The joys of gun control
Robin Smith
Ahh , the joys of gun control.
Pre WWII Germany , who was allowed to own a firearm (irrespective of
type , action or calibre) without a shred of official paperwork ?
The SS , SA (brownshirts) , Hitler youth groups , Deathshead groups and
the Gestapo.
Now who wasn't allowed to own a firearm what so ever ?
Jews , any foreign nations , known homosexuals and anyone else the
Nazi's considered "unreliable".
The result:
13 MILLION men, women and children were killed.
If you don't believe me take a look at http://www.jpfo.org/
To all those who advocate gun control , how does it feel to be a Nazi
sympathiser ?
Cheers
Robin
Sabsy
Robin Smith wrote in message <34C30A...@eng.alcatel.altron.co.za>...
>To all those who advocate gun control , how does it feel to be a Nazi
>sympathiser ?
That is quite a leap, isn't it?
I thought Nazism was an ideology much more involved that advocating gun
control.
My views are farther from Nazism than most of the advocates of gun ownership
For one, look at the AWB. They even use the Swastika.
Henri-John Kock
Sabsy wrote:
> >To all those who advocate gun control , how does it feel to be a Nazi
> >sympathiser ?
>
> That is quite a leap, isn't it?
> I thought Nazism was an ideology much more involved that advocating gun
> control.
> My views are farther from Nazism than most of the advocates of gun ownership
Well, let's name some other gun controllers:
Pol Pot
Josef Stalin
Muammar Ghadaffi
Saddam Hussain
Khomeni
(In fact, gun control can be seen as one of the steps to tyranny.)
H-J
Sabsy
Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C32B26...@cs.up.ac.za>...
>> That is quite a leap, isn't it?
>> I thought Nazism was an ideology much more involved that advocating gun
>> control.
>> My views are farther from Nazism than most of the advocates of gun
ownership
>
>Well, let's name some other gun controllers:
Interesting that you deleted the part about AWB
Was it for reason of space conservation, or that you did not want to be
aligned with AWB and KKK, who are against gun control?
Henri-John Kock
Sabsy wrote:
> Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C32B26...@cs.up.ac.za>...
> >
> >Well, let's name some other gun controllers:
>
> Interesting that you deleted the part about AWB
> Was it for reason of space conservation, or that you did not want to be
> aligned with AWB and KKK, who are against gun control?
Space considerations, namely that my NNTP server won't accept that has more
included text than new text. For the record: The AWB and the KKK are racist
organisations, I don't subscribe to their racist views and I believe that the
world would be better off without organisations like these.
It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the most notorious dictators
and violators of human rights were very much in favour of gun control.
H-J
Sabsy
Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C36006...@cs.up.ac.za>...
>It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the most notorious dictators
>and violators of human rights were very much in favour of gun control.
Nor does it change the fact that racists are for gun ownership
You claim to be no racist and I claim to be no communist
So, why even mention these things
Henri-John Kock
Sabsy wrote:
> Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C36006...@cs.up.ac.za>...
> >It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the most notorious dictators
> >and violators of human rights were very much in favour of gun control.
>
> Nor does it change the fact that racists are for gun ownership
Well, there are probably just as many people who aren't racist and are for legal
gun ownership. What have we found ? Gunownership has nothing to do with racism.
> You claim to be no racist and I claim to be no communist
> So, why even mention these things
Fine. Racism and Communism is not mentioned ( I didn't start the NAZI supporter
thread, by the way). The point is still that a lot of dictators and violators of
human rights were for gun control (when it suited them).
H-J
Sabsy
Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C36B8E...@cs.up.ac.za>...
>Fine. Racism and Communism is not mentioned ( I didn't start the NAZI
supporter
>thread, by the way). The point is still that a lot of dictators and
violators of
>human rights were for gun control (when it suited them).
As are many violators of human rights and racists are for gun ownership
Still, proves nothing
>
>H-J
>
>
AvaTar269
Ok be nice I'm new here :)
>>Fine. Racism and Communism is not mentioned ( I didn't start the NAZI
>supporter
>>thread, by the way). The point is still that a lot of dictators and
>violators of
>>human rights were for gun control (when it suited them).
>
The issue of who was historically for , or against gun control seems to me
to be largely irrelevant. Gun Control is a civil rights issue only in that
it is the right of every human being to be protected by the government from
being gunned down in the street.
The whole issue of a 'so called' right to bear arms strikes me as ludicrous
in this day and age. Should anyone really have the right to own a device
which has the sole purpose of killing?
Harsh gun control laws, if efficiently enforced, should in the long term
reduce violent crime to a level sufficient to negate the argument that
weapons are needed for self-defence.
The only other argument that exists in favour of a right to bear arms is the
idea that an 'armed' populace would have the ability to carry out a popular
uprising should they become disatisified with the government in power.
Haven't we seen enough Civil Wars throughout human history to finally
realise that violent uprisings create more problems than they solve?
So, show me a good argument for a right to bear arms?
Adios
Will
Henri-John Kock
AvaTar269 wrote:
> Ok be nice I'm new here :)
>
Fine. You be nice in return.
> >The point is still that a lot of dictators and
> >violators of
> >>human rights were for gun control (when it suited them).
> >
>
> The issue of who was historically for , or against gun control seems to me
> to be largely irrelevant. Gun Control is a civil rights issue only in that
> it is the right of every human being to be protected by the government from
> being gunned down in the street.
Well, yes and no. It's largely the individual's responsibility to look after
his/her immediate safety and security needs. Think practically: We can't have a
policeman to guard each and every individual's house, and another to be a
personal bodyguard for every individual (at least, not on the government's
expense). If individuals can afford to pay for such a service, fine. Not at
government expense. It's the government's responsibility to look after general
law and order, so that a culture of not-gunning-people-down-in-the-street
exists. That is done by making sure that there's sufficient policing to make the
committing of a crime a reasonable risk, whether that be of getting caught in
the act, or of getting caught by investigators after the fact. Furthermore, the
law enforcers have to be competent enough to build a strong case against
suspects, and the judiciary must be able to successfully prosecute suspects and
punish them to the full extent of the law. Your immediate safety is still your
own concern, however. That's why Bexforce and other security companies are doing
so well at the moment..
> The whole issue of a 'so called' right to bear arms strikes me as ludicrous
> in this day and age. Should anyone really have the right to own a device
> which has the sole purpose of killing?
As long as there's a significant number of people who own these devices
illegally, and are thus a threat to the legal members of society, yes,
law-abiding citizens with clean records should have that right. Killing isn't a
gun's sole purpose, BTW. Gunowners can fire 1000's of shots from their guns, and
never kill anything.
> Harsh gun control laws, if efficiently enforced, should in the long term
> reduce violent crime to a level sufficient to negate the argument that
> weapons are needed for self-defence.
The situation in the UK seems to suggest otherwise. Has there been a marked
decrease in violent crime during the last 9 months ? The last couple of years
(there have been strict gun laws in the UK since the late 80's). All that it'll
stop is gun-related homicide. A violent criminal will be violent with whatever
he/she can lay his/her hands on.
> The only other argument that exists in favour of a right to bear arms is the
> idea that an 'armed' populace would have the ability to carry out a popular
> uprising should they become disatisified with the government in power.
It's one of the arguments, but not the only argument.
> Haven't we seen enough Civil Wars throughout human history to finally
> realise that violent uprisings create more problems than they solve?
> So, show me a good argument for a right to bear arms?
Tell us about these problems. Cite examples. What would have happened if the ANC
didn't resort to the armed struggle ? How about the French resistance in WWII ?
I grant that not all armed uprisings are good, but not all are bad either.
> Adios
>
> Will
You're not the guy who writes as Will Williams, are you ?
H-J
AvaTar269
Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C6F278...@cs.up.ac.za>...
>
>AvaTar269 wrote:
>
>> Ok be nice I'm new here :)
>>
>
>Fine. You be nice in return.
Agreed :-)
>
>> The issue of who was historically for , or against gun control seems to
me
>> to be largely irrelevant. Gun Control is a civil rights issue only in
that
>> it is the right of every human being to be protected by the government
from
>> being gunned down in the street.
>
>Well, yes and no. It's largely the individual's responsibility to look
after
>his/her immediate safety and security needs. Think practically: We can't
have a
>policeman to guard each and every individual's house, and another to be a
>personal bodyguard for every individual (at least, not on the government's
>expense). If individuals can afford to pay for such a service, fine. Not
Agreed, that would clearly be impractical and I also agree that personal
safety is to a large degree something which individuals need to take care of
themselves, but to what degree? Lock all your doors at night, close the
windows when you go out, maybe even install an alarm system. Don't walk
down deserted streets with money hanging out your pockets, don't hitchhike
in a mini-skirt. The list of things you can do to look after your own
safety are endless, but should I be required to arm myself? Should my
family? Does my wife have to put the .38 in her handbag when she goes
shopping in case she gets mugged in the parking lot? When we come home late
at night should I take the safety off the 9mm and check the clip b4 I get
out of the car, just in case?
I am purposely using extreme examples here to drive home a point and the
point is that gun-culture is about living in fear. People buy guns for
self-defence not because it's about comonsense and it's their responsibility
to look after their own safety. They buy them because they are *afraid* of
being attacked by violent criminals.
As a law abiding citizens in a civilised nation approaching the millenium I
don't think we should have to live in fear anymore, do you?
at
>government expense. It's the government's responsibility to look after
general
>law and order, so that a culture of not-gunning-people-down-in-the-street
>exists.
This is perfectly true and if the government was capable of creating a
sufficienly gunning-down-in-the-street free society then why would you still
feel the need to arm yourself. Yes I'm fully aware that South Africa is
nowhere even close to this goal at the moment, but isn't this what we should
striving for?
>own concern, however. That's why Bexforce and other security companies are
doing
>so well at the moment..
I'm sure they are and sure that many gun shops are thriving as well.
>
>> The whole issue of a 'so called' right to bear arms strikes me as
ludicrous
>> in this day and age. Should anyone really have the right to own a device
>> which has the sole purpose of killing?
>
>As long as there's a significant number of people who own these devices
>illegally, and are thus a threat to the legal members of society, yes,
>law-abiding citizens with clean records should have that right. Killing
Now there's the rub. I saw another posting in this group citing some
statistics about Canada I believe and I cannot deny that this is a
compelling argument, but I don't think it's someth9ing we should just
accept. In an environment where the legal ownership of firearms is heavily
regulated I believe that if a concerted effort was made by law enforcement
to focus it's efforts on the confiscation of illegal firearms and if
legislation was in place to deal with those found with illegal firearms in
the harshest manner (and I mean harsh) that this issue could eventually be
overcome. Yes there will always be criminals and some of them will always
find ways to arm themselves I am not so naive as to believe we can ever
change this, but if we can reduce violent crime to an acceptable level then
I don't believe that decent citizens would feel the need to walk around
packing a six-shooter.
isn't a
>gun's sole purpose, BTW. Gunowners can fire 1000's of shots from their
guns, and
>never kill anything.
This is a valid point. My argument is not for gun banning, just very
tightly enforced control. I so no reason why intelligent legislation could
not allow firearm related sports to continue.
>
>> Harsh gun control laws, if efficiently enforced, should in the long term
>> reduce violent crime to a level sufficient to negate the argument that
>> weapons are needed for self-defence.
>
>The situation in the UK seems to suggest otherwise. Has there been a marked
>decrease in violent crime during the last 9 months ? The last couple of
years
>(there have been strict gun laws in the UK since the late 80's). All that
it'll
>stop is gun-related homicide. A violent criminal will be violent with
whatever
>he/she can lay his/her hands on.
I don't agree that the situation in the UK indicates otherwise. I have
recently returned from an 18 month stay in London and I can tell you 1st
hand that the crime situation there isn't even comparable to what we have
here. During my stay I only had 2 1st hand accounts of crimes taking place.
In one case a colleague of mines house was robbed while he was at work and
in another a friend of mine who was very drunk got beaten up by some punks
at a seedy nightclub (I'm not even sure if this counts as he is a loudmouth
and may well have provoked them :-) In South Africa can think (and this is
just off the top of my head) of at least 4 people I know personally who have
had vehicles stolen, or broken into - sometimes more than once, two people
who have been mugged (one violently) and at least 5 people who have been
burgled. I know these are hardly solid statistics I know, but I believe
that there is an ambient level of fear for one's own personal saftey through
direct exposure to crime and it is far higher in this country than it is in
the UK, where most of the police force is only armed with truncheons. I do
also realise that this is not something we can achieve overnight, but does
that mean we shouldn't strive for it?
>
>> The only other argument that exists in favour of a right to bear arms is
the
>> idea that an 'armed' populace would have the ability to carry out a
popular
>> uprising should they become disatisified with the government in power.
>
>It's one of the arguments, but not the only argument.
Hmm, they're the only two strong arguments I've heard - I'd be happy to hear
any others you know of.
>
>> Haven't we seen enough Civil Wars throughout human history to finally
>> realise that violent uprisings create more problems than they solve?
>> So, show me a good argument for a right to bear arms?
>
>Tell us about these problems. Cite examples. What would have happened if
the ANC
>didn't resort to the armed struggle ? How about the French resistance in
WWII ?
>I grant that not all armed uprisings are good, but not all are bad either.
>
You make a valid point nevertheless I cannot help feel that it's time the
human race started outgrowing the idea that resorting to violence is a valid
method to use in political conflict.
I do not have facts and figures at my fingertips - if you really want i'll
go away and do some research, but look at the state Zimbabwe is in, look at
an number of African and South American nations that have spent countless
years locked in bloody struggles over who will be the next dictator to be
overthrown.
>> Adios
>>
>> Will
>
>You're not the guy who writes as Will Williams, are you ?
>
>H-J
Nope fraid not, like I said I'm new, this is only my 3rd posting to this
group, but I plan to stick around - btw you make some good arguments and I
like your style - I hope we can continue to discuss this amicably :-)
Adios
Will
Henri-John Kock
Will wrote:
> >expense). If individuals can afford to pay for such a service, fine. Not
>
> Agreed, that would clearly be impractical and I also agree that personal
> safety is to a large degree something which individuals need to take care of
>
[snippage for NNTP reasons]
> family? Does my wife have to put the .38 in her handbag when she goes
> shopping in case she gets mugged in the parking lot? When we come home late
> at night should I take the safety off the 9mm and check the clip b4 I get
> out of the car, just in case?
Well, judging by the way that some hijackings happen (in the owner's driveway),
yes, it might not be a bad idea to be ready for anything. I agree, if you go
looking for trouble (like walking into and AWB owned bar and shouting Amandla!),
you'll find it. I'm more concerned by the kind of trouble that finds you.
> I am purposely using extreme examples here to drive home a point and the
> point is that gun-culture is about living in fear. People buy guns for
> self-defence not because it's about comonsense and it's their responsibility
> to look after their own safety. They buy them because they are *afraid* of
> being attacked by violent criminals.
Well, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're *not* out to get
you :-). I see where you're coming from. I agree, one shouldn't live in fear.
One can, however, be ready and prepared so that if the worst happens, you'll
know what to do.
> As a law abiding citizens in a civilised nation approaching the millenium I
> don't think we should have to live in fear anymore, do you?
Agreed. There are, however, some outlaws who disagree. I think at the moment
they are calling the shots (pardon the pun). I drove down the M1 yesterday, got
off at Greyston drive. Yes, just about where the big heist occurred. It was
slightly scary to see markings on the tarmac (circles spraypainted) which
possibly denote bullet strikes.
> >law and order, so that a culture of not-gunning-people-down-in-the-street
> >exists.
>
> This is perfectly true and if the government was capable of creating a
> sufficienly gunning-down-in-the-street free society then why would you still
> feel the need to arm yourself. Yes I'm fully aware that South Africa is
> nowhere even close to this goal at the moment, but isn't this what we should
> striving for?
I agree, a law-abiding society is what we're all striving for. One wonders when
such a society will be here in South Africa.
> >As long as there's a significant number of people who own these devices
> >illegally, and are thus a threat to the legal members of society, yes,
> >law-abiding citizens with clean records should have that right. Killing
>
> Now there's the rub. I saw another posting in this group citing some
> statistics about Canada I believe and I cannot deny that this is a
> compelling argument, but I don't think it's someth9ing we should just
> accept. In an environment where the legal ownership of firearms is heavily
> regulated I believe that if a concerted effort was made by law enforcement
> to focus it's efforts on the confiscation of illegal firearms and if
> legislation was in place to deal with those found with illegal firearms in
> the harshest manner (and I mean harsh) that this issue could eventually be
> overcome. Yes there will always be criminals and some of them will always
> find ways to arm themselves I am not so naive as to believe we can ever
> change this, but if we can reduce violent crime to an acceptable level then
> I don't believe that decent citizens would feel the need to walk around
> packing a six-shooter.
As I've said before (maybe not in this thread), the day that violent crime is no
longer a significant threat, I'll gladly throw my gun into an arc furnace.
Before that, not a chance. It seems our government wants to curtail legal gun
ownership, because they seem to believe that it'll reduce crime. I can't see
that happening.
> isn't a
> >gun's sole purpose, BTW. Gunowners can fire 1000's of shots from their
> guns, and
> >never kill anything.
>
> This is a valid point. My argument is not for gun banning, just very
> tightly enforced control. I so no reason why intelligent legislation could
> not allow firearm related sports to continue.
Glad to see that someone actually sees that side of the argument as well :-)
> I don't agree that the situation in the UK indicates otherwise. I have
> recently returned from an 18 month stay in London and I can tell you 1st
> hand that the crime situation there isn't even comparable to what we have
> here. During my stay
[snippage for NNTP reasons]
> I know these are hardly solid statistics I know, but I believe
> that there is an ambient level of fear for one's own personal saftey through
> direct exposure to crime and it is far higher in this country than it is in
> the UK, where most of the police force is only armed with truncheons. I do
> also realise that this is not something we can achieve overnight, but does
> that mean we shouldn't strive for it?
Once again, the UK levels of crime are something to learn form, I agree. You've
also mentioned the point that the UK has far less crime overall than SA.
Therefore, banning legal gun ownership makes more sense there than it does here
(at least, to me.). My point was actually not about the crime rate in general,
but in comparisons between the rate of violent crime before and after the gun
ban. Was there a marked change, either for the better or worse ? (I don't know,
that's why I'm asking). If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that the violent crime
rate wasn't significantly affected by the ban on guns.
> >> The only other argument that exists in favour of a right to bear arms is
> the
> >> idea that an 'armed' populace would have the ability to carry out a
> popular
> >> uprising should they become disatisified with the government in power.
> >
> >It's one of the arguments, but not the only argument.
>
> Hmm, they're the only two strong arguments I've heard - I'd be happy to hear
> any others you know of.
Erg, my mistake. You're talking about the right to *bear* arms, not the right to
*own* arms. BTW, I don't think that in the SA constitution there is such a
right... But I could be wrong (pun unintended). (That is now, the right to
either bear or own arms).
> >Tell us about these problems. Cite examples. What would have happened if
> the ANC
> >didn't resort to the armed struggle ? How about the French resistance in
> WWII ?
> >I grant that not all armed uprisings are good, but not all are bad either.
>
> You make a valid point nevertheless I cannot help feel that it's time the
> human race started outgrowing the idea that resorting to violence is a valid
> method to use in political conflict.
Good idea. The problem is the fact that we're human. I've been reading "Long
walk to freedom". In it, there is described about 50 years of non-violent
protest against apartheid, which failed totally. That's why the armed struggle
was started. I agree, violence should be out. Unfortunately, the human race
seems to be only too capable of violence. Sometimes, violence is the only
universal language.
> I do not have facts and figures at my fingertips - if you really want i'll
> go away and do some research, but look at the state Zimbabwe is in, look at
> an number of African and South American nations that have spent countless
> years locked in bloody struggles over who will be the next dictator to be
> overthrown.
I agree, civil uprising is very often a bad thing.
> >> Adios
> >>
> >> Will
> >
> >You're not the guy who writes as Will Williams, are you ?
> >
> >H-J
>
> Nope fraid not, like I said I'm new, this is only my 3rd posting to this
> group, but I plan to stick around - btw you make some good arguments and I
> like your style - I hope we can continue to discuss this amicably :-)
>
Good for you. Will Williams wrote a couple of silly postings a while back.
Stick around, I like your style.
Looking forward to your reply.
H-J
bjp
AvaTar269 wrote in message <6a8ila$64k$1...@hermes.is.co.za>...
>
> As a law abiding citizens in a civilised nation approaching the millenium I
> don't think we should have to live in fear anymore, do you?
Civilized nation, you say? What the hell does "the millenium" have to with
it? Is 2000 a magic number?
bjp
>As I've said before (maybe not in this thread), the day that violent crime is
no
>longer a significant threat, I'll gladly throw my gun into an arc furnace.
That's YOUR choice. I will NOT.
>Before that, not a chance. It seems our government wants to curtail legal gun
>ownership, because they seem to believe that it'll reduce crime.
Disarmament precedes GENOCIDE.
Robin Smith
<big snip>
> > that there is an ambient level of fear for one's own personal saftey through
> > direct exposure to crime and it is far higher in this country than it is in
> > the UK, where most of the police force is only armed with truncheons. I do
> > also realise that this is not something we can achieve overnight, but does
> > that mean we shouldn't strive for it?
>
The bobbies on the beat still wear bullet-proof vests , and the cops up
north (Newcastle etc.) are permanently armed , not with pistols mind you
, but with Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine pistols ,very accurate , high
rate of fire (s'about 650 rounds per min. I'll check) These MP5's are
standard issue to the Brit SAS so that will give some idea of their
efficiency (I want one).
In the old days (before all this gun-control BS) only the Special Branch
were armed , the bobbies needed permision to carry a weapon , nowadays
the permission they need is their own.
Sign o' the times.
And another thing you may not know. The UK has a big research project
going to find a material which is resistant to both bullets and knives
ie a light bullet-proof vest without chicken plates (trauma plates) that
is resistant to a .44 Mag JHP round or a burst of 9 mm FMJ can be
penetrated by a sharp knife wielded by an average adult (read mugger).
Cheers
Robin
A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone
AvaTar269
bjp wrote in message <6ag2v6$bf6$1...@news.global.co.za>...
>AvaTar269 wrote in message <6a8ila$64k$1...@hermes.is.co.za>...
>>
>> As a law abiding citizens in a civilised nation approaching the millenium
I
>> don't think we should have to live in fear anymore, do you?
>
>
>Civilized nation, you say? What the hell does "the millenium" have to with
>it? Is 2000 a magic number?
No it's not a magic number, think of it as a big ole birthday for the human
race. And yes civilized. We cook our food, we build houses, we use
technology to improve our lifestyles and we have laws and constraints which
dictate acceptable behaviour to people who
exist within the boundaries of our society. When are we going to stop
tolerating violence? More importantly when are we going to reach a point
where we no longer feel that we have to be in a state of readiness to
respond to potential violence? (which is what gun-toting citizens is all
about).
This discussion is about gun control, but if you wish to discuss my broader
views about social trends and what constitutes a 'civilized nation' I would
be happy to do so (altho I'm not sure if this NG is the appropriate place)
Adios
Will
***Spam Proof details Rotate the last two numbers to discover my e-mail
address***
Spam Begets Spam, God help you if you make it onto one of MY mailing
lists...
AvaTar269
Henri-John Kock wrote in message <34C842FC...@cs.up.ac.za>...
>
>
>
>> family? Does my wife have to put the .38 in her handbag when she goes
>> shopping in case she gets mugged in the parking lot? When we come home
late
>> at night should I take the safety off the 9mm and check the clip b4 I get
>> out of the car, just in case?
>
>Well, judging by the way that some hijackings happen (in the owner's
driveway),
>yes, it might not be a bad idea to be ready for anything. I agree, if you
go
>looking for trouble (like walking into and AWB owned bar and shouting
Amandla!),
>you'll find it. I'm more concerned by the kind of trouble that finds you.
Ok then we agree on that, my point is that I believe it is the goverment's
responsibility to stack those odds sufficiently in favour to the point where
I can go about my daily business in a non-gun-toting manner and feel secure
in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely that any harm will befall me.
>
>> I am purposely using extreme examples here to drive home a point and the
>> point is that gun-culture is about living in fear. People buy guns for
>> self-defence not because it's about comonsense and it's their
responsibility
>> to look after their own safety. They buy them because they are *afraid*
of
>> being attacked by violent criminals.
>
>Well, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're *not* out to
get
>you :-). I see where you're coming from. I agree, one shouldn't live in
fear.
>One can, however, be ready and prepared so that if the worst happens,
you'll
>know what to do.
Unfortunately I think this is where we are just going to continue to
fundamentally differ. I resent the idea that I am in some way required to
go down that road. I am willing to practice commonsense in my behaviour and
secure my home and property against potential theft, but going further than
that does not sit comfortably with me.
In another thread I saw you discussing the idea that gun-owners will soon be
required by law to recieve some training and a point was raised that not all
people would be able to afford that training - I believe the gist of your
response idicated that if you couldn't afford to own a weapon and all the
expense that went with it you should not take ownership of one? I'm
concerned as to how this relates to your feeling that gun ownership is (I'm
sorry if this puts words in your mouth, but it's how I read it) part of
something that one can do as part of your civic duty to protect your own
life and property and thus remove some of this burden from the shoulders of
the government.
If this is true then surely it follows that what you are saying is that the
'financially challenged' members of our society do not have the same rights
to personal safety that those of us fortunate to be able to afford a firearm
do?
If I am to accept the idea that arming myself against potential threat is
something I should do as a responsible citizen, then it must follow from
here that one of my basic rights as a citizen should be the provision of a
firearm, ammuntion and training facilities by the government in power. Or
at very least there should be some sort of generic firearm which will be
available everywhere which has its quality and price requlated by government
controls (kinda like brown bread :-)
As I see things part of a governments responsibility is to provide a set of
'negotiated services' to the population. This differs from government to
government, but I strongly feel that personal safety is one of the
'non-negotiable' core services. It therefore follows that if the government
is unwilling/unable to provide a particular core service then they must
ensure that every member of the population is *equally* equipped to be
self-sufficient in that area.
>
>> As a law abiding citizens in a civilised nation approaching the millenium
I
>> don't think we should have to live in fear anymore, do you?
>
>Agreed. There are, however, some outlaws who disagree. I think at the
moment
>they are calling the shots (pardon the pun). I drove down the M1 yesterday,
got
>off at Greyston drive. Yes, just about where the big heist occurred. It was
>slightly scary to see markings on the tarmac (circles spraypainted) which
>possibly denote bullet strikes.
I can imagine how that must've felt. Illegal firearms and disarming
criminals is definitely the biggest stumbling block for any gun control
legislation and unfortunately the point which many pro-control arguments
fail to deal with effectively. I am not a frothing at the mouth pacifist
and I do agree that if there is currently a sufficient level of violent
crime that people should be allowed to arm themselves - it saddens me to say
that I am in the process of deciding which firearm to purchase (I am going
to make myself a T-Shirt which reads hypocritical and packing :-) Gun
control is not just an issue about the regulation of the ownership of legal
firearms - it is an issue about law enforcement making a concerted effort to
reduce the ability of criminals do harm to law abiding citizens. In order
to achieve this the number of firearms in circulation, both legal and
illegal must be radically reduced (illegal ones first :-).
>I agree, a law-abiding society is what we're all striving for. One wonders
when
>such a society will be here in South Africa.
>
Not soon enough I fear...
[big snip]
>
>As I've said before (maybe not in this thread), the day that violent crime
is no
>longer a significant threat, I'll gladly throw my gun into an arc furnace.
>Before that, not a chance. It seems our government wants to curtail legal
gun
>ownership, because they seem to believe that it'll reduce crime. I can't
see
>that happening.
A disarming festival, wouldn't that be something :-) See my earlier point
about the nature of gun control - I fully agree that the issue goes far
deeper than just tightening up a few licensing laws, or an outright ban -
the issue is not the legal status of the firearm, the issue is the firearm
and more importantly the victim with the sucking chest wound. Remove as many
firearms from circulation as possible - illlegal then legal and institute
the harshest penalities ever witnessed in human history for even being in
possesion of ammunition without a permit. This might be a step in the right
direction.
[big snip]
>Once again, the UK levels of crime are something to learn form, I agree.
You've
>also mentioned the point that the UK has far less crime overall than SA.
>Therefore, banning legal gun ownership makes more sense there than it does
here
Quite true on both counts
>(at least, to me.). My point was actually not about the crime rate in
general,
>but in comparisons between the rate of violent crime before and after the
gun
>ban. Was there a marked change, either for the better or worse ? (I don't
know,
>that's why I'm asking). If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that the violent
crime
>rate wasn't significantly affected by the ban on guns.
You may very well be right, you must understand that the change in UK gun
law wasn't really based on statistics in the 1st place. The whole issue was
very emotional and much of the public outcry was led by the victims of
Dunblaine and other such incidents.
It is siginificant however to note how far removed we are from the point
they are at in terms of violent crime Murders do make the headlines there
consistently - I was amused (a bit macarbe I know) during my stay to hear
that police where undertaking a large scale man-hunt after a man was shot
dead in his car in Brixton (Brixton is supposed to be one of London's
hot-beds of criminal activity and has a long history of racial violence to
boot)
>Erg, my mistake. You're talking about the right to *bear* arms, not the
right to
>*own* arms. BTW, I don't think that in the SA constitution there is such a
>right... But I could be wrong (pun unintended). (That is now, the right to
>either bear or own arms).
Ok I didn't realize that there was a difference I thought it was just
semantic - but you're right there is a subtle difference as one would
indicate that you could merely possess them, but not have them about your
person in public. Would ne1 care to comment on whether this is something
the SA constitution deals with?
>>
>> You make a valid point nevertheless I cannot help feel that it's time the
>> human race started outgrowing the idea that resorting to violence is a
valid
>> method to use in political conflict.
>
>Good idea. The problem is the fact that we're human. I've been reading
"Long
>walk to freedom". In it, there is described about 50 years of non-violent
>protest against apartheid, which failed totally. That's why the armed
struggle
>was started. I agree, violence should be out. Unfortunately, the human race
>seems to be only too capable of violence. Sometimes, violence is the only
>universal language.
Hmm, have you read Robert Heinlein's StarShip Trooper, or seen the movie
which was just released - Heinlein portrays a militaristic society of the
future and puts forward some disturbing ideas about the failure of
democracy due to our misunderstanding of the role of violence in human
society (might is right and all that) In Heinlein's society however one has
to earn citizenship by making a contribution to society - usually in the
form of military/government service. I can't help feeling that the idea of
earning citizenship is something we would do well to explore.
I've often wondered about the idea of inalienable right provided by
constitutional law - it works for law abiding citizens, but something always
sticks in my throat when I have to think about the idea that murderers and
rapists still have rights. Human rights are all about social constraints
that protect the individual members of society - once people step outside of
those constraints by physically and emotionally damaging other members of
society (often with animal-like brutality) why is that we are still so ready
to offer them our protection?
I know that was a little off-topic, but It needed to be said :-)
>
>> I do not have facts and figures at my fingertips - if you really want
i'll
>> go away and do some research, but look at the state Zimbabwe is in, look
at
>> an number of African and South American nations that have spent countless
>> years locked in bloody struggles over who will be the next dictator to be
>> overthrown.
>
>I agree, civil uprising is very often a bad thing.
>
Ok I think that's settled then :-)
>Good for you. Will Williams wrote a couple of silly postings a while back.
>Stick around, I like your style.
Thanks :-)
AvaTar269
Robin Smith wrote in message <34CC4D...@eng.alcatel.altron.co.za>...
><big snip>
>> > I know these are hardly solid statistics I know, but I believe
>> > that there is an ambient level of fear for one's own personal saftey
through
>> > direct exposure to crime and it is far higher in this country than it
is in
>> > the UK, where most of the police force is only armed with truncheons.
I do
>> > also realise that this is not something we can achieve overnight, but
does
>> > that mean we shouldn't strive for it?
>>
>
>The bobbies on the beat still wear bullet-proof vests , and the cops up
>north (Newcastle etc.) are permanently armed , not with pistols mind you
I'm not sure of what the relevance of law enforcement officers wanting to
protect themsleves is? The very nature of their employment means that if
there are armed criminals around that it is their duty to confront them -
how does this relate to the man in the street? Are british citizens crying
out for the right to own bullet proof vests?
>, but with Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine pistols ,very accurate , high
>rate of fire (s'about 650 rounds per min. I'll check) These MP5's are
>standard issue to the Brit SAS so that will give some idea of their
I am well aware of what an MP5 is and yes it is one of the most efficient
submachine pistols available. My dislike of firearms does not make me
ignorant to the nature of the beast :-)
the UK, as with any nation does have some hotbeds of crime and in those
areas I'm sure that law enforcement agencies want to be as prepared as
possible so that the can safeguard society with minimum risk to their own
personal safety (no-one wants to die right?), but my point again was about
the level of violent crime that the man in the street gets exposed to. Also
If we want to start looking at what is happening in law enforcement a
relevant comparison (I think) would be to compare statistics of how many
police officers die in shoot-outs between the UK and South Africa. Again
this might not even prove to be that relevant as we would have to put this
against a backdrop of a detailed statistical comparison of criminal
activities involving firearms, the amount of illegal firearms in
circulation, etc, etc, etc. Statisitics are a strange beast often tainted
by interpretation.
>efficiency (I want one).
It's hardly a concealable weapon - unless you're prone to wearing long
coats, or thick padded anoraks <GRIN>
>In the old days (before all this gun-control BS) only the Special Branch
>were armed , the bobbies needed permision to carry a weapon , nowadays
>the permission they need is their own.
>Sign o' the times.
>
>And another thing you may not know. The UK has a big research project
>going to find a material which is resistant to both bullets and knives
>ie a light bullet-proof vest without chicken plates (trauma plates) that
>is resistant to a .44 Mag JHP round or a burst of 9 mm FMJ can be
>penetrated by a sharp knife wielded by an average adult (read mugger).
Again dislike does not beget ignorance I am aware that most armored vests do
little to stop knife attacks - refer to my comments above regarding the
relevance of what law enforcement officers do to protect themselves.
Please read my response to H-J, hopefully that will give you a clearer
understanding of my stance.
>Cheers
>Robin
>
>A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone
You managed to get a South African Cop on the phone?? :-)
Adios
Will
***Spam Proof details Rotate the last two numbers to discover my e-mail
address***
Spam Begets Spam, God help you if you make it onto one of MY mailing
lists....
Henri-John Kock
Will San !
AvaTar269 wrote:
> Ok then we agree on that, my point is that I believe it is the goverment's
> responsibility to stack those odds sufficiently in favour to the point where
> I can go about my daily business in a non-gun-toting manner and feel secure
> in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely that any harm will befall me.
>
It would be nice. I wonder how many years we are away from that. :-(
> >Well, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're *not* out to
> get
> >you :-). I see where you're coming from. I agree, one shouldn't live in
> fear.
> >One can, however, be ready and prepared so that if the worst happens,
> you'll
> >know what to do.
>
> Unfortunately I think this is where we are just going to continue to
> fundamentally differ. I resent the idea that I am in some way required to
> go down that road. I am willing to practice commonsense in my behaviour and
> secure my home and property against potential theft, but going further than
> that does not sit comfortably with me.
OK, that's your right. I must say, if going to certain levels of preparedness
drives one into an un-comfort zone, then the decision has to be made whether to
go on staying where you are, or whether to get out.
> In another thread I saw you discussing the idea that gun-owners will soon be
> required by law to recieve some training and a point was raised that not all
> people would be able to afford that training - I believe the gist of your
> response idicated that if you couldn't afford to own a weapon and all the
> expense that went with it you should not take ownership of one? I'm
> concerned as to how this relates to your feeling that gun ownership is (I'm
> sorry if this puts words in your mouth, but it's how I read it) part of
> something that one can do as part of your civic duty to protect your own
> life and property and thus remove some of this burden from the shoulders of
> the government.
The problem is that nothing in life comes without cost. The cost is part and
parcel of the responsibility.Part of the responsibility is to use your gun for
the protection of others when the need arises. analogous to that, the same can
be said for cellphone owners. If the need arises, one should use one's cellphone
to phone the police, or to 'phone for someone stranded next to the road, etc.
Not all of us have cellphones, because not all of us can afford to own them.
It's the same with guns. Not everyone can afford them. For those who can, comes
the responsibility.
> If this is true then surely it follows that what you are saying is that the
> 'financially challenged' members of our society do not have the same rights
> to personal safety that those of us fortunate to be able to afford a firearm
> do?
The rights are the same. I agree, having the right does you a fat lot of good if
evil comes through the window and you only have a brick to defend yourself with.
Everyone has a right to buy a gun, everyone just doesn't have the money to buy
it with. It's a fact of life, we have to live with it.
> If I am to accept the idea that arming myself against potential threat is
> something I should do as a responsible citizen, then it must follow from
> here that one of my basic rights as a citizen should be the provision of a
> firearm, ammuntion and training facilities by the government in power. Or
> at very least there should be some sort of generic firearm which will be
> available everywhere which has its quality and price requlated by government
> controls (kinda like brown bread :-)
There's one thing one can do: become a police reservist. It'll give you access
to firearm training and even police ammo for practice purposes. With that comes
the responsibility, of course.
> As I see things part of a governments responsibility is to provide a set of
> 'negotiated services' to the population. This differs from government to
> government, but I strongly feel that personal safety is one of the
> 'non-negotiable' core services. It therefore follows that if the government
> is unwilling/unable to provide a particular core service then they must
> ensure that every member of the population is *equally* equipped to be
> self-sufficient in that area.
Yes. They claim that they are able to police us effectively, to paraphrase
minister Mufamadi. Historically, citizens were obliged to fend for themselves (a
classic example is the Old West.).
> >off at Greyston drive. Yes, just about where the big heist occurred. It was
> >slightly scary to see markings on the tarmac (circles spraypainted) which
> >possibly denote bullet strikes.
>
> I can imagine how that must've felt. Illegal firearms and disarming
> criminals is definitely the biggest stumbling block for any gun control
> legislation and unfortunately the point which many pro-control arguments
> fail to deal with effectively. I am not a frothing at the mouth pacifist
> and I do agree that if there is currently a sufficient level of violent
> crime that people should be allowed to arm themselves - it saddens me to say
> that I am in the process of deciding which firearm to purchase (I am going
> to make myself a T-Shirt which reads hypocritical and packing :-)
Have you made a decision yet ? I suppose you've chatted and read about it a lot,
but we can talk about it if you want to. There are some new Glocks coming out in
a while which might be worthwhile investigating. If you're in the Pretoria area,
drop me a line, we'll have a beer/whatever and talk about it. Looking for a
shooting partner ?
> Gun
> control is not just an issue about the regulation of the ownership of legal
> firearms - it is an issue about law enforcement making a concerted effort to
> reduce the ability of criminals do harm to law abiding citizens. In order
> to achieve this the number of firearms in circulation, both legal and
> illegal must be radically reduced (illegal ones first :-).
Yes. Agree 100 %
> >ban. Was there a marked change, either for the better or worse ? (I don't
> know,
> >that's why I'm asking). If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that the violent
> crime
> >rate wasn't significantly affected by the ban on guns.
>
> You may very well be right, you must understand that the change in UK gun
> law wasn't really based on statistics in the 1st place. The whole issue was
> very emotional and much of the public outcry was led by the victims of
> Dunblaine and other such incidents.
True. As a legal gunowner, I can't help but feel a tiny bit of responsibility
every time a "responsible" citizen does something crazy. One wonders how the
system could be improved, without loss of liberty or without making it a joke.
Background checks are possibly a good start.
> It is siginificant however to note how far removed we are from the point
> they are at in terms of violent crime Murders do make the headlines there
> consistently - I was amused (a bit macarbe I know) during my stay to hear
> that police where undertaking a large scale man-hunt after a man was shot
> dead in his car in Brixton (Brixton is supposed to be one of London's
> hot-beds of criminal activity and has a long history of racial violence to
> boot)
Yes, it does put a totally different perspective on things when such things seem
amusing. I'd probably feel the same way. I had an interesting conversation with
a Canadian tourist a while back. He's from Edmonton, Alberta. A city of about 1
million people, with a murder count of perhaps 30 a year.
> Ok I didn't realize that there was a difference I thought it was just
> semantic - but you're right there is a subtle difference as one would
> indicate that you could merely possess them, but not have them about your
> person in public. Would ne1 care to comment on whether this is something
> the SA constitution deals with?
> >was started. I agree, violence should be out. Unfortunately, the human race
> >seems to be only too capable of violence. Sometimes, violence is the only
> >universal language.
>
> Hmm, have you read Robert Heinlein's StarShip Trooper, or seen the movie
> which was just released - Heinlein portrays a militaristic society of the
> future and puts forward some disturbing ideas about the failure of
> democracy due to our misunderstanding of the role of violence in human
> society (might is right and all that) In Heinlein's society however one has
> to earn citizenship by making a contribution to society - usually in the
> form of military/government service.
Saw the movie last night. It was satirical, scary, and funny. There was a part
where a student and a teacher talk about violence. The student says that her
mother feels that violence solves nothing. The teacher's response was: "What do
you think the city fathers of Hiroshima would have to say about that ? Nothing,
because after the bomb dropped, they were dead." I found that a very scary
statement. I suppose that such statements carried a lot of weight in the facist
regimes of the 1930s.
> I can't help feeling that the idea of
> earning citizenship is something we would do well to explore.
Good idea. This would again exclude a large portion of the population, though.
It's not something that could live in harmony with the concept of human rights.
It seems that modern society does everything to ensure that the average person
is living in comfort. Rich people pay more tax than average people. Poor people
can't afford things, etc.
> I've often wondered about the idea of inalienable right provided by
> constitutional law - it works for law abiding citizens, but something always
> sticks in my throat when I have to think about the idea that murderers and
> rapists still have rights. Human rights are all about social constraints
> that protect the individual members of society - once people step outside of
> those constraints by physically and emotionally damaging other members of
> society (often with animal-like brutality) why is that we are still so ready
> to offer them our protection?
> I know that was a little off-topic, but It needed to be said :-)
Well said.
> ***Spam Proof details Rotate the last two numbers to discover my e-mail
> address***
> Spam Begets Spam, God help you if you make it onto one of MY mailing
> lists...
Sounds ominous. You spam the spammers ? Go for it. An eye for an eye, a spam
for a spam.
H-J
Sabelo1969
In article <6ai5u5$f2e$1...@hermes.is.co.za>, "AvaTar269" <avat...@icon.co.za>
writes:
>If this is true then surely it follows that what you are saying is that
>the
'financially challenged' members of our society do not have the same
>rights
to personal safety that those of us fortunate to be able to afford a
>firearm
do?
This was my perception as well
Sabelo1969
In article <34CCAAC1...@cs.up.ac.za>, Henri-John Kock
<hjk...@cs.up.ac.za> writes:
>The rights are the same. I agree, having the right does you a fat lot of good
>if
evil comes through the window and you only have a brick to defend yourself
>with.
Everyone has a right to buy a gun, everyone just doesn't have the money
>to buy
it with. It's a fact of life, we have to live with it.
If I remember well, you said that those without money for courses but have
guns should get rid of their guns.
I might be mistaken
Henri-John Kock
Sabelo1969 wrote:
You are mistaken. It was said in the context of receiving a gun as a gift.
Sabelo1969
In article <34CDDA8D...@cs.up.ac.za>, Henri-John Kock
<hjk...@cs.up.ac.za> writes:
>I don't know why you're pushing the issue,
I just wanted it to be clear to me, which it still is not, but will forget
about it
Sabelo1969
In article <34CD800E...@cs.up.ac.za>, Henri-John Kock <hjk...@cs.up.ac.za>
writes:
>You are mistaken. It was said in the context of receiving a gun as a gift.
So, what should a person with a gun given to them as either a gift, or a very
cheap legal purchase from someone leaving the country (eg gardner getting his
boss' gun for cheap). If he cannot afford a R1000 or even a R100 course and he
believes he can shoot straight, should he keep the gun or not?
Henri-John Kock
Sabelo1969 wrote:
> >You are mistaken. It was said in the context of receiving a gun as a gift.
>
> So, what should a person with a gun given to them as either a gift, or a very
> cheap legal purchase from someone leaving the country (eg gardner getting his
> boss' gun for cheap). If he cannot afford a R1000 or even a R100 course and he
> believes he can shoot straight, should he keep the gun or not?
I don't know why you're pushing the issue, but here goes:
In the first place, cheap guns are usually cheap for a reason. Owner leaving the
country is a valid reason, and therefore one could say that such a gun could be of
good quality. Don't buy cheap new guns.
In the second place, the responsibility is that of the buyer. If he gets a license
(it's still possible without a course certificate, but will probably not be for
very much longer), the responsibility for the gun is on his shoulders. Shooting
straight isn't all you need to know, btw. Knowing when you may shoot, i.e. what
exactly is "self defence", knowing how to handle the weapon safely, understanding
the responsibility involved, and how to care for the gun are a few more things one
learns in a gun course.
The responsibility is on the shoulders of the gun owner. If he keeps the gun, he's
legally responsible. If he loses the gun through negligence, he'll be charged. I
don't know what the penalty is, but a gaol sentence is a distinct possibility.
(Failure to report a stolen gun is also a criminal offence, btw).
It's difficult to judge your scenario as given above. I'd say don't keep the gun,
based on what you give me to go on. I'd blame the guy who's leaving for offering
the gun to someone who can't afford to keep a regular shooting schedule and/or care
for the gun.
H-J
lynne
Hi
I've been living in Jhb for about a year - just over. Before that I lived
in Zimbabwe. We have crime in Zim - but almost no violent crime. theft
but little or no murder or other gruesome acts. why? because guns are
illegal and the government (while intriniscally corrupt) has a zero
tolerance attitude towards crime.
I am new - but my vote is take away the guns. all i hear is bullshit
justification from people here to keep them.
very strange country we live in.
AvaTar269 <avat...@icon.co.za> wrote in article
<6ahu1s$b0k$1...@hermes.is.co.za>...
>
> bjp wrote in message <6ag2v6$bf6$1...@news.global.co.za>...
> >AvaTar269 wrote in message <6a8ila$64k$1...@hermes.is.co.za>...
When are we going to stop
> tolerating violence? More importantly when are we going to reach a point
> where we no longer feel that we have to be in a state of readiness to
> respond to potential violence? (which is what gun-toting citizens is all
> about).
>
> This discussion is about gun control, but if you wish to discuss my
broader
> views about social trends and what constitutes a 'civilized nation' I
would
> be happy to do so (altho I'm not sure if this NG is the appropriate
place)
>
> Adios
> Will
>
Robin Smith
lynne wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I've been living in Jhb for about a year - just over. Before that I lived
> in Zimbabwe. We have crime in Zim - but almost no violent crime. theft
> but little or no murder or other gruesome acts. why? because guns are
> illegal and the government (while intriniscally corrupt) has a zero
> tolerance attitude towards crime.
>
> I am new - but my vote is take away the guns. all i hear is bullshit
> justification from people here to keep them.
>
> very strange country we live in.
And what rights have been removed along with the right to own firearms
huh ? I bet the gays and lesbians in Harare could inform you.
As for taking away the guns , in a word : impossible.
South Africa's borders are so porous that guns can be freely transported
from there to here to satisfy a demand created by criminals (black
market) which will be another side effect of banning guns.
The justification isn't bullshit , only the reasons "created" by people
who don't like them are. The right to own a firearm is inviolate , why ?
Because I have a right to defend my life.
I would sooner die on my feet than live on my knees
Do yourself a favour , read a gun magazine , free at any libary
--
R.Smith
rsm...@eng.alcatel.altron.co.za
http://www.alcatel.altron.co.za/~rsmith
.........................................
It is dangerous to be right
when the government is
wrong -Voltaire
........................................
Visit the SA-Gunner web site :
http://www.gaof.co.za/Gunner/
AvaTar269
In article <34CCAAC1...@cs.up.ac.za> (Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:24:50
+0200), Henri-John Kock was heard to say...
Hi again:
Apologies for the delayed reply - pc needed overhauling and changing news
readers caused further down-time.
> AvaTar269 wrote:
>
> > Ok then we agree on that, my point is that I believe it is the goverment's
> > responsibility to stack those odds sufficiently in favour to the point where
> > I can go about my daily business in a non-gun-toting manner and feel secure
> > in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely that any harm will befall me.
> >
>
> It would be nice. I wonder how many years we are away from that. :-(
I try not to think about it too much. I doubt that we will see it in our
lifetimes if things continue in their current vein, but perhaps if we
yell loud and long enough our children will have something to thank us
for. (stands proud and erect with chest expanded as a stirring anthem
begins to play in the background :-)
[snippity]
> > go down that road. I am willing to practice commonsense in my behaviour and
> > secure my home and property against potential theft, but going further than
> > that does not sit comfortably with me.
>
> OK, that's your right. I must say, if going to certain levels of preparedness
> drives one into an un-comfort zone, then the decision has to be made whether to
> go on staying where you are, or whether to get out.
>
This would imply that every law-abiding South African who is
unprepared/unwilling, or even unable (don't forget the elderly and the
disabled) to handle a firearm should leave the country because the
government is currently unable to protect them from
murder/rape/pillage/all of the above?
Besides the damage this would do to the country, where would they go?
How many average South Africans do you think are eligible for
immigration status into one of the nice 1st world crime-free havens (said
with tongue in cheek) Do you think that maybe those countries with low
crime rates should start offering something akin to political asylum to
decent clean-living people who where unforunate enough to be born and
raised in a hotbed of murder and mayhem? Perhaps we could set up havens
for those people who are 'firearm challenged', little fortified villages
with electric fences and machine gun towers, with armored vans busing the
residents to and from the shopping mall once a week - no wait! Those
would probably get hi-jacked!
Ok I'll stop, couldn't help myself :-), but you get the idea...
> The problem is that nothing in life comes without cost. The cost is part and
> parcel of the responsibility.Part of the responsibility is to use your gun for
> the protection of others when the need arises. analogous to that, the same can
> be said for cellphone owners. If the need arises, one should use one's cellphone
> to phone the police, or to 'phone for someone stranded next to the road, etc.
> Not all of us have cellphones, because not all of us can afford to own them.
> It's the same with guns. Not everyone can afford them. For those who can, comes
> the responsibility.
Hmm, you're talking about the social cost of ownership - not the
financial one. So if I have a cellphone, or a gun (or even both
privileged sucker that I am) it's part of my civic responsibility
(the price I pay to society for being wealthy enough to own them) to use
them for the greater good?
I really hate to nitpick, but this would kinda imply that If I'm
privileged enough to own a car then it's ym social duty to pick up
hitchhikers and little old ladies staggering home with their shopping
bags?
I'm not sure i understand where you're going with that one, clarify? How
does this relate to the fact that in a crime-ridden country people who
cannot afford the luxury of a firearm are placed at an extremely real and
life-threatening disadvantage?
> The rights are the same. I agree, having the right does you a fat lot of good if
> evil comes through the window and you only have a brick to defend yourself with.
> Everyone has a right to buy a gun, everyone just doesn't have the money to buy
> it with. It's a fact of life, we have to live with it.
In my mind if people are allowed to own firearms for self-defence then it
means that the government is admitting that it has failed in it's duty to
provide adequate protection to the members of the society it was elected
to govern.
"We can't protect you so we'll let you get a gun and do it yourself"
The fact that this, as you so rightly say, means diddly if you cannot
afford a gun and all you can manage is a brick just makes the failure so
much more appalling.
Not only can they not provide adequate protection for the society they
have been elected to manage (note the word manage not - rule), but they
cannot even do the next best thing - which is provide people with the
means to protect themselves on an *equal* footing, regardless of race,
colour, creed, height, width, or most importantly bank balance.
> There's one thing one can do: become a police reservist. It'll give you access
> to firearm training and even police ammo for practice purposes. With that comes
> the responsibility, of course.
There's that word responsibility again. For one thing: I, like many
other people who feel that they and their families need protection, am
for various reasons not medically fit to assume such a role. Secondly
the implication that this would be an adequate solution only brings the
tragedy of the situation more sharply into focus.
If an average middle class man who cannot afford a firearm wants to
protect his family he must join a voluntary law-enforcement agency?
This probably involves some fitness training, learning to use a firearm
and most likely some unarmed self-defence training as well.
After which he is burdened with the civic responsibility of spending some
of his precious free time (and we know how precious it is) endangering
his life for his fellow citizens.
Doing this is of course very noble - and I have the deepest respect for
people who are willing to, but to even suggest that it would be a
reasonable solution to the problem of personal safety...?
> Yes. They claim that they are able to police us effectively, to paraphrase
> minister Mufamadi. Historically, citizens were obliged to fend for themselves (a
> classic example is the Old West.).
It would be interesting to see some statistics, if any are available, on
what percentage of the population carried firearms in the Old West. More
interesting even to see some figures on how afforable/readily available
firearms and ammunition where to the lower echelons of society in the
American West? My gut feel is that just about anyone with enough digits
to wrap around a pistol butt and the inclination to do so was in
possession of at least one firearm. I fully admit that this perception
is based somewhat on Hollywood and a misspent youth with Louis L'Amour
novels - any Old West fundis out there who'd care to validate/refute my
assumptions? Anyway the Old West isn't really the best of examples (IMHO
of course :-) as you are talking about a frontier society that was in the
process of cutting itself a bloody trail west through the pesky Redskins
(not to mention the War of Independence, the Civil War and the Mexican
Wars that all took place during and around that bloodsoaked chapter in
American history)
Robber Barons, murderous desperados, gold-rushers driven mad by greed and
hard-core vigilante justice were the order of the day. All this coupled
with the fact that the huge chunk of hostile territory between the
frontier and the halls of government made it nigh impossible for any real
government control to be enforced on the area. This is a fine example of
a society in a state of crisis (remind you of anywhere?), but it doesn't
really validate the idea that the average citizen has historically always
had to fend for himself.
In fact (I know I'm getting carried away on this point, but I think it's
relevant) I would argue that the exact opposite is more true. Even in
most primitive cultures Tribal/Village leaders where usually chosen for
their prowess in combat and it then became their responsibilty to wage
war 'on behalf' of the tribe. Also look at the History of Feudalism in
Europe. The average peasant would have had to spend about a year's worth
of his earnings on even the cheapest of swords, let alone a suit of
armour, or a warhorse! If he was even allowed to own them. The role of
the peasantry in feudal society is often mis-interpreted as that of
little more than slaves, but in truth the relationship between lord and
peasant was a very two way street. The peasantry worked the land owned by
their lord and paid taxes to him and in return it was his *duty* to
provide them with protection from wandering bandits, wild beasts and the
like. (This is where the British tradition of the Fox Hunt originated)
There was obviously room for abuse in the system (true of most political
systems), but on the whole it was in the Feudal Lord's best interests to
keep the peasants relatively happy and co-operative, or he'd have some
difficult questions to answer when the King came calling for taxes and
infantry to keep the Crusades, (or whichever other squabble he'd got
mixed up in), rolling. Asia also has a rich history of Feudal societies
in which warrior castes had the responsibilty of safeguarding the lives
and property of Joe Average.
So I guess it might be more accurate to say that a strong factor
contributing towards the evolution of the complex social and political
infrastructures that mankind has developed through history has been that
of a ruling class either choosing, or being chosen to take responsibility
for the safety and well-being of the rest of society.
> > I am not a frothing at the mouth pacifist
> > and I do agree that if there is currently a sufficient level of violent
> > crime that people should be allowed to arm themselves - it saddens me to say
> > that I am in the process of deciding which firearm to purchase (I am going
> > to make myself a T-Shirt which reads hypocritical and packing :-)
>
> Have you made a decision yet ? I suppose you've chatted and read about it a lot,
> but we can talk about it if you want to. There are some new Glocks coming out in
> a while which might be worthwhile investigating. If you're in the Pretoria area,
> drop me a line, we'll have a beer/whatever and talk about it. Looking for a
> shooting partner ?
I'm still not really sure what I'm after, several of my friends are gun
enthusiasts as is my brother so I do have a bit more than a passing
knowledge on the subject the main factors that I'm basing my decision on
at the moment are price and size. Altho I've seen some very nice
portable artillery pieces I'm really of a mind that I would prefer
something which I can carry around without having to wear an overcoat, or
walk with a limp :-)
I will probably end-up with a plain ole .38 Special or possibly a 9mm
short if I can find one I like that's not too pricey.
Your offer is much appreciated tho' and if I were a little closer than
Cape Town I would definitely take u up on it :-) Drop me an e-mail if u
have any suggestions/advice, about my purchase.
> > >ban. Was there a marked change, either for the better or worse ? (I don't
> > know,
> > >that's why I'm asking). If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that the violent
> > crime
> > >rate wasn't significantly affected by the ban on guns.
> >
> > You may very well be right, you must understand that the change in UK gun
> > law wasn't really based on statistics in the 1st place. The whole issue was
> > very emotional and much of the public outcry was led by the victims of
> > Dunblaine and other such incidents.
>
> True. As a legal gunowner, I can't help but feel a tiny bit of responsibility
> every time a "responsible" citizen does something crazy. One wonders how the
> system could be improved, without loss of liberty or without making it a joke.
> Background checks are possibly a good start.
If we must have a system where firearm ownership is legal, then yes,
background checks, enforced training with perhaps even a written test and
a practical exam on a combat range? (ne1 can shoot at a single target and
appear competent) Hhmm lemme see what else - legal requirement of a
certain number of rounds fired on a range per quarter to keep your
license? I'd be keen on the idea of an annual psychiatric evaluation,
but I guess some people would say that was going to far and invading
their privacy.
Of course all of these things contribute towards driving the cost of
ownership up even further and we again face the uncomfortable fact that
owning a firearm is not the average man's right - it is the wealthy man's
privilege.
>
> Yes, it does put a totally different perspective on things when such things seem
> amusing. I'd probably feel the same way. I had an interesting conversation with
> a Canadian tourist a while back. He's from Edmonton, Alberta. A city of about 1
> million people, with a murder count of perhaps 30 a year.
I'm not sure if I should laugh, or cry at that.
> >
> > Hmm, have you read Robert Heinlein's StarShip Trooper, or seen the movie
> > which was just released - Heinlein portrays a militaristic society of the
> > future and puts forward some disturbing ideas about the failure of
> > democracy due to our misunderstanding of the role of violence in human
> > society (might is right and all that) In Heinlein's society however one has
> > to earn citizenship by making a contribution to society - usually in the
> > form of military/government service.
>
> Saw the movie last night. It was satirical, scary, and funny. There was a part
> where a student and a teacher talk about violence. The student says that her
> mother feels that violence solves nothing. The teacher's response was: "What do
> you think the city fathers of Hiroshima would have to say about that ? Nothing,
> because after the bomb dropped, they were dead." I found that a very scary
> statement. I suppose that such statements carried a lot of weight in the facist
> regimes of the 1930s.
It is scary. A lot of people have accused Heinlein of portraying a
facist society in StarShip Trooper and I suppose it is to a certain
degree. However it is also a society in which the individual, while still
being able to maintain a large amount of personal freedom and identity,
has a strong sense of his role within the social unit and a desire to
earn that role by contributing towards the greater good. Of course this
portrayed in greater detail and with much more subtlety in the book -
although I was pretty pleased with the movie on the whole. In fact I was
quite surprised that they allowed any of Heinlein's sociopolitical
doctrine into the story - I was expecting Hollywood to turn the story
into another 'Aliens', or 'Platoon in Space'
> > I can't help feeling that the idea of
> > earning citizenship is something we would do well to explore.
>
> Good idea. This would again exclude a large portion of the population, though.
Only that portion who weren't interested in giving something back to
society. Heinlien's use of military service as the engine for
citizenship makes for a good story and is blatant enough so that even the
most think-skinned of readers would get the point he was making. But
there must be many ways people could earn the right to citizenship in a
society based on those principles. Roads need to built, telephones in
government offices need to be manned, hospitals need nurses and cleaning
staff, the list must be endless. Only the the most severely disabled, or
frail and elderly members of society would not be able to participate in
such a system.
> It's not something that could live in harmony with the concept of human rights.
> It seems that modern society does everything to ensure that the average person
> is living in comfort. Rich people pay more tax than average people. Poor people
> can't afford things, etc.
I'm not so sure if 'human rights' in the form that society is currently
so hung up on is really where we should be going anyway? Like you said
in one of your earlier posts there are some things in human nature that
will never change. The whole world is going soft with libertarianism -
everyone is so hung up on being politically correct to a fault. That
whole death sentence thing is a farce. Everyone's yelling about statistic
this and barbarian that. Many of their arguments may very well be
grounded in solid fact, but there's one simple fact they're all so deeply
in denial about because it offends their P.C sensibilities to admit it:
(I'm sure many of them know it deep down) Some b****rds just don't
deserve to live.
There should be one human right, just one: That society gives you back
what you put into it. If you respect other peoples opinions and beliefs,
then you have the right to have yours respected. If you let other people
speak their mind then free speech is yours for the taking. However, if
all you have to offer to society is murder, rape and harm...
(ooh boy - I'm gonna take a beatin' for that one, best get my asbestos
suit on :-)
> > ***Spam Proof details Rotate the last two numbers to discover my e-mail
> > address***
> > Spam Begets Spam, God help you if you make it onto one of MY mailing
> > lists...
>
> Sounds ominous. You spam the spammers ? Go for it. An eye for an eye, a spam
> for a spam.
>
Hehe :-) It's a recent brainwave I had - I was regularly plagued by spam
in the UK, ISP was mail-bombed like clockwork. The recent change of e-
mail address and the bouncy e-mail address which I've seen so many people
using on usenet these days seems to have given me some respite for now,
but yes I have a bulk e-mailer and it is locked and loaded :-)
I look forward to seeing your response to this somewhat lengthy tirade of
mine :-)
Until we speak again may your days be free of hijackers and muggers.
--
Adios
Will
AvaTar269
In article <34CF52...@eng.alcatel.altron.co.za> (Wed, 28 Jan 1998
17:45:22 +0200), Robin Smith was heard to say...
> lynne wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've been living in Jhb for about a year - just over. Before that I lived
> > in Zimbabwe. We have crime in Zim - but almost no violent crime. theft
> > but little or no murder or other gruesome acts. why? because guns are
> > illegal and the government (while intriniscally corrupt) has a zero
> > tolerance attitude towards crime.
Well that's quite a eye opener - I had no idea that Zim was gun free
state. So it can be done in Africa :-) Whatever other problems the
government may have (corruption, etc) This is still a very positive
point in their favour. I strongly believe that the 1st and foremost
responsibility of a government is to safeguard the lives and property of
it's citizens.
> >
> > I am new - but my vote is take away the guns. all i hear is bullshit
> > justification from people here to keep them.
> >
> > very strange country we live in.
All countries are strange :-) In England they have comparitively little
violent crime and strict firearm control legislation, but as far as civil
liberties go they really have no clue. THe UK government for instance is
strongly in favour of disallowing the use of encryption software without
a permit and there is a formal agreement between most of the large ISPS
(prompted by subtle government reccomendations) to heavily filter, or
just plain not carry many usenet newsgroups which are deemed potentially
'inappropriate'
>
> And what rights have been removed along with the right to own firearms
> huh ? I bet the gays and lesbians in Harare could inform you.
> As for taking away the guns , in a word : impossible.
> South Africa's borders are so porous that guns can be freely transported
> from there to here to satisfy a demand created by criminals (black
> market) which will be another side effect of banning guns.
Why is it that so many people get so macho 'fired up' when someone
threatens to take away their "shootin' iron"? It's not about civil
rights people it's about crime and violence - please wake up to that.
If the government was able to stabilise the crime problem to a degree
where it was statistically unlikely that you personally would ever be the
victim of a violent crime (I'm not even suggesting that this is happening
yet so don't attack me on that point, this is a what if? scenario) then
why, please help me understand this, would you still want to own a gun?
It's gotta be a macho thing - i don't see any woman crying out against
gun control...?
>
> The justification isn't bullshit , only the reasons "created" by people
> who don't like them are. The right to own a firearm is inviolate , why ?
Answering an unsubstantiated generalisation with an unsubstantiated
generalisation isn't going to prove anything. I'm afraid there's no such
thing as an inviolate right - all rights get violated constantly, it's
just about degrees.
> Because I have a right to defend my life.
But you do not have the right to endanger mine, my family's, or anyone
else around you through negligence, incompetence, or just plain ole dumb
luck. In fact, once there is proof positive that violent crime has been
sufficiently reduced to justify the removal of legal firearms from
circulation (I pray for that day) then you definitely do not have the
right to keep a lethal weapon which could easily fall into the wrong
hands.
Yes right now, given the crime situation in South Africa, you can keep
your gun - I hope it serves you well, that no harm befalls you and that
it does not fall into the wrong hands. I just get really worried when
people start yelling 'bout some so-called inviolate right to bear arms
regardless of the social, or political climate - like everyone shoulda
been born with one in their hands...
> I would sooner die on my feet than live on my knees
I sincerely hope that neither of these things ever befalls you, but again
I have to wonder why people even for a second think that owning a gun is
some kinda big civil liberties hoo-hah that keeps them safe from the
enemies of democracy. I don't know of very many potentially oppresive
governments that'd be too phased by a bunch of middle-aged suburbanites
waving their .38's and 9mm's about the place. Those guys have armoured
vehicles and airstrikes...infantry with assault rifles...
>
> Do yourself a favour , read a gun magazine , free at any libary
Hmm. I'm not sure how reading a magazine filled with articles about the
effectiveness of laser sights, vital statistics for the new breed of
9mm's and "John's monthly Assault Rifle review column" is going to change
someones opinion about whether, or not people should be allowed to own
and carry deadly weapons?
Robin Smith
AvaTar269 wrote:
> > And what rights have been removed along with the right to own firearms
> > huh ? I bet the gays and lesbians in Harare could inform you.
> > As for taking away the guns , in a word : impossible.
> > South Africa's borders are so porous that guns can be freely transported
> > from there to here to satisfy a demand created by criminals (black
> > market) which will be another side effect of banning guns.
>
> Why is it that so many people get so macho 'fired up' when someone
> threatens to take away their "shootin' iron"? It's not about civil
> rights people it's about crime and violence - please wake up to that.
Not about rights huh ? Well after the right to own a firearm is removed
what next ? How 'bout freedom of religion , freedom of speech , freedom
of association as per your reply citing the UK implementing filters.
The only thing I get fired up about is when some high-handed politically
correct moron decides he/she doesn't like guns and wants to ban them
all. Short answer :FUCK THEM Long answer :If I want to spend my time and
money punching holes in cardboard targets with a firearm , who's to stop
me ? And if I happen ,in my lifetime, to stop an illegal attack by some
criminal I will be justified in my mind , I couldn't care less what
anybody else thinks.
> If the government was able to stabilise the crime problem to a degree
> where it was statistically unlikely that you personally would ever be the
> victim of a violent crime (I'm not even suggesting that this is happening
> yet so don't attack me on that point, this is a what if? scenario) then
> why, please help me understand this, would you still want to own a gun?
> It's gotta be a macho thing - i don't see any woman crying out against
> gun control...?
Stat's mean nada to me , I couldn't care less if SA was "statistically"
crime free , I would still carry. About women and gun control , I wonder
how many women have defended themselves against rape etc. with a
handgun. My girlfriend wouldn't touch a firearm a year ago , now she
bugs me to reload so we can go shooting and she is looking for a firearm
herself , the reason ? She was shown how to handle one safely and no
longer fears the gun "going off".
> >
> > The justification isn't bullshit , only the reasons "created" by people
> > who don't like them are. The right to own a firearm is inviolate , why ?
>
> Answering an unsubstantiated generalisation with an unsubstantiated
> generalisation isn't going to prove anything. I'm afraid there's no such
> thing as an inviolate right - all rights get violated constantly, it's
> just about degrees.
>
Well now ! isn't it about time we stood up for them , sure as heck the
government isn't going to protect them.
> > Because I have a right to defend my life.
>
> But you do not have the right to endanger mine, my family's, or anyone
> else around you through negligence, incompetence, or just plain ole dumb
> luck. In fact, once there is proof positive that violent crime has been
> sufficiently reduced to justify the removal of legal firearms from
> circulation (I pray for that day) then you definitely do not have the
> right to keep a lethal weapon which could easily fall into the wrong
> hands.
Unless you or your family or anyone else tries to eg. steal my car or
rob me , you're perfectly safe. Define "sufficiently reduced" and what
these "wrong hands" you refer to when crime has been "sufficiently
reduced"
> Yes right now, given the crime situation in South Africa, you can keep
> your gun - I hope it serves you well, that no harm befalls you and that
Thanks a ton
> it does not fall into the wrong hands. I just get really worried when
> people start yelling 'bout some so-called inviolate right to bear arms
> regardless of the social, or political climate - like everyone shoulda
> been born with one in their hands...
>
> > I would sooner die on my feet than live on my knees
>
> I sincerely hope that neither of these things ever befalls you, but again
> I have to wonder why people even for a second think that owning a gun is
> some kinda big civil liberties hoo-hah that keeps them safe from the
> enemies of democracy. I don't know of very many potentially oppresive
> governments that'd be too phased by a bunch of middle-aged suburbanites
> waving their .38's and 9mm's about the place. Those guys have armoured
> vehicles and airstrikes...infantry with assault rifles...
If they should have to use such methods against a native civilian
population , it's already too late and you can kiss your rights goodbye.
>
> >
> > Do yourself a favour , read a gun magazine , free at any libary
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure how reading a magazine filled with articles about the
> effectiveness of laser sights, vital statistics for the new breed of
> 9mm's and "John's monthly Assault Rifle review column" is going to change
> someones opinion about whether, or not people should be allowed to own
> and carry deadly weapons?
I suggest the Action Report in the Magnum where ordinary people have
succesfully used their firearms to defend themselves.
>
> --
> Adios
>
> Will
Cheers
--
R.Smith
rsm...@eng.alcatel.altron.co.za
http://www.alcatel.altron.co.za/~rsmith
........................................
Robin Smith
From rec-guns
-Quote-
While totally ignoring the facts, mze...@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
>Firearms cost lives. Acknowledge that simple fact.
>
>Criminal or not, gun nuts share the same values, share the same equipment
>providers, use the same bullets. Gun violence is enabled by the industry
>that lives off of it. And fear mongering "self defense" is an advertising
>campaign.
>
>Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com mze...@netcom.com
>
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National
Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists
in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have
died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a
privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases,
the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't
been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun
available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound
or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called
"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these
gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the
media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was
facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a
quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm --
martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a
decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable
handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the
defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume
86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered
by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in that
same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among
the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New
World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe
even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and
Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost
clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I
have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the
care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be
true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was
used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it
is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.
The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest
survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. .... the methodological
soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further
debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the
authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically.
I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I
cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all
objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this
country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he
found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
By Comparison:
A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States
only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer
than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to
tell you about in every day's edition.
Source: National Safety Council
A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States
about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not
completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis
by the Chicago Police Department
SO, according to the FACTS:
A life saved by a gun every 1.3 minutes; one lost (2/3 with criminal
records) every 30 minutes. You were saying?
-dan-
-End Quote-
A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone
.........................................
Robin Smith
From the Canadian Firearms Digest ...
Note how violent crime increased in Britain after more anti-gun
laws were passed.
---------------------------------
Catherine quotes Anne McLellan as saying that "Urban Canadians...want an
enhanced culture of safety in their commuities." It is most unclear how
legislation that disarms the victims -- but is quite incapable of disarming
criminals -- can enhance safety. Perhaps we should look at how this type of
legislation has worked out in other countries.
In 1988, Britain enacted a savage new firearms control law. Within 5 years,
it had reduced the private ownership of firearms by 22.4 per cent.
During those same 5 years, violent crime in Britain rose by 33.6 per cent.
Robbery rates went up by 80.6 per cent. And robbery with a firearm -- the
one crime that should have been affected most if the theory was correct --
went up by 117 per cent.
That is not proof that the theory of gun control legislation is a success.
It is proof that it is a failure. It proves, if anything, that disarming
the victims merely encourages the criminals to greater crime and violence --
because the gun control laws protect criminals, not their victims.
Serious research has, over and over, proved this relationship: Where the
ONLY difference in the situation is a change in the severity of firearms
control laws, increasing severity results in an increase in confrontational
crime (e.g., armed robbery or burglary of an occupied home) and a decrease
in non-confrontational crime (e.g., burglary of an unoccupied store or home).
That relationship, sad as it is, makes perfect sense. But the theory that
Catherine and Anne McLellan are wedded to -- that disarming honest citizens
will reduce crime -- makes no sense at all, and has been repeatedly proven
incorrect.
It has also been proven that the majority of firearms held by criminals have
never been seen by the firearms control system. They entered Canada by
smuggling, and they circulate illegally. The Ontario police, in "Project
Gunrunner," found that 86 per cent of confiscated guns (those requiring
registration) had NEVER been registered.
It follows from that finding that confiscation of every legally-owned
firearm in Canada will reduce the supply of criminal-accessible firearms by
14 per cent for as lng as it takes to increase smuggling by 14 per cent.
About a week?
As for her support for the ancient idea that a normal person will murder
simply because he or she has access to a firearm -- Well, I hope she has a
firm rule never to argue with anyone in the kitchen. That room is full of
knives! And according to that theory, Catherine herself will murder if she
is arguing and a weapon is handy.
I do not subscribe to that rather witless theory. Normal people do not
murder because they are arguing in the kitchen. It is not the availability
of a tool that can be used to kill that triggers murder, nor do normal
people murder -- regardless of the circumstances.
David A. Tomlinson
(403)439-5097
.........................................