Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

In the post-George Floyd era, the left has advanced numerous flawed theories about human nature. Evil deeds are committed because of racial oppression or economic injustice, not because some people are sinful and want to take other people’s stuff.  The environment shapes the person, and humans are believed to lack free will.

They overstate the effectiveness of psychotherapy.  They argue that traditional police forces should be defunded and replaced with social workers.  Not only do they believe their powers of verbal persuasion are influential on criminals, but they also have tremendous confidence in the drugs they administer to them.  But with the criminals on the loose and unsupervised, who is to say they will take their meds?  And if they do, why is it that almost all mass murderers are on those meds being prescribed?

There is a fundamental problem with the therapeutic approach to violent crime. If your family members are being assaulted, do you really care if the perpetrator came from a broken family, was a rich brat who thinks he is immune, or a crazy person?  That may all be sorted out later, but we would expect the police, or ourselves, to stop harm, whether we understand the cause or not.

As citizens, we have no reason to be confident of these claims made by the opponents of the police, but these theories are being crammed down our throats by mostly Democratic mayors.  And they are making crime worse and the police less effective.

Prisons, too, are supposedly outmoded and either have to be reimagined or, better yet, emptied.

While we are emptying our prisons, it makes perfect sense, and since we are such a generous country, why not import additional hundreds of thousands of criminals from foreign nations?  In short, empty the prisons elsewhere and bring the inmates here. That has to help our crime problem, right?

The police are under tremendous pressure to “reform” along the lines recommended by progressive politicians. Their funding is often cut as well, cutting their response time and resources to deal with a variety of crimes. Moreover, this thinking has infected some police forces.  The following video from a police chief from the York Regional Police in the Greater Toronto Area of Canada is an example.  Just let the criminal have his way with you, and all will be fine.

Let’s be clear.  In many instances, progressive leaders no longer feel that the chief responsibility of government is the safety of the citizen. They have lost their will and stamina. They have abdicated in favor of the therapeutic society, where the rights of criminals are superior to the rights of the law-abiding.

We could not find the response time for a Priority One 911 call in York, because, as Google put it, York” does not publicly share its average response times in an easily accessible format”.  However, areas close by, such as Toronto, boast a reduced response time, from 22 minutes to 18.  That is not so bad.  We compared it randomly to a mid-sized US city, such as Cincinnati, which is slightly over 22 minutes.  But if you are in a rural area, the response time could be half an hour or more.

Since the average duration of a gunfight is about three seconds, you can see that in just about any metropolitan area, the average time for the police to respond gives the criminal ample time to do grave harm to you and your family.  When seconds count, the police (with the best of intentions) are just 10-20 minutes away.  However, they will make out a report and zip you into a plastic bag.

It is implausible that, given their constraints and response time, they will be there to help you.

This has led to a national growth in people who, where possible, have decided to take responsibility for their own protection.  For hunting, for recreation, and now primarily for protection, millions of Americans own guns.

Additionally, many take the time to receive some level of training so that they can safely manipulate firearms and gain skills in their use for self-defense. Pew Research suggests that up to about 32% of the population has one or more firearms. Between 44% and 52% of households own at least one gun. It varies to a degree among ethnic groups.  Men accounted for about 58% of gun ownership, although data show that the fastest-growing segment now is women. Among women, the fastest-growing subgroup is black females.

Gun ownership can also vary by state. In Massachusetts, about 16% of the population owns guns, while in Idaho and West Virginia, it’s about 50%.

Often, ownership is not always by choice.  Many liberal jurisdictions make it burdensome and expensive to own a firearm, despite what the Second Amendment clearly says about “infringement”.  Likely, gun ownership would be higher in blue states if there were fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Economics Professor John Lott wrote a famous book worth reading, called More Guns, Less Crime. The very title is the opposite of the progressive view that harsh restrictions on firearms are the key to reducing crime.

The central theme of John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime is that increasing gun ownership, particularly through permissive concealed carry laws, reduces crime rates. Lott argues, based on statistical analysis, that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms deters criminal activity, as potential criminals are less likely to act when they know victims might be armed. Criminals are not stupid.  They respond to incentives and weigh risks. The book emphasizes the idea that “shall-issue” concealed carry laws lead to lower rates of violent crime, challenging the notion that more guns inherently lead to more crime.

“Shall-issue” refers to a concealed carry law in the United States where local authorities are required to issue a concealed carry permit to any applicant who meets specific, predefined criteria, such as passing a background check, completing required training, and meeting age or residency requirements. Unlike “may-issue” laws, where authorities have discretion to deny permits even if criteria are met, shall-issue laws mandate approval if the applicant qualifies, removing subjective judgment.

States allowing concealed carry without a permit (Constitutional Carry) for eligible individuals (e.g., Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Texas). Data is based on 2024 updates, as 29 states had adopted constitutional carry. 

As of recent data, about 41 states in the U.S. operate under the more liberal and expansive shall-issue or constitutional carry (permitless) frameworks.

Professor John Lott’s latest data, primarily from 2021–2024, suggests that defensive gun uses occur around 2 million times annually, with armed citizens even stopping a significant portion of active shooter incidents (up to 34.4% from 2014–2021). He argues that the FBI and media underreporting distort public perception.  The ability of citizens to stop active shooters would likely be higher if they were allowed to have arms in areas where many of these active shootings take place.  But critics like to say they have not stopped enough, even though they deny citizens the tools to stop them.  Gun-free zones are zones where the innocent don’t have the means to defend themselves. In non-gun-free zones, armed citizens have stopped upwards of 60% of active shooters.

More often than not, simply letting the criminal know you are armed is enough to cause them to break off contact. So-called “brandishing” stops 95-98% of incidents, according to Lott.

Moreover, most defensive gun use (DGUs) occur at or near the property of the victim. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (1992-2001 data, often cited in gun studies) found that around 60-65% of reported DGUs took place at or near the victim’s home, typically involving defense against burglary, home invasion, or property crimes. Only about 20-25% occurred in public settings like streets or businesses.

If not a reason to carry, those statistics support having a gun or two at home, with safe but rapid access.

Critics like to take issue with Lott’s methodology and statistical analysis.  That misses the point.  Citizens are stopping a lot more crime that never gets reported. If some stranger comes up your driveway at 2 am, and gets nervous and flees when you appear with a gun on your hip, what is there to report?  Nothing happened to report. Crimes that were deterred and never reported are actually a “good” statistic.

In a society where the police are in retreat, where judges let criminals out of jail, where social workers and therapists talk big but deliver little, it is sensible and reasonable to depend more on yourself and less on the state.

Besides, even if in some cases a citizen may not be as competent as he or she should be, he or she has the right to defend himself or herself to the best of their ability. We should encourage more training, not less. However, the truth is that the police, despite their training,  are not always successful either. That is the nature of violent encounters.  But if over 95% of encounters end with brandishing, the odds are heavily in favor of the person simply having a gun.  Throw in some decent training, and the odds go even higher.

Statistics aside, there is no more fundamental right than that to protect life, for if you don’t have life, what do the rest of the rights mean?