Because being armed for self-defense will bring down society, apparently.

Over at Mr. Huffmans' place, found this.  I'm going to leave Idiot Beauchamp alone and speak about something in the post by Jacobs:
But what troubles me most about this suggestion — and the general More Guns approach to social ills — is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian “war of every man against every man” in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now — but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
Apparently people having the arms needed for self-defense will cause the absolute abandonment of civil society; which I think absolute bullshit. 

In order: individual citizens having arms no more pushes the 'abandonment of civil society' than everyone having the ability to speak their piece(like here, for instance) does.  It was taken for granted for a LONG time that any citizen had the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary when under threat; I think it's pretty recent that idiots have been insisting(as in the current laws in (fG)Britain) that you can only defend yourself as long as you don't hurt your attacker and other such idiocy.  The means of self-defense no more attacks civil society than does the right of self-defense itself.

Second: apparently Mr. Jacobs thinks that the mere possession of arms will cause people to want to attack anyone in sight any time they get frustrated or mad, going to 'war against every man'.  Which brings us to the 'evil objects affecting our minds' bullshit.  If that was going to happen, the massacres screamingly foretold by every gun bigot and hoplophobe when a state voted for CCW would have happened.  The only 'war against every man' is committed by people like gangbangers and rapists and Occutards and other types who don't exactly count as civil society.

Third: That 'high-powered recourse' is the best- and for some people damn near the only- means of self-defense that will work for them.  Someone old, or sick, or handicapped NEEDS an equalizer beyond what might be approved by Jacobs; or will they get a special exemption(that'll last until someone decides they don't need it)?  For that matter, say, a woman at home with kids: someone breaks in and puts them at risk, maybe Jacobs thinks it fine for her to be restricted to trying to hide everyone in a bedroom, or wielding a bat or baton, but I'm not.  I want her to be able to use whatever is needed to stop the attacker, whether the hoplophobes and gun bigots like it or not.

And all this doesn't even touch on that basic 2nd Amendment obstacle to his preferences.

Jacobs doesn't trust the peasants to be allowed arms.  It doesn't fit with his preferred image of society.  Screw 'im.