“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” —Politics, Aristotle of Stagira, c. 350 B.C.
Obviously, the issue of disarming citizens is not a new one. From my favorite hobby, hoplology, I know of several systems of martial arts which were created specifically in response to the disarming of conquered populations. The original karate systems of the Ryukyu kingdoms, for instance, or the capoeira of Brazilian slaves. While these arts did give those populations some measure of self-defense, the denial of weaponry always had its intended effect: the subjugated populations remained subjugated. Despite some false claims in modern training schools, you see, human beings do not enjoy the top of the food chain because we are the strongest or fastest animals around; we sit at the ecological pinnacle because we use tools. And the tools of self-defense are the same as the tools of war: weaponry.
Certainly, there are techniques in several systems which might allow a highly-trained athlete to disarm a single poorly-trained person, under specific circumstances. But numbers, training and quality-of-arms quickly make such techniques useless. The only realistic defense against armed assailants–whether agents of tyrants, foreign powers, or simply criminals–is equal or greater armament. No reasonable amount of training, whether for strength or skill, will enable an octagenarian grandmother to fend off a 20-year-old tough set to rob and kill her (an increasingly common crime in areas of high gun-control, such as California, New York and Illinois). A single pistol, however, can not only end the confrontation in the favor of the victim, but do so without actual violence. Even an armed thug will often avoid an armed target; criminals want victims, not a risk of their own injury.
This should be an exercise in simple common sense. For whatever reason it is not, it is also borne out by statistics which I have previously cited, and which are readily available by internet search. I have been told that my reliance on proof amounts to “bullying people about their position when they are saddened.” My response is thus:
My use of reason to defend the freedom of law-abiding citizens is not ‘bullying’. Your use of emotion to debar them of freedom, is.