Gun Control

[Bart Scovill]

Okay, I'm going to post this question and then duck and cover. Gun control, good or bad?

(This can be a sensitive topic, please remain respectful.)

[James M. Gray]

Bart

I don't understand a lot but. I do now that the only thing that matters is what we share with others. I like the slogan you can feed a man fish one day but if you teach him to fish he can feed himself the rest of his life. We never really have anything hoarding it up. The more we give the more we receive. We give it out the back door of our house and more comes in the front door.

Martial Arts is the same way if we hoard it up it will get stagnated the more we share with other the more we learn. Troy is a good example I feel that he would hold back nothing in sharing with each one of us individually.

[SheepDog]

I understand that you need to be licensed to do a lot of things, and that many of those things are privileges that you don't necessarily have the right to do. You may have the privilege to do them, for now, but only on the whim of some faceless bureaucrat in the government.

Owning and using a gun is not a privilege in this great nation - it's a constitutionally-guaranteed right and as such one should not need to be licensed to practice the right. Nonetheless, that ship has sadly sailed, and it's a fact of life now that to purchase (and especially carry) a gun you must go through a rigorous licensing process. I guarantee you this process has not stopped any criminal worth his salt from getting a gun if he really wants one; all it's done is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns.

At any rate you need to be licensed to do things because, 1) the government thinks you're stupid, and if you're not forced to get training to do whatever it is, then you won't seek out and get the training on your own, 2) they want to tax it, 3) with guns at least, they want a database of gun owners so confiscation, if it ever comes to pass (as it did in New Orleans shortly after hurricane Katrina), will be easier.

There is plenty of licensing already when it comes to gun ownership in this country, and so sorry if the label offends you, but the ones behind the licensing, regulation and control (read: government control) of guns are invariably left-wing liberals, i.e., big-government, social-program, never-met-a-tax-or-a-fee-they-didn't-like types that want to control and tax everything.

Some or all of those traits may or may not apply to people who are generally for gun control, or even just those who are squeamish about their neighbors owning such dangerous devices as firearms; but to align oneself with the gun-grabbers puts one, perhaps uncomfortably (perhaps not), in line with a majority of people who have such liberal, left-wing, and yes, socialist-leaning tendencies.

In other words, they don't trust people to make wise decisions, whether it has to do with their own safety (dealing with guns and crime), the free market, health care, the education of children, or anything else. This is the slippery slope that leads to total government control of everything, and a corresponding lack of freedom for individuals in every area of their lives.

What I'm saying and I think Mr Forrester said something similar, is that a gun was designed with one purpose in mind. To kill. Of course this is true! Guns are a tool, designed to kill. Exactly why the Framers of our Constitution wrote provisions to prevent government bureaucrats from legislating them out of existence (except for the military and their own bodyguards, of course!). The right to own and use such dangerous devices is a right of the people, an individual right.

So surely it is reasonable to have some expectation that a person who wants to own a gun should have some knowledge of how to do so safely possibly including maintenance. Yes it is! But why assume (there's that word again!) that people are stupid and won't seek such knowledge or training unless they are forced to?? Answer: Because the government thinks you ARE stupid and irresponsible! After all, you're just one of the general population, not a wise government official, so how smart can you possibly be?

Give people some credit for common sense. If someone spends $400, $800, $1500 on a firearm, especially knowing it's for personal defense and their life may well depend on being able to use it well, knowing how it works (and how to keep it working) don't you think they will invest some time and training at the gun range to practice with it? Gun owners in general, martial artists or not, take it very seriously and spend the time it takes to train with it, and learn everything they can about it. They don't take it lightly, and they most certainly don't need a nanny-state government telling them so.

[Graeme Dunning]

That's the problem with 'common sense' it just isn't that common.
(And yes I thought that one up all by myself)

[Art for Art's sake... Sake?]

It might be prudent to mention that distust of the government is the prevailing sentiment in the US and always has been. We see vast shifts in political philosophy here in the US and we see them regularly. This is because the majority of American's are always distrustful of government, no matter what party is in power.

I think that this sentiment that is a constant undercurrent to our society is the reason most people cry foul when gun legislation nears.

I, personaly, have never trusted the government. They never seem to get anything right, and are always breaking their own laws in various ways.

[Graeme Dunning]

Thanks for that. It is becoming clearer to me the more I read on this forum that what you've said is true. There is a real distrust of the government and maybe that distrust is well placed? I don't know. Like I said before I'm making general observations from thousands of miles away.

Here is a sweepingly huge generalization for you. It seems people in general want their 'rights' but not the 'responsibilities' that go with it. To me this is one of the causes of many of societie's problems today.

Men want to have sex but if their partner gets pregnant they don't want to stay and raise the children.
Couples want to raise children and act like children themselves. Here more and more parents are trying to leave the parenting up to the education department.
We want better education, health care and safer streets but we don't want to pay taxes.
We want nice new roads but don't want to pay tolls (that might be a very Aussie statement).
I'm sure you get the idea.

Whether something is a privilege, a constitutional right or a God given right there are responsibilities that come with it. What I'm saying is that the sooner we all step up and accept our responsibilities the better off we all will be.

[SheepDog]

A healthy mistrust of government (made up of simply people, fallable humans easily corrupted by power and money) is always prudent. They must never be allowed to forget that they work for us, not the other way around. The government has no money, other than what it confiscates from the hard work of its people. It has no power other than what the people grant it. You must also realize that your Australian government is just as power-hungry as any other - they will get around to banning every other kind of weapon you own, and then banning anything else they think might give you the will to resist (martial arts) - unless you and your countrymen wake up and fight back.

The Framers of our Constitution wrote in many checks and balances to the three branches of government; sadly many of them are being bypassed by one means or another; and the ultimate check is the right of the people to be armed. All other rights are meaningless if the government has disarmed us - those rights will exist at the bureaucrats' whim without an armed citizenry, willing and able to resist tyranny.

Believe me, we understand the responsibilities that come with the right to keep and bear arms. Chief among them is the responsibility to guard that right, to not give an inch when they try to negotiate the right away in the name of security, or safety. Freedom is not negotiable.

You imply the average citizen doesn't have the sense, the intelligence, or the will, common or otherwise, to understand, accept and act on the responsibilities that come with gun ownership. That is what the gun-grabbing politicians would like you to believe, that we are all too stupid to handle such an awesome responsibility as gun ownership - it should be left only to the professionals, right? Common plebes are not to be trusted with that kind of power? They want everyone to be unarmed sheep, relying on the big government to protect, feed, clothe, educate and care for them.

I, and millions of other Americans like me, say "Not on my watch."

[Graeme Dunning]

Nah that's not what I implied at all. That's you making huge leaps in logic again. But nice speech.

[SheepDog]

OK, my bad then.

But that is the attitude of the gun-grabbers worldwide: people are not to be trusted with firearms, they shouldn't have that kind of power, it should be left only to the police and military.

I thought that's where you were going with: Whether something is a privilege, a constitutional right or a God given right there are responsibilities that come with it. What I'm saying is that the sooner we all step up and accept our responsibilities the better off we all will be.

I'm just saying that we do "accept our responsibilities" when it comes to gun ownership. We train with our guns just as seriously as the martial artist trains, and hope just as much as does the martial artist that we never have to use those skills.

We take our responsibilities seriously, especially when it comes to keeping the idiots in the government and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media from legislating away our rights to keep and bear arms.

[Frank Rosner]

First of all lets leave god out of this discussion. Second it is not a right but a privelage to own a gun. I believe in gun control for felons and I have no problem waiting 7 days for my guns. The problem is criminals. The public does not go
after them,no lets go after the hunters. I live in NJ so having a gun is a bigger crime than getting caught with 20 pounds
of crack.

[SheepDog]

Owning a gun might be a privilege in NJ, but according to the US Constitution it's a pre-existing (as in, it existed long before the Constitution was written) right that the government (or anyone else) is not allowed to infringe upon.

Now unfortunately many state and local governments, as well as the Federal government, do infringe on the right, but organizations like the NRA-ILA are working to overturn those infringements and limit any future ones.

I agree about felons - they have surrendered many of their rights due to the nature of their crimes. I don't agree with making law-abinding citizens wait 7 days (or longer in many places) to get their guns. That's one of those infringements I was talking about...the waiting period.

It came about on the national level because of the Brady law - which incidentally has been shown to have no effect on lowering gun homicides. This was even admitted to by a top liberal "authority" on gun control (and no friend of the gun rights movement), Philip J. Cook, Duke University Professor of Public Policy, Economics, and Sociology, in this article: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

Like most fuzzy-headed, liberal knee-jerk reactions to high-profile crimes, the Brady law has been a complete failure as far as its intended consequences are concerned.

Another modern instance of gun-rights infringement includes the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, an utter failure in reducing crime, which President Bush sensibly let expire in 2004 and which President Obama has promised, stupidly, yet to be expected from such a left-wing radical, to reinstate.

Then there are the "Gun Free Zones," - as stupid an idea as the liberals have ever conceived, ranking right up there with "Drug Free Zones," (also ineffective) and Social Security (extremely effective - at bankrupting the nation). Gun free zones may as well be labeled: "Helpless Victim Available" zones.

This is a good article on Gun Free Zones, by Ted Nugent: “Gun-Free Zones are Recipe for Disaster”: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

[Chris]

Wow, what an outstanding thread!

To those on the "skeptical" side of the pro-freedom, pro-gun debate I would humbly remind you that the most expensive commodity in life is ignorance. I use the word "ignorance" in the purest sense of its definition, NOT as an insult. I would expect that anyone who undertakes a sincere study in empty hand martial arts also take a serious look at armed self-defense. Even to the "sport" karateka, the foundation of ALL martial arts (empty hand) is self defense/self preservation.

The right of the individual to defend himself is ABSOLUTE and INVIOLATE. End of discussion. Every culture, every religion (with the exception of the Aztecs & Mayans???), and every nation throughout human history has recognized this fact. The problem arises when one group, through legitimate or illegitimate means, acquires a disproportionate amount of power and imposes it's will on another group of individuals. Once you accept and/or understand that premise you will be more likely to understand those people who see any limitations on the individual as a violation of natural law.

For those of us that study a "traditional" Asian (Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese, et al) style, do we honestly believe that our martial arts forefathers of the 15th-19th centuries would not incorporate the most modern and efficient weapons in their training? I think the answer is obviously "yes", they would.

Having said the above, there are clearly knowledge gaps on the thread topic and regardless of your stance, all of us should constantly seek out education that leads us to an informed conclusion. To those that expressed a concern about the ease and availability of firearms within their community, please, do some research on the topic because the firearm is no different than the Bo, Sai, Tonfa, elbow, fist, pencil, crowbar, D-cell flashlight, automobile, candlestick, cup of boiling hot coffee, frying pan......need I continue? These are all tools, or implements, of self-defense with varying degrees of efficacy. Just like our kata and ju jitsu, we are limited only by our imagination. The right tool for the moment.

Now, moving past the theoretical into the practical, I say this to those of you that are a bit hesitant of "liberal" gun ownership and possession; how do you put the Genie back in the bottle? Gun control laws are obeyed by the law-abiding citizen only. Murder, rape, larceny, theft, assault, drug possession/distribution.......all are already against the law, yet people violate these laws already.

I have often asked friends during this "intellectual kumite" the following: "Why do we need gun control laws when murder and assault are already against the law? Shouldn't the fact that the law was passed mean that those crimes will not happen?" The government made those acts illegal, so why does it continue. My point is simply this; no law will protect you when you are confronted with a life-threatening problem.

My right to life supersedes anyone's fanciful right to NOT feel uncomfortable about a possible gun next to them in a theater, store, bar, church, synagogue, mosque, strip club.......

I believe that individuals that are uncomfortable with the idea of open/concealed carry firearms are doing themselves and intellectual injustice. Face the facts; there are bad people with bad intent carrying weapons in your vicinity already. In modern America we are relatively safe from daily shootouts and gun-play. Cable news media aside, life in the US is not the over-used "Dodge City" of the wild west. Modern media (news & movie) may give that perception to our neighbors, and our international friends, but it is exaggerated.

Remember this; a "shooting" is defined as one actor shooting another actor (robbery, execution, etc.), whereas a "gun fight" is defined as 2 or more shooting at each other. But I digress....

My aim was/is to add some perspective to the discussion and help those on the "other side" understand where those of us on the "pro" side are coming from. If we can't understand each others motivations and arguments, we have failed to properly examine the issue. To those of you who feel "icky" whenever God is brought into the discussion I say this; He is where all of man's rights come from. I am by no means a religious zealot, but asking me to keep God out of this discussion is like telling an attorney to keep the Constitution out of his argument, a football player to keep the rule book out of the game, or a Confucianist to keep Confucious out the discussion of ethics; it can't be done because it represents the foundation of the concept/idea/belief.

One more example that troubles me greatly is the concept of "Gun Free Zones". These areas are nothing more than a slaughter waiting to happen. Just because someone puts a sign on the door prohibiting weapons doesn't mean it will be obeyed by those who mean to do harm to others. On the contrary, I believe they serve the exact opposite effect and attract the "evil-doer" like a shark to chum. Sadly, we just had the Ft. Hood shooting (Terrorism!) and since I'm a USMC veteran I have had people ask how this could happen on a military reservation since "they have all of the real weapons". Unfortunately, US military facilities are no different than the US Post Office; a gun free zone. Individual weapons like rifles and pistols are strictly secured at the unit armory. Command doesn't like the idea of young enlisted men walking around on post with concealed weapons (generally speaking). Those soldiers were no different than the teenagers at Columbine H.S. So, gun control worked.....for the terrorist. He knew and expected that his "target audience" would be at his mercy.

I consider myself a martial artist, and that does NOT limit me to using my empty hand techniques only. I want the most efficient tool possible to defend that most precious object, LIFE. I believe that if we are confronted by "evil" and do nothing, we have failed in our obligation as a citizen, and as a human being. There is NOTHING wrong with righteous violence perpetrated by good men on bad men....EVER!

I know that this may seem strident on my part, but we do ourselves and our society no good by cowering in the corner. Life is full of confilct; accept it and deal with it the best you can. That doesn't mean seek it out, quite the opposite, but there will be a time in our lives when we will have to confront it in one form or another. I'm a big fan of "verbal jujitsu" to de-escalate a heated situation.

Final point and I'll get off of my soapbox: if you can tell me the exact time, place, and manner in which I will meet my Creator, then, and only then, will I lay down my arms (fire or otherwise). My point is this; if I, or someone else, had the power to predict the future and tell me that I (or my family) was going to die in my sleep as an old man, then I would lay down my arms..........maybe. The gun doesn't define the man, the man is defined by his character.

Again, my purpose was to be thought provoking, not provocative. I bring "intellectual chewing gum" for your brain;-)

SheepDog- Well done. Check & Mate:-)

[Bart Scovill]

I don’t want my silence to serve as appearing to be acquiescence to the more pervasive opinions stated on this topic. I can see how the idea of empty hand self-defense can extend to the idea of self-defense in any manner available. But carry that a little further. There are already limitations on the right to bear arms. Try to walk around with a concealed hand grenade or buy a crew served automatic weapon. These weapons are against the law, and their limitation seems to be thoroughly and universally accepted.

Now that we’ve established that a limitation exists, what we’re really talking about is shifting an existing and accepted limitation. One reason the current limitations are easily accepted is that it’s doubtful that the framers of the bill of rights could have foreseen the level of firepower that would eventually be at the disposal of the individual. At that time it took a column of soldiers lined up shoulder to shoulder firing at the same time to have a chance of hitting anything. They could no more anticipate an AK-47 than space travel.

Also, a firearm can not really be compared to other weapons at our disposal. I’ve never once heard of someone being killed by a stray Tonfa. If my neighbor comes out and starts waiving a bo on New Year’s Eve, I wouldn’t get nervous at all. But every year I hear morons firing guns on New Year’s Eve, and that does make me nervous. I have no problem at all with responsible, reasonable adults owning firearms, but there are entirely too many knuckleheads in the world to allow universal armament. Stand and watch the entrance to a Walmart for an hour and decide if you still want everyone you see to have the right to buy a gun.

Lastly, martial arts can not be compared to buying a gun. As everyone knows that has ever trained, there is an element of character of required to acquire skill in hand to hand fighting. You can’t walk in to a dojo and walk out again fifteen minutes later and have a greatly enhanced ability to kill or maim someone. The same can not be said about buying a gun.