it takes a fool to ignore the results and consequences of 'cowboy' actions.

Does law enforcement in all honesty take this seriously itself I wonder? Is a cop only going to defend himself just because he is a cop with a badge and consider that action singularly lawful compared with a seeming exclusion when a mere citizen is doing the same thing? There could be seen to be double standards here, as there are seemingly even among some of those in positions of political power who would like to see citizens disarmed - this very much a "control" measure more than anything else.

"Just do what the bad guy wants"

Here is another statement promulgated for the most part by high office law enforcement personnel but also some politicians. It has to make me wonder what those who promote such 'advice' would themselves do in a threat situation. Three simple examples will serve here for basic analysis. First is the hold up at a local 'stop-and-rob' where a criminal presents as armed and wants money - what guarantees are there that even when the demands have been met they will not shoot anyone so as to not have witnesses. Life is cheap to many crooks after all. Then we have rape cases - a female threatened at gun or knife point - does the victim really gain by giving in to demands and so know for sure she will be allowed free after being abused? The mentality of rapists being often one of women-haters there is every chance an execution is a very possible outcome. Finally a mugging situation - a combination perhaps in some ways of the previous two examples in some respects but the common ground is quite simply that of "no guarantees" after the event - the victim can be as helpful as he or she wishes but how does this determine no further harm? - it does not, as case records can easily show - in some cases an event ends with execution.

"Why do you need that thing?"

This is another favorite, sometimes worded in a similar manner. The answer is in fact already covered within the previous writings as "that thing" is the one means by which a potential victim can safeguard their life and avoid undue harm or death. There are some who actually take this a step further and say "it will only get you into trouble", not usually understanding that the responsible carrier of a firearm is in fact working harder than most to avoid trouble. Note that word "responsibility" - it is usually ignored or overlooked on the premise that anyone with a gun can only be a "gun nut" and so dangerous to all of humanity by default.

"I won't have a gun in my house"

This can be a spouse wanting to ignore any benefits of family protection and only employ the paranoia of the hoplophobe or, it may be a friend or family who knows someone carries and cannot countenance having said person in their house while armed (their prerogative of course). The presence of children can it has to be admitted influence such things but that is easily taken care of if guns are safely and securely stored and of course, a carry weapon is inherently safest and under control on the body of the owner. The hoplophobe works on the basis that guns (per se) are evil and often would lead one to believe that the gun is, in and of itself even unattended - a hazard to all despite the fact that unless loaded and having the trigger pulled, it is an inert object. It might also be added, that safer guns in houses are helped by educating children early about firearms and safety rather than leaving that purely as a mystery and fascination.

"You are going to kill someone"

Well this is in part a presupposition that being armed by default leads to killing, but at the same time it could be a truism if applied to the armed citizen who has had no choice but to use their firearm in self defence, with a fatality the end result. The intended meaning however is definitely directed at the opening statement and not the latter where justification enters the equation - the inference again being quite simply that man plus gun equals mayhem! This brings us conveniently to towards the end of these observations, where once more "the gun" itself is the apparent object of criticism.

"But guns kill"

OK, I will accept the fact that firearms are by the nature of their design, implements capable of causing serious injury or death - I doubt anyone will contest that. However the problem is the "blanket" nature of this statement, which does not take into account the user - the person who decides whether the gun is used for good or evil purposes. It has become plainly obvious over time that the anti gun fraternity paints with a broad and indiscriminate brush, such that the user is ignored, for emphasis on just the tool itself, "the gun". Any differentiation between good guys and bad guys seems to be omitted and yet, this is where distinction is so critical.

Those who seek to ban guns and carry conveniently ignore the fact that criminals will continue to have guns by many and all means, as they always have - unstoppable in fact. So no bans on guns and carry will adversely affect the criminal world in the least, other than facilitating their plans to do harm and commit crime unopposed. To counter armed crooks requires that the good people have some means to answer back on equal terms. That is what CCW is all about, if only detractors would think sensibly and apply simple logic and leave gut emotion out of it.

"It'll only get you into trouble"

This was touched on earlier but in conclusion a small expansion seems useful in finishing this article. It was levelled at me once when discussing concealed carry! I tried my best to rationalize and explain that the gun was with me purely as a means of last resort to just possibly survive an otherwise lethal situation, added to which I was hardly likely to be waving it around for all to see. "Concealed is concealed" - and brandishing is not something to be recommended just as a fun exercise! After numerous attempts to satisfy my doubter, I about gave up as I was eventually in that all too common situation, where the other party has no reasonable counter argument and instead just keeps insisting they are right. Sadly this was an old friend, a leather worker who had even years before made me two very handsome holsters! Sometimes common sense just does not succeed!

There we are. A synopsis of what are perhaps the most common phrases levelled at gun owners and ones which we will continue to be trying to explain through simple logic. Sadly that logic is not something that is easy to instill on the subject when so many anti gun people are closed minded and arrogantly satisfied with their tunnel vision, and seemingly a wish to just apply control. We have to keep trying though and never give up.