MYTHS

1. All I need is a gun.

Weapons like pistols can be life savers but are of no use if a criminal can walk into your bedroom while you are asleep and fracture you skull with a brick. It is important to have a multidimensional approach to personal security. It is unwise to ever put yourself in a position where you need to use a weapon as it could malfunction or fail to stop an offender before he injured or mortally wounded you or a loved one. Having a smoke alarm in your home is no reason to neglect fire safety as it could fail to work in a fire because the battery had gone flat.

2. The police will protect me.

The police have no responsibility to protect individuals. They only have a general duty to enforce the law. Your safety and the safety of people under you care is your responsibility. The police are primarily a reactive force who act after a crime has been committed, and are rarely in a position to stop a crime. There have been all too many cases of police being notified of an attack but arriving too late to stop victims being kidnapped, raped or murdered. If you have no evidence that someone is stalking you there is little the police can do.

3. My stalker is not dangerous.

Some think most stalkers are not dangerous and are simply expressing their 'love' for the victim inappropriately. In reality they no more love their victims than rapists do. As with rapists, the purpose of the victimization is (consciously or unconsciously) about power, namely an attempt to control another human being to satisfy their desires. All stalkers have the potential to turn violent and the ability to kill. Countless women have been murdered by the men who 'loved' them after the object of their affections rejected their advances or left them.

4. Women are incapable of defending themelves.

This argument is put forward by misogynists, patriarchal religious groups, pacifists and fascists who want to disempower women. That their illogical, reactionary arguments are not taken seriously by most law enforcement agencies and security firms illustrates the falsity of the sexist premise, with countless female police officers, security guards and other women successfully defending themselves and many other innocent people, including loved ones under their care such as children, elderly parents or a disabled spouse.

5. Defending the innocent is immoral.

If you think defending innocent men, women and children from the predations of violent criminals who would rob, rape, torture, mutilate and murder them is immoral you might need to your ask yourself if your aversion is due to a love of mankind, a variation of Stockholm Syndrome, cowardice or latent fascism. People band together to form communities for their mutual benefit, primarily safety, so failing to defend members of your community violates the social contract. Failing to defend yourself encourages more such crimes against others.

6. Firearms are not useful for defensive use.

If guns are not useful for defensive use why do soldiers, police officers and security guards use them? Anti-gun groups (often run by pacifists, religious zealots or fascists) use convoluted arguments against the private ownership of firearms by non-occupational users, but none hold water. The idea that criminals would be unable to access firearms (or drugs) by simply banning them is manifestly ridiculous (banned guns are readily available in communist China and are relatively easy to make even by village gunsmiths with primitive tools).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .