Now that I finally have the time, I'll continue where I left off and promised.
Today's topic is on how firearms can help to protect us versus crime. It is a supplement to the previous posts on "Why a gun?", which by the way will get a condensed version as the next post.
Oh, and yes, happy Merdeka day.
Now on to business.
This article assumes you agree with the previous posts I have blogged up and support this movement. Firstly, there are two main methods in which private ownership of firearms serves us. They are Deterrents (Prevention) and also act as Protection (Cure).
As a deterrent, firearms keeps criminals away by presenting a physical threat against said criminals. Since force is one of the few things most criminals will understand, this is a deterrent that they will recognize. This deterrent is exactly the same as those presented by (armed) guards or policemen, except personally-owned firearms will actually be there to protect you since those people mentioned cannot be physically there to deliver their services most of the time, as discussed before. And of course, the first person to be able to make a difference is the victim him or herself, so there we go.
The concept is that firearms deter criminals from choosing a target because the common criminal is not looking for trouble; They only look to gain for themselves with minimum hassle. Thus, when citizens are allowed the means to resist them powerfully and effectively, they will be forced to either:
Spend a lot of time finding a "safe" target,
or find no victim at all and choose to give up.
Obviously the latter is the most favorable.
This deterrent would apply a protective umbrella over every person in the whole country. Why? Because criminals will never truly know who has a firearm, and who does not. They will have to assume that EVERYONE is armed, and that is the true value of the deterrent factor of mass private ownership of firearms. Even those who would not take up this moderate responsibility will benefit to some degree.
The end result is that it potentially causes a large number of criminals to be forced to give up their ways simply because the risk is too great. There will always be hardcore criminals, but these are a fraction of the total. The expected net decrease in crime would be a worthy end to the means alone. It would not work immediately and not perfectly, but will show its true effectiveness over time after some occurrences and cases of the next way firearms serve us:
As direct protection against crime, every firearm is still a functioning way of backing up your deterring threat when push comes to shove, and the criminal ignores your threats. In fact, said deterrent wouldn't even exist unless people are capable of performing real action on that threat. A firearm in your private ownership does both jobs.
Firstly, as discussed before, a firearm is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, which allows even the weakest and most frail citizen to stand up against even the toughest evil criminal. If we were not civilized, we would be asked to defend ourselves with our bare fists and sticks and stones. It does not require strength nor stringent training to be used effectively, unlike martial arts which actually require deep study before a person is only marginally ready to face a real life situation. Asking people to take a little half-witted stint in a martial art to prepare them for real life self defense is a serious injustice. They will more than likely make the situation even worse by pissing off the criminal who sees through their facade. A firearm will generally not pose such a problem.
Violence isn't necessary. To resolve a situation, one may still yet again call on the power of deterrence possessed by being a gun owner. A firearm is a versatile tool to be used in many ways. They may still chose to chase away the criminal peacefully, be it in the home or outside, or they can force him to surrender and later be handed to the police bloodlessly. However, there will be times that the criminal breaches this final barrier and decides to attack in the face of all these threats. In that case, the final option, that is shooting the criminal to stop him, will certainly NOT be an unjustified or immoral act. You could say that such a criminal is beyond redemption, or even if he wasn't, we should still consider the present as most important and that they are now threatening a valued lawful citizen of the country. We should consider our priorities carefully.
In any case, the police should always be summoned to take care of the rest in the aftermath. Its their real job, and you've made it easier for them because now they just have to file the death of a criminal, instead of filing the death of You and having to deal with your family and other problems created.
End result at this point? Lesser criminals shy away, crime prevented. Hardcore ones press their attack, many fail and are either sent to prison or sent to Hell. Either way, it is the best short term practical outcome, until they can be truly eliminated via Education and advanced care of the poor.
I will cut it short here, and continue in the next post with a more specific view of home defense and personal defense outside of the house with firearms. There I will address some certain so-called issues as well as myths regarding the matter, and further push the cause. The righteous cause to have reasonable access to private ownership of firearms.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Non-Content: Promises
Blargh, too much Real Life work to do to work on this thing.
However, the next post is in planning, and will be about how a firearm protects a law-abiding, upstanding citizen from criminals in great detail. Both home defense and as a person outside the home will be covered, and as always will attempt to dispel some myths on them.
However, the next post is in planning, and will be about how a firearm protects a law-abiding, upstanding citizen from criminals in great detail. Both home defense and as a person outside the home will be covered, and as always will attempt to dispel some myths on them.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
"Why a Gun?" (pt 2)
Whoops, too much work to write on this. Now back to the schedule, this is part two of my explanation why firearms are beneficial to us.
So in the last post I started off by discussing the "need" and "want" part of the deal. Now that I've cleared that up, I'll now talk about why guns would be of use to us in the first place for us to want them.
I personally subscribe to the concept of the Trinity, the three categories of general uses of guns. They are listed in order of importance from most to least, and they are: Self Defense, Hunting, and Recreation/Sport/Entertainment/Fun. Yes, if you're not irrationally scared at the inanimate thing that is the gun itself, you can have lots of fun with them, provided you're not pointing at people.
---
Self defense is the most important aspect of civilian-owned guns. It is as always a choice of someone to use it, but in the case that he or she does, it will be the foremost use of it. And here is why. I'll address the specific Malaysian aspect of it after I explain the basics.
As it is most obvious from the name, a gun protects someone against crime. While diplomacy is a favored choice and one should always look for a peaceful way out, there is always the (very likely) chance that you will need to use force to keep a criminal, that is, the evil bad guy, from harming you. Sometimes, you have others to protect, like your family. Or you just might have a strong moral principle against giving criminals and thieves anything, be it your money, your property, or even your life.
Why should we take such "drastic" action to protect ourselves? A lot of (ignorant, I say) people will instantly blab and tell you that the police are there to protect you. This is absolutely NOT the case.
First off, its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so all the time. The police can only protect you when they are there, and they are usually not there in the first place, which is the reason why you have to dial 999. For such a thing to work, our population would literally need to be made up of 25% policemen, all working around the clock, watching every house and alley and street.
Then there is the fact that even when they try to come to your aid, its often nowhere near in time. The amount of time it takes for the bad guy to rob, kill, rape, or kidnap you may be measured in the minutes, sometimes in only seconds.
How long does it take for the police to get there? First you have to take out your phone, which will be difficult in a stressful and/or dangerous situation. Then you'll have to dial and call them. Then you have to wait till someone picks up, then you have to tell them where you are and what's going on. (See where this is going?) Then the operator will have to relay everything again to the patrolmen, and THEN they'll have to drive to you. And forbid the traffic (and traffic lights) isn't bad today, or that they didn't forget where the street was.
By that time, whatever hopped-up and delirious drug addict will have had their way with you. Not a very wise choice to trust your own safety to someone miles away, is it?
The thing is, YOU are the first person who can do anything about the situation. YOU are the one who will decide if you are the victim or the victor. Nobody else can do as much as YOU. Take responsibility for your own safety, and come out of life successful.
And to answer directly the question of "Why a Gun?", it is because it is the ultimate equalizer. One should not ask people to run away as their means of saving themselves, only to forget some people are old or disabled. It allows even scrawniest woman to tell the beefiest man to go away and not rape me, and actually succeed. It is also a powerful way of doing it, and like I have discussed in the previous post, there is absolutely no reason not to use it if it is useful.
And before somebody comes up and says that its better to submit to the criminal, statistics show that people are the LEAST injured when they use firearms to chase away or subdue the criminal. You're more likely to get beaten up if you're a sniveling coward who grovels at their feet, probably because they just get irritated.
Source is the British Home Office and their police force, and they're not exactly pro-gun folk. Go take it up with them if you don't believe me.
Other reasons why the police cannot protect you entirely:
It is not their job. They SOLVE crime. Sure, they'll help STOP the crime in progress, but usually the evil deed has already been done, and the only thing they can do is clean up the mess, and hope to chase down the culprit later. If they fail in coming to rescue you, no one is going to be able to sue them or hold them liable for any "negligence", partly due to police being a part of the government itself (and governments don't like being sued), and partly due to being impossible to enforce in the first place. See above.
Corruption. Some are indeed working to keep the status quo, because without crime, there would be no need of police. Its bad enough that its impossible to protect everyone with this flawed system, to have some of the bad guys working inside.
And finally, this is just a less physical reason that I have learned and taken up from somewhere else. Why do people accept the notion that they should rely on the police alone to protect them? Why does it not click into their minds that they are asking someone else to risk their life to shield them, when they themselves would not think to even lift a finger to defend themselves and their property?
It is a Moral fallacy, one which I do NOT subscribe to. I will ask the police for help, but I will do my own part. I will not ask them to cover entirely for something that is MY responsibility in the first place.
---
Now, in the case of the Malaysian scene, firearms are definitely "available". The use of guns is heavily restricted, and who is given a license is also heavily regulated.
Yes, it is dangerous to not regulate such an item to some extent, but the way it is done now is ridiculous and only causes detriment by not allowing the masses to purchase and make use of them.
Right now, whether or not you can acquire a firearms license is based on three things:
Having lots of money.
Having lots of political connections.
Having lots of money AND political connections.
See what this kind of thing will do? You'll mostly need the money to convince the right people. Not a requirement, perhaps, and I truly do not blame any specific person for accepting bribery for this kind of thing, but I will not lie: sometimes it does happen, like in all things. Hopefully it does not play too large a role.
The right connections, knowing the right people, are too a way to swing it into one's favor.
Then there is the fact that they require a "good reason" to give a license. This reason being if you're RICH. Rich, and thus somehow really vulnerable to being robbed, kidnapped, raped, and murdered (for any of the above), as if those things don't happen to the common people all the damn time from all walks of life. As if they didn't have already enough money to hire their own private army to defend their skin for them. As if the commoner is only allowed to use their dirty fists, rather than the high noble who can use more elegant weapons.
By not allowing the common people to possess firearms in a reasonably accessible manner, it defeats the entire purpose of firearms in self defense. The criminals do not obey the law, and they will ALWAYS have guns, while we do not. Remember back in one of the newspaper stories where police went in a shootout with several men, and in the aftermath found a car trunk full of illegal firearms? The criminals can find and use their illegal smuggled guns, but we cannot because are good people and we like to follow the Law. And thus we suffer because the Law isn't nice to us by not letting us have the best means of protecting ourselves.
Don't take me for a "money is the root of all evil" person though, quite the opposite. Its just the way it influences us here gets me riled up. I'll talk more on this once I get through finishing reading the entire document that details the firearms control in this country. This is just the practical gist of it.
---
Long blog post, so I guess I'll just wrap up the rest for today. The other two reasons in the Trinity were Hunting and Recreation.
Hunting is not exactly a very applicable thing here in Malaysia. We aren't very big on land, and there's not much to actually hunt. But if we could, why hunt? Hunting is like the third reason, Recreation, but more important because it does bring a benefit.
Food. Nothing like eating a meal you caught and roasted yourself. They say it tastes better because of that.
Why would I catch my own food when I can get it at the store? Because I can, and it just comes along as a possibly enjoyable opportunity after the whole self-defense aspect.
There's also yet again a moral aspect from my personal perspective. Most animals you eat come from a farm, and thanks to the ever increasing population-irresponsible humanity, we tend to need to stuff said animals in really tight farms, stuff them again with food, feed them lots of growth hormones, generally cause a lot of grief to them, just so we can feed the masses. They don't get to run free and enjoy their life without being doomed to die for our stomachs, from the very beginning they were born. Hunting them ensures to me that they were able to live happily, before I put them down as painlessly as possible to be eaten.
That's just me. Its still up to you what to do, and there's the vegetarians of course. Still many other reasons to use guns.
The last one is Recreation. Just like football or archery or what have you, its a sport that can be enjoyed safely by all, provided the simple safety rules are followed, and adults act like adults when supervising children on the range. That last one always gets us pro-gunners boiling when some imbecile foolishly gives a difficult-to-control automatic to a 10 year old kid to "play" with by himself.
In any case, its the last on the list because its not immediately practical. All it does is entertain us, although it may come naturally anyway when you would practice with your defensive gun of choice. There's the Olympics that does have their own light-caliber rifle competitions, but nobody needs a big official event to have fun with friends. There's the IPSC (a practical-situation handgun shooting sport), too. I think they have a small thing going on here in Malaysia, but I need to check sometime. But the best of all is really just spending time with the family (assuming they have time in this rush-fast world), and bonding with the little kid, teaching him or her some life lessons and some responsibility along the way.
Like placing a watermelon on a stool, then blowing it to pieces with one shot.
"Yeah, Ahmad? See that? Don't play around with guns; respect them even if you do not fear them. And please for the sake of don't point it at your friend's head, unless you want that to happen." *
*Sample dialogue may not be representative of what you may think is best to teach the child that all important lesson. Your mileage may vary.
---
To finish this, firearms are a useful thing to have. Be it to defend oneself or defend one's stomach, there's something for everyone. Usually that falls under the first of the Trinity, but I think that still counts.
It is still a choice of the person to use one or not. It is still necessary to provide some safeguards to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, although it is not actually as hard as you think. Many anti-gun laws passed all around the world fail to address the "wrong hands" part, and usually only affect those who would never break the law.
I do not mean to give everyone a gun, as that would be foolish. But that would be ideal, if everyone was smart and responsible enough (not that hard) to be deemed eligible to handle firearms, that is, when they get their license by passing the tests.
The myth of the Wild Wild West is really bad and misleading; they were never "Wild", and in fact were a very peaceful time in their history. With nearly everyone armed, each good person respected one another, and evil criminals had a hard time surviving for very long. That was a very good thing. And those tales and stories of incredible exploits that those criminals do in desperation are just that, incredible one-in-a-million flukes.
Now, why I made this blog again? Because I want to try and get the word out, try to educate people who don't know, or don't have an opinion about this matter. To talk and dispel the myths and fantasies that the anti-gun crowd put out. To try to turn this country's opinion around, so the People can push for our over-restrictive, ineffective gun laws to be reevaluated and changed, for the betterment of our society.
A lot of my concepts are taken from the American side of things, since they are the foremost in this field in the world. Those people... if they didn't have access to firearms, their crime rate would be MUCH higher than it is now. They should thank their lucky stars.
We, however, have much to do. Perhaps, just like our first-world infrastructure, we can exceed the developed world because we are a young nation. We are a clean slate, where we can implement this in the most efficient and properly controlled manner as possible, by starting right off with the best technology available. We give no weapons to the criminals, and arm as many good and responsible citizens who are willing as possible. Then maybe one day we can be rid of crime and tyranny, and we can live free and happy.
I hope that perhaps, you may join my righteous journey and help make this happen someday. We still have the right to free speech, so lets make use of it. Anybody who has a conflicting opinion should also speak up, so that I may address it. Any questions?
So in the last post I started off by discussing the "need" and "want" part of the deal. Now that I've cleared that up, I'll now talk about why guns would be of use to us in the first place for us to want them.
I personally subscribe to the concept of the Trinity, the three categories of general uses of guns. They are listed in order of importance from most to least, and they are: Self Defense, Hunting, and Recreation/Sport/Entertainment/Fun. Yes, if you're not irrationally scared at the inanimate thing that is the gun itself, you can have lots of fun with them, provided you're not pointing at people.
---
Self defense is the most important aspect of civilian-owned guns. It is as always a choice of someone to use it, but in the case that he or she does, it will be the foremost use of it. And here is why. I'll address the specific Malaysian aspect of it after I explain the basics.
As it is most obvious from the name, a gun protects someone against crime. While diplomacy is a favored choice and one should always look for a peaceful way out, there is always the (very likely) chance that you will need to use force to keep a criminal, that is, the evil bad guy, from harming you. Sometimes, you have others to protect, like your family. Or you just might have a strong moral principle against giving criminals and thieves anything, be it your money, your property, or even your life.
Why should we take such "drastic" action to protect ourselves? A lot of (ignorant, I say) people will instantly blab and tell you that the police are there to protect you. This is absolutely NOT the case.
First off, its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so all the time. The police can only protect you when they are there, and they are usually not there in the first place, which is the reason why you have to dial 999. For such a thing to work, our population would literally need to be made up of 25% policemen, all working around the clock, watching every house and alley and street.
Then there is the fact that even when they try to come to your aid, its often nowhere near in time. The amount of time it takes for the bad guy to rob, kill, rape, or kidnap
How long does it take for the police to get there? First you have to take out your phone, which will be difficult in a stressful and/or dangerous situation. Then you'll have to dial and call them. Then you have to wait till someone picks up, then you have to tell them where you are and what's going on. (See where this is going?) Then the operator will have to relay everything again to the patrolmen, and THEN they'll have to drive to you. And
By that time, whatever hopped-up and delirious drug addict will have had their way with you. Not a very wise choice to trust your own safety to someone miles away, is it?
The thing is, YOU are the first person who can do anything about the situation. YOU are the one who will decide if you are the victim or the victor. Nobody else can do as much as YOU. Take responsibility for your own safety, and come out of life successful.
And to answer directly the question of "Why a Gun?", it is because it is the ultimate equalizer. One should not ask people to run away as their means of saving themselves, only to forget some people are old or disabled. It allows even scrawniest woman to tell the beefiest man to go away and not rape me, and actually succeed. It is also a powerful way of doing it, and like I have discussed in the previous post, there is absolutely no reason not to use it if it is useful.
And before somebody comes up and says that its better to submit to the criminal, statistics show that people are the LEAST injured when they use firearms to chase away or subdue the criminal. You're more likely to get beaten up if you're a sniveling coward who grovels at their feet, probably because they just get irritated.
Source is the British Home Office and their police force, and they're not exactly pro-gun folk. Go take it up with them if you don't believe me.
Other reasons why the police cannot protect you entirely:
It is not their job. They SOLVE crime. Sure, they'll help STOP the crime in progress, but usually the evil deed has already been done, and the only thing they can do is clean up the mess, and hope to chase down the culprit later. If they fail in coming to rescue you, no one is going to be able to sue them or hold them liable for any "negligence", partly due to police being a part of the government itself (and governments don't like being sued), and partly due to being impossible to enforce in the first place. See above.
Corruption. Some are indeed working to keep the status quo, because without crime, there would be no need of police. Its bad enough that its impossible to protect everyone with this flawed system, to have some of the bad guys working inside.
And finally, this is just a less physical reason that I have learned and taken up from somewhere else. Why do people accept the notion that they should rely on the police alone to protect them? Why does it not click into their minds that they are asking someone else to risk their life to shield them, when they themselves would not think to even lift a finger to defend themselves and their property?
It is a Moral fallacy, one which I do NOT subscribe to. I will ask the police for help, but I will do my own part. I will not ask them to cover entirely for something that is MY responsibility in the first place.
---
Now, in the case of the Malaysian scene, firearms are definitely "available". The use of guns is heavily restricted, and who is given a license is also heavily regulated.
Yes, it is dangerous to not regulate such an item to some extent, but the way it is done now is ridiculous and only causes detriment by not allowing the masses to purchase and make use of them.
Right now, whether or not you can acquire a firearms license is based on three things:
Having lots of money.
Having lots of political connections.
Having lots of money AND political connections.
See what this kind of thing will do? You'll mostly need the money to convince the right people. Not a requirement, perhaps, and I truly do not blame any specific person for accepting bribery for this kind of thing, but I will not lie: sometimes it does happen, like in all things. Hopefully it does not play too large a role.
The right connections, knowing the right people, are too a way to swing it into one's favor.
Then there is the fact that they require a "good reason" to give a license. This reason being if you're RICH. Rich, and thus somehow really vulnerable to being robbed, kidnapped, raped, and murdered (for any of the above), as if those things don't happen to the common people all the damn time from all walks of life. As if they didn't have already enough money to hire their own private army to defend their skin for them. As if the commoner is only allowed to use their dirty fists, rather than the high noble who can use more elegant weapons.
By not allowing the common people to possess firearms in a reasonably accessible manner, it defeats the entire purpose of firearms in self defense. The criminals do not obey the law, and they will ALWAYS have guns, while we do not. Remember back in one of the newspaper stories where police went in a shootout with several men, and in the aftermath found a car trunk full of illegal firearms? The criminals can find and use their illegal smuggled guns, but we cannot because are good people and we like to follow the Law. And thus we suffer because the Law isn't nice to us by not letting us have the best means of protecting ourselves.
Don't take me for a "money is the root of all evil" person though, quite the opposite. Its just the way it influences us here gets me riled up. I'll talk more on this once I get through finishing reading the entire document that details the firearms control in this country. This is just the practical gist of it.
---
Long blog post, so I guess I'll just wrap up the rest for today. The other two reasons in the Trinity were Hunting and Recreation.
Hunting is not exactly a very applicable thing here in Malaysia. We aren't very big on land, and there's not much to actually hunt. But if we could, why hunt? Hunting is like the third reason, Recreation, but more important because it does bring a benefit.
Food. Nothing like eating a meal you caught and roasted yourself. They say it tastes better because of that.
Why would I catch my own food when I can get it at the store? Because I can, and it just comes along as a possibly enjoyable opportunity after the whole self-defense aspect.
There's also yet again a moral aspect from my personal perspective. Most animals you eat come from a farm, and thanks to the ever increasing population-irresponsible humanity, we tend to need to stuff said animals in really tight farms, stuff them again with food, feed them lots of growth hormones, generally cause a lot of grief to them, just so we can feed the masses. They don't get to run free and enjoy their life without being doomed to die for our stomachs, from the very beginning they were born. Hunting them ensures to me that they were able to live happily, before I put them down as painlessly as possible to be eaten.
That's just me. Its still up to you what to do, and there's the vegetarians of course. Still many other reasons to use guns.
The last one is Recreation. Just like football or archery or what have you, its a sport that can be enjoyed safely by all, provided the simple safety rules are followed, and adults act like adults when supervising children on the range. That last one always gets us pro-gunners boiling when some imbecile foolishly gives a difficult-to-control automatic to a 10 year old kid to "play" with by himself.
In any case, its the last on the list because its not immediately practical. All it does is entertain us, although it may come naturally anyway when you would practice with your defensive gun of choice. There's the Olympics that does have their own light-caliber rifle competitions, but nobody needs a big official event to have fun with friends. There's the IPSC (a practical-situation handgun shooting sport), too. I think they have a small thing going on here in Malaysia, but I need to check sometime. But the best of all is really just spending time with the family (assuming they have time in this rush-fast world), and bonding with the little kid, teaching him or her some life lessons and some responsibility along the way.
Like placing a watermelon on a stool, then blowing it to pieces with one shot.
"Yeah, Ahmad? See that? Don't play around with guns; respect them even if you do not fear them. And please for the sake of
*Sample dialogue may not be representative of what you may think is best to teach the child that all important lesson. Your mileage may vary.
---
To finish this, firearms are a useful thing to have. Be it to defend oneself or defend one's stomach, there's something for everyone. Usually that falls under the first of the Trinity, but I think that still counts.
It is still a choice of the person to use one or not. It is still necessary to provide some safeguards to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, although it is not actually as hard as you think. Many anti-gun laws passed all around the world fail to address the "wrong hands" part, and usually only affect those who would never break the law.
I do not mean to give everyone a gun, as that would be foolish. But that would be ideal, if everyone was smart and responsible enough (not that hard) to be deemed eligible to handle firearms, that is, when they get their license by passing the tests.
The myth of the Wild Wild West is really bad and misleading; they were never "Wild", and in fact were a very peaceful time in their history. With nearly everyone armed, each good person respected one another, and evil criminals had a hard time surviving for very long. That was a very good thing. And those tales and stories of incredible exploits that those criminals do in desperation are just that, incredible one-in-a-million flukes.
Now, why I made this blog again? Because I want to try and get the word out, try to educate people who don't know, or don't have an opinion about this matter. To talk and dispel the myths and fantasies that the anti-gun crowd put out. To try to turn this country's opinion around, so the People can push for our over-restrictive, ineffective gun laws to be reevaluated and changed, for the betterment of our society.
A lot of my concepts are taken from the American side of things, since they are the foremost in this field in the world. Those people... if they didn't have access to firearms, their crime rate would be MUCH higher than it is now. They should thank their lucky stars.
We, however, have much to do. Perhaps, just like our first-world infrastructure, we can exceed the developed world because we are a young nation. We are a clean slate, where we can implement this in the most efficient and properly controlled manner as possible, by starting right off with the best technology available. We give no weapons to the criminals, and arm as many good and responsible citizens who are willing as possible. Then maybe one day we can be rid of crime and tyranny, and we can live free and happy.
I hope that perhaps, you may join my righteous journey and help make this happen someday. We still have the right to free speech, so lets make use of it. Anybody who has a conflicting opinion should also speak up, so that I may address it. Any questions?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
"Why a Gun?" (pt 1)
So you found this blog, and obviously I'm going to have to give an explanation so you don't go cry bloody murderer and have me pointlessly dragged off to jail. Or, of course, you could just be wanting to know what the point of all this is in a more civilized manner. So let me explain.
As a start, I'd like to clarify one little itch that constantly bugs me; the difference between NEED and WANT. A very common form of question whenever I talk about firearms is "Why do you NEED a gun?" Let me say this: A gun is not a NEED, it is not needed to survive. However, it is a useful item that a person would WANT, that can solve or prevent a problem. It is a TOOL that has a useful purpose that I can have to improve my quality of life, and there is no point in not using them if they provide more benefit than loss/detriment (if at all).
A good comparison would be a vehicle, such as a car or a truck. It is a tool, it is not necessary; One can always take the bus or taxi to go to work. If time to get there is a constraint, then one would simply wake up earlier, or move house closer. A car is absolutely not needed, we can manage without it, but it is a convenience that alleviates us from such problems and makes life easier as well as giving the freedom to go where we choose.
Both tools carry their own risks that come with their benefits. A truck or a bus can cause a lot of injury and hurt to people and their property should an accident occur, whether by freak chance/circumstance or by negligence of the driver.
Even a small car can be used maliciously to harm others, even if the vehicle was never meant for such a purpose. Similarly, a gun is susceptible to accidents as well, and can be misused for evil purposes in the wrong hands.
And yet, all countries on this planet continue to use both. Why? Because the bad things that can happen, are simply 'CAN HAPPEN', meaning they don't have to occur. The risks involved in using such tools can be minimized or even eliminated, while leaving behind the benefits for all to enjoy.
A driver of a car is tested and trained before he is allowed to go on the road, and this helps prevent accidents while at the same time screen out the crazies who are not fit to be allowed to drive. Similarly again, a potential firearm owner with instruction can (very easily, by the way) avoid accidents that may occur, and with a licensing system can be made sure to be sane and responsible enough to be entrusted with such tools.
---
Now I've been talking about the benefits for a while, but haven't said how gun ownership can benefit us yet. I'll explain in the next blog post. Split this thing up a bit so it isn't a huge wall of text.
And yes, before you ask, private gun ownership is very much legal in Malaysia. However, the method of getting them and who can get one, is highly restrictive to the point of uselessness (in protecting people) and much of the decisions on who is allowed to bear firearms is made by people who are politically and monetarily motivated. I'll elaborate shortly.
---
As a start, I'd like to clarify one little itch that constantly bugs me; the difference between NEED and WANT. A very common form of question whenever I talk about firearms is "Why do you NEED a gun?" Let me say this: A gun is not a NEED, it is not needed to survive. However, it is a useful item that a person would WANT, that can solve or prevent a problem. It is a TOOL that has a useful purpose that I can have to improve my quality of life, and there is no point in not using them if they provide more benefit than loss/detriment (if at all).
A good comparison would be a vehicle, such as a car or a truck. It is a tool, it is not necessary; One can always take the bus or taxi to go to work. If time to get there is a constraint, then one would simply wake up earlier, or move house closer. A car is absolutely not needed, we can manage without it, but it is a convenience that alleviates us from such problems and makes life easier as well as giving the freedom to go where we choose.
Both tools carry their own risks that come with their benefits. A truck or a bus can cause a lot of injury and hurt to people and their property should an accident occur, whether by freak chance/circumstance or by negligence of the driver.
Even a small car can be used maliciously to harm others, even if the vehicle was never meant for such a purpose. Similarly, a gun is susceptible to accidents as well, and can be misused for evil purposes in the wrong hands.
And yet, all countries on this planet continue to use both. Why? Because the bad things that can happen, are simply 'CAN HAPPEN', meaning they don't have to occur. The risks involved in using such tools can be minimized or even eliminated, while leaving behind the benefits for all to enjoy.
A driver of a car is tested and trained before he is allowed to go on the road, and this helps prevent accidents while at the same time screen out the crazies who are not fit to be allowed to drive. Similarly again, a potential firearm owner with instruction can (very easily, by the way) avoid accidents that may occur, and with a licensing system can be made sure to be sane and responsible enough to be entrusted with such tools.
---
Now I've been talking about the benefits for a while, but haven't said how gun ownership can benefit us yet. I'll explain in the next blog post. Split this thing up a bit so it isn't a huge wall of text.
And yes, before you ask, private gun ownership is very much legal in Malaysia. However, the method of getting them and who can get one, is highly restrictive to the point of uselessness (in protecting people) and much of the decisions on who is allowed to bear firearms is made by people who are politically and monetarily motivated. I'll elaborate shortly.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)