This seems like a simple and logical thought process that leads to a clear conclusion about protection which is either:

1) provided by the government which is convincingly and proven to be reactionary.  Though not discussed in the article by making not change and not taking a stand you are only hoping the police arrive in time,

2) increased security in which case there are potentially great costs and several potential challenges / complications (note his use of the term “Enclaves”…it just sounds like the elites will be the ones who benefit, 0r

3) supporting pro-gun traditions.