There was a warning issued that ISIS has released a list of thousands of churches on United States soil that they have threatened to attack. This list covers churches in all 50 States and is said to be planned during the holiday season. A firearm instructor and trainer has come forward to offer armed protection for Christmas day services, and is willing to go as far as a 10 hour drive to assist any church that would desire his services.
James Yeager can be a controversial figure that can polarize an audience, but love him or hate him you have to respect his commitment to assisting his fellow citizens in a time of need. Yeager has in the past come out to assist the Bundy Ranch and provided armed guard for the civilians during the 2014 stand off against the Bureau of Land Management. Based off of his past assistance to citizens needing legitimate armed protection, his offer of giving armed assistance to a church that requests his presence should be taken as valid. Furthermore being as how he's willing to drive up to 10 hours, on Christmas day, to offer armed protection to strangers rather than spend the day with his family is a shining example of the armed civilian in the United States.
This isn't unique behaviour for a armed US citizen, and in times of need US civilians have stepped forward to offer armed assistance within the framework of the law. From high profile events like Dylan DeBoard coming forward to save Cpl. Michael Wheeler of Ohio’s Mt. Vernon Police Department by using his personal pistol, or Vic Stacey using his personal pistol to save the life of Sgt. Steven Means from an armed attacker. In fact law abiding armed citizens are well respected and relied on by Police in States that allow citizens to carry firearms.
So this bears the question of what makes the armed US citizen so largely responsible with firearm ownership and toward their community? When the Police can't cover all of the churches this holiday season, the armed US citizen can lend a hand to fill the gap in armed protection. Why is this able to happen in the US, while if the same threat were made in Canada you wouldn't see the same protection offered by the armed Canadian civilian? Is it because of the difference in law, or is it because of a difference in attitude?
In both the US and Canada armed civilians are largely responsible people, and as we've shown in our previous article "Exploring the myth that Canada is more peaceful than the US; by the numbers" in the US concealed carry permit holding citizens have less of a statistical chance of committing a crime than the Police. The Canadian firearm owner is also statistically unlikely to commit any type of violent crime, yet the Government doesn't allow the firearm owner to be able to protect their neighbour without facing the backlash of criminal charges typically pressed by the Crown.
One could speculate that the difference between the US and Canadian citizen is within the law itself, but it's equally found in the Canadian citizen. For the Canadian citizen, it's largely accepted that rights and freedoms are granted to us by the government, where as with the US citizen they accept that they are born with rights and freedoms. In Canada a firearm owner is suspect by default, and if they offer armed protection in a public area they would surely face charges. Where those same charges may be pressed against the US citizen, the armed US citizen will still commit to defense of themselves and their community regardless of what the Government thinks of their actions.
This is an area where Canadians can learn from our southern neighbours. Not only should we challenge our horrible self defense and firearms laws at every legal opportunity granted to us, but we should support those that do it for us no matter if we agree with the person's stance or not. The Canadian firearm owner needs to take care of their community, and their presence should be that of an ally to the Police and able to fill the gap where Police presence isn't available. It's a sad thought that this Christmas day if a terrorist attack were to occur on US soil and be stopped by an ordinary armed civilian they would be a hero, where as in Canada that same circumstance would have the civilian viewed as a criminal if in the action of saving their community they broke any of our draconian firearms laws. This needs to change, and firearm owners need to stand together united in order to do it.