Vootele Voit ⟩ Firearm in the hands of a citizen: a danger or guarantee of a safe society?

Glock pistol. Photo: Wikipedia.org

• A gun owner is disciplined and law-abiding.
• A country where citizens are trusted with firearms also instills them with a will to defend.
• The safety of a firearm depends solely on the owner, not the number of guns.

Representatives of our law enforcement agencies unanimously claim that Estonia is so safe that we no longer need firearms to protect our property and ourselves. Paradoxically, a legal gun owner is much more disciplined and law-abiding than someone who has no contact with firearms, Vootele Voit, a member of the management board of the Estonian Gun Owners Association, believes.

When I applied for my first gun license years ago, several people asked why I needed it. I replied, do you have a fire extinguisher? Why do you need it? Are you planning to set your house on fire? And if a fire does break out, call the fire department.

Representatives of our law enforcement agencies unanimously claim that Estonia is so safe that we no longer need firearms to protect our property and ourselves.

Using the same rhetoric, one could ask, why do Tallink's ships have lifeboats? The last serious accident happened 30 years ago. Over the years, shipping has become much safer, the ships are secure, and help is always nearby. But is it always?

Yes, we live in great times. The streets are safe, there is no terrorism or war on our small patch of land. Organized crime no longer offers «protection» but operates somewhere in the cyberspace. Nevertheless, we still read news about someone having been attacked in the street or a rabid dog attacking a person, causing life-threatening injuries. But why not call the police? Such an attack can escalate in minutes, and unfortunately, the police are not always nearby. It is even worse in rural areas, where the nearest patrol might arrive in 20-30 minutes. Meanwhile, people must be able to protect themselves.

Is a gun owner a danger to other people? This question cannot be discussed without recalling the shooting near Lihula in the summer of 2020, which resulted in several deaths. Unfortunately, one must realize that this was a regrettable isolated incident, not the result of overly liberal gun policies.

About fifty people die in traffic accidents every year. Sometimes tragic accidents occur involving people who should not be driving — such as a reckless driver causing a chain collision on Laagna Road or an unwell pensioner running someone over at a crosswalk. Yet we do not debate banning personal cars altogether or demand strict justifications from car buyers about why they need a car. Why do they not use public transport? Maybe they can manage with a taxi or a cargo bike?

Owning a gun does not create a sense of invincibility or a desire to show off; rather, it makes the owner avoid unnecessary conflicts.

Paradoxically, a legal gun owner is much more disciplined and law-abiding than someone who has no contact with firearms. A weapons permit changes a person – when the state trusts someone with greater power, a sense of responsibility also arises. Owning a gun does not create a sense of invincibility or a desire to show off; rather, it makes the owner avoid unnecessary conflicts. Any use of a gun generally leads to the suspension of the weapons permit and a criminal investigation. If it turns out that the gun owner drew the weapon in the wrong place, let alone exceeded the limits of self-defense, they face severe punishment and will permanently lose their weapon and permit.

What is the benefit of a personal firearm if a hostile neighbour attacks our country? One does not go to the front line with a pistol or revolver.

In this connection, one must not forget territorial defense, or guerrilla warfare, where the enemy knows that the entire local population is against them and must always fear that from any bush, attic or cellar window a gun might be pointed at them. This includes the protection of one's home and loved ones, neighbourhood watch, and the protection of public facilities from looters, saboteurs, and other hostile units.

The ancient Romans had a saying, «Si vis pacem, para bellum» («If you want peace, prepare for war»). This can also be interpreted as «peace through strength» and applies both at the state and societal level. A state that wants to live in peace must be able to defend itself if necessary. The stronger the society, the less likely it is that anyone will try to attack it. In a country whose leaders trust their citizens with guns, the people also have the will to defend themselves. This can be seen in many countries – from our close neighbors the Finns, to Switzerland, the Czech Republic, or Israel.

Moreover, when it comes to shooting skills, there is no fundamental difference whether we talk about pistols or rifles. If a person practices shooting with a personal pistol in peacetime and is given a rifle in wartime, they will undoubtedly be a much better shooter than someone who has never practiced shooting.

If someone wants to acquire a personal firearm today, they essentially have three common purposes to choose from: ensuring security, that is protecting themselves and their property, shooting sports, and hunting. The purposes also include collecting, re-enactment of historical events, and professional use, but these will not be discussed at length here.

Acquiring a sport firearm requires regular and active participation in a shooting sports club engaged in internationally recognized disciplines. A hunting firearm is intended for hunting purposes and requires a hunting permit to possess.

Unfortunately, the Police and Border Guard Board does not accept the fact that shooting can also be a fun hobby.

Thus, the only justification for applying for a weapons permit that remains for a gun enthusiast today is «ensuring security». Unfortunately, in recent years, the Police and Border Guard Board has been taking this literally and demands thorough explanations as to why a person suddenly wants to use a gun to protect themselves and their property. Applying for a second or third gun for the same purpose has become virtually impossible. A common rubber-stamp response from an official is that one gun is enough for self-defense and people do not defend themselves with multiple guns at once.

Unfortunately, the Police and Border Guard Board does not accept the fact that shooting can also be a fun hobby and a leisure activity. Just as some people ride mountain bikes or surfboards, others want to occasionally go to the range to shoot and develop their skills.

Joining a sports club is not a universal solution for all shooting enthusiasts. Firstly, it means additional expenses for club membership fees, sport-specific courses, and later regular qualification competitions. Secondly, not every casual hobbyist has the ambition to compete alongside top athletes.

One can take up to 14 different golf clubs to the course, but if an enthusiast wants more than one or two guns for shooting in a range, they are likely to get a negative response from the Police and Border Guard Board, stating, «you don’t need that many guns for self-defense».

Is owning multiple guns dangerous? Again, officials claim that «every new gun is an additional danger». How so? Remember, the same official just said, «you don't defend yourself with multiple guns at once». The other guns are in the safe!

Gun laws impose quite strict requirements on gun storage. Guns must not be left lying around; they must always be stored in a special gun safe with a secure lock. Even the simplest gun safe must be made of at least 3-millimeter-thick steel plate and fixed to a wall or building structure. Cartridges and ammunition must be stored separately in a locked compartment.

It would be equally reasonable to claim that the more cars a person has in their garage, the more likely they are to cause an accident. A car does not crash without a driver, and a gun does not fire on its own. The safety of a firearm depends on the owner and their gun culture alone, not on how many barrels they have in their safe.