Posted by Scott on February 19th, 2008 — Posted in Guns
For the sake of this blog, I frequently read through the news and other blogs regarding topics related to self-defense and the prevention of violence and victimization.
I have often found way too many posts about gun-related politics. I have even come across many blogs dedicated solely to gun-related politics. Pro-gun bloggers make posts about all sorts of shootings and incidents while claiming that more guns would have prevented them by enabling the victims to defend themselves. Anti-gun bloggers make posts about the same incidents and say that more gun control would have prevented them. Plus both make random posts simply supporting or opposing gun control.
Personally, I dislike having to sort though those posts. I see too much focus on guns, and I doubt gun control or the lack of it will prevent much violence and victimization.
For example, 17,000 murders take place each year in the United States. I highly doubt that more or less gun control will change the number very much. Most of the statistics shown about guns seem highly politicized and mostly irrelevant to me.
I think we need less focus on guns and the politics involved. When guns are illegal, murders, rapists, and other assailants can use illegal guns or commit their deeds without guns. When guns are legal, very few people actually possess them anyway and even pro-gun people generally support legally disallowing access to criminals and other mentally unstable people.
We have more important issues. We need to put our resources into finding ways to reduce violence and victimization. We need to forget about changing the legal status of guns and instead find a way to stop murder and rape.
Anyway, I feel like simply summing up how I feel about guns theoretically. (I do see the irony considering my previous comments.)
I support the legalization of personal guns for self-defense for two main reasons. Firstly, I support freedom as a top priority–believing it most helpful to most individuals and to society as a whole. Secondly, for those who oppose gun ownership, I believe they can better reduce it through persuasion rather than coercion. I feel the same way about other victimless crimes such as drug possession and prostitution. These actions do not inherently include an act of victimization.
If someone owns a gun or takes drugs, but the person does not hurt anyone else, then I say we let them. Regardless of whether they own a gun or take drugs, if they try to attack someone else than I say we physically stop them.
When people exercise their freedom stupidly, I do not want it taken away. You may think it stupid to take drugs, own guns, or to commit other exercises of freedom. However, I generally believe that you can best stop these in a persuasive way rather than with the coercive power of illegalization. For example, public service announcements, advocacy groups, and so on can inform people about the dangers of drugs, guns, and such–thus trying to convince the people to voluntarily give up the supposedly bad habit.
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on November 20th, 2007 — Posted in Guns
I just read an interesting article about a student group pushing for concealed weapons on college campuses. This group along with others wants colleges to allow students and other people to be allowed to carry concealed weapons on the campuses, because they believe it will make the campuses safer and protect the right to self-defense.
Currently, Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Personally, I want each university to be able to choose what it wants to allow and disallow. Prospective students can choose which university they want to go to based on each university’s policies. The students who want to be in a place where people can have concealed guns can go to university where this is allowed. The students who want to be in a place where the people are not allowed to have concealed guns can go to a university where guns are disallowed.
What I do not want is for a government to make every school follow a certain rule. Freedom is better for everyone, because each person gets what they want.
Of course, I hope a university gives good warning before making drastic changes to its policies regarding such important policies, so that students do not go to a school under false pretenses. The students need to know the policies before enrolling so that they can make an informed decision.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on April 18th, 2007 — Posted in Guns
In a recent opinion article, Jonathan Zimmerman suggests that in the wake of the most recent American massacre we declare a National Day of Mourning and Reflection on Violence in America. I include an excerpt:
It’s hard to know why a specific killer acted in the way he did. Rather than focusing narrowly upon this awful event, then, we should declare a National Day of Mourning and Reflection on Violence in America. Besides memorializing the dead, at Virginia Tech and elsewhere, this annual federal holiday would also seek to spark a national conversation about Americans as a people: who we are, and who we would like to become.
Why, we should ask, are the gunmen in school massacres almost always male? What does that tell us about the ways we socialize boys in America? About relations between the sexes? About the relationship between violence and manhood?
Second, why are most of these gunmen also white? (Yes, reports indicate the Virginia Tech gunman was Asian; but almost every other mass shooter has been white.) Black and Latino boys commit plenty of violence in school, of course, but they’re more likely to assault an individual whom they know. White shooters more often kill en masse and randomly: They’re aiming for high body counts, not for a particular target. Why?
Third, why do so many American men – and, increasingly, many American women – own guns? Between 40 percent and 50 percent of American households own a gun, one of the highest percentages in the Western world. We can and should debate the best ways to regulate guns, but we simply cannot deny their prevalence in our society. And even though Virginia Tech was nominally a “gun-free zone,” the shooter had no trouble bringing weapons there. Why do so many Americans own guns? Which Americans choose to purchase them? And how do guns influence the nature of violence in America?
Fourth, what messages do our various mass media transmit about men, women, and violence? In the recent imbroglio over racist comments by Don Imus, many commentators observed – correctly – that similarly bigoted language suffuses America’s mainstream media. But US airwaves are saturated with violence, too, ranging from shoot’em-up movies to rape and torture. And most of this on-screen violence is committed by men, as well. I’m not saying that the mass media cause violent behavior, because we can’t be sure of that. But these images do make violence more “normal” and acceptable in US society. And that can’t be a good thing.
Last, and most important, what can we do to change? How, as a nation, can we become less violent? Is it even possible?
Read entire article by Jonathan Zimmerman.
I don’t know if he meant it facetiously or not, but regardless I support the idea of a National Day of Mourning and Reflection on Violence in America. Only by thinking and discussing these horrors can we create an effective plan to reduce them.
The problem goes beyond gun laws. No amount of increasing or reducing gun restrictions can save students from these horrific attacks.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on March 29th, 2007 — Posted in Guns
Having a gun or knife will not protect you in all situations. You won’t have your gun or knife ready to use, and assailants won’t warn you before they get 21 feet from you. It takes 21 feet for you to pull out your gun and fire 2 rounds. A victimizer won’t have the good manners to give you fair warning.
If you choose to get a gun, fine. I highly recommend that you get training with it, so that you can use it safely and effectively. However, do not mistakenly think that it makes you invulnerable.
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 14th, 2007 — Posted in Guns
Newstandardnews.com reports:
On the basis of Second Amendment protections, a US appeals court has struck down Washington, DC’s ban on owning most handguns. The case will likely to go to the Supreme Court, which would address the scope of the amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years. If the ruling is upheld there, it would not likely end the many laws regulating gun ownership but could cast doubt on measures affecting law-abiding residents. The court also ruled unconstitutional the DC requirement that registered guns be kept unloaded, disassembled and trigger-locked.
In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
In many cases, I think many persons are better off without guns. Granted, in the hands of a trained professional with common sense, guns can be the best self-defense. Regardless, I support freedom, and that includes the right for innocent people (i.e. people who have not offensively hurt anyone else) to choose how to defend themselves. Even if owning a gun is a mistake, freedom means that people have the right to make that mistake. If a person offensively hurts another person, then that first person belongs in jail regardless of whether or not they used a gun to do the harm. Insofar as a person does not offensively harm another person, then I say let that person do what they wish.
In the name of freedom, stop the enforcement of victimless “crimes” such as gun-ownership, drug possession, and prostitution. Also, by stopping the enforcement of victimless crimes, we can put our saved resources towards the agreeable goal of stopping victimizers such as murderers, rapists, and thieves.
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on December 28th, 2006 — Posted in Guns
There is universality to the firearms and self-defense debate that surfaces in almost every country of the world. The debates over public policy in each country sound very similar to those we experience in the United States.
Perhaps that is because the issues are universal: people everywhere can debate the moral and social arguments for arming the good people against the threat of the evil ones who seem to be everywhere.
The British have pretty much outlawed not only guns but self-defense and crime has skyrocketed. As a result there are recent reports of members of Parliament who would revise the laws in an attempt to re-balance the scales in the battle between good and evil. It may not happen very soon, but the debate in Britain is shifting back to serious discussions about establishing some rules to allow people to defend themselves against the criminals who ignore all laws. In Canada, the debate which was once closed has also reopened.
“Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. Often times, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with firearms, 10 lives are saved through defensive use,” Feria added.
Read entire Hawaii Reporter article by Joseph P. Tartaro.
The innocent people of society need to defend themselves from victimizers by putting the victimizers in jail, and denying victimizers the opportunity to use whatever tools and influences caused them or allowed them to commit their acts of victimization. Not only would it be detrimental for the society to waste its resources arresting innocent gun-owners, but also it would be detrimental to deny innocent people the freedom to protect themselves with guns.
Let all innocent people defend themselves however they want insofar as they do not offensively harm anyone else. (In fact, as a lover-of-freedom, I say let innocent people do whatever they want insofar as they do not offensively harm anyone else.) Put victimizers in jail regardless of whether or not they use guns to commit victimization.
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on December 18th, 2006 — Posted in Guns
Tampa Bay running back Errict Rhett was making a career of fearlessly confronting 300-pound linemen and rock-solid linebackers, but his first encounter with real, heart-thumping fright came the day he faced a .45-caliber muzzle.
That was a decade ago[…]
“My heart started beating so fast it was uncontrollable,” he said. “I’ve never been so scared. The whole world got quiet.”
That moment changed him. Rhett, like a lot of other professional athletes, decided he would never again leave home without his own concealed handgun.
While NBA and NFL officials decline to estimate how many players are licensed to carry weapons, a spate of recent gun incidents involving professional and college players has revealed that numerous athletes apparently are armed.
NBA Commissioner David Stern tackled the subject during his annual preseason conference call in October, saying he prefers that players keep their guns at home.
“We think this is an alarming subject,” Stern said. “Although you’ll read players saying how they feel safer with guns, in fact those guns actually make them less safe.”
The commissioner argued that carrying a gun dramatically increases “your chances of being shot by one.”
Todd Boyd, a critical studies professor at USC specializing in pop culture, calls guns part of the real world of many young athletes.
“So many of these players come from impoverished, urban or rural South environments,” Boyd said. “Now you talk about that kid becoming an NBA player, making a lot of money, wearing expensive jewelry, driving expensive cars, and coming from a culture where you have to protect yourself — it’s no surprise they’re taking steps to cover each other.
“Of course, the guys who are smart have guys around them with guns — bodyguards.”
After his encounter with the .45-caliber handgun at a Tampa carwash and barbershop, when Rhett was able to talk his way out of trouble, he went on to play another five seasons in the NFL — after the Buccaneers, he went to the Ravens and the Cleveland Browns.
And he remained an armed athlete.
“It’s a simple reason,” he said. “You want to protect yourself with a gun, not flaunt it.”
Read entire article by Lance Pugmire.
These young and glamorous athletes epitomize the same universal rules that apply to everyone else. Anyone can need or want guns, or other weapons, for self-defense. Guns and other weapons are tools. Used intelligently by someone who only wants to defend himself or others, guns help out a lot. However, used foolishly and/or maliciously, guns can put both the bearer and the rest of us in danger.
So long as someone does not offensively harm or try to offensively harm anyone else, then let them keep their self-defense tools, whether guns or something else. However, if someone commits a victimizing crime, such as assault, with a gun or not, then I say let us disallow that person from possessing guns and other tools that may drive the person to commit an act of victimization, or help the person commit an act of victimization.
I personally think that more often than not it is unwise to carry a gun, namely concerning untrained carriers. More often than not, I find guns less effective than other less-dangerous self-defense tools, such as pepper spray, tasers, or martial arts. Nonetheless, it is the judgment of the individual to decide which tools he or she wishes to use in their life. Accordingly, it is the decision of an innocent and mentally-competent person to decide if he/she wants to carry or not carry a gun.
What do you think?
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on November 15th, 2006 — Posted in Guns
Guns can be extremely dangerous but so can an automobile, a butcher knife, or any number of items that could potentially be used as a weapon. You may also keep in mind that a responsible person concealing a weapon may well someday save your life from one of the hundreds of thousands out there who don’t give a shit about laws, permits, or proper gun safety. A person who concienciously carries a gun and has gone through proper handling and safety classes may be a real asset in a dangerous moment.
There you have it, perspective from a properly trained, experienced gun owner and carrier. Not out looking for someone too shoot, not drawing the weapon and showing off, following all rules of safety and handling and understanding the feelings of people who are anti-gun. I don’t want anyone to disregard other formats of self defense. There are many formidable methods of self protection which don’t involve firearms, and I would suggest that these be investigated along with weapons use. Until recently I had the capabilities to defend myself with street fighting methods but a worsening pulmonary condition pretty much prevents me from physical combat any more.
Read entire article by Peter J.
I personally tend to prefer to promote alternative self-defense measures such as pepper spray and tasers, rather than guns. Nonetheless, I absolutely respect the right of an innocent person to own a gun. (In fact, I respect the right of an innocent person to do whatever they wish insofar as they do not harm anyone else.) Additionally, Peter J makes great points in the above article.
I think we can all agree that education and prevention are the best methods of self-defense, and that in a best case scenario we would avoid or diffuse dangerous situations before the need for violent self-defense became necessary.
What do you think?
8 Comments »
