black belt defender logo

free shipping on orders over $49

We're having a 15% off sale on all our products. Enter your email below to be notified about future sales.

credit card logos
woman defending with gun

There has been a growing movement to disarm law-abiding citizens in recent years. This movement is often based on the belief that if fewer canisters of pepper spray, stun guns, or firearms are in circulation, there will be less crime and violence. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, studies have shown that gun control laws and personal protection restrictions have little to no effect on reducing crime and violence rates.

In addition, disarming law-abiding citizens actually makes them more vulnerable to crime. When law-abiding citizens are defensively disarmed, criminals are the only ones who are left with offensive weapons. This gives criminals a significant advantage, making it easier for them to commit crimes. This isn’t a rocket science concept, but one that many people are unable to comprehend.

For example, a study by the National Research Council found that cities and states with stricter weapon control laws have higher rates of violent crime. The study found that this is because criminals are more likely to target states with stricter gun control laws, knowing their victims are less likely to be armed.

Another study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that states with stricter gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence. The study found that more stringent gun control laws make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, while criminals can still obtain guns illegally.

These studies show that disarming law-abiding citizens does not make them safer. In fact, it actually makes them more vulnerable to crime. 

The statement “Disarming me will not protect me; it only helps the bad guys” is true. To repeat again, disarming law-abiding citizens actually makes them more vulnerable to crime. Criminals are the only ones who benefit from gun control laws.

If you are concerned about gun violence, there are other things you can do besides disarming law-abiding citizens. You can support programs that address the root causes of gun violence, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity. You can also volunteer your time to help prevent gun violence, such as by mentoring at-risk youth or working to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Here are some additional arguments against gun control:

  • Violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
  • Ineffective in reducing gun violence.
  • Disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens.
  • Create a black market for guns.
  • Make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.


Disarming Law-Abiding Citizens: A Counterproductive Approach to Violence and Personal Safety

The debate surrounding gun violence in the United States is a polarizing topic that often circles back to questions about the efficacy of disarmament. While the intentions of disarming citizens might be rooted in a desire to reduce violent crimes, the implications of such policies are far-reaching and, paradoxically, can exacerbate the issue. Let’s explore the unintended consequences of disarming law-abiding citizens and focus on the hindrance of women’s self-defense due to restrictions on non-lethal self-defense tools like pepper spray and stun guns.

A Power Imbalance: Making Criminals More Powerful

A fundamental misunderstanding of criminal behavior is at the heart of the argument for disarmament. By disarming law-abiding citizens, the only people who become disempowered are those who already follow the law. Criminals, by their very nature, have no such scruples. Restricting access to firearms and other self-defense tools creates an environment where law-abiding people are vulnerable while those with criminal intentions remain armed.

The Importance of Non-Lethal Self-Defense Tools for Women

When discussing disarmament, the conversation often centers on firearms. However, other self-defense tools, such as pepper spray and stun guns, are frequently overlooked despite their importance for personal safety, particularly for women. These non-lethal options are easier to carry, somewhat less regulated, and can effectively disable an attacker temporarily, providing crucial moments to escape and seek help.

Regulatory Obstacles: How Certain Areas in the U.S. Hinder Self-Defense

There are several regions in the United States where pepper spray and stun guns are highly regulated or banned. For example, in states like Massachusetts, you need a Firearms Identification Card to carry pepper spray. In New York, pepper spray can only be purchased from authorized Firearms Dealers or Pharmacists. This level of restriction places an undue burden on women, making it difficult for them to equip themselves adequately for self-defense.

While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, various U.S. states and municipalities limit the types of self-defense tools that citizens can legally possess and carry. Such restrictions often go beyond firearms to include items like pepper spray, stun guns, and even some types of knives.


In California, for example, residents are allowed to purchase pepper spray without a permit, but the canister must be less than 2.5 ounces. Stun guns are also legal but come with a variety of restrictions, including not being allowed on school campuses or government buildings. “High-capacity magazines” (standard capacity) for firearms are banned, only allowing reduced capacity magazines. The state also has an “assault weapons” ban restricting certain semi-automatic firearms. These laws make it difficult for people to fully exercise their right to self-defense.

Chicago, Illinois

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. While Illinois finally allowed concealed carry in 2013, Chicago imposed additional limitations. For example, firearms are not allowed in bars, public parks, or near schools. Even owning a firearm requires jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Such tight restrictions leave residents with fewer options for self-defense, particularly in high-crime areas. Consequently, Chicago is one of the country’s most dangerous cities to live in, with one of the highest incidents of gun violence.


In Wisconsin, pepper spray can be legally purchased and carried, but it must not contain more than a 10% concentration of oleoresin capsicum (the active ingredient). Any canister with a “tear gas” component is illegal. Stun guns are also subject to regulation; you can own one in your home but cannot carry it in public, concealed or otherwise.


Michigan law prohibits the possession of stun guns entirely, putting residents at a disadvantage in self-defense situations where lethal force may not be warranted or legal. Additionally, although pepper spray can be carried, it must be less than 35 grams of product and 10% or less oleoresin capsicum concentration.

Illinois (excluding Chicago)

Outside of Chicago, Illinois law still imposes restrictions on concealed carry license holders, such as being unable to carry in places like schools, government buildings, and public gatherings. Pepper spray is allowed, but like Wisconsin, it cannot contain a “tear gas” component.

Overall Impact

These restrictions often have the most significant impact on vulnerable populations, including women and those who live in high-crime areas. For instance, restrictions on pepper spray and stun guns limit non-lethal self-defense options that can be discreetly carried in a purse or pocket. While these rules are often enacted in the name of public safety, they can have the unintended (intended?) consequence of making law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to criminal activity.

By limiting access to these self-defense tools, states and municipalities may inadvertently tip the scales in favor of criminals who are less likely to adhere to such laws in the first place. Consequently, debates around these restrictions must carefully consider the balance between public safety and individual rights to self-defense.

Case Studies: Self-Defense Weapons in Action

  1. Florida, 2018: A woman used a stun gun to fend off a man who tried to assault her in a parking lot. The police later caught the man, and the woman was unharmed. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of non-lethal self-defense tools.

  2. Oregon, 2016: A female jogger successfully used pepper spray against an attacker approaching her from behind. The attacker was temporarily blinded, allowing the woman to escape and contact law enforcement.

  3. Texas, 2019: A homeowner used a firearm to protect his family during a home invasion. The would-be robbers were armed and dangerous, and the situation could have escalated disastrously if the homeowner had been disarmed.

Let’s delve into some additional case studies demonstrating the utility of self-defense tools in various situations. These examples shed light on how empowering law-abiding citizens can effectively deter criminal activity and protect lives.

Case Study 4: Michigan, 2017

In this case, a woman was walking to her car late at night when she was approached by a stranger who attempted to snatch her purse. Using a concealed pepper spray canister, the woman was able to incapacitate her assailant temporarily, providing her with enough time to retreat to a safe distance and call for help. The police later arrested the man, and it was discovered that he had a history of robberies.

Case Study 5: Georgia, 2020

A homeowner, who is also a military veteran, found himself in a perilous situation when three armed men broke into his house. Realizing that he was outgunned but not defenseless, the homeowner used his legally owned firearm to ward off the intruders. He managed to injure one, and the others fled. Law enforcement praised him for his quick thinking and bravery, as the intruders had already been linked to other violent home invasions.

Case Study 6: California, 2019

In a state where stun guns are legal but highly regulated, a young college student was able to purchase one for her protection. One evening, she was followed by a suspicious individual while walking through a dimly lit parking lot. After issuing several verbal warnings to her follower, she used her stun gun when he continued to advance. The electrical shock caused him to fall to the ground, allowing her to run to her car and lock herself in until the police arrived.

Case Study 7: Ohio, 2018

A woman was out for a late-afternoon run in a public park where firearms are legally prohibited. She was approached by a man who began harassing her verbally before escalating to physical intimidation. The woman, who had taken self-defense courses, deployed her pocket-sized pepper spray. Not only did this act deter her would-be assailant, but other park-goers were also alerted to the situation, and they assisted in detaining the man until law enforcement arrived.

Case Study 8: Arizona, 2021

A convenience store owner who had been the victim of repeated burglaries decided to exercise his Second Amendment rights by keeping a shotgun under the counter. The owner was prepared when a masked robber entered his store demanding money. He drew his shotgun, causing the robber to flee empty-handed. The store’s security footage was instrumental in apprehending the suspect, who was later linked to several other robberies in the area.

These case studies show that self-defense tools, be they firearms, pepper spray, or stun guns, can serve as critical, lifesaving measures for law-abiding citizens. By highlighting these examples, we underscore the importance of empowering citizens rather than disarming them, especially in the face of persistent and unpredictable threats to personal safety.

The Gendered Impact of Disarmament Policies

By limiting access to self-defense tools, we disproportionately affect women, who often rely on non-lethal means to protect themselves. This makes them more vulnerable to criminals who know that their potential victims are less likely to be able to defend themselves. Policies that restrict the carrying of self-defense tools ignore the reality that women are more likely to be victims of certain types of crime, such as sexual assault and domestic violence.


The intricate landscape of gun violence and personal safety is one that defies simplistic solutions. Policies aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens can have a paradoxical effect—instead of fostering safer communities, they may inadvertently embolden criminals who ignore such restrictions. This dynamic becomes especially troubling when one considers that the impact of these policies often falls disproportionately on society’s most vulnerable members—women, the elderly, and residents of high-crime areas, among others.

The debate on this subject isn’t merely an ideological or constitutional contestation. It’s a pressing, practical issue that has life-and-death implications. The right to self-defense is not an abstract concept penned into existence by lawmakers but a deeply rooted human instinct shaped by millennia of evolution and social structure. Stripping individuals of effective self-defense tools like firearms, pepper spray, or stun guns doesn’t nullify this instinct; it only suppresses it, sometimes with tragic consequences.

Moreover, restrictions often create a false sense of security, leading people to believe they are safer when, in reality, they may be more vulnerable. In many cases, these restrictions have been shown to disarm the law-abiding populace without doing much to curb criminal activity. After all, someone intent on causing harm is unlikely to be deterred by regulations on self-defense tools.

As we contemplate the future of public safety policy, it’s imperative to scrutinize the stated intentions behind laws and their actual outcomes. Policymaking should be driven by empirical evidence and broad societal needs rather than reactive emotional responses to high-profile incidents. In this complex equation, the variable of personal freedom and the natural right to self-defense cannot be undervalued.

We must be circumspect in our approach, careful to avoid unintended outcomes that make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable while doing little to deter criminal behavior. Going forward, a well-balanced, thoughtful approach that respects individual liberties and fosters community safety should be the cornerstone of our policy initiatives.

As always, be safe and be prepared.


See Also:



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *