Recent incidents of violence
in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home,
as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in
American cities. This is why Congress must view the economy as its first
priority and a matter of national security: unless and until we get our
fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue
to deteriorate.
The fundamental lesson every
American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect
us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal
agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still
cause great harm. Both Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and
London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas.
But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass
killers. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or
lessened these tragedies. And we should remember that theft, arson, and
property damage were not the only criminal acts in London--innocent
bystanders were assaulted and killed as well. In those instances deadly force
used in self-defense would have been fully justified.
Perhaps the only good that can
come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as
individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
This means, frankly, that we must safely own and use firearms to deter or
prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons. It is absurd to think
police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the
clock.
Thanks to our media and many
government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the
state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something
terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people
reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always
leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty. It is completely at
odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual
responsibility.
Do we really want to live in a
world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we
want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about
violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can
we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided
security?
Freedom is not defined by
safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without
government interference unless they use force or fraud against others.
Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to
live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim
absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state
control over its citizens' lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe
in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket
beckons.