Last update 25 Sep 2014 A Victim Disarmament FAQ
pidata pidata info

What is Victim Disarmament?
Is this Moral?
Won't arming the population result in more bloodshed?
Won't the government protect me?
Isn't this just fear-mongering?
Why should I believe any of this (and/or where can I find out more) ?
I'm not convinced
What do you expect me to do about it, anyway?
Dishonest discussion/debate tactics one may encounter
Fear of discussing this subject
Go to References Page (main page)

What is Victim Disarmament?

rape and assault
racial violence
and genocide
not getting
pensioners unarmed police
violent ex-partners bank employees government
electoral fraud
and intimidation

witness and
juror intimidation
violence for its
own sake

Victim Disarmament is the more accurate name for what some call "Gun Control".  It is a government policy that attempts to deny the most basic of human rights, that of self-defense and defense of loved ones.

Victim Disarmament is...

...when a mugger, murderer, torturer or rapist knows, thanks to government policy, that his victim is very unlikely to have a (legal) weapon to deter him (or her.)

...when people must fear death or violence to themselves or their families, based on their race, religion or political beliefs, and know they have no practical means or legal right to resist. Consider also these analyses on genocide [link1, link2]

...a father protecting a young girl against neighborhood bullies; he is later beaten and stabbed to death by them and their friends, in broad daylight and with no neighbor daring to intervene.  Consider also the case of Kitty Genovese.

...when an elderly pensioner who chases vandals away from his or her home by brandishing a replica pistol or other nonweapon, is charged with "causing fear", while the vandals go free and unmolested by the authorities.

...when police, unarmed by law, dare not interfere with any but the most trivial criminals, for fear of what may happen to them or their families if they do not take a "hands off" attitude.  For a view on whether the police should be armed if the rest of us are not allowed to be, click here.

...when witnesses to a crime, or jurors in a trial, are defenseless in the face of threats from the accused or his/her friends, unless they withdraw from the case.

...a mother and her children left defenseless against a violent ex-partner.

...a defenseless bank employee forced under threat of violence to divulge the names and addresses of large account holders... and when those account holders, now identified, are forced by the same thugs to empty their accounts.

...a government accountant in hiding for fear of his life, after blowing the whistle on a government corruption scandal (Dougal Watt OLAF allegations).

...a weaponless citizen who has been threatened with violence by a corrupt politician.

...voters who are visited by thugs who confiscate their ballot papers to ensure they are filled out "correctly".

...when an honest business owner must pay exorbitant "protection" money to local criminals to avoid the destruction of his business, thus reducing his ability to improve the business and perhaps ruining his livelihood altogether.  Apply this across an entire city or nation and you have poverty, backwardness and widespread suffering.

...a loving parent is powerless to avoid handing over a child, spouse, brother or sister to armed thugs (criminals, government agents, or soldiers) who want to kill, mutilate, torture, rape or conscript them, on pain of killing other family members if there is resistance -- with no guarantee that the thugs won't be back later.

Victim Disarmament is an enabler for murder, torture, rape, mutilation, political terror, and other crimes.

Is it moral, or admirable, to support laws and politicians that create situations like those above, or allow them to persist?

Do you feel that situations like those above are inevitable?  Most people would certainly not consider them desirable.  Would you really want to put your name to policies that help create or promote situations like these?

If you're not sure, first consider some of the people and organisations who are in favor of letting potential victims defend themselves.  Some of these are discussed and/or linked to on the References Page (main page).

Next, consider some of the people who've been associated with "gun control", historically as well as up to the present day.  These include the KKK, and corrupt politicians who wanted to make it easier for their criminal friends to loot, maim and kill.

Please think carefully.

"But isn't it even more dangerous to let the general population arm themselves?  Wouldn't there be even more bloodshed?"

The answer to this question appears to be, surprisingly, NO.

Minimizing obstacles to the law-abiding owning and, particularly carrying, guns appears to result, at the very least, in a decrease in crime.

The overall effect is one of quiet deterrence, rather than overt "hunting down" of criminals, which is properly the role of the police.  If criminals (or potential criminals) can't be sure whether someone's armed or not, they will be much more cautious about whom (if anyone) to attack, which homes (if any) to burglarize, and so on.

In jurisdictions where use and carry of guns is permitted, on those rare occasions where the gun is needed in self defense, its role is as an insurance policy.  It's like fire insurance -- rarely needed, but when it is needed there is no substitute (and it's the safest method as well, for all concerned.)

In the US, between 1.5 and 2.5 million times a year, a crime is prevented simply because the potential victim had a gun and displayed or audibly cocked it, or claimed to have a gun from behind a closed door.  No crime has occurred, and no shots have been fired.  Isn't that the ideal situation?

In jurisdictions that do not allow guns, or heavily restrict their use, how many crimes occur because the local inhabitants do not have such an option?  Is it moral to deny that option to them?

Jurisdictions with a long history of private gun ownership also tend to have a similarly long history of good government, civil rights, civil peace, reasonable taxes and relative prosperity.

Jurisdictions that do not permit private gun ownership seem to have a record of high crime rates, government corruption and oppression, drastically curtailed civil rights, backwardness and poverty.

As one small example of the contrasts mentioned above, can you name any Swiss dictators?  Examples of these are rather hard to find.  There was one, briefly (Hans Waldmann), but he was toppled in 1489 by an armed citizenry that "refused to stand for it" (as we so often fondly hope of oppressed, but usually unarmed, populations.)

Won't the government protect me?

To help answer that, ask yourself the following:

How long does it typically take the police to answer a 911 (or 999) emergency call?

If you are cornered in a dark alley, or your door is in the process of being broken down, will you have time to dial 911 (or 999) ?

When the police arrive, are you sure they'll actually help you [link1, link2] ?

Did the police prevent a stalker from disfiguring and partly blinding Linda Riss, after she'd already begged them (unsuccessfully) for protection on numerous occasions?  Did they protect Kitty Genovese?  Did the police in Henley-on-Thames protect Vicky Horgan?

Did Hitler's government protect the Jews? (hint: on Kristallnacht, the police had orders not to interfere with the thugs.)  Did it protect those German citizens who were taken away and tortured for having incorrect political beliefs?

Did Stalin's government protect those who went to the Gulags?  Did it protect the 3 million Ukrainians who died in the Soviets' deliberate, artificial famine of the 1930's?

Is Mugabe's government protecting white minority farmers, or its black political opponents?

Did racist anti-gun laws in parts of the US protect unarmed blacks from KKK terror?

Did the Serbian government protect the Croats and Bosnians that were first disarmed (by the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army, using government gun registration lists) and then sent to camps or massacred?

Isn't this just fear-mongering?

Define "fear-mongering".  Is it fear-mongering to warn of a fire in a building, if the building is in fact burning?

It is not fear-mongering to warn the inhabitants of a building of serious structural problems that exist... or to warn a potential homebuyer of dangerous conditions in the property he/she is considering... or to warn an existing homeowner of the dangers of making certain modifications to the house... or to warn of the dangers of being an unarmed victim.

To suggest that such dangers should not be mentioned or discussed would be irresponsible, to put it mildly.

Why should I believe any of this?

Don't just take my word for it (though you might consider whether the logic makes sense to you.)

This is certainly a subject that needs to be approached skeptically and with an open mind.

There are articles, research references, real-life examples, and links on the References Page (including links to anti-gun sites.)  Among the best of these are Oleg Volk's RKBA Page and GunCite, but there are many others.

I'm not convinced

If you've already checked out the links on the References Page, then at the end of the day, you might ask yourself:

If a government (local or national) has become corrupt enough to start taking people away in the night, as with the KGB or Gestapo, to whom will those people turn for protection?

What, if anything, would make those agents (and their bosses) feel they had anything to fear from brutalizing their citizens?

What options would you want available, if you or a loved one were cornered in a dark alley, or having your bedroom door broken in, or hearing the dreaded 2AM knock from the secret police?

Would you place a prominent sign on your house, saying "This is a gun-free home" ?  If not, why not?

What do you expect me to do about it?

If you're fortunate enough to live in an area where victims are not forced to be defenseless, arm yourself.  Learn gun safety.  Purchase a suitable weapon (or weapons.)  Practice (safely) at the range.  Teach your loved ones about gun safety and take them shooting.  Obtain a carry permit, if possible, and use it.

Do what you can to raise awareness of this issue.

Discuss the subject with friends.

Email your friends with links to relevant websites and other resources.  Build your own website :-)

Call in to talk radio (if you live in a place where this exists.)

Hand out leaflets.

Vote.  Write to your legislative representativesRun for elected office.

Government-mandated Victim Disarmament happens on every continent, and in far too many jurisdictions.  It may be in effect where you live.  Perhaps you are fortunate enough to live in one of the few jurisdictions without it.  However, some of your politicians (local or national) may be trying to make Victim Disarmament a fact of life for you, your family, and (if applicable) your business and your employees.

Or perhaps you're lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction [1, 2, 3, others] where your politicians are fighting for your rights (and theirs) and are working to eliminate Victim Disarmament where you live.

This subject readily lends itself to observation, logic and rational discussion.  There is a vast body of analysis and reference information, electronic and printed, to which people in any truly free society have access (in the US, visit your local university library, particularly if it is a Federal Repository Library.)

At the very least, "arm yourself with facts", as a wise person once said.

Dishonest discussion/debate tactics one may encounter

When discussing this topic, I believe it is particularly helpful to keep in mind the old principle that anyone who feels they need to shout, interrupt or resort to personal insults is someone who's not sure of their case.

The same goes for those who seem unable to respond to a direct question with anything other than a meaningless bromide, or an abrupt change of subject.

It's remarkable how often, and how quickly, some people who consider themselves well-educated and open-minded will stoop to such methods in order to shut down debate on this topic.

Are these people afraid of something?  If so, what?

Fear of discussing this subject

If you live in a place where your getting involved in any of the above activities (including discussion) is likely to result in loss of employment, social ostracism, arrest or physical violence, then... well, consider the people who don't want the subject discussed.

Are they in favor of defenseless victims?

Or are they just terrified to discuss the subject out loud?

Isn´t that just the sort of political and social environment in which oppression (including organized crime and state-sponsored murder) has always thrived?

Is that the sort of political and social environment in which you wish to live?

If not, consider doing what you can to get involved.

Last update 25 Sep 2014
return to top

Go to References Page (main page)