Only an armed society can be free and responsible.

Following the tragedy in Orlando, Florida a few weeks ago, when a radical Islamist gunman shot and killed 50 people in a gay club, the public debate over gun control has once again flared up in full force. In recent years, it has become one of the biggest public debates not only in the United States but also around the world.

The debate

In the United States, on one side of the debate are those who support the right of every citizen to own a gun, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. According to them, every person has the right to defend their life and property from encroachment, and firearms are the best tool for this purpose. On the other side are those who support the restriction of this right and even a complete ban on the possession of guns by ordinary citizens, because they believe that the introduction of even greater restrictions would lead to a decrease in the crime rate and mass murders in particular.

Recently, this discussion has begun to spill over into the Bulgarian public sphere. Many Western media outlets, especially those with a more left-wing political orientation, often trumpet that more guns lead to more murders and that in the United States, where gun ownership is poorly regulated in much of the country, if at all, there is an “epidemic” of mass murders.

Various public “intellectuals” are trying to convince us how dangerous free gun ownership is and how we should in no case allow the ordinary Bulgarian citizen to have such a right. On the contrary – we should further tighten the already existing regulations! However, the alarmist slogans of lobbyists for a ban on guns are almost never supported by real data and logical argumentation.

Facts vs. emotions

This is because the data and logic are not on their side at all. Even a cursory review of the last few mass shootings in the United States is enough to expose the fallacy of their arguments. It is no coincidence that the Orlando mass shooting occurred in a club where carrying guns is prohibited by Florida law. And this case is no exception. The worst mass shootings in the United States occur precisely in so-called “gun-free zones,” which has been a very clear trend for decades.

And it is completely logical. So-called “gun-free zones” can only ensure the safety of mass murderers, but not their victims. What mass murderer would be deterred by a ban or law? Fighting criminals by creating new laws and regulations is madness. They are already violating the current ones anyway, and it is naive to think that they will comply with the new ones. The only people limited by such laws are their victims, who are deprived of their only chance for protection.

If we dig a little deeper into the data, we see that at the local level in the US, in states where gun ownership as a percentage of the population is higher, the number of murders per 100,000 people is more likely to be lower. For all states, the correlation coefficient between the two variables is -0.34, which is an indication of a mild to moderate negative relationship between gun ownership as a percentage of the population and the number of murders (you can compare the data here ). That is, according to the data, in the US, the higher the proportion of the population that owns guns, the more likely it is that the number of murders will be lower.

Although they won't admit it, for the self-appointed guardians of public order, data is of no importance. At a fundamental level, their arguments are not based on data, logic, or such "irrelevant details," but solely on fear, paranoia, and (if they are politicians) a thirst for power.

The people who support and lobby for gun bans demonstrate a disturbing level of distrust not of criminals but of conscientious, law-abiding citizens. As I noted, it is abundantly clear that mass murderers do not abide by prohibitions and legal restrictions. If they did, they would not be criminals. This is precisely why we need to know that gun bans are never really aimed at criminals—they are aimed at conscientious citizens—those people who obey the law and pay their taxes. But their mortal sin seems to be that they have the audacity to want to be able to defend their own lives and property.

Guilty until proven guilty

In the minds of those who want to ban gun ownership, each of us is a potential criminal. The logic of their arguments and the passion with which they defend them implicitly imply that, for them, most of us would certainly commit a crime if given the opportunity to do so. According to them, each of us is (potentially) guilty until proven guilty, which in fact contradicts all reasonable principles of law.

This is not just about rational caution. Rational caution is having a weapon with which you can defend yourself in case of need, in case of an attack on the street or an attempted robbery. And wanting to limit the right of every one of your fellow citizens, neighbors and friends to own a weapon is not caution, but fear, even paranoia, and not just any kind, but of the most totalitarian type.

It is no coincidence that the most brutal totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century were the regimes with the strictest controls on gun ownership. Tyrants like Hitler and Stalin imposed complete bans on gun ownership because a disarmed population is a population that cannot defend itself against the repression and atrocities of such regimes. That is why one of the first steps towards totalitarianism is always to prohibit citizens from owning guns.

Politicians never impose such bans for the safety of the civilian population. On the contrary, they impose such bans entirely for the sake of their own security. But what guarantees the security of politicians does not always (or even in most cases) guarantee the security of citizens. The police are not controlled by citizens, they are always controlled by politicians and state bureaucrats. That is why we must not forget that the domestic police protect politicians first and us only after that. As long as the politicians do not mind, of course. This was very clearly demonstrated during the mass protests against Plamen Oresharski's cabinet a few years ago.

Fear as a political tool

Fear is a very strong emotion, but it is also a very bad advisor. That is why politicians so often use it to manipulate public opinion. Whether it is to justify a senseless war, spying on the population or restricting the rights of ordinary citizens, whenever they can, they try to manipulate us by instilling fear. The person who gives up his own rights and supports the restriction of the rights of his fellow citizens is the perfect slave of the government and the political class. Such people run away from their freedoms and responsibilities and hand them over to the state with their own hands. And the dream of every power-hungry politician is for his subjects, excuse me, citizens, to give up their rights themselves and delegate more and more power and responsibility into his hands.

If we want to be free, prosperous, and above all, responsible citizens, we must not give in to fear. We must not give in to manipulation. To live in a free and responsible society, we must behave as such. And such a society would never be willing to hand over the protection of its life, security, and property entirely to the political class.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!