I received a message from another friend of mine one day, which so happens to coincide with my news topic for this part. It refers to the shooting of an underage driver by the name of Aminulrasyid Amzah in a car chase by policemen. I can't seem to find a Star online link as their archiving system is terrible, but search for that name and you'll find it.
The question goes:
"Just wondering what's your opinion on the teen shooting case that happened on Wednesday. Think about it this way, if even policemen cannot adhere to shooting guidelines, what more the public?"
Good question, friend.
However, why not think of it this way? Police officers don't adhere to shooting guidelines because they are above the law.
Well now, that brings a fresh change to the outlook, doesn't it? I cannot understand why the common public put themselves as morally inferior to the police. I cannot understand why people treat them as if they are some kind of societal standard that everyone else strives for. I cannot understand why so many people consider >themselves< as rowdy nutcases who are all itching for a fight, yet remain so pacified now; apparently only the object known as a gun will make them go crazy.
To cut a long story short, the general public has more of a reason to be responsible with their use of firearms because the law will judge them strictly. Compare this with the police force, who are for all practical purposes are above the law. Sure, errant trigger-happy police officers are the minority 'bad apples' in law enforcement, but the police force will never charge them for a full punishment. Why? Because if they did convict them of committing (rightfully, a) crime, then police would be admitting that they are capable of doing something wrong, and that they harbor irresponsible, even evil, persons in a government force that is supposed to have the trust of the people and protect them. Thus, the police would always try their best to bail a policeman out if the (lack of) evidence permits, even if said policeman has committed outright murder.
So, NO, I believe the civilian citizens of Malaysia will do better than their blue counterparts at being responsible gun owners.
In any case, moving on to the topic of the news. My opinion is this:
The police patrolmen involved in this case are absolutely incompetent and irresponsible for the killing of Aminulrasyid. Their method of stopping the runaway teenage driver was absolutely disgusting and appalling. In a first world country, police chasing down a suspect would first call for backup, follow the suspect until they arrive, then proceed to stop the suspect by boxing him in to the side of the road with their high-performance police-customized patrol cars. Not so in this case; the policemen -shot- at the tires and later the body of the car (and at Aminul!) while on the chase!
Now why is this wrong, you may ask? Well, three reasons:
Firstly, shooting at the tires of a car (which are relatively small targets), from another car while on a high speed chase, and shooting >out from a window<, is simply too difficult to do in any practical sense. This is a Hollywood stunt that no first-world law enforcement establishment would ever do except in the most extreme circumstances.
However, the wrongness of this action only comes to light when compounded with the second reason; BULLETS GO SOMEWHERE. What I mean by that is, those policemen were absolutely irresponsible and unable to realize that there may have been people all along the car chase route, and that those carelessly fired bullets that missed the suspect's car may have hit someone else! I don't care if it was in the dead of the night with few people around, you simply do not take such a chance! This action is not performed by any first-world police force because firing from a car to stop another car is STUPIDLY DANGEROUS, and that is exactly what I classify those policemen involved.
Finally, even if they didn't hit anyone with missed shots, what happens if their shooting causes the suspect's car too go out of control and crash into other cars, property, or bystanders? Madness!
In addition, I don't care if he acted suspiciously and drove away from the police car, or that Aminul continued to drive on even after having their car severely shot at. You absolutely DO NOT SHOOT at people in the first place until you know EXACTLY who they are and what they are up to (which goes hand in hand with the above paragraph). While those two policemen claimed that Aminul had used his car to try to ram the patrol car, Aminul's friend who was also in that car (but survived) said the opposite, that they never intended or tried to ram the police. I am more inclined here to believe the child who just lost a friend, really, and not listen to a possible cover-up attempt by those patrolmen.
I can say that perhaps the whole force is at fault here too: regular Malaysian patrolmen are not issued body armor as standard equipment. I am loath to do faux psychology, but I do think that the policemen would be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later if they didn't have a second-chance layer of protection, which would allow them to better approach the suspect first without attacking. The police force is just underfunded, I'd say. Reflects on their criminally-low pay grade too. But I digress.
To be fair, the parents were responsible for this state of affairs as well. Why was Aminul allowed to drive out a car on his own, when they know he's untested, underage, and unlicensed? I might place 1/3 of the blame on them, as I reserve more than half blame for the policeman who shot at him due to his actions being far more significant and severe in the consequences, but I will still firmly put some blame on the parents.
Well, that's all I can say off the top of my head. There may be things that I may have missed, so perhaps you should drop a comment if you want to bring up more things.
!EDIT:
Oh, and his friend claims (and has proof) of being assaulted and beaten by the policemen AFTER he and his (already dead) friend crashed the car. Quite apparent that they didn't even care about him looking like a young child. This is not a case of criminals being brought to justice. This is a case of irresponsible police on a power-trip with no regard for what is right.
Also note that shooting at cars while driving in a high-speed chase is hardly something a civilian self-defense proponent, or ANY civilian for that matter, would be doing. So its kind of wrong to argue that civilians would be less responsible in using firearms by bringing up a situation that we'd never get into.
At least, not by playing the shooter role in a chase... Remember to stay away from crime and running away from policemen, y'all.
!EDIT: HALF THE WHOLE DAMN ARTICLE. Blogger apparently decided to screw me over today and crush the upper side of this post into nothing and remove many line breaks on the bottom half. I really need to back the work up myself every second next time.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Two-Fold (old) News post - Part 1
I've finally gotten rid of the first batch of deadlines, so now I can come back and write stuff again.
Just going to write two posts discussing some recent events that I've missed the good time to think about. First up is just a link to what I consider an appropriate outcome of a home burglary in the dark.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/27/nation/6135896&sec=nation
Long story short, a regular-citizen 60 year old man successfully defended his home from several armed intruders in the early morning of April 26 with a legally owned firearm. He only woke up after the robbers had already tied up his son and daughter-in-law as well threatening to kill them if they resisted, yet just this one man was able to repel a whole gang by himself and protect his family, his home, and himself. He had a shotgun under his bed, and he used just 4 shots to effectively repel 4 (I would assume) much younger and thus stronger men right out of his house without taking a scratch.
The four robbers came broke into the house and armed themselves with knives, and left screaming with their tails between their legs when the cool old guy decided to exercise his right to self defense. That, and to add on more praise, he was commended by the police for his bravery and was told that he was well within his rights to defend his home. WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.
Alright, my point is that while the law viewed him in a favorable manner, what I want to see is more of these kinds of stories being reported, such exploits emulated by people of ALL ages and backgrounds. I want more people to be allowed to take up arms and make these situations happen, instead of the opposite where people face violence, pillage and rape by unhindered criminals.
When the news media reports that someone has successfully defended his home, you can say that it is one more criminal who fails and gets sent packing off to jail or a coffin; Which is obviously the preferable outcome if given a choice between the innocent citizen suffering or the guilty criminal learning that crime does not pay.
Looking at this situation in the anti-gun and totally-unarmed context, what would happen if that grandfather was not allowed to possess his shotgun? Those criminals were a well-known gang who had already built up a reputation as career criminals, and were willing to >kill< their victims to keep them silent. In such a helpless situation, there would be no other choice for one man but to lay down and take the injustice up the rear. Even then, what guarantee was there anyway that they would not bash your head in or other nasty things even if you groveled at their feet? I mean, there's nothing holding them back if they already don't care about the law, and the police are too far away (and they are -always- too far away).
This story basically proves that a law-abiding civilian with a firearm can bring a good result out of even the worst case scenarios, and I argue that without legal firearms we would be unable to bring ANY good out of such as situation, with the bad outcome being the -only- outcome. I argue that with less strict (but still reasonable) firearms restrictions/licenses and more widespread awareness and knowledge about this subject, we Malaysians can turn the daily stories of tragedy in the news into a continuous wave of bravery, heroism and justice, where the good people with guns in their hands win against those who are evil and make each and every day safer and better for everyone else. Just what is wrong with that?
End Part 1. In part 2 I will respond to a friend of mine on the recent, in my personal opinion, unjustified shooting of a teenage, underage, runaway driver. Hoo boy.
Just going to write two posts discussing some recent events that I've missed the good time to think about. First up is just a link to what I consider an appropriate outcome of a home burglary in the dark.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/27/nation/6135896&sec=nation
Long story short, a regular-citizen 60 year old man successfully defended his home from several armed intruders in the early morning of April 26 with a legally owned firearm. He only woke up after the robbers had already tied up his son and daughter-in-law as well threatening to kill them if they resisted, yet just this one man was able to repel a whole gang by himself and protect his family, his home, and himself. He had a shotgun under his bed, and he used just 4 shots to effectively repel 4 (I would assume) much younger and thus stronger men right out of his house without taking a scratch.
The four robbers came broke into the house and armed themselves with knives, and left screaming with their tails between their legs when the cool old guy decided to exercise his right to self defense. That, and to add on more praise, he was commended by the police for his bravery and was told that he was well within his rights to defend his home. WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.
Alright, my point is that while the law viewed him in a favorable manner, what I want to see is more of these kinds of stories being reported, such exploits emulated by people of ALL ages and backgrounds. I want more people to be allowed to take up arms and make these situations happen, instead of the opposite where people face violence, pillage and rape by unhindered criminals.
When the news media reports that someone has successfully defended his home, you can say that it is one more criminal who fails and gets sent packing off to jail or a coffin; Which is obviously the preferable outcome if given a choice between the innocent citizen suffering or the guilty criminal learning that crime does not pay.
Looking at this situation in the anti-gun and totally-unarmed context, what would happen if that grandfather was not allowed to possess his shotgun? Those criminals were a well-known gang who had already built up a reputation as career criminals, and were willing to >kill< their victims to keep them silent. In such a helpless situation, there would be no other choice for one man but to lay down and take the injustice up the rear. Even then, what guarantee was there anyway that they would not bash your head in or other nasty things even if you groveled at their feet? I mean, there's nothing holding them back if they already don't care about the law, and the police are too far away (and they are -always- too far away).
This story basically proves that a law-abiding civilian with a firearm can bring a good result out of even the worst case scenarios, and I argue that without legal firearms we would be unable to bring ANY good out of such as situation, with the bad outcome being the -only- outcome. I argue that with less strict (but still reasonable) firearms restrictions/licenses and more widespread awareness and knowledge about this subject, we Malaysians can turn the daily stories of tragedy in the news into a continuous wave of bravery, heroism and justice, where the good people with guns in their hands win against those who are evil and make each and every day safer and better for everyone else. Just what is wrong with that?
End Part 1. In part 2 I will respond to a friend of mine on the recent, in my personal opinion, unjustified shooting of a teenage, underage, runaway driver. Hoo boy.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Response to a certain friend
I'm writing this entry as a response to a friend of mine. Sometimes I can't seem to think of responses fast enough, and only realize the obvious answer while taking a shower. She had particular concern for people turning into violent murderers overnight, so as long as they were allowed to buy, -specifically-, a gun.
Lets put aside complex arguments on human psychology for now, but I will use real life as an example to refute this notion. Her premise is that humans lose rational thought when they are angry, and by possessing a gun they are somehow more likely to turn to violence in such situations. Now consider the people who already possess firearms all over the country; the police and the military. Yet there are rarely any reports of them misusing their firearm and wrongfully hurting someone else, if there are any such cases at all.
Are police officers and soldiers made up of some kind of supermen, who have no such negative emotions such as anger or hate? Or does their position somehow give them a special amount of self-control that us lowly civilians do not possess? Let me remind you that the average police are not given that kind of psychological training. And that soldiers, while disciplined, are still given a weapon while they are still in boot camp training, yet recruits who may be angry at their tough trainers don't do anything rash?
My point is that these two professions are made of humans just like us, and really exactly like us. If they generally have no problems with such irresponsibility with guns, then the same will apply to the rest of the population. We are Perhaps in less educated areas there may be teething problems in introducing fully public firearms, but that is only a fraction of the people of Malaysia.
The second point she brought up was Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what the relevance to arguing against open sales of firearms is here, but I can think of two ways:
1. Any shootings perpetrated due to family honor; Again, this is a problem of culture, and has nothing to do with the availability of firearms. If they didn't exist, fathers would still be shooting their "errant" daughters with crossbows instead.
2. The insurgents fighting American forces. In this situation, I see absolutely nothing wrong. One of the uses of civilian firearms is to fight a foreign invasion. I do not care who is correct in the conflict or whose rule is better, but I recognize that it is the Arabs' right to fight back against the invaders currently occupying their countries. If this was what she meant, then I believe that this is really the right thing to be happening, and all the more a reason for a country to have a high firearm ownership rate by civilians.
I rest my cases.
Lets put aside complex arguments on human psychology for now, but I will use real life as an example to refute this notion. Her premise is that humans lose rational thought when they are angry, and by possessing a gun they are somehow more likely to turn to violence in such situations. Now consider the people who already possess firearms all over the country; the police and the military. Yet there are rarely any reports of them misusing their firearm and wrongfully hurting someone else, if there are any such cases at all.
Are police officers and soldiers made up of some kind of supermen, who have no such negative emotions such as anger or hate? Or does their position somehow give them a special amount of self-control that us lowly civilians do not possess? Let me remind you that the average police are not given that kind of psychological training. And that soldiers, while disciplined, are still given a weapon while they are still in boot camp training, yet recruits who may be angry at their tough trainers don't do anything rash?
My point is that these two professions are made of humans just like us, and really exactly like us. If they generally have no problems with such irresponsibility with guns, then the same will apply to the rest of the population. We are Perhaps in less educated areas there may be teething problems in introducing fully public firearms, but that is only a fraction of the people of Malaysia.
The second point she brought up was Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what the relevance to arguing against open sales of firearms is here, but I can think of two ways:
1. Any shootings perpetrated due to family honor; Again, this is a problem of culture, and has nothing to do with the availability of firearms. If they didn't exist, fathers would still be shooting their "errant" daughters with crossbows instead.
2. The insurgents fighting American forces. In this situation, I see absolutely nothing wrong. One of the uses of civilian firearms is to fight a foreign invasion. I do not care who is correct in the conflict or whose rule is better, but I recognize that it is the Arabs' right to fight back against the invaders currently occupying their countries. If this was what she meant, then I believe that this is really the right thing to be happening, and all the more a reason for a country to have a high firearm ownership rate by civilians.
I rest my cases.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
I do wonder what exactly is the Star newspaper's stance on these things
On March 11, I sent an email to the Star to post up a response of mine to a certain other person who had placed her opinion on the newspaper's Views section. It was about the recent decision of the Johor Sultan to ban all hunting within the state. It has been a few weeks now, and apparently the Star might have decided to throw out my email and not publish it. Perhaps their use of VERY LARGE FONT for the headline for that woman's letter suggests that it would be a bit embarrassing if they did publish my own letter that destroys her somewhat flimsy arguments. Or perhaps they are simply biased against one of the two things, hunting or guns. I do not know, but I would certainly like to know what they lean towards to be prepared in the future for inevitable total media bias and blackouts.
I know that this is only semi-related to what this blog is working towards, as hunting is only an optional sub-aspect of firearms ownership. However, I think it is as appropriate as any other story to fight against the plethora of anti-gun movements. In any case, this is a cut and paste of my letter.
I refer to Siti Bahijah Bakhtiar's letter "Hunting animals is so destructive" (The Sunday Star, March 7). I will not dispute the Johor Sultan's decision to ban all hunting in the state, but I would like to differ specifically on your opinion on the treatment of animals.
Firstly, I would like to point out that you seem to place both poachers and hunters in the same basket. It is my understanding that poachers illegally kill animals specifically for parts desired by whatever twisted medicinal market, and often leave the rest of the body alone to rot away. Hunters on the other hand, are the more responsible law-abiding ones who will make use of that body as food and the keeping of trophies are the bonus, not necessarily as the ultimate goal.
I disagree with the notion that hunting animals for food is in any way abhorrent to civilized society, in the past or present. Lets assume the person in this argument is not a vegetarian. What difference is there in killing an animal for food yourself, compared to asking someone else to do it for you on a farm? One kills by him or herself, another does the same by an unspoken proxy. I would go as far to say that hunting an animal is morally superior to raising them on a farm. For an animal that gets to live free and in the wild, a moment's pain of death is nothing compared to the freedom of living in its natural habitat, to be able to do what it wants when it wants, and being able to have a real purpose in life. When a hunter attempts to kill animal for food and sport, it may still manage to run away and survive, which incidentally serves evolution. Compare this to an animal bred by civilization on a farm. That animal will be locked and trapped in a sort of cage, whether a tight metal box or a fence around a grassland, and is sentenced to death from the moment it is born. It has no ability to escape this prison, and is not capable of deciding its own fate in life. It is in effect degraded to the status of a meat factory for the pleasure of the human, whereas the ones hunted in the wild can boast of a full and free life, before death.
Hunting is not necessary in the modern world where there is a system for almost any need, but is necessity the only cause for action? If it harms no one, and the hunter responsibly consumes the animal that he has hunted, then he or she should be allowed to do so if they so desire. I understand that it Can have negative effects on the environment, but isn't that problem caused by the irresponsible poachers who cross the line and go overboard, rather than the act of hunting itself? Whatever has happened in the past is irreversible in any case. In some countries, a natural predator may have gone extinct for some reason or another, and it is now up to the lawful hunters (within reasonable limits) to make sure that the herbivore population does not increase to uncontrollable levels, where they will strip the land bare of green plants and do far more damage then overhunting a single species could ever do.
I understand that perhaps in this small country of ours where apparently just about any game-size animal worth hunting is being endangered, then it is reasonable to place protection upon said endangered species, hence my statement at the beginning of not disputing the Johor decision. However, I believe the decision should not be made on the unreasonable rationality of what is necessary or and what is not. If we were restricted from doing anything that was both unnecessary and had an effect on the environment, everyone would be pretty much sitting on the grass looking at the clouds all day every day, as nearly every thing we do is based on some form of environmentally damaging power source, small or large in its effect.
Lastly, I would like to ask if you could clarify the source of that British study as well as all the other statistics and percentages in your letter. Most statistics are made up unless they are sourced and proven, as the saying goes, although I am not declaring your statements as outright false. I take an extra helping of salt from Britain, seeing as they are vehemently anti-gun and said hunters may not have had the right tools for the job. I see nothing wrong with shooting more than once, especially since no correlation was given between number of shots hit and length of time before death. It may be that the hunters who only shoot once are the ones causing the deer to suffer the longest!
I know that this is only semi-related to what this blog is working towards, as hunting is only an optional sub-aspect of firearms ownership. However, I think it is as appropriate as any other story to fight against the plethora of anti-gun movements. In any case, this is a cut and paste of my letter.
I refer to Siti Bahijah Bakhtiar's letter "Hunting animals is so destructive" (The Sunday Star, March 7). I will not dispute the Johor Sultan's decision to ban all hunting in the state, but I would like to differ specifically on your opinion on the treatment of animals.
Firstly, I would like to point out that you seem to place both poachers and hunters in the same basket. It is my understanding that poachers illegally kill animals specifically for parts desired by whatever twisted medicinal market, and often leave the rest of the body alone to rot away. Hunters on the other hand, are the more responsible law-abiding ones who will make use of that body as food and the keeping of trophies are the bonus, not necessarily as the ultimate goal.
I disagree with the notion that hunting animals for food is in any way abhorrent to civilized society, in the past or present. Lets assume the person in this argument is not a vegetarian. What difference is there in killing an animal for food yourself, compared to asking someone else to do it for you on a farm? One kills by him or herself, another does the same by an unspoken proxy. I would go as far to say that hunting an animal is morally superior to raising them on a farm. For an animal that gets to live free and in the wild, a moment's pain of death is nothing compared to the freedom of living in its natural habitat, to be able to do what it wants when it wants, and being able to have a real purpose in life. When a hunter attempts to kill animal for food and sport, it may still manage to run away and survive, which incidentally serves evolution. Compare this to an animal bred by civilization on a farm. That animal will be locked and trapped in a sort of cage, whether a tight metal box or a fence around a grassland, and is sentenced to death from the moment it is born. It has no ability to escape this prison, and is not capable of deciding its own fate in life. It is in effect degraded to the status of a meat factory for the pleasure of the human, whereas the ones hunted in the wild can boast of a full and free life, before death.
Hunting is not necessary in the modern world where there is a system for almost any need, but is necessity the only cause for action? If it harms no one, and the hunter responsibly consumes the animal that he has hunted, then he or she should be allowed to do so if they so desire. I understand that it Can have negative effects on the environment, but isn't that problem caused by the irresponsible poachers who cross the line and go overboard, rather than the act of hunting itself? Whatever has happened in the past is irreversible in any case. In some countries, a natural predator may have gone extinct for some reason or another, and it is now up to the lawful hunters (within reasonable limits) to make sure that the herbivore population does not increase to uncontrollable levels, where they will strip the land bare of green plants and do far more damage then overhunting a single species could ever do.
I understand that perhaps in this small country of ours where apparently just about any game-size animal worth hunting is being endangered, then it is reasonable to place protection upon said endangered species, hence my statement at the beginning of not disputing the Johor decision. However, I believe the decision should not be made on the unreasonable rationality of what is necessary or and what is not. If we were restricted from doing anything that was both unnecessary and had an effect on the environment, everyone would be pretty much sitting on the grass looking at the clouds all day every day, as nearly every thing we do is based on some form of environmentally damaging power source, small or large in its effect.
Lastly, I would like to ask if you could clarify the source of that British study as well as all the other statistics and percentages in your letter. Most statistics are made up unless they are sourced and proven, as the saying goes, although I am not declaring your statements as outright false. I take an extra helping of salt from Britain, seeing as they are vehemently anti-gun and said hunters may not have had the right tools for the job. I see nothing wrong with shooting more than once, especially since no correlation was given between number of shots hit and length of time before death. It may be that the hunters who only shoot once are the ones causing the deer to suffer the longest!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Firearms aren't just for shooting animals or people (who act like animals)...
This is just a little story I stumbled upon a while back. Seems to bring a little extra to the cause.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_driver_shoots_window
The report goes: A man in North California in the US was driving an SUV when his phone startled him. This caused him to drive off the road and he went right into a river, where his SUV started to sink. Being a person who carries a firearm everyday, he was able to shoot out the window of his vehicle and escape safely.
Point is, guns are merely tools that shoot out a fast piece of metal somewhere. It doesn't have to be used to kill, and in this case clearly demonstrates its usefulness in saving that man's life.
The normal procedure for getting out of a car sinking in water is to wait until the inside completely fills with water, so that the pressure is equal and the door can be opened. Personally, I think that is a bit of a risky thing to do, especially when you can just break your window with your handgun, don't you think?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_driver_shoots_window
The report goes: A man in North California in the US was driving an SUV when his phone startled him. This caused him to drive off the road and he went right into a river, where his SUV started to sink. Being a person who carries a firearm everyday, he was able to shoot out the window of his vehicle and escape safely.
Point is, guns are merely tools that shoot out a fast piece of metal somewhere. It doesn't have to be used to kill, and in this case clearly demonstrates its usefulness in saving that man's life.
The normal procedure for getting out of a car sinking in water is to wait until the inside completely fills with water, so that the pressure is equal and the door can be opened. Personally, I think that is a bit of a risky thing to do, especially when you can just break your window with your handgun, don't you think?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
But first... a summary.
Before I move on to the next topic, I'll make a short summary of what I've said in the first few posts. Because it was way too long, this is a short version of "Why a gun?".
-----------
First, let me clarify the difference between a need and a want. A common question that is thrown around is "Why do we need a gun?". A gun, or more appropriately a firearm (guns are cannons found on ships and vehicles), is in no way a need. It is not needed to survive, so they are correct in their assumption that we don't need them. However, neither do we need cars and buses to get around, nor do we need expensive phones to talk to each other. A gun or firearm is a useful item and tool that a person would want because it can help them solve a problem. We could do without all of the above items I have mentioned, but life would be very difficult indeed. So we use those tools to improve our quality of life. With or without your realization, firearms are already made use of everywhere to improve humanity's quality of life. There is absolutely no reason not to use a tool that will bring us more benefit than harm, if it brings any measurable harm at all.
Alright, so now I'll tell you why we would want firearms as one of our useful tools in the first place. I subscribe to the trinity of uses, namely: Self Defense, Hunting, and Recreation. Defensive use is the first on the list simply because of the immediate practical benefit. Hunting is a step down because while there are practical uses, especially for those who like the outdoors and camp, it is not as important and as wide ranging to all people as self defense. In Malaysia it might lose much of it's importance as we're too small of a country to have anything real to hunt, but it's there if you want to, big/important animals regulated by authorities of course. Lastly, firearms are useful for just having fun. Many people might prefer another pastime, such as sports or reading books or being a couch potato, but some (such as yours truly) have a taste for bang bang. Provided you have the (easy-to-learn) basic safety skills, one can have lots of fun at an appropriate shooting range (again, because we are a small country and don't have huge empty free plots of land) and can share this fun with friends and family. Provided you are not irrationally fearful of something as inanimate as a hammer, nor do you have a morbid desire to point it at people, you can enjoy a pastime with firearms, and as a bonus it counts as practice for self defense. I will focus on self defense as it is the real area of contention, and the other two uses will come naturally after the first is established.
Firearms have the ability to prevent and protect crime. While diplomacy and peace is the first thing you should consider, many times criminals will not give you that chance. Not all are looking for your money or possessions, so it would be best to be ready to defend oneself from physical (and emotional) harm. Even then, you may not want to give your possessions to them in any case, whether due to needing those valuables badly or for moral. You may also have others to protect like your own family. In that case, a firearm carried with you can make all the difference between a just dead criminal, or a dead loved one or at worst, yourself.
Why a gun? Because it is the one weapon that doesn't require you to be strong or have great skill to be effective. It is an equalizer that allows the scrawniest, shortest woman to stand up to an attacker, a large and muscular man, and win. Neither does it have to end in bloodshed, because the threat alone may be enough to dissuade a criminal, although if it isn't then one can always back it up. You cannot ask everyone to run away as their primary means of self defense, because sometimes there is no escape and because some people are old and disabled too. Statistically, it's a bad way to do it too, according to the British Home Office and their police reports that say that people who defend themselves with anything are injured quite little, those with firearms the absolute least, and among the other methods giving in to the criminal is very likely to get you hurt. Being that Britain has a very anti-gun administration, their word counts double for truth.
Some people might say that using firearms is too drastic an action, or that they belong only in the hands of the police. I say that is absolutely not the case, and such thoughts are born of sheer ignorance, callousness and irresponsibility. First the obvious: It is physically impossible for police to protect you all the time. They are usually somewhere else almost all the time, which is why you have to dial them on the phone in the first place. Even when they do respond, it will also almost never be in time. Anything a criminal can do can be done in seconds, at most a few minutes. It is never wise to trust your own safety to someone who is kilometers away.
It is also not their true job. Police solve crime, and rarely ever stop it. They are there to clean up the mess and find the culprit if possible. If you call them and they fail to save you, nobody can sue them for negligence or wrongdoing, partly due to the first reason above.
Lastly, not all cops are good cops. Some are corrupt, and thus relying entirely on them will turn up some bad apples every now and then. No accusations are made here, but it is the truth.
As echoed by many wisemen, you and you alone are the first person who can do anything for yourself. Nobody can protect you as much as yourself, and if you take responsibility for your own safety, you will come out of life safe and successful. Why do so many people accept the notion that they should leave it to other people to care for them, I do not know. To me, it should be basic instinct and common sense, but apparently for a lot of people they do not realize they are asking another person to risk their own life to shield them, even when they don't lift a finger to defend themselves. All the police get in return is a piddly amount of taxpayers' money as salary.
It is a moral fallacy I do not follow. I will ask the police and authorities for help, but I will not ask them to cover entirely for me, which is supposed to be my own responsibility. It should be yours too as well.
Now, as for what can be done with firearms in Malaysia. The process of getting a license and a legal firearm is overly strict and has arbitrary restrictions. It is usually has to do with how "vulnerable" you are to crime. In other words, if you're rich (and preferably have good connections), you are somehow more likely to be hit by crime than regular men and women, and thus will have a fair chance of being approved. Obviously such conditions make no sense as criminals target all of us every day, and as said before many times for other reasons other than money. It is dangerous not to regulate such an item, but too much regulation is dangerous as well. It defeats the whole purpose of firearms in self defense if the common people are not allowed reasonable access to firearms. The criminals will always have access to such weapons no matter the law, as they break the law for a living, and as the newspapers have shown before, they have their own illegal sources whenever police find them with a cache of weapons. Since we are good citizens of the country, we do not break the law and use these illegal sources of firearms. Thus we suffer because the law is not nice to us by restricting our human right to self defense. That is the whole point of this blog; to generate enough awareness to turn these laws around for the better.
I do not mean to give a gun to everyone, as that would be foolish. I merely wish to open up the possibility to the masses instead of just the elite. However, if most of everyone eligible was smart and responsible enough (not difficult) to pass the licensing test and handle firearms, then that would be ideal. The Wild West was never wild, that is a myth; it was quite peaceful for it's time as everyone respected one another, and evil criminals had a hard time because many good people were armed. Still, it is always the choice of the person whether or not to bear this moderate responsibility. And thus, we go on to the rest my writing. Any questions? The comments button is right there.
-----------
First, let me clarify the difference between a need and a want. A common question that is thrown around is "Why do we need a gun?". A gun, or more appropriately a firearm (guns are cannons found on ships and vehicles), is in no way a need. It is not needed to survive, so they are correct in their assumption that we don't need them. However, neither do we need cars and buses to get around, nor do we need expensive phones to talk to each other. A gun or firearm is a useful item and tool that a person would want because it can help them solve a problem. We could do without all of the above items I have mentioned, but life would be very difficult indeed. So we use those tools to improve our quality of life. With or without your realization, firearms are already made use of everywhere to improve humanity's quality of life. There is absolutely no reason not to use a tool that will bring us more benefit than harm, if it brings any measurable harm at all.
Alright, so now I'll tell you why we would want firearms as one of our useful tools in the first place. I subscribe to the trinity of uses, namely: Self Defense, Hunting, and Recreation. Defensive use is the first on the list simply because of the immediate practical benefit. Hunting is a step down because while there are practical uses, especially for those who like the outdoors and camp, it is not as important and as wide ranging to all people as self defense. In Malaysia it might lose much of it's importance as we're too small of a country to have anything real to hunt, but it's there if you want to, big/important animals regulated by authorities of course. Lastly, firearms are useful for just having fun. Many people might prefer another pastime, such as sports or reading books or being a couch potato, but some (such as yours truly) have a taste for bang bang. Provided you have the (easy-to-learn) basic safety skills, one can have lots of fun at an appropriate shooting range (again, because we are a small country and don't have huge empty free plots of land) and can share this fun with friends and family. Provided you are not irrationally fearful of something as inanimate as a hammer, nor do you have a morbid desire to point it at people, you can enjoy a pastime with firearms, and as a bonus it counts as practice for self defense. I will focus on self defense as it is the real area of contention, and the other two uses will come naturally after the first is established.
Firearms have the ability to prevent and protect crime. While diplomacy and peace is the first thing you should consider, many times criminals will not give you that chance. Not all are looking for your money or possessions, so it would be best to be ready to defend oneself from physical (and emotional) harm. Even then, you may not want to give your possessions to them in any case, whether due to needing those valuables badly or for moral. You may also have others to protect like your own family. In that case, a firearm carried with you can make all the difference between a just dead criminal, or a dead loved one or at worst, yourself.
Why a gun? Because it is the one weapon that doesn't require you to be strong or have great skill to be effective. It is an equalizer that allows the scrawniest, shortest woman to stand up to an attacker, a large and muscular man, and win. Neither does it have to end in bloodshed, because the threat alone may be enough to dissuade a criminal, although if it isn't then one can always back it up. You cannot ask everyone to run away as their primary means of self defense, because sometimes there is no escape and because some people are old and disabled too. Statistically, it's a bad way to do it too, according to the British Home Office and their police reports that say that people who defend themselves with anything are injured quite little, those with firearms the absolute least, and among the other methods giving in to the criminal is very likely to get you hurt. Being that Britain has a very anti-gun administration, their word counts double for truth.
Some people might say that using firearms is too drastic an action, or that they belong only in the hands of the police. I say that is absolutely not the case, and such thoughts are born of sheer ignorance, callousness and irresponsibility. First the obvious: It is physically impossible for police to protect you all the time. They are usually somewhere else almost all the time, which is why you have to dial them on the phone in the first place. Even when they do respond, it will also almost never be in time. Anything a criminal can do can be done in seconds, at most a few minutes. It is never wise to trust your own safety to someone who is kilometers away.
It is also not their true job. Police solve crime, and rarely ever stop it. They are there to clean up the mess and find the culprit if possible. If you call them and they fail to save you, nobody can sue them for negligence or wrongdoing, partly due to the first reason above.
Lastly, not all cops are good cops. Some are corrupt, and thus relying entirely on them will turn up some bad apples every now and then. No accusations are made here, but it is the truth.
As echoed by many wisemen, you and you alone are the first person who can do anything for yourself. Nobody can protect you as much as yourself, and if you take responsibility for your own safety, you will come out of life safe and successful. Why do so many people accept the notion that they should leave it to other people to care for them, I do not know. To me, it should be basic instinct and common sense, but apparently for a lot of people they do not realize they are asking another person to risk their own life to shield them, even when they don't lift a finger to defend themselves. All the police get in return is a piddly amount of taxpayers' money as salary.
It is a moral fallacy I do not follow. I will ask the police and authorities for help, but I will not ask them to cover entirely for me, which is supposed to be my own responsibility. It should be yours too as well.
Now, as for what can be done with firearms in Malaysia. The process of getting a license and a legal firearm is overly strict and has arbitrary restrictions. It is usually has to do with how "vulnerable" you are to crime. In other words, if you're rich (and preferably have good connections), you are somehow more likely to be hit by crime than regular men and women, and thus will have a fair chance of being approved. Obviously such conditions make no sense as criminals target all of us every day, and as said before many times for other reasons other than money. It is dangerous not to regulate such an item, but too much regulation is dangerous as well. It defeats the whole purpose of firearms in self defense if the common people are not allowed reasonable access to firearms. The criminals will always have access to such weapons no matter the law, as they break the law for a living, and as the newspapers have shown before, they have their own illegal sources whenever police find them with a cache of weapons. Since we are good citizens of the country, we do not break the law and use these illegal sources of firearms. Thus we suffer because the law is not nice to us by restricting our human right to self defense. That is the whole point of this blog; to generate enough awareness to turn these laws around for the better.
I do not mean to give a gun to everyone, as that would be foolish. I merely wish to open up the possibility to the masses instead of just the elite. However, if most of everyone eligible was smart and responsible enough (not difficult) to pass the licensing test and handle firearms, then that would be ideal. The Wild West was never wild, that is a myth; it was quite peaceful for it's time as everyone respected one another, and evil criminals had a hard time because many good people were armed. Still, it is always the choice of the person whether or not to bear this moderate responsibility. And thus, we go on to the rest my writing. Any questions? The comments button is right there.
Monday, August 31, 2009
How private ownership of firearms helps us against crime
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.
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.
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)