Gun Control Debate

[Paladin]

http://guncontrolsa.blogspot.com/201...af-x-none.html

Guncontrol Debate






Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Gun control in South Africa

Never has there been a more emotionally charged debate than the one over gun control. Pro and Anti gun lobbyists both feel very strong in their opinions and both claim to be correct.


In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.^[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.


That is a mouth full and un-shamefully plagiarized form Wikipedia. Apologies Larry Sanger.
So everyone does have an opinion on the subject but in my examination of the facts it does seem that because of the emotional nature of the debate facts rarely have an impact on the opinions of the debater. Why then do I bother? Not to convert the anti gun activist nor to preach to the converted, but to supply the rest with some food for thought and the other side of the coin after you have seen the GFSA ads on the telly or newspaper.


I will not be using statistics. I have seen opposing arguments from pro and anti sides using the same statistics. Gun control in Australia both worked and failed, the same is true of the Canadian firearms registry. Statistics are also not as trustworthy as we are led to believe, the crime statistics for South Africa for example have some very peculiar trends, and the authorities have more than enough reason to cook the books. The methodology of some of the “research” commissioned by GFSA is also very suspect to say the least.


I have heard the “I would feel safer without the person next to me in the restaurant wearing a firearm” and “guns are bad and I don’t like them” arguments. Well, I will feel safer if everyone were trained and carried a self defence firearm. Guns are neither good nor bad and I like them. So for this argument I would also remind everyone that just because I do not like bikes, I do not lobby against ownership, I just do not own one. I have lost an uncle in a bike accident and believe them to be death on wheels. We are all entitled to have a different outlook on life, different hobbies, likes, dislikes and phobias. Thus, I ask of you to switch off the emotional feelings towards guns and focus on the facts.


So, am I against gun control? Yes, in its current form, but for the record I am also against criminals having access to firearms to perpetrate their crimes, against mentally unstable individuals owning a gun, drunks using guns while intoxicated, and minors using guns without supervision. So I’ll abide by the background check to see if there are previous convictions, violent encounters with friends or neighbours, instances where liquor clouded your judgment enough that there were consequences and to verify that individuals are of age. Although I could argue that we deem individuals to be adult by the age of 18 for every other decision in life including the decision to marry, raise children and drive a car, yet they are too immature to defend themselves. That is unless they are in the armed forces, metro or SAPS. So while I disagree with the current system, I do see the good in it, and although there are many things that I would like to see changed, the beast is here, and I abide by the act.


The main argument for gun control is usually along the lines of “if there were less (read no) firearms in legal private hands, criminals will have no access to guns to steal”. Yes I will agree with their statement, but then the firearms in unlicensed hands will first have to be removed from criminal hands, police, security and defence force arms must never be lost or stolen and our borders must be clamped shut. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa unlicensed arms will never be eradicated by the authorities, they simply do not have the manpower or means to do this. Police and Department of Defence (SANDF) regularly lose firearms. Not just handguns, but also automatic weapons, grenade launchers and ordinance. Will we now call for a ban on police carrying weapons? If it were so easy to keep our borders from being breached, we would not have a drug problem in South Africa, our rhinoceros would be safe from poachers and the illegal immigrants would have to look elsewhere for a home. Weapons from neighboring countries will very easily infiltrate South Africa and easily make up for any need that criminals may have for weapons.


So a noble sentiment GFSA, but not a reachable objective. In targeting the licensed owner you will only create a population of victims, unable to defend themselves or their families if they were under unlawful attack. Of cause the reason the lawful gun owner is targeted, is a matter of convenience. The licensed firearms are registered and the whereabouts of the owners are known, thus authorities have an easy task of finding them, not as where they will have to do some police and detective work to find and confiscate the unlicensed arms.


“All illegal guns have been in legal possession once” Losing a firearm through negligence is a crime. Years ago firearms were kept in drawers, cubby-holes or just about anywhere you liked. With training and awareness this has changed. Guns are kept in SABS approved safes if not under direct control. The negligent loss is handled by the authorities, the culprit loses his competency and all his guns are confiscated. Most firearm owners are responsible and safeguard firearms, do not punish the majority because of the sins of only a few. Unfortunately even the most secure bank safe can be breached if the criminal wants to get inside and he is industrious enough. So while there are some firearms lost through negligence and prosecuted, sometimes guns are lost through no negligence of the owner. If a burglar gains access to a bank vault the manager of that bank is not prosecuted with the criminal. The problem here is one of crime, see it as that. The criminal needs to be brought to justice by the authorities and the justice system should see him prosecuted. The gun owner is a victim of that crime. The criminal is the problem. If we really want to address this issue the authorities need to curb down on crime and make our streets safe to live in.


“Every year there are thousands of woman and children who are killed and maimed by licensed firearms.” This is another of GFSA’s propaganda tricks. The emotional burden is put on you to deny that this is a good reason to ban all firearms when it could save the lives of countless woman and children. But just as many woman, children, elderly and able bodied people are killed for various reasons every day, for example, road accidents, poor health services, no access to basic necessities, cold, hunger and drugs. No one is calling for a ban on all cars, trucks, mini taxis, trains or air planes. The state of hospitals and the amount of people dying are just more statistics, people dying of cold in inadequate housing are largely ignored until the next elections. The scapegoat here is the gun. Instead of addressing violence against woman and children the gun is the culprit. Why must the responsible handgun owner be punished for the actions of the irresponsible, criminal actions of some? How many women have defended their lives successfully because they had access to a firearm when they needed it?


Guns have been demonized for a long time, but firearms are no more good or bad than any other inanimate object. A gun placed on a table will not harm anyone until it has been picked up by someone. The intentions of the person picking up that gun will dictate the good or bad outcome of the use of it. If the outcome is bad, it is the fault of the hand that wielded it, not the gun. If the same hand with ill intent, does not find a gun on a table, he will still be evil and if he intents to harm someone he will harm that person regardless of the fact that he has access to a firearm. If he feels intimidated by his intended victim he will seek alternative weapons, be it a knife, sword, scissors, bat, poison or a rock. It will only depend on what is conveniently at hand. If all else fails and he does not feel so intimidated by his victim he could of cause use his bare hands to kill. People did not start dying at the hand of criminals from when guns were invented.


Why do people kill? The great book names the root of all evil as “the love of money”. Now would it not rather make sense abolishing money? No one will have possessions, and then there will be no crime whatsoever since the greed that drives crime will be no more. “Flawed reasoning!” I hear you cry. “I work hard for what I have, long hours at office have enabled me to own the possessions that I have and the money in the bank is to assure me of a self sufficient old age.” My reasoning verbatim. But I price the lives of my family even higher than that of my possessions that, because of the greed of criminals, have made me a target. Unfortunately they have resorted into not being satisfied with worldly possessions. Killing, raping and maiming victims of crime are now just as likely to happen for a cellular phone as for a car. They claim for themselves the right over life, content in the knowledge that their right to live is protected by the constitution.


“Killing a criminal, drag you down to his level and then you are a killer yourself” GFSA, I will have to sleep with my own conscious at night and will have to meet my maker sometime. I hope that the report that I will give Him is one where I cared and protected my family to the best of my ability. I believe that my maker sees life as sacred, which includes my life, the lives of my wife and the life of my daughter and that of my twin sons. I also believe that because of the sanctity of life, it is our duty to defend it. Christian law does allow for self defence, secular law ditto and even in the law of nature it is called kill or be killed. The secular law of South Africa does have very strict guidelines about when lethal force may be used in self defence. It does however not force the choice to use it on anyone. Make the decision for yourself, but by disarming the public there is no question about the outcome of a deadly encounter with a criminal.


“It is the duty of the police to protect citizens”. Yes, again I have to agree with GFSA. Where do I sign up to have a policeman assigned to protect my family every day 24 hours out of 24 hours? The reality of the matter is the police force is under staffed, under budgeted, and demoralized. They feel the burden of crime even more than Joe Public. Unfortunately the best that they can do is to protect the general population and not the individual. I did promise not to use statistics, so now I’ll have to ask you to do some homework so that I can keep that promise. How many policemen do you think there are to protect you? http://www.saps.gov.za/_dynamicModul...age4/BP444.asp Remember that they are working in shifts, working in different divisions and that they are also entitled to leave. How long do you think it will take for the average emergency call to your local police station to result in a policeman at your side to protect you? Speak to your friends that had to make a call like that, and survived to give the answer. I have the greatest respect for our “boys in blue” they feel the brunt of criminal activity, working against the criminals daily, being shot at and being killed for our safety. There are corrupt cops, just as there are corrupt doctors. There are bad cops, just as there are bad priests. But the majority of the police are good men selflessly fighting the battle against crime daily. But we cannot expect them to protect us individually. The next statement is a cliché but still worth thinking about. “The police are only minutes away, when seconds count.”


“Legal firearms have been used in crimes.” Yes, unarguably even someone having a clean background check, and successful in getting a legally licensed firearm, might be bad or turn bad. But I have no intention in using my firearm for criminal activities. Prosecute the one that does. In no other instance will the possession of any sort be denied because of the probability that you might have ill intensions. Are we guilty until proven innocent? If this reasoning can be used in everyday life, no prescription drugs may be sold to anyone because some people misuse them, all cell phones must be banned because some people use them in committing crimes and the internet should be banned because of the amount of illegal activities thereon. Why not govern all vehicles to 120km/h that is the maximum speed that we can legally drive on the roads and some people have been known to exceed this. Remember speed kills! We have a police force, it is their duty to investigate criminal activities and prosecute criminals. Licensed firearm owners should not have to suffer because of criminals, doing criminal activities, even if the firearms they use in committing the crimes are legally licensed firearms.


“Hand guns only have one purpose, to kill” As a firearm enthusiast I have to disagree. You might find it difficult to comprehend, but I do find enjoyment out of using my firearm on the shooting range to paper punch targets. There are a lot of people who enjoy shooting and practice it as a sport to different levels of proficiency. I will again use the analogy of the bike rider to explain why I feel that this pleasure should not be denied to me. As I said I do not like motorbikes. I can not see the enjoyment that friends have when they use a bike that can go to just more than 300km/h. To me that sound like putting your own life at risk. They do use special tracks to practice their dangerous (in my eyes) sport, go for special training (something called track days) and do employ protective clothing to protect them. There might be a few that are foolish enough to try this on public roads, they get prosecuted. Similarly, we practice our sport on a special track (shooting range), receive special training and use protective clothing to protect ourselves. People using their firearm outside of this safe environment for illegal purposes are similarly prosecuted. I can not comprehend the enjoyment bikers get from their hobby but I just choose not to participate. I do not call for a total ban on bikes from big to small. I ask for the same courtesy, even if it does not seem like something that you would enjoy doing.


I hope that I have convinced you that guns are neither good nor bad, that people are responsible for their actions and should be prosecuted by law if they are at fault rather than to punish a group of innocent people. That with murder on the mind there are several alternatives to guns. That everyone has the right to life and the right to defend it against unlawful attack. And mostly that GFSA lives in la la land where crime comes to swift justice without bloodshed, innocent or otherwise. I do not call upon you to take up firearms, not as sport nor as a means for self defence. That is a decision I leave up to you, but I do call upon you not to be brainwashed by the anti-gun campaigns that are trying to fight legal gun ownership in South Africa. We are already under strict gun laws that regulate the possession of firearms. The firearm fraternity consists mostly of normal people just like you and me. They are not gun crazed madmen shooting first asking questions later.


http://www.frontline.org.za/articles...withmurder.htm
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/re...rime_stats.htm
http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQ31Bruce.pdf

[Psychosis]

Respect!

[h0stag3]

It is time for a new "segregation". Let the GFSA guys make their own republic and move there, us Pro Gun people make ours and see if they survive. Where do you think the criminals will go?

They are terribly illogical. Laws are there for law abiding citizens. That is it. Criminals do not care!

[Paladin]

It is time for a new "segregation". Let the GFSA guys make their own republic and move there, us Pro Gun people make ours and see if they survive. Where do you think the criminals will go?

They are terribly illogical. Laws are there for law abiding citizens. That is it. Criminals do not care!

And mostly that GFSA lives in la la land where crime comes to swift justice without bloodshed, innocent or otherwise.

And we'll call their republic La La Land.

[h0stag3]

And we'll call their republic La La Land.

I got sidetracked! Awesome post Paladin!

And I fully agree about the name. If we convince them that we like our eyes open, then they will try and refute the logic and say NO!! Seeing is bad! La La Land it is!

:-D

[gwj DICKDEKOCK]

So they say that all illegal guns were once legally owned?So this means that criminals wouldn't have access to guns if guns were totally outlawed...Interesting logic...there are no legal owners of Heroin and Tik in SA,and yet these drugs are readily available to criminals...

[h0stag3]

I never want to argue with a GFSA idiot... their silly logic might compel me to show them the blunt side of my PK, and not a Walther PK either ;-)

There are plenty non-projectile emitting weapons which are just as deadly.

[Gunservant]

+100 guys! Yes, h0stag3, if I were a criminal and I didn't have a gun (but nobody else did either) I'd make a plan. Arguing with GFSA mentalities is like bashing one's head against a brick wall.

[curious george]

Arguing with GFSA mentalities is like bashing one's head against a brick wall.

....only less people get hurt by displacing bricks using your ear-seperator!

[h0stag3]

Blegh... this makes me wanna puke. Hey, who is for passing a bucket around to puke in and send to these guys once full?

Think we'll get 2500l in 3days :-D .

Ok ok... lets pity the fool that pities the fool...