Uechi-Ryu.com

I've seen a lot of messages on these Uechi forums speaking out against gun control, with very few voices in opposition (maybe I just haven't checked the archives thoroughly). So I would like to make my argument in favor of gun control, but first I'd like to say two things.

First of all, I'd like say that position I want to argue is for the sake of discussion and is not my actual position. If someone wants to discuss what I actually believe, that's fine, but to be honest my actual position is less concretely defensible, and less interesting (I imagine). :)

Secondly I just wanted to make sure that I'm aware of the reasons people think that guns should should be available to the general public. Here are the reasons I've I've heard:

Guns should be allowed...

1. Because as the Bill of Rights indicates, a fundamental right exists to own guns, comparable to the right to free speech.

2. For personal defense against criminals.

3. For personal, or societal defense against tyrannical government.

4. For personal, or societal defense against invading nations.

5. For procurement of livelihood I.E. hunting.

6. For entertainment or sporting purposes.

If anyone wants to start contradicting my points in advance they can, (Panther for example, it's likely you've previously argued against a fair amount of what I have to say) but I would also like to know generally if I have missed any general uses people have for general gun ownership.

Valkenar a few more for the list.

7. To defended against wildlife attacks on people(ie cougar,bear,wolves(rare) etc.)

8.to defended against domestic animal attack(ie dog)

9. To enforce the law.

10. To dispatch suffering animals (ie horses with broken legs,700 year old pets)

11. For the tax man

Laird

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
Valkenar a few more for the list.
7. To defended against wildlife attacks on people(ie cougar,bear,wolves(rare) etc.)

8.to defended against domestic animal attack(ie dog)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I forgot these.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
9. To enforce the law.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is this different from "defend against criminals" in terms of general use?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
10. To dispatch suffering animals (ie horses with broken legs,700 year old pets)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I'll add this too.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
11. For the tax man
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm, so you think "defese against tyrannica government" should go in twice maybe?

Item 9, shot the BG stabbing the victim (personal intervention) vs policeman shot the BG stabbing the victim (social intervention,nice to see you tax dollars at work)

Item 11 okay ya got it covered but can we at least let the shooter a few extra rounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
Item 9, shot the BG stabbing the victim (personal intervention) vs policeman shot the BG stabbing the victim (social intervention,nice to see you tax dollars at work)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, I see the miscommunication now. I meant reasons for "The People" to have guns, not just any "people." Sorry about that. So the police don't count because (in this instance, no disrespect to LEOs intended) they are the "Tyrannical Government."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Item 11 okay ya got it covered but can we at least let the shooter a few extra rounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, we can compromise on that. (though being a student with virtually no income the tax man just sneers at me)

Valkenar (and anyone else),

Have at it... As the moderator of this forum, I am supposed to be more neutral, balanced and calm. However, this is a subject that rates at the top of my pile... It is also a subject where I make no apologies about my passionate beliefs.

I consider that to be fair warning.

With that in mind, I promise to do my best to maintain a "professional" demeanor, but if any other moderator catches me getting to caught up in the thread, I welcome and encourage their e-mail to me with admonishments. Also, to keep the discussion "honest", other moderators are welcome to intervene if they see fit.

Fair enough?

Good...


Let the games begin.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther:
Valkenar (and anyone else),
I am supposed to be more neutral, balanced and calm. However, this is a subject that rates at the top of my pile... It is also a subject where I make no apologies about my passionate beliefs.

Also, to keep the discussion "honest", other moderators are welcome to intervene if they see fit.

Fair enough?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I seem to disagree with you about social issues, I have great respect for your integrity, and I had no fear that your role as moderator would be unfairly used because of your position on these matters. What you said was fair, though I don't anticipate the need for any unusual measures. Nor, in my opinion does your role as moderator require you to be neutral toward the issues, nor appologetic about your beliefs. Though I appreciate the statement. I have class pretty soon, but when I get home tonight I'll make the points I have to make.

[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited March 30, 2001).]

A couple more:

* Because I want one.

* Because I don't want to relinquish control over wheteher I shall live or die on this day to some punk out on the street.

There are more

------------------
Van Canna

Just warming up while awaiting th Panther's pounce.

To Preserve and Guarantee

Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights.

What could those rights be? Below are quotes from two Founding Fathers telling us that the right to self-defense is a natural right, it cannot be justifiably taken away by any governing body.

"I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature."

"The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

The above quote is from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).


We have many, many natural rights not enumerated by law. Think about it! (Of course, we have responsibilities as well).

------------------
Van Canna

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
Just warming up while awaiting the Panther's pounce.

To Preserve and Guarantee

Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The big cat isn't pouncing... yet. he's just glimpsing in from the tall grass and decided to make a comment.

It has been historically well established that the founding documents of this nation not only include, but are predicated on the Declaration of Independence.

And that is where we can read the founders beliefs on our inalienable rights. The second paragraph of that great document states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, (meaning evident without need of proof or further reasoning) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (meaning that whoever you believe in as your G-D is who gave you your rights, not any human) with certain unalienable rights, (meaning that those Rights are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (If you have an inalienable right to your life as endowed on you by your Creator, which you do, then the religious concept of "self-defense" becomes automatically "self-evident") That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed. (meaning that NO government has any "rights", merely duties and functions that said government has been charged with performing by "We, the People") That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. (and here is a strongly debated "right". Perhaps it is the right of secession, or perhaps it is even more fundamental than that... perhaps it is the fundamental right to revolution) Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. (Aha! It's the fundamental right of revolution, but NOT for trivial reasons) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I said "as the Bill of Rights indicates" instead of "As the Bill of Rights defines. I was trying to brief, but yes I'm aware of the point you made and was trying to state it succinctly,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
* Because I want one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I intended for this to be covered by the entertainment/sport option, but I'll try and make that a little more clear.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
* Because I don't want to relinquish control over wheteher I shall live or die on this day to some punk out on the street.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought this was adequately covered by the "personal defense against criminals" reason.




[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited March 30, 2001).]

Hello all. Yes, I am all for 'gun' control. In fact I practice what I preach. This week I was with my Marine Corps at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base and spent some time at the range with the M16 practicing my control.

The photo below is the bulls eye from my 15 rounds for record. There is a hole in a hole should you count and find only 14 holes in the target. Acording to the SSgt running the range he has never seen it done better!



Yes, 'gun' control is important and requires regular practice (by the way, never call the M16 a gun, it is a weapon).

Regards, Rich

Rich,

I am all for gun control also.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Clint Eastwood

------------------
Van Canna

[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited March 30, 2001).]

Gun Control: The Seventh Paradox

Dr. Michael S. Brown, March 23, 2001

Few public policy discussions have become so bitter and divisive as the endless debate over guns. None is so burdened with contradictions and misinformation. The dictionary defines a paradox as "something or someone with seemingly contradictory qualities or phases." Here are seven paradoxes that have developed during the course of this conflict:

1. Women are usually at a physical disadvantage when confronted by a male attacker, and violence against women has been a major societal issue. Some women know that a firearm combined with training is a true equalizer. They have taken steps to educate themselves and safely provide for their own security. However, many women reject this opportunity. They seem to accept the concept that guns are evil and promote violence. Thus, those who could benefit most from gun ownership are least likely to own one.

2. Police chiefs are famous for blaming crime on "guns flooding the streets" and generally support more gun control. However, rank-and-file police officers are overwhelmingly opposed to stricter laws. Why the disagreement? Most police chiefs are political appointees selected by mayors. Most mayors favor stricter gun laws and would be unlikely to choose or keep a chief who disagreed. Officers who work on the streets are much more practical. They know they can't be everywhere at once and are usually limited to processing crimes after they have occurred. Unlike the chiefs who are surrounded by tight security and influential people, officers who work on the streets know all too well what the world is like for the rest of us.

3. Celebrities and politicians who promote gun control are the ones who don't need to protect themselves. They have access to the best bodyguards that money can buy. Even if the strictest imaginable gun laws are enacted, armed men will still protect them.

4. As a result of state laws passed in recent decades, citizens in 31 states are now entitled to concealed weapons permits if they have a clean record and fulfill various requirements. Data gained from this change has provided important new knowledge for gun law discussions. To the great surprise of anti-gun groups, it turns out that permit holders are far less violent than the general population. Even more significant is the fact that crime decreased in the areas where permits were made available. As one researcher put it, "more guns, less crime."

5. Criminals victimize minorities at a much higher rate than the general population, yet many gun control efforts such as buy-backs and neighborhood sweeps of low-income areas are aimed at reducing gun ownership by minorities. This paradox has operated as long as human history. Immigrants, political dissenters and ethnic minorities have been disarmed many times by governments seeking to bring them under tighter control. They are always told that it's for their own good.

6. The position that gun issues have assumed in the political spectrum is very interesting. Liberals, who defend the right of a woman to have an abortion, would generally deny her the use of a firearm to protect herself and her family. Conservatives, who typically feel that the government should allow people to make their own important decisions, want more government control of personal reproductive choices. Since these are both matters of life and death, one might expect more consistency, but somehow the positions have become reversed.

7. The seventh paradox is the most profound. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Gun control simply does not work as crime control. Case after case shows that when cities, states and nations implement gun control, crime goes up. Washington, Chicago, New York, Australia, Britain: the list is long and getting longer as the seductive appeal of gun control spreads. Criminologists explain that disarming the law-abiding population makes life easier for criminals, who are going to ignore the law anyway.

Laura,

Perhaps you should have closed your column with "No matter how many cases are sent in, I won't change my mind." At least it would have saved Second Amendment supporters -- who thought you would rationally consider the evidence you called for -- the trouble of fulfilling your request for examples. We understand the, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" philosophy.

Of course, there IS hard, empirical evidence that shows that concealed carry of firearms by citizens lowers crime - but I don't expect you are honestly interested in that either. Your "philosophical" position is not interested in reality. "Philosophically," everyone should love one another, and there would be no need for defense against criminal attack. While you're dreaming, you might want to make yourself immortal, richer than Croesus, more beautiful than Helen, stronger than Hercules, more talented than Nabokov and wiser than God. If you're going to dream, why not go whole hog?

While I grant that individual anecdotes are not a good way to decide this issue - what effort have you made to research the subject on a statistical basis? Making a vague reference to "Western European Countries" is no more accurate than an anecdotal approach. For example, Switzerland (a Western European Country) is armed to the teeth, with machine guns issued to many of their adult male citizens, yet misuse of firearms there is minimal.

Or perhaps you were referring to Britain, which now tops the United States in almost every area of crime (and is catching up in homicides) - and which, breaking a 170-year-old tradition, is now arming its Bobbies to combat a crime wave that reflects a 7-year increase (since gun banning went into effect there) culminating in the most recent year's all-time high. The same sort of thing is happening in Australia.

But don't blame me. Read the research from that hotbed of pro-Second Amendment research, the University of Leiden. Would you be surprised to learn that among those "Western European Countries" you hold in such regard, England, Scotland, Finland, N. Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and France all have higher rates of violent crime than the US? (There may be others, but the article only cites the top ten most violent countries - and the US didn't make that list.) Read it for yourself, on a website with a vested interest in your own position, no less. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003489802464778&rtmo=aCq4dK4J&atmo=r rrrrrvs&pg=/et/01/2/23/ncrim123.html

Of course, it's pretty meaningless to compare one country straight across to another without taking into account cultural factors. Japan has a low murder rate, and firearms are banned - but there is no evidence the relationship is causal. The suicide rate (which accounts for more than half of all gun-related death in the United States) is nearly three times higher in Japan.

If you have any journalistic integrity, then, it seems you should turn to studies that show what happens when laws CHANGE in this country. That's your concern with the Michigan law, right? For that, you have the most definitive study ever done on the effect of concealed carry laws: John Lott's research shows that when citizens are allowed to carry firearms for the defense of themselves and others, crime goes down. This really isn't surprising. In Florida, one of the major early adopters of "shall issue" concealed carry, permit holders have proven at least 6 times more law-abiding than the legislature that created the laws. (I base this on the felony arrest rate of permit holders - which is tracked by the state - and the publicized felony convictions of Florida legislators - which I admit may be grossly underestimated, since every case I might have missed in my few hours of research actually lowers the ratio. Thus, permit holders may be 10 times, or even 100 times less likely to commit a felony than the legislators.)

Again, this is not surprising. A person who goes to the effort to get a concealed carry permit cannot be a felon, a drug addict, an alcoholic - must pass a background check, and must be trying to obey the law, else they'd carry without the permit.

By the way, Florida's enactment of a law similar to the Michigan law was followed by a 21% drop in the homicide rate. The gun-related homicide rate dropped slightly more - by 23%. So maybe instead of "looking to Western European Counties" you ought to be looking at what happens right here in the USA.

Having and carrying a gun does not magically change anyone into a homicidal maniac. But "shall issue" concealed carry does mean criminals must be fearful that any person - yes, even you - might have the means to defend themselves or others against violent criminal attack.

The irony here is that no matter how closed-minded you might be, or how unreasoningly anti-gun, the enactment of "shall issue" concealed carry in Michigan is likely to make YOU safer by putting all criminals in fear.[/QUOTE]

Kurt Amesbury, J.D.
KABA National States Director http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com



[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited March 30, 2001).]