Ziggy Zapata Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - www.ziggy.com.au - to open the entire Ziggy Zapata website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


One of the interesting exercises that people can perform is to ask police why they have guns. The standard answer is that police have guns to protect themselves against criminals. What is funny is the completely illogical response of police when they are then asked why law-abiding citizens are prohibited from owning guns to protect themselves against criminals. Police and politicians do not seem to understand that in virtually all cases when crimes are committed against law-abiding citizens, police are not present to protect them, therefore those law-abiding citizens must suffer deprivation and sometimes death because they have no means to protect themselves.

The sheer stupidity and lack of logic of this attitude is mindblowing and yet even when politicians are confronted with this situation, they seem to lose all vestige of commonsense and coherent rationality when debating this issue. They are happy enough to mandate that police carry guns for protection, but seem to go into paroxyms of denial when law-abiding citizens ask for the same level of protection for themselves.

Obviously guns can be deadly, but at the end of the day, they are merely implements and are only dangerous in the hands of idiots and criminals. However, there is a broader political and legal issue in regard to firearms and for the gun control proponents, a short study of history of gun control is necessary.

A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights. It holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Ayn Rand


Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:


The World Health Organisation has compiled a list of nations in order of number of firearm murders per 100,000 citizens, as follows:

All the countries above the USA have 100% gun bans. It is very significant to see that Switzerland, which did not even make the list, has virtually no firearm murder occurrence. However, Switzerland's laws require that everyone owns a gun and maintains regular marksmanship skills and firearms qualifications regularly. This policy has been in force since well before World War Two and probably is one of the main reasons that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland. After all, it doesn't matter how many troops an invader has, he will never conquer a nation significantly outnumbered by a population with every citizen trained and armed and hanging out of every doorway and window and ready to kill the invaders.


In 2007, gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. This is what happened in the first 12 months after that this new law was put into force:

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.
Adolf Hitler


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects. In fact, during World War Two, the Japanese decided not to invade the USA because they knew most Americans were armed.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defence. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. Here are some interesting tips and anecdotes to illustrate the importance of being able to protect oneself.


The problem with disarming the population is that only law-abiding people submit to this and are thus rendered defenceless against armed criminals, who don't care about the law and do not surrender their firearms. When a law-abiding population is disarmed, criminals know that there is very little chance of them being injured or killed, so they are not deterred from committing all sorts of heinous crimes.

For instance, home invasion is a prevalent form of crime in Australia. Criminals know that people have no firearms or other reasonably effective means to protect themselves against home invaders, so they make easy targets. It is interesting to note that home invasions are almost unheard of in the USA and Switzerland, where personal gun ownership is very high. Robbers generally don't invade homes with armed residents, knowing there is a huge chance that they could be shot and killed.


Another interesting occurrence was the release of the Charles Bronson movie 'Death Wish', where the hero set out to avenge the death of his family by muggers by setting himself up as a target and gunning muggers down. Statistics show that in New York City, the rate of muggings fell by over 90% in the first week that 'Death Wish' was screened. The same thing happened after train passenger Bernhard Goetz shot four attackers - muggings on trains literally ceased completely.

In Sydney NSW Australia, after a Dural art gallery owner shot dead a notorious armed robber who had a massive record of armed robberies and assaults, such crimes almost vanished completely for months. This and many similar incidents just prove that when robbers know that people have the means to protect themselves, they are far more hesitant to commit crimes against them.


Leaving the law-abiding citizenry defenceless against armed criminals is a crime in itself and governments need to be pressured into repealing gun control laws and prohibitions as soon as possible.