Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on earth,
> that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape, evisceration,
> vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and children, etc. - there
> is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.
> 
> I do believe an armed society is a safe society.

In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to 
stay alive is, by definition, not safe.

> The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
> confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
> power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense and
> survival. 

That's right. Because you can't defend yourself without weapons. Oh, wait...

(In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually 
unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> 
>> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on
>> earth, that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape,
>> evisceration, vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and
>> children, etc. - there is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.
>> 
>> I do believe an armed society is a safe society.
> 
> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.

Correct. The concept referred to above started to have effect in my country
in the decade after 1994 (non-racial elections, end of apartheid) when the
old SADF was disbanded and all those hundreds of thousands of military
assault rifles I referred to where withdrawn from each and every house
where they had been deployed for decades. 

Of course our society isn't safe - while the government is constantly
enacting stricter and stricter gun ownership, background checks and
purchasing laws. Thousands of legally owned, privately held firearms have
been handed back to the SA government. Contrary to various arguments, this
intensive disarming of society has not curbed gun crime - quite the
opposite. More people are getting killed with firearms now, of all races,
than the times in my country when you could almost guarantee that if you
have a house, and there is an adult white male there, there WILL very
likely be fully automatic weapons and ammunition... and he'll know how to
use them.
 
Of course, due to apartheid, all this was predicated on race. But the fact
remains, and this is simple history - when the entire Afrikaner society
here was armed virtually to the teeth, -extremely- little violent gun crime
was perpetrated. House invasions with concomitant rape, murder, robbery and
torture as is common today here were virtually unknown when I was a lad -
when almost every adult white male had several guns in the house, including
fully-auto military assault rifles.

>> The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
>> confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
>> power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense
>> and survival.
> 
> That's right. Because you can't defend yourself without weapons. Oh,
> wait...

Not true. It is possible to turn almost anything into a weapon - the thing
about handguns especially though is they are -easy-. It takes years of
intensive training, not inconsiderable physical strength and dexterity to
become, for example, a high level Judokan, or Karate artist. This is
completely out of the question for many groups of people - the elderly,
single mothers, etc. These types of people should NOT be restricted and not
allowed to have access to firearms. Of course, the ease also makes it
usable for criminals - but as I said, criminals are by definition NOT law
abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
criminals?
 
> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)

I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently 
has fifty or so "Armed Police" vehicles on duty at any one time. The police
officers who crew these are very definitely armed, and they are deployed in
such a way that they can reach any area of the metropolitan whole of the
city in minutes. So the police aren't "unarmed" as a whole, even in
Britain...

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

>> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
>> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.
> 
> Correct.

It seems we agree on something.

Of course, the questions of whether you need a gun and whether you can 
get a gun are not necessarily strictly related I suppose...

> criminals are by definition NOT law
> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
> criminals?

Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of 
them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

>> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
>> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)
> 
> I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
> quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently 
> has fifty or so "Armed Police" vehicles on duty at any one time. The police
> officers who crew these are very definitely armed, and they are deployed in
> such a way that they can reach any area of the metropolitan whole of the
> city in minutes. So the police aren't "unarmed" as a whole, even in
> Britain...

London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so 
forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists 
absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist. 
(Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then 
they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )

Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You 
don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have 
guns in this country.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>>> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
>>> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.
>> 
>> Correct.
> 
> It seems we agree on something.

Tee hee hee! Well at least we're having a reasonably civilized discourse. If
this was Africa I'd have long since burned down your house, castrated you
and then eaten your granny.
 
> Of course, the questions of whether you need a gun and whether you can
> get a gun are not necessarily strictly related I suppose...

Ever heard of Mark Steyn? (He's a right leaning blogger and writer in the
US) He wrote on his blog that when he was in France once, a high-ranking
French Gendarmerie (Police) official approached him and boasted that in
France "People want guns but can't get them! But they're still free! So
there!" He merely replied "In Texas people want guns, and they CAN get
them. Texans will ALWAYS be free."

Besided the point I guess, but here, it is related. One of the basic
principles the government here looks at when issuing a firearms license is
whether you have a demonstrable need for said firearm. Getting one is hard
too, 95% of all gunshops when bankrupt here around 2004 when newer,
stricter laws were enacted. If you listen to often postulated arguments
against private gun ownership (disarm private citizens and have peace) this
sounds like heaven, right? Only, since most people here were disarmed, an
unbelievable orgy of violence, rape and murder has descended - most of it
committed at gunpoint with ILLEGAL weapons... since the citizens have been
mostly disarmed, and have no means to defend themselves - the means
(private guns) having been legally removed by the government.
 
>> criminals are by definition NOT law
>> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
>> criminals?
> 
> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of
> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

You're right of course, but only partially I think. That's the whole
problem - this "quarantine" paradigm cannot be guaranteed. There's no
difference as regards procurement between guns and drugs. If you make
something illegal but people still want it, sales and procurement of said
items merely moves underground, and turns something which earns tax for you
(all those gun-related sales and services that were taxed here, all the
thousands of tax-paying people who lost their jobs when the new law came
into effect and made possesion virtual impossible) into more work for your
already overloaded, desperately corrupt police force.
 
>>> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
>>> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)
>> 
>> I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
>> quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently

> London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so
> forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists
> absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist.
> (Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then
> they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )

Haha well put! No, not only Islamic people are evil of course, it is unfair
and oversimplified to state as such. Just like stating that anybody who
likes firearms or likes owning and shooting with them is a "gun nut", a
severe danger to society and can't wait to shoot the neighbours' little 3
year old girl. 
 
> Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You
> don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have
> guns in this country.)

Ok, I suspected as much. But I was AMAZED at just -how- heavily armed
your "Armed Police" are... here, every cop carries a gun. Usually its a 9mm
model 92 Beretta or Z-88 (a local knockoff of the 92F Beretta in 9mm.) The
program I saw was on Discovery Channel, they did ridealong with a couple of
armed officers. They had a Ford Sierra (this was quite a while ago when it
was filmed then, eh?) - they both had Heckler & Koch MP5s (submachine guns)
and in the back of the Sierra they had 12 gauge shotguns, and I also seem
to remember they had SLRs (the ex-British military rifle - the one before
the SA-80 Mark 2 your army uses today) for "distance work". That's way of a
lot more firepower than cops here carry as a matter of course.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 7:26 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> If you legislate against a basic human right -
> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that says
> nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then there
> can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to defend
> themselves.

Law-abiding South Africans don't have a very good record when it comes 
to human rights, either.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
> their angle now.

Exactly.

And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one 
might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side 
are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The 
gun companies are getting richer.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> It seems we agree on something.
> 
> Tee hee hee! Well at least we're having a reasonably civilized discourse. If
> this was Africa I'd have long since burned down your house, castrated you
> and then eaten your granny.

[Insert joke here about burrying meat and eating it once it's rotten.]

>>> criminals are by definition NOT law
>>> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
>>> criminals?
>> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of
>> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.
> 
> You're right of course, but only partially I think. That's the whole
> problem - this "quarantine" paradigm cannot be guaranteed. There's no
> difference as regards procurement between guns and drugs. If you make
> something illegal but people still want it, sales and procurement of said
> items merely moves underground, and turns something which earns tax for you
> (all those gun-related sales and services that were taxed here, all the
> thousands of tax-paying people who lost their jobs when the new law came
> into effect and made possesion virtual impossible) into more work for your
> already overloaded, desperately corrupt police force.

If your police force is corrupt, then yeah, you probably need guns...

I guess the key is to not have a corrupt police force.

It's worth remembering that firing a gun makes a hell of a lot of noise, 
and it likely to attract attention to you real quickly.

>> London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so
>> forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists
>> absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist.
>> (Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then
>> they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )
> 
> Haha well put! No, not only Islamic people are evil of course, it is unfair
> and oversimplified to state as such. Just like stating that anybody who
> likes firearms or likes owning and shooting with them is a "gun nut", a
> severe danger to society and can't wait to shoot the neighbours' little 3
> year old girl. 

I don't think all people who want guns are automatically crazy. 
(Although I think plenty of crazy people want to own guns.) I just don't 
think owning a gun should be necessary.

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 7:26 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> If you legislate against a basic human right -
>> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
>> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that
>> says nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then
>> there can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to
>> defend themselves.
> 
> Law-abiding South Africans don't have a very good record when it comes
> to human rights, either.

Hmm... human rights. There's a strong undercurrent here against
so-called "human rights." It is -REALLY- not a concept that is very popular
here, or ever was very popular anywhere in Africa. Human rights is very
much a Western and European secular concept, devised in a completely
different environment and at a level of societal sophistication that is
completely and totally absent in South Africa and the rest of the
continent.

A very commonly held position about human rights here (among all races,
black and white) is that human rights is merely a shield for criminals to
hide behind. Many criminals have gotten parole here or been released on
humane grounds, only to rape and kill once more. You'll mostly find
air-headed journalists, deluded rights advocates, career criminals and
government functionaries (who have 24/7 bodyguards and live in armored,
guarded fortresses) here blabbing about human rights and the liberal
constitution and all such kinds of claptrap. Practically, on the ground in
South Africa, human rights do not exist. It still classic Africa here - you
get what you grab, and if you are stronger than somebody and you want
something of his, you simply TAKE it. (And hopefully rape his old lady and
his daughters in the process.)

Exactly -because- your "human rights" are not respected in Africa, you need
to have arms and be capable of defending yourself. Somebody or some
organization that infringes on those rights are putting you, and your
family in direct danger.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
>> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick
>> to point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter
>> would have been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I
>> wonder about their angle now.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one
> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side
> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The
> gun companies are getting richer.

The difference here might be that even on a military base, not all personnel
are armed all the time. During my time in the military, when on base, you
were usually just armed when going out on a patrol, returning, or on guard
duty. This meant that you could have 400 or 500 guys, and maybe five or six
may be armed at any one time, AND have ammunition. The situation can be
considered to be no different from a civilian situation where only the
perpetrator is armed, and the "gun nuts" have their argument predicated on
this. In this case, from what I read on CNN, a lone, armed, military member
did return fire and stopped the perpetrator, who wasn't killed.

Thus the argument that "if everybody was armed, it would have turned out
differently" still holds true. Merely being a soldier on a military base
doesn't necessarily mean you are armed, no more than being a civilian in a
country that allows citizens private firearms means you are armed at any
given moment.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 9:03 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> A very commonly held position about human rights here (among all races,
> black and white) is that human rights is merely a shield for criminals to
> hide behind. Many criminals have gotten parole here or been released on
> humane grounds, only to rape and kill once more. You'll mostly find
> air-headed journalists, deluded rights advocates, career criminals and
> government functionaries (who have 24/7 bodyguards and live in armored,
> guarded fortresses) here blabbing about human rights and the liberal
> constitution and all such kinds of claptrap. Practically, on the ground in
> South Africa, human rights do not exist. It still classic Africa here - you
> get what you grab, and if you are stronger than somebody and you want
> something of his, you simply TAKE it. (And hopefully rape his old lady and
> his daughters in the process.)

In that case, the "human right" of self-defense is also not important, 
since it only shields criminals.

Mike

Post a reply to this message