The Republican opposition to gun control is, in fact, entirely too weak to be of any use whatsoever. In fact, it is puzzling that they refuse to take a stronger stance in favor of a much wider distribution of firearms than what currently exists. When almost all of them enjoy the wholehearted support of the National Rifle Association, it remains puzzling that they continue to take such a timid stance.

The truth is that until all citizens own and carry fully loaded firearms we are going to flounder in this continually rising tide of tens of thousands of violent assaults and, yes, tens of thousands of totally unnecessary murders.  

Let me illustrate with a simple example. Suppose you have a quarrel with another fellow. A minor quarrel over some trivial matter such as taking a parking place that he wanted, in front of a local cafe. You had simply peeled in ahead of him, and snatched the space before he could react. He becomes visibly angry, curses, gives you the finger, and speeds away. A bit disgusted, you enter the restaurant, sit down and wait for some time for a waitress to appear. You find her quite attractive, mentally forgive her for the delay, and enjoy watching her stride off with your order.

Suddenly, unexpectedly, BLAM, BLAM. You are shot in the chest and collapse to the floor, bleeding profusely, losing consciousness. But before you are gone, you recognize the gunman as the same individual who drove away in anger not long before. As you lay dying, you imagine how differently this deadly situation might have turned out: You walk into the café with a pistols in holsters strapped securely to each hip, carrying a rifle that you gently lay across the table, muzzle facing the door. Your new adversary walks in, glaring with anger, but when he sees your weapons, he turns away and rushes out of the establishment, embarrassed, ashamed, perhaps even remorseful. Case closed. Personal deterrence is as effective as national defense deterrence.

This is a fairly simple situation. But since women are so often the victims of aggressive males, it is perhaps even more important that they fully protect themselves with appropriate firearms to combat male aggression. And by “appropriate” I mean as powerful and as deadly as the weapons described in the previous scenario—all three of them—pistols and rifle. These weapons could indeed be made fashionable and with feminine appeal, with gems embedded in richly carved pearl handles, glossy chrome or golden finishes on the metallic portions, and holsters designed with the same attention to style and detail as ladies purses and other ornamentation.

Next, you might ask about children. How fully armed should toddlers to teens be to fend off aggression from adult perverts. As fully as possible, I would say. The idea that an infant can be taught to swim as early as 6 months indicates how very adaptable children can be. Therefore, it follows that firearm instructions can begin as early as 6 months, and continue through childhood. You often see toddlers pretending to fire guns by aiming with their fingers, at an aged when they could be training with actual weapons. Of course, children’s weapons and holsters would obviously be much smaller, and fashioned to fit tiny hands—hands that are taught a secure and proper grip, and eyes that are trained to aim at the most vulnerable parts of a perverse adult’s anatomy. Once all kids are properly trained in firearm care and use, it will obviously greatly cut child abuse. After all, anatomically speaking, a child can be much quicker on the draw than an adult, which confers a viable advantage to a child’s right to defend herself or himself from twisted perverts of all ages.

Socially, and in terms of safety, the advantages of such a sweeping self-defense program are obvious. Also, a tremendous economic boon would occur if these policies were fully implemented, as the armement industry would have to add about 600 million new weapons to our present total of 400 million to give each individual his or her full trio of weapons.

The overriding question remains: Do the Republicans have the courage to advance such a program, or will they continue to dabble in limited arms availability. And if they summon the courage to advance this aggressive personal arms policy, will they have the nerve to push further and make the carrying of arms compulsive?