What would happen if America’s armed guardians were disarmed? The criminologists will not hear us ask, nor will they answer us. The simple answer is, that disarming civilian Americans would allow violent crime to escalate. So … Don’t give up your guns. EVER!
What is a ‘guardian?’ A simple definition of “guardian” is someone whose presence prevents crime. Criminologists, who created that evocative title, have ignored armed civilians as possible guardians. But there is no reason that civilian firearm owners could not be recognized as guardians. You know who they are. They are the peaceful folks who own firearms. They are the dependable folks who carry concealed or open in public. And they are the good folks who have used their firearms in defense of themselves and others.
So why haven’t criminologists considered U.S. gun owners to be guardians? Criminologists imagine guardians to be unarmed protectors, so American firearm owners do not fit their definition. This is illogical if one considers the desired outcome to be a more stable society.
We know that millions of armed civilians exist right here in the U.S. They, and their guns, already serve to protect their fellow Americans. Why are they not included among the ranks of guardians? Why are they invisible to the criminologists? And why are their good deeds going unseen? Perhaps unsurprisingly, criminologists don’t want to admit that responsible firearm owners are beneficial to society.
We will show how criminologists have been wearing ideological blinders that kept them from recognizing the benefits of armed civilians. We will cite research that shows Americans who own firearms do indeed protect their neighbors from criminal violence, and therefore, they should be seen as guardians. Using the logic developed by the criminologists, who believe that only unarmed guardians are beneficial to society, we will show that American firearm owners qualify as “guardians” just as much as, if not more than, unarmed civilians.
By Gary Mauser, Alan J. Chwick, and Joanne D. Eisen
