The Paradox of Anti-Gun Advocacy and Armed Protection

It’s a curious irony that some of the most vocal advocates against gun ownership seem to turn a blind eye to the very real necessity of armed protection for those who wield significant influence. Bodyguards with guns are a common sight protecting politicians, but this trend creates a provocative question: why is it acceptable for high-profile individuals to carry concealed weapons while ordinary citizens are vilified and treated as quasi-criminals for wanting to own firearms?

The underlying issue here is that different people and situations require different levels of protection. This draws a stark distinction between law-abiding ordinary citizens and professionals who operate in high-risk environments, such as bodyguards. The regulatory framework needs to recognize these distinctions. It is imperative that we understand these differences in order to ensure fair treatment and effective protection for all.

A high-profile politician, for example, who faces regular death threats undoubtedly needs close protection. This is resolvable through a thorough “risk assessment”. This process evaluates the specific threats and vulnerabilities faced by an individual, and determines the necessary measures to mitigate those risks.

However, it’s important to note that the protection needs of a high-profile individual like a politician should not set a standard for the wider population. Protection measures should be proportional to the threat level. A high-profile individual has access to a P90 or a more advanced weapon if the situation warrants it. Yet, for the everyday person, such over-protective measures are unnecessary and disproportionate. Going to the shop does not require such significant safety measures. Ordinary citizens need a basic level of legal firearm ownership and concealed carry rights, not the extremes that are often proposed.

Some anti-gun advocates argue that giving up personal firearms would reduce the risk of violence. However, this is a simplistic and flawed argument. What they fail to acknowledge is that without the strong defense provided by law-abiding citizens with concealed weapons, the very individuals they are trying to protect could become more vulnerable. To have a comprehensive and effective law enforcement and security framework, it is crucial to recognize and support the role of responsible gun owners and professionals who rely on firearms for protection.

Let’s consider the example of a criminal judge who carries a PPK hidden in a court setting. This judge recognizes the balance required between personal security and the legal environment. While anti-gun activists advocate for total disarmament, they ignore the practical, and sometimes necessary, need for concealed carry by those in high-risk professions.

The call to arms for the broader population is grounded in the belief that “risk assessment” should be zero. This is a noble goal, but it must be balanced with the need to protect individuals who, despite the anti-gun rhetoric, still require armed protection.

To conclude, the emphasis on armed protection for high-profile individuals is not a license to ignore or undermine the rights of ordinary citizens. Instead, it underscores the need for a nuanced and balanced approach to gun regulations. By understanding the different regulations and distinctions between ordinary citizens and high-profile individuals, we can work towards a more just and protective society for all.

Protecting the “special” individuals is a crucial role, but it also involves acknowledging the “ordinary” citizen who deserves the same rights and protections as those who require more intensive safeguards. It is this parity and understanding that will lead to a safer, more balanced society.