Questions about US gun laws by a European:

[Reprobate]

[Please take into account that I'm from the Netherlands, where guns are strictly controlled, before you judge my comments.]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Banning firearms and passing laws against them does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is place law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when it comes to self-defense.

I agree that in a country where handguns are abundant, gun control would only aid the criminal, but in a country where guns are strictly controlled, the amount of criminals carrying guns would also be limited, due to the dire consequences of being caught with a firearm. Hence, most criminals in the Netherlands carry knives/clubs, not guns. This, of course, is a different situation from the US.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense.

I agree, but with reservations. What kind of gun would be strictly self-defense? In my opinion it would be something like a Derringer .357. Powerful enough to stop an assailant, but not a gun to shoot someone who's standing half a block down the road. Furthermore, is a gun/projectile weapon necessary for self-defense? Couldn't one defend oneself with, for instance, a stunning weapon - electricity, teargas, something like that? Most guns are still designed to seriously maim. If you want to put down an attacker without harming him [too much], one wouldn't resort to a gun, right? Or maybe a gun with rubber bullets?
Killing a mugger and ending up in jail, instead of losing your wallet, would suck, wouldn't it?

This is just my opinion, but bearing arms often causes people to throw caution in the wind. Just as some martial artists, confident in their skills, enter into situations beyond their control, when it would be more prudent to keep distance or avoid the situation altogether.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Martial arts and self-defense are not mutually exclusive.

No, they're not. A "martial" artist who supports gun control, however, fails to grasp the concept of self-defense.

 

[Thesemindz]

Phil, I really like your site and I agree with you totally on gun control, but I don't entirely agree with your statement that "Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense." I think they can be a martial artist and be horribly wrong at the same time. I agree that gun control is suicidal and could lead to the subjugation of the entire world, and I don't think gun control advocates realize just how dangerous this is, but I don't think that that alone can disqualify them from being martial artists. Can I be a martial artist and not wear my seat belt? Can I be a martial artist and not tie my shoes? Can I be a martial artist and not look both ways before crossing the street? Can I be a martial artist and make a really stupid mistake? I hope so.

-Rob

 

[Phil Elmore]

This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.

Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.

A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.

 

[Thesemindz]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.

Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.

A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.

I guess the reason I'm disagreeing with you here is because of your use of the term martial artist. I agree with the martial aspect of it, but I think you're ignoring the artist part. If you used the term "martial combatant" I'd be in complete agreement with you here, but to me the term martial artist refers to someone who excercises self expression through the use of combative technique. Certaintly, some of us are more concerned with self defense, and some of us even carry firearms, but does that mean that if I practice tai chi I'm not a martial artist because I don't practice realistic, effective, street influenced self defense? Let's be serious for one moment, most martial arts aren't based around winning fights. If you can knee, elbow, and poke someone in the eye, you can win a fight. Isn't a martial artist concerned with something more?

I want you to understand that I'm not disagreeing with your stance on gun control, in fact I whole heartedly agree, and even saved some of your posts on the subject due to their logical arguements. I just wanted to discuss this aspect of the issue.

-Rob

 

[Phil Elmore]

That's just it, though -- a "martial" artist who supports gun control may indeed be an "artist" of some kind, but not of anything martial.

Those arts that call themselves "martial" arts but which do not teach effective fighting are, in fact, not martial arts at all. If you practice Tai Chi, you're not a martial artist. You're some sort of fitness technician.

Forgetting the "Martial" in "Martial Artist"

 

[Thesemindz]

Strong words Phil. I respect that you've stuck to your guns on this one and I want to thank you for the discussion. So I will.

Thanks.

-Rob

 

[dearnis.com]

Nice discussion guys....
Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...) or we see a huge cash outlay, which would be funded how????
just food for thought.

 

[Cryozombie]

Originally posted by dearnis.com
Nice discussion guys....
Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...) or we see a huge cash outlay, which would be funded how????
just food for thought.

But, how often does the government pay out for siezure of property... ?

And I still agree with Phil's assessment that a martial artist that overlooks the neccessity of having weapons equal to or better than our enemies are, well, in MY words, Foolish.

 

[Arthur]

Great posts Phil. Thanks.

Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...)

Yup... that is just what happened in Australia. Well first they told people they had to register their guns, then license them, after they had a full database of all the law abiding guns... they went and took them... including family heirlooms of a priceless nature to individuals.

I agree that in a country where handguns are abundant, gun control would only aid the criminal, but in a country where guns are strictly controlled, the amount of criminals carrying guns would also be limited, due to the dire consequences of being caught with a firearm.

They are criminals... if they were motivated by concerns of punishment, they wouldn't commit crimes at all.

What kind of gun would be strictly self-defense? In my opinion it would be something like a Derringer .357. Powerful enough to stop an assailant, but not a gun to shoot someone who's standing half a block down the road.

What kind of gun would be strictly for self defense... the same as any empty hand technique... one that is used in that context. I can kill with a knife, my hands, even a frying pan... simply having one of these other lethal items does not make it an offensive monstrosity. I can chose to murder with them, defend myself with them or even cook with them... only my choices and actions define the tools nature.

The type of cooking utensil is as irrelevent to motivation as is the type of gun.

Arthur
PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out.
PPS sorry about the "pan" pun;-)

 

[Cryozombie]

I agree with that too.

If I did not have access to a firearm, and wanted to kill someone I would blow them up. I can get everything I need to build a car bomb at Toys R Us, and it doesnt take a genious to figure it out.

What are we gonna do, ban Toys?

If I couldnt blow them up I would buy a crossbow.

Cant get that? A hammer. An Axe. A Garden Hoe.

A BUTCHER KNIFE. A chainsaw. Some gasoline to burn them alive in their house. Poisoned Pepsi like that voodoo freak who killed his neigbors.

I could do it with a car, I could do it in a bar. I could do it here or there, I could do it anywhere. I wouldnt need to own a gun, but I could kill them, everyone.

 

[Thesemindz]

I agree with the sentiment, but I'd be careful about posting that in a public forum. If you ever did need to kill someone that could be used to demonstrate pre-meditation. You know "they" are listening.

Everyone check your foil hats.

-Rob

 

[928Porsche]

"PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out. "

I can't remember where I read this but the article stated that on a percentage basis, more people who are attacked with a knife die than people who are attacked with a gun.

 

[Reprobate]

In the Netherlands, guns have always been strictly controlled [from the beginning of their appearance in the country]. And criminals tend to carry sharp/blunt implements rather than guns.

Of course, those intent on killing someone will not be detained by any law concerning the illegality of guns - there has been a series of gangland executions where the victim [a criminal] was killed in a hail of bullets.
Still, these killings are done by, ehm, 'professional' killers. The average thug on the street - mugger, robber, whatever - will prefer a weapon that will not automatically sling his @ss in jail, so they tend to avoid guns.

In reply to a few posts on killing - the methods described do rely to some degree on knowledge [making bombs out of Toys 'r Us products], skill [killing with sharp implements has to be done at closer range than with guns], or a disregard for innocent bystanders [torching a house with several occupants to kill one person].

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by 928Porsche
"PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out. "

I can't remember where I read this but the article stated that on a percentage basis, more people who are attacked with a knife die than people who are attacked with a gun.

Hey...I am really interested where you found this statistic. I mean, like, REALLY interested.

Please let me know if you can remember where you got it from.

Thanks!

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Arthur


Yup... that is just what happened in Australia. Well first they told people they had to register their guns, then license them, after they had a full database of all the law abiding guns... they went and took them... including family heirlooms of a priceless nature to individuals.

Wow...I didn't realize that this has happend before. I need some more information, but I think I might be changing my views on licensing if it really can lead to banning and seizing. The point of tighter licensing/registration for me is to make us more free, not less. I figured with tighter licensing/registration, we could own anything we want because if we used it to kill someone, it would be easy to trace.

I always believed that our 2nd amendment would protect us against a ban and sieze....and I don't believe Australia had such an amendment.

Yet it looks like I need some more intel.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by PAUL
Wow...I didn't realize that this has happend before. I need some more information, but I think I might be changing my views on licensing if it really can lead to banning and seizing. The point of tighter licensing/registration for me is to make us more free, not less. I figured with tighter licensing/registration, we could own anything we want because if we used it to kill someone, it would be easy to trace.

I always believed that our 2nd amendment would protect us against a ban and sieze....and I don't believe Australia had such an amendment.

Yet it looks like I need some more intel.

Didn't the same thing happen in Britain. They told the people to register and then started the outlawing process. Mabey some of our british forumite can help.

 

[Jmh7331]

This is what most people don't understand. The reason we (the gun owners) are againsts such steps is because they are just that: Steps. One thing leads to another.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The average thug on the street - mugger, robber, whatever - will prefer a weapon that will not automatically sling his @ss in jail, so they tend to avoid guns.

That can be done without actually making the weapon (guns) illegal. I think it was Virginia that started a program wherein they automatically added years if a person committed a crime with a gun. Gun violence decreased.

I can't remember the name of this program...anyone?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
That can be done without actually making the weapon (guns) illegal. I think it was Virginia that started a program wherein they automatically added years if a person committed a crime with a gun. Gun violence decreased.

I can't remember the name of this program...anyone?

I believe in some places, the federal program is called Project Exile. In other places, it is known as Project Safe Neighborhoods.

I don't know about the statistics part, but the enforcement of adding charges by merely possessing a gun while in commission of a crime was covered in today's newspapers in Utah. Apparently, there aren't enough people aware of this law.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01042004/utah/126034.asp

- Ceicei