I was thinking that I would not comment on what happened at Virginia Tech because afterall, what could I say that hasn't been said already. Not only that, but I think it was just the day before the Virginia Tech massacre that over 180 people in Iraq were killed by bombs. So I would feel bad about writing about just 32 people unless I also had something to say about the scores or even hundreds of people who are dying every day in other parts of the world. But the following article just really bugs me:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959
In the article a gun nut, I mean to say, the president of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League says that what happened at Virginia Tech is "a big nail in the coffin of gun control. They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves."
So, this rather immature individual believes that if the law allowed everyone to walk around armed they could gun down people who go on shooting sprees. He and others like him would like to see the law allow anyone over 21 be able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon for self defense.
Now, that might be true. Apparently Virginia does allow people with permits to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, but apparently they cannot do so on college campuses (and of course college students are all scrupulous about obeying campus policies - that is why you never find college students drinking if they're under 21 or doing illegal drugs). So the theory is that if all states allowed concealed weapons and if all campuses and businesses allowed it then everyone would be able to shoot the bad guys when they show up. Maybe it would work that way on some occasions. Maybe there would be fewer massacres like Virginia Tech. But what about Columbine? Should high school students arm themselves? How about grade school students? Maybe teachers should all be required to pack heat as part of their responsibility to protect their students?
I have a different point of view however. Perhaps massacres would end up simply becoming shoot outs with only a few victims instead of a few more. But in their place would be lots and lots of other shootouts between people who may qualify to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon but who otherwise don't have the mental stability or emotional maturity or self-control to not blow away a friend, family member or complete stranger in a moment of panic, outrage, roadrage, heated argument, or fit of peevishness. And with so many guns floating around in purses, handbags, brief cases, backpacks, coat pockeets, and so on (and if everyone has to defend themselves at these gun nuts argue then there will have to be guns floating around everywhere within easy reach - you never know when you'll have to defend yourself) I wonder how many more accidents will happen with children getting ahold of them? Or how many more people will successfully commit suicide with such easy means at their disposal. Would more easily available firepower make us safer? I think Jesus said it best: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." The same goes for guns. And it should come as no surprise that a Buddhist minister would agree with this.
Sorry to say the world is not divided into good guys and bad guys. It is made up of who are more or less sane and rational and who may or may not show the degree of their sanity and rationality. And even the sanest and most rational among us has moments of irrational blind rage and frustration. A Zen teacher, who I highly respect spoke about this last week and admitted that when he had been bullied in jr. high he fantasized about gunning down his tormentors. There are lots of people I would gladly have gunned down back when I was in high school. One bully in particular who threw my Spanish books out of a school bus window on the night I had to study for an exam. Thank god my home didn't have guns, because I would have shot him. As it was I beat him up in the hall the next day - and the teachers even gave me some time to do it before stopping us because they knew what this kid was like and what he had done. If Buddhism has taught me anything it has taught me that ALL of us have ALL ten worlds within us - and they come out in varying degrees depending on causes and conditions. Better not to have guns around when we manifest the lower worlds. The more guns around the LESS safe I feel, no matter who is packing them. There are no good guys and bad guys - there are only people who may or may not be sane and rational and even the most sane and rational may have their moments. And no permit or licensing is going to make people more sane, rational, or mature - nor can they even check for that.
It seems like the rest of the world recognizes this, but we Americans seem to have a blind spot. Here is another article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_world_view_4
In that article is this important statement:
"While some focused blame only on the gunman, world opinion over U.S. gun laws was almost unanimous: Access to weapons increases the probability of shootings. There was no sympathy for the view that more guns would have saved lives by enabling students to shoot the assailant."
Well I agree with that, and I think it is a rather obvious observation. It disturbs me that in this supposedly Christian culture people so readily argue that safety requires that people have access to deadly weapons, whereas in post-Christian or non-Christian countries they seem to have realized that by prohibiting easy (or even any) access to guns, they have very minimal numbers of handgun murders.
Now here is a helpful article:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
In particular I noted this paragraph:
"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."
There are of course statistics and counter-statistics on both sides. But for me it is just common sense - guns are tragedies waiting to happen. I accept that we need police and even a military. I am not necessarily looking for an all out ban on guns. But where to draw the line? In any case the laissez faire attitude that gets its way in this country strikes me as insane, irrational, and immature. And even if guns are allowed for home or self-defense, I still do not think things work out the way people imagine in their heroic daydreams. As the paragraph above indicates - for every anecdote of a heroic self-defense there are many many more tragedies.
As a parting thought I will share what the Buddha said about those who take up the Buddha Dharma:
"And how is a monk perfected in morality? Abandoning the taking of life, without stick or sword, scrupulous, compassionate, trembling for the welfare of all living beings. Thus he is established in morality."
Something tells me that is a better way to live and go through life - rather than nuturing our fears and heroic daydreams of winning a shoot-em-up to cultivate compassion and a peaceful heart. If more people did that, rather than rushing to carry concealed weapons or keeping handguns under their pillows, we would probably all be a lot safer.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Posted by Ryuei at April 22, 2007 10:50 PM
Rev. Ryuei -
Just as an additional point here, from today's Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4738341.html
Three excerpts from the article:
"At least eight people have died violently since Friday, when NASA contract worker William Phillips, 60, shot his supervisor and barricaded himself inside a building at the Johnson Space Center.
Phillips and another of the weekend assailants later took their own lives."
"Police said Marco Soto, 33, shot his girlfriend, Maria L. Aguilar, 40, shortly after 10 p.m. inside their northeast Houston apartment in the 3300 block of Berry.
Soto then turned the gun on himself. Both died at the scene."
"And shortly after 2 a.m. Sunday, two men were driving in opposite directions in the 1700 block of Bland when they reached a point where neither could pass.
Both got out of their cars and began arguing. One then pulled a pistol and began firing, police said.
The victim was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead."
It doesn't make sense to me that if there were more guns involved in any of these incidents, that there would have been any better outcomes than what did occur. Others may have differing opinions, of course.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 23, 2007 05:09 AMHi, Michael - I am going to be posting something myself on the Virginia Tech tragedy later on today. But while I'm here, I would like to say there are many, many times in my life that I am glad I didn't have access to a gun. You're right, everyone does have all ten worlds and not all these worlds are rational.
When I was working at a domestic violence legal clinic, so many of my clients reported that they had been threatened with guns, and even that their children had been witnesses. Actually, it's interesting - guns are the American cultual weapon of choice for threatening spouses and significant others. South Americans are more likely to use knives, and Middle Easterners like to throw corrosive acids. But us Americans, we love our guns.
Posted by: Byrd in LA at April 23, 2007 08:46 AMOne thing that these people who advocate citizens carrying guns, is that if a law-abiding citizen kills someone with a gun, it almost always has a negative effect on his or her life. Britain outlawed handguns and has not had a school shooting since.
Posted by: Vanya at April 23, 2007 11:27 AMI agree with the gun nut. Your point that we want to allow everyone to walk around armed was a classic straw man. We haven't banned drving; but we do require divers to be qualified.
In fact, you are like my wife when I say I favor legalizing hemp -- including the strain that gets people high. She accuses me of thinking it is okay to sell dope to kids.
Well; I guess you are preaching to the choir anyway. You already know that misrepresenting the other side {straw man} and name ad hominems {immature?} is not going to convince anyone unless they aleady agree with you.
All excessive gun control does is ensure that only the criminals will be armed. Like dope dealers, they don't obey the law.
At any rate, half the population lives in areas where guns are not going to be banned. So unless we set up border patrols, there will be places to buy them.
Posted by: robek at April 23, 2007 09:00 PMBy the way, I don't sleep with a gun under my pillow. I don't anyone who does. I also am not rushing out to arm myself. Again, I don;t know anyone who is. I have had two experiences running debits in bad areas where armed honest citizens intervened to protect me from armed thugs. No shoot outs -- the thugs left in a hurry.
with Metta and Karuna
robin
Posted by: robek at April 23, 2007 09:05 PMGuns causing gun violence is the classic 2-dimensional thinking. Gun violence? Get rid of guns. Consider looking beyond this childish snap judgment. The gun-ownership issue, which is the very backbone of our American constitution, is extremely multi-leveled.
There are guns everywhere. If you and I are not allowed to carry firearms to defend ourselves from violent criminals, then we are utterly dependent on the protection of our poorly funded police department which - by the way - have no legal obligation to provide individual protection. The job of the police department is to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.
Needless to say this argument has played out over and over again.
The truth is that legal concealed gun carriers are among the most law abiding people on the planet. This is primarily due to the fact that they don't get a second chance if the break the law with their firearms. California is not a concealed carry culture - legally - and therefore we are more likely to fall victim to the "Wild West Emerging" as a result of legal non-felonious canceled carry.
States and/or Counties that allow CCW have much lower violent crime rates. Criminals are truly more frightened of armed citizens than police, who are trained not to shoot.
I also used to be a non-gun culture person. A police officer I spoke to turned my views around years ago.
From centuries past human beings have had the basic freedom to protect themselves from predation on all levels. Giving up this freedom for the illusion of safety will only cost you that basic human freedom, and give nothing back.
There is criminal gun ownership worldwide. The Yakuza have guns, the roving bands in all the third-world countries have guns. The thugs in Great Britain have guns. In most of these places law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own or carry guns. They are victim both to gangs, and to corrupt police departments.
Virgina wasn't about guns, it was about mental illness and the lack of ability to isolate someone who was obviously a danger to society. Taking away gun rights will not change the occurrence of mental illness and acting out in this way.
All things being said, the importance in ALL matters of such importance is to have the courage to see past the *culture* and research facts, as best as one can find them.
Home defense wasn't really the issue, the real issue is the ability and means to protect freedom. Without the means freedom is a privilege granted by an armed authority, which is not worth much.
In the end, like so many issues, it isn't about whether or not YOU wish to own, or even carry guns. It's about voting away the rights of other people who DO wish to protect themselves. Legal, non-felonious gun owners are not, and have never been the enemy. Taking away their rights to respond to fear in the way they individually chose to is NOT Buddhist.
A young woman I once worked with, through our on-going debates, decided that the answer (hypothetically) was to magically make all guns disappear. In that moment I agreed with her. It was later that I realized without guns the village bully would take control once again, the way it was in the old days.
I am quite skilled in martial arts and the Japanese sword arts. I would be relatively safe in that magical non-gun world. Would you?
Oh, and by the way - the statistic that gave birth to the "more likely to be used against a family member" was based on an old statistical study done by the FBI. They counted incidents of gun violence in which the parties merely knew each other. The majority of these incidents counted were criminal acts, included but not limited to drug deals gone bad. This little ditty has been floating around the truly uninformed anti-gun community for decades.
Rev. Greg
Posted by: revgreg at April 23, 2007 11:44 PMI will simply note that I said: "I am not necessarily looking for an all out ban on guns. But where to draw the line? In any case the laissez faire attitude that gets its way in this country strikes me as insane, irrational, and immature."
And by the way, back before grad school I did date a woman who slept with a handgun under her pillow, and she would even have it in her hand when she opened the door at night. This was not a safe or sane situation in my eyes.
Anyway, there are more arguments I could make for more stringent gun control (if not banning) - but all of these arguments have been made again and again. I am content to have presented some of my concerns and issues.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
"Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987)."
Where I live, it might closer to 90%. Shootings are extremely rare. I have been here 19 years; I recall two shootings; one resulting in death. Street gangs & street drugs were involved both times.
Just by comparison, two local pedestrians have been killed by trains; 6 in auto accidents. All of those were alcohol related. Two area residents were recently murdered with a knife during an attempted burglary at the BK.
At any rate. I am willing to bet that the auto parked in the driveway is more likely to cause the death of a household member than the rifle or shot gun on the gun rack.
Posted by: robek at April 24, 2007 08:49 AMMy dad did in fact sleep with a loaded 45 under his pillow. I once asked him why and he replied, "What if someone comes in here and wants to cut off your mother's tits?" Somewhat taken back by his remark, I asked him how an intruder could get by his two German Shepherds? My Dad was a strong believer in the right to bear arms.
My Dad, an NRA member and WWII veteran, raised us two boys to respect and know all about firearms. This was a great benefit growing up, when my brother and I entered the armed services, and all throughout my life. We knew how to break down and clean guns,how to pack shotgun shells, how to measure gun powder, and load all types of bullets. And we all knew how to shoot. I bring all this up to make the point that no one I knew accidently blew their brains out in a gun accident, or played recklessly with these weapons. I know that in rural Indiana (in the recent past) that all school kids must pass a firearm class.
You can't pevent some loner maniac from slaughtering people by out lawing guns. There are adequate laws in place, if just enforced. Now we have movements to eliminate smoking from all public places, the do-gooders want to minimize free speech by outlawing the N word and what some believe are offensive words or expressions. I believe we need less government and do-gooder intrusions. Legalize drugs, prostitution, free speech, and keep your damn hands off my weapon. Now how's that for a Buddhist perspective?
Charles
Posted by: Charles at April 24, 2007 09:23 AM
Another article from the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4741970.html
"Minutes before Houston would record its third murder-suicide in four days, a Galleria-area apartment resident angry about being evicted sent a farewell e-mail to family members Monday that read like an obituary.
David Howard Thurm, 48, had refused to leave the upscale complex The Post Oak at Woodway after he received an eviction notice Thursday, police said. On Monday, he sent a message at 12:53 p.m. that began: "I'm very sorry to inform you that (Dave) Howard Thurm passed away (died) on 4-23-07. This is not a joke."
At 1:12 p.m. when police arrived at the complex, they found that Thurm had fatally shot apartment manager Laura Schoellmann, 62, and then himself. A courier, sent to the complex with legal papers regarding Thurm's eviction, and a tenant with whom Thurm had a dispute over noise were injured."
Leaving aside responsible gun owners, how do any of you propose to address incidents like these, which are happening at increasing rates? Do you think that such incidents are a reasonable price to pay for widespread gun ownership? Is there anything that the NRA or any other group can do to help prevent such incidents?
BTW - like others I am not against gun ownership on its face. I have owned guns in the past (none at the moment). My dad was a police officer, and my grandfather had a collection of antique weapons. I think that the overall issue is much bigger than just gun ownership - when people feel justified in using guns to solve issues other than personal protection, THAT is the problem.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 24, 2007 10:55 AMMore information regarding the article from yesterday, if anyone is interested:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4746041.html
The individual mentioned in the article yesterday had a history of mental illness.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with such issues, or again, is this a reasonable price to pay for the right to bear arms?
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 25, 2007 08:36 AMYet another article:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4747240.html
Japan is pursuing stricter gun control, after a number of high-profile shootings recently.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 25, 2007 08:39 AMEngyo Barrett,
The problem remains, with nearly all further gun control measures, that they never truly address the source of the problem, rather are merely a knee-jerk reaction to naturally occurring societal problems.
Gun control is not an answer to any of the school shootings that have happened in the last couple of decades.
In reality what most of us fail to keep in mind is that our world, the world of the law abiding (or relatively so) citizen, is the only world affected by gun control. We continue to impose further restrictions on *ourselves* as we continue to mistake our fellow lawful citizen as the enemy. Rights are taken away, given up, by citizens who don't like guns, and it only affects citizens who do like guns. It's a culture war, and one based on absolute ignorance of what it means to live in a free society.
Criminals, (a term that begs for further elucidation but will suffice for this discussion) do not and will never obey laws. It is OUR right to effectively defend ourselves from crime and instead we continue to argue for more laws to restrict ourselves from doing that very thing. Some of us are fortunate to have other ways for self-defense - like a faithful Buddhist practice - but not everyone is wired the same and deserves the basic human right to respond to fear in accords to their own karma. I've heard so many times "I simply don't attract violence". I don't personal dispute this, but then again no one who has been shot our robbed ever thought they were attracting violence.
In fact we already have plenty of gun control laws on the books, but we fail miserably to use them effectively, and we continue to fail to punish parole violators and dangerous felons. The laws are not lacking, it is the justice system that is broken, and I object to any straw man measure that further limits my freedoms and does nothing to solve the real problem.
In California there is a whole underground community of citizens who carry concealed firearms unlawfully. They are skilled at doing so, and understand better than anyone the laws involved in defending oneself. They are the exception however as most citizens live in fear of breaking the law and going to jail. It is the average citizen that is affected by gun control, not those whose life condition leads them into violent crime and predation as a way of life. For me, it seems more as though the Shepard is killing the sheep to stop the wolf from eating them.
What truly frightens me is the political elite and celebrities who fight so vehemently for gun control. These people remind me of the ruling class of Japan, trying to retain armed control for themselves alone. Senator Feinstein, Rosie O'Donnell - these people have the financial resources to hire professional armed body guards. Feinstein herself, I have heard said, was made a sworn honorary Federal Marshall and has an extensive gun collection, including assualt weapons (more info on her on this page)
http://californiaccw.org/rss/topicPosts/1059.page
It goes on and on. Illusion built upon illusion.
http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/rkbasigs.html
In the end we will continue to have a highly armed police force and army, which can be used to control the populace. In view of the current administration, it seems ludicrous that we are so alarmed with legal gun ownership by non-felonious citizens, but also it makes sense since these very people are our neighbors and visible to us.
Rev. Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at April 25, 2007 11:02 AMRev. Greg -
You are answering the general stuff in the media, but not the questions I was asking. I do not specifically call for restricting gun ownership further; what I want to know is whether you consider the rising phenomenon of unstable individuals with legal guns taking the lives of others to be just a price which must be paid, or a problem which needs to be addressed?
If it is a problem that needs to be adressed, how should we do so?
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 25, 2007 11:16 AMObviously; the general break down of morality in our
culture needs to be addressed. It is not effectively addressed by making it more difficult to defend ourselves from armed sociopaths.
Again, absolute gun control can only work in a geographically confined area where free travel in and out is restricted. Japan & England are poor examples that don't apply in the United States.
Posted by: robek at April 25, 2007 01:15 PMRobin & all -
So, if I am reading the inferences right, the answer to armed sociopaths is not to disarm them, but to arm their potential victims? I can't see how reversing the breakdown of morality is going to address the issue of armed sociopaths, but maybe I missed something in the translation.
I just wanna understand the vision for dealing with these problems - I can't really make logical sense out of any of the different plans I have heard to date.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 25, 2007 02:19 PM"In California there is a whole underground community of citizens who carry concealed firearms unlawfully."
That makes them criminals, Greg.
Posted by: Vanya at April 26, 2007 07:44 AM"So, if I am reading the inferences right, the answer to armed sociopaths is not to disarm them, but to arm their potential victims?"
The answer is not to disarm everyone. The kid at VTech was not even eligible for a firearm. He should have been on the FBI list based on his record. Someone messed up. The answer is to enforce existing laws.
Let me see if I have this right: Your answer must be to disarm people who live in rural Virginia to make sure certified sociopaths will not slip the cracks and obtain weapons in violation of existing laws?
Posted by: robek at April 26, 2007 09:34 AMVanya - you're right. People who conceal carry unlawfully are defacto criminals. The problem is that these citizens are non-felonious and are only expressing their basic right to protect themselves. These laws are creating more criminals out of citizens who have never been criminals. Also this blurs the legal lines between someone who is breaking an unjust law and another who has spent their life preying on other people. Taken to it's Orwellian conclusion who could end up with over half the population who could be considered criminals due to numurous bizarre and unjust laws, when really they are not. The design of such a system would be to exercise control, since virtually anyone considered a threat to the Government could be arrested at anytime.
Other replies, and I'm sorry if I do not get them all here, no - the solution to sociopaths shooting everyone is not arming everyone else. That's the point, the solution doesn't even have to do with guns.
However many people express their response to fear by arming themselves. They should have that right. In todays world being a citizen who has never seen the inside of a jail cell should mean more than it does. I have never been suspected or convicted of a crime. In a sense the justice system looks at someone like me and says "there's still time". I should have the right to arm myself legally, in order to protect myself and my family, and my business.
The "system", because it's unable to tell the difference between prey and predator, until the crime is committed (and the prey becomes the victim) seeks more and more to disarm everyone. THEN, only agents of the power base will have guns. Anyone else - a criminal. Easy. This kind of societal control can be done effectively on a shoestring budget.
There is a certain level of subtle justice by the way - in California the penalty for being caught carrying a firearm is actually a misdemeanor. If you are caught carrying a fixed blade knife, Nunchaku or shuriken, that is a serious felony. Many believe that the law was set up this way to protect the wealthy from unreasonable punishment *should* they have to use their guns to protect themselves.
These people who carry unlawfully - the know the law inside and out. They train in concealed carry, and shooting. As a community they are very politically active and aware individuals. They, more than anyone, know who the real criminal is, and they know full well that if they commit a felony by using their firearm in a clearly illegal manner (not just shooting someone, or shooting at someone, but brandishing a gun as a threat) then they will end up on the other side. We peace-loving Californians have suffered from the mistaken idea that if everyone is armed, it will be the Wild West all over again.
What it is difficult to face is that predation in the natural animal world is virtually the same is in the human world. Those who prey on others for their survival will naturally not risk becoming prey themselves and natural seek out what appears to be easy, risk-free prey. This is why violent crime statistics are so low in Counties and States that allow concealed carry, and why most of these types of psycho-shootings happen in States where fewer are armed.
In the end, largely speaking - "if you don't know your rights, you have none".
Rev. Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at April 26, 2007 10:20 AMI'm sorry, Greg, but I can't accept that every person carrying a concealed weapon is as law-abiding and sensible just because you say so. The mere fact that they are willing to appoint themselves arbiters of what laws are just and unjust argues against that. As a society we have decided who can carry guns (police) and who can't. The police are entrusted with this grave responsibilty because there are rules in place to keep them accountable. Your group of vigilantes is not accountable to anyone. You may have the right to defend yourself but I have the right not to be subject to being shot by accident or if one of you gets pissed off.
If you don't like the law work to change it.
Posted by: Vanya at April 26, 2007 01:15 PMRobin - you wrote:
"Let me see if I have this right: Your answer must be to disarm people who live in rural Virginia to make sure certified sociopaths will not slip the cracks and obtain weapons in violation of existing laws?"
Incorrect. I have no answers at this time. I may not have stated that clearly enough above. I am trying to understand the different points of view on this issue and see what, if anything, makes sense to me. So far nobody's answers are making sense to me. I think the problem is way more complex and far reaching than anyone has yet been able to articulate, and nothing put forward so far can come close to addressing the issue.
Rev. Greg –
“This is why violent crime statistics are so low in Counties and States that allow concealed carry, and why most of these types of psycho-shootings happen in States where fewer are armed.”
I will need to do a comparative look at the numbers, but on the face of it, you would think (based on your statement I quoted) that Texas, as a place where concealed carry has been legal for years, and where gun ownership and use is highly popular, would not have psycho shootings. This ain’t so, as shown by the articles I posted earlier. Not sure that the claim you make (violent crime stats low in legal-carry areas) holds up; doesn’t seem to here on the ground, anyway.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Vanya - you're making the exact points I've been trying to illustrate in my argument.
No one is talking about vigilantism, and certainly I have never mentioned any "taking the law into their own hands" other than the basic right to defend oneself. I also believe you have not read in earnest what I have written, rather you are arguing with your preconceived conceptions in mind.
The Police are rarely available to intervene in violent crimes. It has been proven in court cases that the Police do not have the legal responsibility to provide individual protection at all. Rather, it is their job to investigate crime and arrest the criminals.
"As a society we have decided who can carry guns (police) and who can't."
Oh yes, we have decided who can carry firearms for protection, and it's not just the police. It's anyone who has the financial wherewithal to obtain a license for concealed carry, politicians, celebreties' bodyguards and those in random positions of power. Ex-police get to carry guns. Many groups in our society get to carry guns. Lines are not drawn on professional capacity, rather status and power.
There are mandatory courses for concealed weapons carry, and they're exhaustive. Criminals miss and kill bystanders, trained citizen rarely do. Using your gun to protect yourself does not require shooting across a busy street, it involves very close quarters combat, which is one of the first lessons these courses teach.
As a "law-abiding citizen", it is your job to be a well-behaved statistic, and nothing more.
If you were to seriously search your feeling you may be surprised to find that you are defending your own social perceptions, beliefs, and illusions. In fact many citizens do NOT feel safe with a highly armed and not so accountable Police force. Talk to anyone who has been the victim of a false arrest, or a botched drug raid. This is not to imply that shooting at the police is the correct response, but I have been in situations working medical jobs in Nevada where there were armed citizens and armed Police and I was shocked to see that the way the Police behaved and treated the citizens was considerably more respectful than in California. This was a very troubling experience.
In the end however this is not about whether YOU should carry a gun for protection, it is about our rights to protect ourselves in accordance to our own individual life experience. It is about citizens voting away the freedoms of other citizens based on the illusion of security.
I've trained combat martial arts for more than 20 years. For this reason I have determined that carrying a gun is not the best answer for self-protection. Instead I carry a folding knife - legally. My knowledge of the reality of fighting and predation is quite fast, and I believe I possess a fairly accurate idea of how to avoid trouble, as well as how to survive a violent attack. Do you?
Most people use "self defense by consequences". That means "I believe you won't harm me because you know you will go to jail". This is a HIGHLY flawed method of self-defense.
Think about it - if someone similar to me "went nuts" and decided to kill you, could you stop them? No. Rather, you simply believe it won't happen.
(Don't worry, you're safe. Martial artists do go nuts, and criminals don't have the self-esteem to train).
*** NOTE - I meant to say "don't go nuts" but instead wrote do. Humm. Freudian slip? Or a harbinger of things to come? Be afraid, be very afraid. RG
Rev. Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at April 26, 2007 10:34 PMLMAO
Posted by: robek at April 27, 2007 10:34 PMI'm not so concerned with defending my social position as with what works. Actually I'm pretty conservative and in theory, I agree with you. If allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns deterred crime there wouldn't be any crime, as in most places, they can.
Just as jail is not a deterrent, neither is the knowledge someone may be carrying a gun.
You can argue that the crime rate is lower and police are nicer in areas with concealed carry laws. But there isn't necessarily a cause and effect relationship between the two; it may be due to other factors.
One statistic I believe is true is that gun owners end up shooting themselves or a loved one, by accident or design, far more often than they use a gun to defend themselves.
Maybe a martial artist like yourself could kill me without a gun. But I doubt you could kill 30 people in the space of 5 minutes.
I just see so much suffering connected with guns, I question if more guns is the answer. Sure you have the right to defend yourself, but society has the right, indeed the obligation, to decide how it is going to defend itself from gun violence. I just don't feel any safer with more people carrying guns, no matter how well they have been trained.
Apologies to Ryuei for hijacking his blog.
Posted by: Vanya at April 28, 2007 09:25 AMHi everyone,
Just a couple of comments:
It's great to see so many comments - I guess I should mouth off about controversial subjects more often.
It is absolutely absurd that carrying a concealed firearm is a misdemeanor but carrying nunchaku is a felony. That is the height of absurdity!
I do feel a bit ambivalent about a total gun ban. But at the very least I want existing laws to actually be enforced. If they had been than Virgina Tech and I believe Columbine would not have happened. But again, I have personally known people who had guns and had them legally and who I didn't trust being around them.
Also, I can see people being allowed to have rifles or shotguns to hunt. But I am not convinced that having guns around the home protect the family. Even if every member of the family has been trained to use guns - all people are not all rational all of the time. I agree with Vanya:
"One statistic I believe is true is that gun owners end up shooting themselves or a loved one, by accident or design, far more often than they use a gun to defend themselves."
Then there is the argument that people should have guns so they can resist the government. I find that argument totally without merit. The Vietnamese and the Iraqis were not able to beat the US Army. It was political pressure that caused us to leave South Vietnam - not a military defeat. It will be politics that will end our occupation of Iraq - not a military defeat. There is no armed force in the world that can beat the US Army. God himself doesn't have the power to defeat the US Army militarily. Even in the Civil War, the armed populace of the Confederacy were not able to beat the Union. So this whole idea on the part of some people that we all need guns to defeat some tyrannical government is a total pipe dream. At the most, there would be an ongoing guerilla war and domestic terrorism. And who would get to decide what regime is to be considered so tryannical that it must be resisted with violence? The kind of people who think that way frankly scare me more than even our current government does. These are the kinds of people who have written racist diatribes like the Turner Diaries that inspired the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma. I don't think anyone here has said that we need arms to resist the government, but I've heard that argument from people I've known and I just want to go on record as saying that I think it's a load of crap.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei