Proof : Gun control does NOT work

[Leitmotif]

Not the cause, but definitely part of the problem. But then by your logic, you could say its the flashy cars that are the problem, not the criminals trying to hijack them.

The problem is criminal intent. An object cannot have intent. Only a sentient being can. Flashy cars are not the problem, nor are guns, nor is rope. Criminals and careless or suicidal people are, because they use the objects - guns, knives, rope, pills - in ways intended to cause harm. Cancer medication is meant to provide healing, painkillers are meant to provide relief from pain. Yet these can be used to commit suicide. Climbing rope is essential to the enjoyment of one of my passions, and saves the lives of hundreds of climbers who pop, but make a loop around your neck or use it to tie up a victim and it becomes an instrument of pain or death.

Intrinsically a firearm is neither a tool of agression or defense. It is merely a tool.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

I wonder what the ratio of violent crime involving knives vs violent crime involving guns is? I would bet knives win hands down. Lets ban steak knives as they may be used as instruments of agression and crime.

Responsible gun ownership is the answer. Not a blanket ban on civilian gun ownership.

 

[Fudzy]

What are guns use other than to inflict harm/death? Guess they might make a good hammer maybe?

 

[Freshy-ZN]

Inflict is an emotive way of putting it. Guns are used for many things: Sport, self-defense, defense of home and property, collecting.

When they have a foolproof way of ensuring criminals cant acquire guns then they could argue for disarming law abiding citizens.

 

[Leitmotif]

What are guns use other than to inflict harm/death? Guess they might make a good hammer maybe?

You've clearly never shot a firearm for fun.

Is using a firearm in order to prevent harm that bad? Is a woman raped and beaten - possiblly infected with HIV, possibly pregnant, possibly simply killed - a better thing than a woman who has shot someone in order to protect herself? Even more to the point, is it worth disarming her considering that the woman could possibly have defended herself by merely showing that she was armed?

This is not the true argument. The utility of firearms in defense of life and limb is not in question - the effectiveness of firearms in defense has been proven time and time again. The argument is that preventing responsible civilians from having firearms will not prevent criminals from having access to guns.

Theoretically, banning all guns would work - the same way as theoretically a feather and a ball of lead will fall at the same speed. In the real world, both assertions are false.

 

[RichardP]

Inflict is an emotive way of putting it. Guns are used for many things: Sport, self-defense, defense of home and property, collecting.

All with one intent... KILL (except collecting of course )

But I am not arguing anymore.... I really could not care less what the pro-right/gun people brainwash themselves into. Tired of the fights, it doesnt help anyone understand.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

is intent to defend yourself against violent and unprovoked attack wrong?

 

[RichardP]

is intent to defend yourself against violent and unprovoked attack wrong?

Intend to defend... or indend to kill.. a you can use a spoon to defend yourself with. (dumb example, gut the jist is there) but you cant use a gun to stirr your coffee

 

[Leitmotif]

All with one intent... KILL (except collecting of course )

See, this is the problem with pro-control fanatics... you try and educate them, but they come back with the same tired lines over and over again. Can't you argue a point instead of making fallacious statements? You speak of brainwashing and then refuse to consider any proof of the invalidity of your view. You make unsupported statements and then, when disproven, restate the same thing later. You demonstrate that you have no knowledge of firearms legislation, licensing procedures, gun handling or sport shooting, and then consider your opinion valid?

How dare you.

 

[Leitmotif]

Intend to defend... or indend to kill.. a you can use a spoon to defend yourself with. (dumb example, gut the jist is there) but you cant use a gun to stirr your coffee

Tell you what. I'll come at you with a knife or gun, and you can defend yourself with a spoon. Show me exactly how you're going to do so. Defend yourself with anything that isn't a weapon. You *will* come second.

Yes, your example is stupid, as you yourself state. It takes an effective weapon to defend against another weapon.

 

[Fudzy]

In regards to people who have guns for non-hobby, sport related reasons. What about the non-lethal alternatives? Tasers perhaps? The ones that shoot the little darts:

Tasers are currently in use by a number of police forces world-wide to try to reduce firearms-related deaths. The Phoenix Police Department reported that officer shootings had dropped as a result from the use of TASER technology as an alternative to deadly force. Uses of a TASER device in this department increased from 71 in the year 2002 to 164 in the year 2003. Additionally, the number of officer-involved shootings decreased by 7 during this time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser

 

[Leitmotif]

In regards to people who have guns for non-hobby, sport related reasons. What about the non-lethal alternatives? Tasers perhaps? The ones that shoot the little darts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser

My motorcycle jacket will stop one of those without a problem, it can only incapacitate one enemy at a time, and it doesn't have a reload option if you miss. Also doesn't have sights or any sort of reasonable range, and no ability to fire a warning shot. A taser has little or no intimidation value, so you're unlikely to get away with a silent defense.

As for pepper spray and mace... try using those with asthma or any other respiratory condition. Also, it's possible to build immunity to pepper spray, and even mace is ineffective against people on drugs. This is without mentioning the possibility of accidentally getting some in your own face when you spray - it's an indiscriminate aerosol weapon.

Fact remains, a 60 year old or a person in a wheelchair is a soft target for criminals... unless he or she has a force multiplier. The firearm is the best force multiplier available.

 

[Alan]

As for pepper spray and mace... try using those with asthma or any other respiratory condition. Also, it's possible to build immunity to pepper spray, and even mace is ineffective against people on drugs. This is without mentioning the possibility of accidentally getting some in your own face when you spray - it's an indiscriminate aerosol weapon.

Some idiot sprayed a cloud of pepper spray as I walked past him. Obviously it got to me but it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected so I don't have much faith in using it as a self defence weapon.

Maybe there was something wrong with that particular one leaving it less potent

 

[captainwifi]

From http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/LegalPerspective
With the Firearms control act the view of the NPA was that an existing right given under the previous Firearms act that was replaced can't be arbitrarily revoked. Under the previous law a gun license was valid for life. Under existing law your house remains your property for life and after death you can decide who inherits it. Should there be a prosecution and conviction of a person who did not relicense it would establish a general precedent that the government can confiscate property without any form of compensation. And same goes for a drivers license, the terms are that it is valid for life. Next one could be forced to 'relicense' his house or his wife. One remains married for life until either of the parties decided to file for divorce in terms of the Marriage Act. A conviction in terms of the FCA would mean that at any time any law's terms can be amended and thus there would be no certainty that '... valid for life' means just that. No, it would mean valid for life or until the government decides that it is not valid for life anymore. The Constitution allows for the government to expropriate property with compensation. Taking a firearm for which the government gave a license under a law stating that this piece of property remains that of the owner for life, is thus a violation of the constitutional principle that compensation must be paid for property expropriated.

It was reported in the Citizen that John Welch views it as unconstitutional to force a person to relicense who had received a firearm license under the old law. It was reported in Beeld five days before the Dec.31 2005 deadline Minister Nqakula had a meeting with John Welch the deputy director of Prosecutions. John Welch himself has 12 guns and won't relicense his firearms, in other words the government expects Welch to prosecute himself. In the meeting Welch indicated that he won't prosecute anybody who failed to relicense and thus the government postponed the whole thing till June 2009. Furthermore the FCA is open ended. Meaning any terms and conditiions can be arbitrarily amended. So for example if the act is amended after enough people has relicensed then it would be a simple matter to gazette that all guns that have been relicensed and licensed under the FCA must be immediatly handed in at the nearest police station. And this would be an entirely constitutional and legally valid step because the person that relicensed signed a form giving the government such a right. In contrast the old Firearms law did not allow for such an open ended arbitrary amendments. And thus a test case or precedent where a single individual gets prosecuted for failing to relicense and convicted would be the only way to test the validity of the FCA in court. But only the NPA can decide to proceed with such a test case.

But the NPA can neither be forced nor prevented from attempting to establish a precedent. In terms of our constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some would argue that somebody not relicensing is guilty of an offence. This is a factual and legal inaccuracy. Only the court can determine this in the first test case. But since there are no test cases and the NPA has indicated that they won't prosecute for failing to relicense, all such old license holders remain innocent until proven guilty. And the constitutional principle of innocense until proven guilty applies to all the other compliance laws. Lawyers that specifically deal with firearm relicensing also deal with cases where appeals are made in terms of the FCA. They must ofcourse be paid for this. The Gunshops know that a person who doesn't relicense will never be able to purchase another firearm from them. The training institutes makes their money from people getting a competency certificate in terms of the ECA. Under the old Gun law one did not need a competency certificate. And thus one should carefully evaluate what your are told by the various stake holders. What is the monetary gain to be extracted from a person relicensing and what implications are there for them from a financial perspective should such a person not relicense?

Billy Downer the deputy director of prosecutions prosecuted Jacob Zuma. Selebi the head of the SAPS is a staunch supporter of Zuma. What the SAPS is asking of Billy Downer is for him to sign the FCA form on p.6 but where on p.10 Selebi can recommend under the section: "Describe the mental condition of the candidate ...." anything which Selebi whishes Billy Downer's mental condition to be.

Based this "mental condition" the Central Firearms Registrar must decide wether to relicense Bill Downer's personal firearms or not. The constitution mandates procedural fairness. Who is best qualified to determine your "mental condition" a phsyciatrist or policemen? What psycometric tests dit the police perform to determine your "mental condition". Who professionally evaluated such data? What was his qualifications?

There is no love lost between the NPA and the SAPS. Would Vusi Pikoli sign a form giving the SAPS the right to confiscate his personal firearms that he obtained under the old gun law? What about the wifes, brother, sisters and friends of the NPA - could they attract the special attention of a relicensing official in the SAPS dealing with their application forms? What about the prosecutors in general? What would be the effect if the criminals knew that all the prosecutors have had their firearms confiscated but also that of their wifes who are now defencless at an address organised crime can easily obtain ? The http:/www.mg.co.za reported that Willie Hofmeyer, Billy Downer , Pikoli and John Welch are investigating Selebi's links to the criminal underworld. The scorpions recently arrested Agliotti a friend of Selebi. The FCA is the SAPS ultimatum to the NPA that they in their personal capacity must either relicense or prosecute themselves. The FCA can be amended anyway the government wants to. For example they could amend it that if there is any 'negative' report from anybody say your farmworker that you shot at him then the next day the police can take away your firearms - without a trial and court conviction.

Under the old gun law this was not possible, there had to be a trial and criminal conviction. And then it was upto the court to decide wether you forfeit your firearm. Thus the government is asking people to sign away their existing rights under the old gun law. What the NPA is saying is that they won't prosecute anybody for refusing to sign. And if a person is not prosecuted he can't have his firearms confiscated which he received under the old gun law. For only a court can do this. But since a criminal charge laid by the police will never get past the NPA in the first place , such a case will never go to court. The government keeps on extending the deadlines for criminal prosecution precisely because the NPA views the terms and conditions for which a gun license was issued under the old law as valid for life. Thus the government is busy with a cat and mouse game where they simply issue a threat in the papers warning everybody that they will be criminally charged. Which is the truth ofcourse. They can criminally charge but they can't prosecute - only John Welch and Billy Downer can do this after they have either proved to us that they have relicensed theiir guns or after they have prosecuted themselves.

Citizens Against Crime comment on the FCA: http://www.cac.co.za/modules.php?name=scamlate. Based on the wording of a recent SAPS Communication, we believe that either the wording is incorrect or there is something rather weird in the new Firearms Act, it allows totally untrained Security Officers to carry a weapon up to the year 2006 - as long as the weapon is licenced. Firearms do not kill people or require training – it is the person carrying it who does! All institutions that own firearms, including security service providers, will be called up to renew their firearm licences from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. It is important to take note that companies may continue to issue company firearms to employees who do not have a competency certificate under the following conditions; As long as the firearms are licenced in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act When the company obtains a firearm licence in terms of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 or when the current firearms are renewedin terms of the firearms Control Act, the firearm may only be issued to an employee who is in possession of a competency certificate. In terms of this legislation there is a serious contradiction – it should surely have added a proviso to the effect that "As long as the employee has met the relevant training criteria as laid down by PSIRA (Security Regulatory Authority) to be armed." We believe that when cognizance is taken of the fact that there are more Private Security Officers out there than Policemen we believe this is essential.

This is why security guards without the new training can still use security company firearms licensed under the old gun law - these were the terms of the license. And thus the government extended the deadline deailng with this issue until Dec.2007. And they will have to keep on extending it as the NPA won't prosecute anybody who uses a firearm under the terms issued to it under the old gun law. What CAC don't understand is that it is irrelevent what they consider to be ,,essential.. - it only matters what the old gun law states under which terms these firearms were issued.

 

[Leitmotif]

Maybe there was something wrong with that particular one leaving it less potent

Depends - your results may vary. Ideally pepper spray should be applied as a stream of liquid rather than a cloud, but this is more difficult to aim. Clouds of pepper spray produce a low density for the volume, and can thus be completely ineffective, except as an irritant. This also increases the chances of the aerosol making it's way into the user's own face.

Some people are naturally more resistant to pepper spray. The active ingredient in most is capiscum, the same thing that makes curry hot, and the same sort of tolerance applies. It's also possible that this was simply a bad batch. Regardless, why trust your life to a can of seasoning?

 

[Koos Custodiet]

What are guns use other than to inflict harm/death? Guess they might make a good hammer maybe?

Don't laugh, but the cowboys did use their revolvers as hammers and to bend wire and so forth -- no room for a tool kit on a horse

And you *can* stir your coffee with your rollie if you want to.

If you're in Cape Town, PM me and I'll take you to the range, show you how I get rid of a couple of thousand rounds of ammo a year.

Koos

 

[Fudzy]

My motorcycle jacket will stop one of those without a problem, it can only incapacitate one enemy at a time, and it doesn't have a reload option if you miss. Also doesn't have sights or any sort of reasonable range, and no ability to fire a warning shot. A taser has little or no intimidation value, so you're unlikely to get away with a silent defense.

The newer ones go through up to level III body armor (whatever that means). Whatever the case, judging by both your "Location:" and gun lobby link that it's pretty futile to try highlight non-lethal alternatives. I just hope that if you do have shoot someone, it was a last resort and wasn't yourself/someone you care for.

 

[Fudzy]

Don't laugh, but the cowboys did use their revolvers as hammers and to bend wire and so forth -- no room for a tool kit on a horse

And you *can* stir your coffee with your rollie if you want to.

If you're in Cape Town, PM me and I'll take you to the range, show you how I get rid of a couple of thousand rounds of ammo a year.

Koos

You got a machine gun? I've always wanted to shoot a machine gun.

 

[Leitmotif]

The newer ones go through up to level III body armor (whatever that means). Whatever the case, judging by both your "Location:" and gun lobby link that it's pretty futile to try highlight non-lethal alternatives. I just hope that if you do have shoot someone, it was a last resort and wasn't yourself/someone you care for.

Pulling the trigger is always a last resort. No reasonable person who has seen the damage a firearm can do would ever believe otherwise. I'm not suicidally inclined, and the last time I lost my temper was in school. Don't think I'm going to harm anyone anytime soon.

Nonlethal alternatives don't work. It's that simple. Besides, isn't deterring violence by silent defense (drawing and not firing, or only firing a warning shot) the ultimate expression of a nonlethal defense?

You got a machine gun? I've always wanted to shoot a machine gun.

A machine gun is a good way to get rid of a couple of thousand rounds a *day* My girlfriend and I shoot about 200 rounds a week between us, once a week. She's a better shot than I am...

 

[Koos Custodiet]

Stop Burglary - Ban Door Locks

For the past fifty years, the public has responded to crime with one simple-minded demand: more gun laws. And for the most part, the public has gotten every gun law it has wanted. The result, unfortunately, has always been more crime, not less.

Funny thing, that. It's just what pro-gun people have been predicting: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Who would've thought that by taking the guns away from the good guys, only the bad guys would have guns? Who'd have thought that the bad guys would keep using them? Evidently not the anti-gun zealots..

To their credit, most anti-gun people aren't mindless zealots. Nor are they part of some vast conspiracy to topple what used to be a free country. They simply are afraid of crime and violence and want to minimize it as much and as quickly as possible. They aren't gun owners themselves, so they won't be inconvenienced by gun laws. They respond by wanting gun laws. It's a case of "Let's do something - anything - even if it doesn't work."

Such feelings are perhaps understandable, but they have no basis in reality. Imagine a rancher losing lambs to coyotes. Would banning sheep dogs help? If we want to reduce the mayhem on our highways, do we ban ambulances? Of course not. It makes no sense to ban the things that can ameliorate tragedy. There are times when it is best to fight fire with fire. Even at Columbine High School, did they ban armed personnel on school grounds? No. They hired THREE armed guards instead of one. Why? Because trained, armed people deter crime better than anything else. That's why we have armed police, and that's why we need armed citizens.

Wherever there are legally armed citizens, crime lessens. Where the people are stripped of their defenses, crime escalates. It's that simple. Mass killers don't attack police stations or firearms training schools. They attack churches, schools, libraries, restaurants, subways and anywhere else people have been deprived of the means to defend themselves. Incidentally, that's as true in England, Australia and Japan as it is in the U.S. Take the guns from the good guys and the bad guys rampage withour fear.

If we continue to create target-rich, defenseless environments for killers, there will be more mass killings. Good people with guns prevent crime. Good people without guns are victims. If you believe otherwise, you may as well try to stop burglars by banning door locks.

Rocky Raab
http://www.reloadingroom.com