<center>What makes governments critically unique is the way they use guns. Everything governments demand we do or not do is backed up with, “Or else police with guns will come and lock you in a cage.” If we all had guns, and governments didn’t have any, this racket wouldn’t work. Governments have an interest in keeping us dependent on their protection rackets, but a police officer will never provide better protection than effective self-defense. Because gun control is enforced by violence and often leads to greater overall violence where enforced, it is clearly not about reducing violence. It’s about controlling the population.<br>
![Police-Brutality.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmbiesQx99nXLB1ozFhfCjEi1QvZvXwRqYzuRHor91aaxz/Police-Brutality.jpg)<br>
The use of force to defend oneself is an inherent right based in self-ownership. If someone is making a threat to you or your property, you are justified in using defensive force. The decision to use force against someone else is a very serious one. If you are threatened or under attack, use of force may be the only way to save your own life. Even in situations where your life is clearly threatened, your self-defense would be most valid with the minimal use of force necessary to neutralize the threat. What if you are mistaken in your assessment? What if the threat is from temporary confusion and not ill-intent? The responsibility taken on when applying deadly force is immense, and it should be used only as a last resort. To deny someone’s right of self-defense is to subject them to the tyranny of anyone who abuses them. To deny the universal right of self-defense is to deny the universal right of self-ownership.<br>
Gun ownership by nonviolent people carries an inherent threat to violent people, which violent people are willing to use violence to remove. Governments don’t like their people being armed because they might revolt. The idea of taking up small arms against an organized military may seem absurd, but in violent revolts, sometimes it is enough to cut off just the head of the monster. Governments have used gun control whenever they want to make people more dependent, but especially when they need to tighten control over society. Some of the most vicious government atrocities ever committed were preceded by strict gun control.<br>
One of the great ironies of gun control is how counterproductive it is to its stated goals of reducing violence and “keeping guns off the streets.” Gun control is nearly impossible to carry out effectively. Without absolute control over citizens to begin with, no government has completely succeeded in wiping out gun ownership. In many places with strict gun control, guns are actually more readily available than in a regulated market because they can be bought easily on the “black market,” where sellers are not capable of taking responsibility for who they sell to.<br>
Criminals prey on communities with strict gun control, because to them, gun control is a convenient policy of victim disarmament. An armed, or even unarmed but violent criminal, can attack anyone on the street in an area with strict gun control with reasonable confidence that their victims won’t be armed. This is one way governments create more crime. More crime makes people more eager for government protection. It also creates dependency, because when citizens are disarmed, cooperative solutions to address crime are much less effective. Taking away the right of self-defense has disastrous consequences!<br>
Gun control is part of a common attitude not limited to the specific technology of guns. Governments want to control the use of force. In many places, they ban common non-lethal self-defense weapons like pepper spray or tasers. If governments really wanted us to be safe, (and some local police officers genuinely do) they would encourage the use of such devices as well as guns by people capable of using deadly force responsibly. Non-lethal technologies will become at least as effective as guns and eventually replace guns for self-defense purposes. No one who simply wants to defend themselves would also want the liability of deadly force if unnecessary.<br>
The reason gun control is so dangerous is because it promotes violence. There are a number of ways it does this, but more importantly, it is fundamentally violent because it requires enforcers to violate the rights of peaceful people. Calling victim disarmament laws “gun control” is a weak cover for what politicians are really advocating: only government agents can have guns. Self-defense is a universal human right.<br>
Chapter 4 Section VI From [FREEDOM!](TheFreedomLine.com) by Adam Kokesh<br>
![hqdefault.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmUQwChzqk4PtjuuJLuzuKrXF2RGpTUG8mGrd7iT64DLiN/hqdefault.jpg)<br>
*I am the author of [FREEDOM!](TheFreedomLine.com), a book endorsed ([I mean banned](http://thefreedomline.com/us-department-of-justice-bans-freedom/)) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy [here](thefreedomline.com). I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more [here](http://kokeshfornotpresident.com). I am currently on my #TaxationIsTheft tour! You can find an event near you [here](TheFreedomLine.com/calendar). Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me a message with their address.*</center>