Can Security Be Without Guns?

In a movie I saw, the character of the movie said that security means weapons.

He was right, you can't drive away bandits or enemies who have attacked your country by persuasion.

You will need weapons!

Even if you say that what God gives, God takes away, even if you are anti-war, if your country is under enemy occupation, you have to, you will take that gun in your hand and if necessary you will kill mankind. 

If you think that you are pro-peace, anti-war, human rights, etc., you will just get a bullet in the middle of your forehead.

***

It is one thing to have weapons at the state level, but in normal states not just anyone is allowed to carry a weapon. 

The people's right to bear arms was taken under state control centuries ago. 

For centuries, for us Turks, the horse, the woman and the gun have been a matter of honor, but first we gave up the horse and then the gun. Fortunately, avrat is still considered a matter of honor.

***

States naturally have armed forces to ensure security and public order; normal citizens do not need to carry weapons. When there is an incident, the state is expected to take over the situation by force of arms.

It is only possible for a normal citizen to carry a gun by obtaining a license. 

Although there is the right to bear arms, as far as I know, the conditions for obtaining a gun license are quite strict.

Anyway, it is a good thing that not everyone is given the right to carry a gun right away, as they say, guns are out and chivalry is over. If anyone has a problem, let them rely on the power of their fists. Attacking with a treacherous weapon from a distance is not what a manly person would do. In any case, I don't think anyone who has a problem should resort to brute force, it is better to sit down and try to talk first.

***

It is much easier to get a gun in America than in almost any other country.

It is written in their constitution that people have the right to bear arms.

While in most countries the right to bear arms is kept under control with certain limitations, in America, in case the state makes an illegal armed intervention against its own citizens, citizens are allowed to protect themselves even against the state, and everyone is given the right to own a gun and use it when necessary!

Of course, in this situation, armed incidents are much higher in America than in other countries.

Even children can take a gun from home and create their friends at school.

They were talking about an interesting case recently.

In the case of a boy who recently shot his friends at school with a gun, the court also found the boy's mother guilty. 

The court ruled that the mother, as the parent, should have checked whether the child had taken the gun with him to school. For now only the mother has been charged, but they are going to try the father in the same way.

What can I say, every country has its own problems.

This is an interesting case where the parents are also accused of a crime committed by the child. 

It will probably be a model verdict for similar cases in the US in the future.

***

I actually think about something else when it comes to guns.

Generally, people who acquire guns acquire them for self-protection.

As far as I know, people's right to protect themselves is also written in our laws.

Article 36 of the Constitution: 

"Everyone has the right to claim and defend himself as a plaintiff or defendant before the judicial authorities and to a fair trial by the use of legitimate means and remedies", but I think this article does not directly mention the right to self-protection. I think this is more about the right to a fair trial.

There is also Article 17 of the Constitution. This article reads as follows: 

"Everyone has the right to life, to the protection and improvement of his material and spiritual existence."

Of course, "protecting one's material and spiritual existence" is mentioned here in a very broad sense, but it is not explicitly written in this article to protect oneself by carrying a gun, to defend oneself in a sense, as in the US.

Anyway, not everything is clearly written in constitutions. Constitutions are rather comprehensive social consensus documents. 

In our country, there is probably no one among normal people who opens the cover of the constitution and wonders what is written in it. Only if you become a lawyer or something, you will know the constitution. As far as I know, this is not even a requirement for judges.

Just kidding!

Joking, of course, but the fact that the president of the constitutional court did not react at all to the words of the president of the constitutional court who said that there are provisions of the constitution that need to be taken into account at the appointment ceremony of the last appointed member of the constitutional court is proof, I think, of the state of affairs we are in.

***

Anyway, aside from these developments that resemble the backlash of elephants, if we return to our subject, the details are mostly written in the laws.

In fact, in our laws, self-protection is called "self-defense" and the details are written in Article 25/1 of the Turkish Penal Code: 

"No penalty is imposed on the perpetrator for the acts committed with the obligation to defend an unjustified attack, which is directed against himself or someone else's right, which has occurred, is likely to occur or recur, in a manner proportionate to the attack according to the situation and conditions at the time."

The law defines self-defense as "in proportion to the attack". This means that if they attack you with a gun, you can fight back with a gun!

Since it is called proportionate, logic dictates this.

Tit for tat!

But in order to do that, you need to have a gun. 

In order to carry a gun, you need to get a license in advance! 

They ask the man why you want to get a gun license when you apply for a license. 

As far as I know, they don't give licenses to just anyone. At least I know they don't.

What do you need a gun license for?

To protect myself in proportion to the attack!

Would they give you a gun license if you say that?

As far as I know, it is only possible to get a gun license for certain professions and people in certain positions. I don't know, I guess certain professions in the state are already allowed to carry weapons by law, and those who receive such threats, and professions under high responsibility are given the right to own a gun.

I guess you can't get a gun license by saying that I have the right to protect myself proportionally if I am under an armed attack.

In America, on the other hand, everyone has the right to own a gun. Let alone a simple pistol, Americans can even own a tank if they want.

***

Yes, we started from a simple sentence that I heard in the movie, "security means guns", and that's how far we've come.

Can security really only be provided with a gun?

Was the character of the movie telling the truth when he said that security means guns?

Okay, when you are a state, your armed forces will have strong weapons, you will have a trained army and for us Turks, "Every Turk is born a soldier!" is our motto from our ancestors.

Even though the word "soldier" is a masculine word here, it doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman, every Turk is born a soldier!

Still, there is such a thing as soft power in addition to armed brute force, and soft power is often a much more effective security method.

You will be so strong that you will have a lot of power both in terms of armed forces, economically and culturally! 

And you will know diplomacy very well. 

Other states will not dare to mess with you, nor will they want to take such a risk commercially, nor will they think of such a thing because of your cultural power. Being culturally dominant is perhaps the most important of all.

And if they insist too much, you will know how to overcome the dangers with your diplomatic skills and your agile state mind.

If you are one way today and another tomorrow, you will turn into a lying shepherd.

For example, you will play such a trick on the British, who insist on keeping their embassy in Istanbul, that their ambassador will be forced to attend your invitation in Ankara and cancel his own invitation in Istanbul.

By the way, King Charles has cancer, he had to wait all this time to become king and now he has cancer. 

I think his son is luckier, I hope he doesn't have to say goodbye to this life early because of cancer.

For some reason the British still cling to the monarchy. At the same time they are one of the most democratic countries in the world.

I think this is actually a contradiction!

***

I think the saying that security is a weapon is true, but a bit incomplete. 

Security is both weapons, economic power, cultural power and good diplomacy.

Above all, it is being a man of your word. When you are so flamboyant, you cannot impose your will on anyone. On the contrary, they will find a flaw in you and play you like a clown.

Also, I guess you shouldn't meddle in such complicated things all the time, if you want security, you should stay out of trouble. Unless, of course, trouble finds you, then, as I said, you have to be strong.

Today I have written an article without much purpose, but still I have analyzed the relationship between weapons and security.

Love and respect to everyone from Moscow.