Jump to content
WildSurvive Forum
Tatonka

Here Are some Answers to Questions from Anti gunners

Recommended Posts

Here are some answers to often asked questions of anti-gunners

 

By Massad Ayoob   

 

 

It has become increasingly politically incorrect to be a firearms owner. This is because trends tend to be set by the fashionable and the media-connected in metropolitan environments. Gun ownership per capita is well under 50% in urban areas of this country. Nationwide, it is estimated that one half of all homes contain at least one firearm. As the demographics move into rural areas, gun ownership well exceeds that 50% margin, and on the frontiers and in the true backwoods home, gun ownership will generally be found to reach the 90th percentile of the population.

 

When your beliefs and values are challenged, you want ready answers. The following have worked for me when debating the civil rights of gun owners in this country.

 

 

Isn’t the Second Amendment about the National Guard?

Frankly, no. Serious legal scholars have almost universally agreed that the Second Amendment speaks to the rights of the citizens, not the rights of the states or other communities. Doesn’t it seem incongruous that the Framers would have written one states’ rights amendment into a Bill of Rights that otherwise speaks entirely to the rights of individuals?

 

Besides, consider that the document in question was written at a time when the gunfire of the American Revolution was still ringing in the ears of the Framers. A “national guard” of the period would have been Tories loyal to King George, hardly an entity the freedom fighters who wrote the Bill of Rights would have wanted to empower.

 

Historically, you’ll also find that the constitutions written by the separate colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights spoke of firearms ownership specifically as an individual right encompassing personal protection, and not just a tool to facilitate state militias.

 

 

Isn’t a gun just a phallic symbol?

If it was, no man would ever have bought one with a two inch barrel.

 

 

What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person?

 

Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question: “Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”

 

If the answer is No, I reply, “Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence.

 

 

Won’t criminals just take your self defense gun and shoot you with it instead?

That has happened, but rarely. It occurs more often with police, whose openly worn service handguns come quickly to the mind and the hand of the high number of criminals they face in the course of their work. If you’re worried about it, take a course in handgun retention, the art and science of defeating a physical disarming attempt. Most of this training is limited to cops, but private citizens can take such classes on the East coast from LFI (1-800-624-9049) or on the West coast from Firearms Academy of Seattle (1-800-FAS-AMMO).

 

 

How can one morally keep a lethal weapon when the Fifth Commandment states, “Thou shalt not kill?”

That’s not what it actually says. Biblical scholars seem unanimously agreed that in the original Hebrew, the commandment said, “Lo Tirtzah, Thou shalt not commit murder,” i.e., thou shalt not kill with evil intent.

 

This is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian ethos. The Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon all make it clear that there are times when it is both justifiable and necessary for the good to use lethal force against the evil. Provisions for justifiable homicide have existed in every body of law in the history of civilized Man: the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic Code, the English common law, the Dutch-Roman model. From communist nations to capitalist, from the First World to the Third, it has been universally understood that every human being has the right to use lethal force against any individual who unlawfully threatens their life or limb with killing or crippling intent.

 

 

Don’t all the police favor gun control?

No. A number of high profile police chiefs have espoused gun banning schemes, but they’re usually mouthing the platforms of the politicians who appointed them, and in whose good graces they must stay if they don’t want to be demoted back to Captain, usually the highest rank protected by civil service laws. In rural areas, polls show, most police chiefs and sheriffs support citizens' rights to be armed against violent criminals. Polls of working street cops routinely show the overwhelming majority favor the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, most cops make sure there’s a gun at home with their significant other for family protection while they’re at work.

 

There isn’t space here to go into all the specious arguments used by those who would take from you your right to own firearms if you choose. If you find yourself debating the issue, many publications of the Second Amendment Foundation will give you ample ammunition. You can call them for information on literature and membership at (206) 454 7012, or write SAF, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place, Bellevue, WA 98005.

 

 

(Massad Ayoob teaches armed self defense classes around the country to both police officers and civilians. For information, write to LFI, PO Box 122, Concord, NH 03302, or call toll free 1-800-624-9049.)

     

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Read Massad Ayoob's Blog

 

Read More Articles by Massad Ayoob

 

Read More Firearms / Hunting / Self-Defense Articles

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for having the right to own a gun.even though I wont, I don't think I have a right to tell other people that they can't have guns. My dad was a cop and he has guns and I've been around guns.but guns scare me that's all :guns:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

MYTH:"Guns don't kill, people kill people" is a good argument against gun control.

TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that "glasses don't see, eyes see" is a good argument against wearing glasses. Glasses are a tool which help people to see just as guns are a tool that help people to kill and injure others.

 

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns?

 

MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.

TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source). The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.

 

"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."

 

 

Taken from.... http://www.guninformation.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for fun..... (intended to be sarcastic)

 

Top 30 Reasons to Oppose Gun Control

 

1. In over two hundred years of American history, the courts have never invalidated a gun control law based on the second amendment, but the NRA knows more about the law and the Constitution than the courts.

 

2. Patrick Henry opposed adding the second amendment to the Constitution. That's why quotations from Henry are used by pro-gun activists to support their interpretation of the second amendment.

 

3. The Founding Fathers intended to create a libertarian utopia. That's very evident from reading the following quotations:

 

James Madison wrote, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." (Federalist 51).

John Jay explained, "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." (Federalist 2)

 

4. Guns don't kill people, they just make the bullets go faster so that they can kill people.

 

5. It's a good idea to own a gun at home because a gun is more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member rather than a criminal.

 

6. There have been gun control laws for over 200 years in America, but because of modern day circumstances gun-control is no longer needed.

 

7. The NRA knows more about American history than historians do.

 

8. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to keep a person safe from criminals.

 

9. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to protect a person against political tyrrany.

 

10. Guns are a protection against political tyrrany. For example, private ownership of guns was very common in Iraq while Sadam Hussein was in power. Guns are the reason the Iraqi people have enjoyed so much more freedom than people in England where guns have been banned.

 

11. It's a good idea to make it easy for criminals to obtain guns.

 

12. According to the British Crime Survey, crime in England has gone down. However, the NRA is the best source of information about crime.

 

13. Using Gary Kleck's methodology it could be shown that millions of Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet or have been visited by aliens. Despite this, Kleck's studies reveal the truth about defensive gun use.

 

14. John Lott is a reliable source of information although he kept changing his story about where he got his information for a study in his book More Guns Less Crime.

 

15. Gun advocate Gary Kleck commented in his book Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control, "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Kleck and Lott contradict each other so they both must be right.

 

16. During the 1980's the NRA tried to convince President Reagan to abolish the ATF, the law enforcment agency in charge of enforcing federal gun control laws. This is because the best way to enforce current gun laws is to abolish law enforcement.

 

17. It's a good idea to always have a loaded gun around when you lose your temper.

 

18. Children are safer if they have easy access to guns.

 

19. The International Crime Victim Survey found a positive correlation between gun ownership and increases in homicide and suicide, but the right to life doesn't matter.

 

20. Pro-gun propaganda is very good logic. Let's apply pro-gun propaganda to cars to demonstrate this- Cars don't kill people, people kill people. That's why stop signs and speed limits should be abolished.

 

21. Criminals don't obey laws and that's why all laws should be abolished.

 

22. Gun violence means more freedom. Just ask the family of any gun violence victim to verify this.

 

23. James Madison's first draft of the second amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It is clear from this that the term "bear arms" refers to rendering military service and not to carrying guns for personal purposes. However, modern day circumstances have changed the meaning of the second amendment.

 

24. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court recognized that the "possession or use" of a weapon must be reasonably related to a well regulated miltia to enjoy second amendment protection. That's why there is an individual right to own any military weapon whether or not its possession or use is related to militia activity.

 

25. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to promote an effective militia. That's why the first part of the second amendment doesn't matter.

 

26. Assault weapons crime decreased after the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Gun crime went down the most in states that didn't previously have their own ban on assault weapons. That's why the ban was ineffective.

 

27. There is much more gun violence in the US than other industrialized nations, but it's better to face an armed criminal.

 

28. Chanting a lie over and over again will somehow make it come true.

 

29. The gun industry should have a special immunity to lawsuits that isn't enjoyed by other industries. The gun industry should not be held responsible when it's negligent.

 

30. Most murders in the US are commited with guns, but killing is not the purpose of a gun.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MYTH:"Guns don't kill, people kill people" is a good argument against gun control.

TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that "glasses don't see, eyes see" is a good argument against wearing glasses. Glasses are a tool which help people to see just as guns are a tool that help people to kill and injure others.

 

Rebuttal argument:

 

True, a gun or a knife or a hammer is just a tool. The responsibility for hurting or helping others lies with the indivudual using it. A hammer works well for driving nails or breaking rocks, it can also break heads. The argument that guns only exist to injure people is pretty much the same argument that cars are only meant to carry people from point A to point B. However, far more people are killed in the United States each year by careless drivers that by shootings. I guess by following the above logic, cars should also be outlawed. Also, glasses do not have the capacity to see, only eyes can so the argument is made for itself. A gun cannot shoot you if someone doesn't pick it up, load it, aim it at you and pull the trigger.

 

 

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns?

 

Rebuttal Argument:

Point of fact, as countries like the UK and Austrailia have increased controls on firearms, their gun violence has increased. While nations like Switzerland, where the entire population is required to own and maintain automatic weapons, their gun crime rate is infitesimal.

By definition, criminals do not follow the law, Ipso Facto, the only people disarmed by gun control laws are the law abiding citizens who were not the danger in the first place, so by definition, if you own an outlawed gun you are in fact an outlaw so only outlaws will have guns.

 

The United States does not have a black market for guns in the traditional sense. A private citizen may sell a gun to another citizen without requiring a license or background check. So for one hunter to buy a rifle from another is not black market, just a sale. The only "Black Market" usually references the sales of automatic weapons, (which is tightly regulated), or things like hand grenades, explosives, silencers excetera which are also tightly regulated.

 

A little known fact that escapes our newspapers here is the areas in the US with the highest incidence of gun crime are the areas with the tightest restrictons. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, LA, all have very strict gun laws, but in the areas with the highest rates of gun ownership, the violent gun crime rate is much smaller and has been falling steadily since the laws for must issue concealed carry permits for citizens who wish to be licensed. Some smaller municipalities,(most notibly in Georgia and Illinois), have laws that require a weapon must be maintained and ready for use in each household, their crime rates are non-existant.

 

Gun violence usually has far more to do with the individuals involved who are in most cases habitual criminals. Remove them from the study, and incidental gun violence, example domestic shootings, or arguments between people at a party, are actually quite low.

 

The road rage shootings so popular in California are in a state with very draconian laws so disarm the law abiding citizen.

 

I don't care if you wish to own a weapon or not, but I do take exception when someone decides that I should not be able to own one or several if I wish. I have never commited a gun crime so why should I be punished for obeying the law?

 

A gun is a tool. It may be used for hunting, pot shooting, self defense or may be misused to comit a crime, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an inanimate object. It does not have the will or means to do good or harm without a human making the decisions on it's use.

 

Personal responsibility is the key. If you choose to use a gun or knife or baseball bat to commit a crime, it is still your decision, and ultimately your responsiblity to answer for the crime, not the tool you use to commit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuttal argument:

 

True, a gun or a knife or a hammer is just a tool. The responsibility for hurting or helping others lies with the indivudual using it. A hammer works well for driving nails or breaking rocks, it can also break heads. The argument that guns only exist to injure people is pretty much the same argument that cars are only meant to carry people from point A to point B. However, far more people are killed in the United States each year by careless drivers that by shootings. I guess by following the above logic, cars should also be outlawed. Also, glasses do not have the capacity to see, only eyes can so the argument is made for itself. A gun cannot shoot you if someone doesn't pick it up, load it, aim it at you and pull the trigger.

A gun is a tool..... agreed.... but they aren't banning guns all together just making it harder to get one, right? Can't argue the car comment... good one... lol.

 

Rebuttal Argument:

Point of fact, as countries like the UK and Austrailia have increased controls on firearms, their gun violence has increased.

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.

TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file)

Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false. (You'll have to follow the link to see the graph)

 

Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 (pdf file) (page 3)

Between 1997 and 2002, the overall UK crime rate fell by 27% (source). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."

 

 

 

While nations like Switzerland, where the entire population is required to own and maintain automatic weapons, their gun crime rate is infitesimal.

MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.

TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 (source). There are about 3 million Swiss households (source- PDF file). 400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws. In Switzerland a permit is required in order to purchase a weapon (The permit shows that you are at least 18 and don't have a criminal record). A permit is also required to carrry a weapon. Such a permit is mostly issued to people who work in security-type occupations. To obtain this permit, you have to demonstrate that you need to carry a weapon and that you know how to handle a gun safely and have knowledge of the law regarding firearms use (source). Soldiers in the Swiss Army are required to store their military weapons at home under lock and key and to undergo regular training. Strict gun laws in Switzerland minimize the dangers of gun ownership. However, such dangers can not be completely eliminated as illustrated by the case of Friedrich Leibacher who rushed into a session of parliament in the Swiss town of Zug. He used his Swiss Army assault rifle and a grenade to murder fourteen people. Eleven of these people were lawmakers.

 

 

 

 

All in all.... I really don't care either way.... I just saw some of the Q and A's in the first post and new there would be valid arguements opposing them... I was just playing devil's advocate I suppose.... it's late and I'm bored... I felt this thread needed an opposing view...

 

Truth of the matter is I didn't even read half the stuff I posted.... Copy and Paste, baby!!!! :devil: ::)

Rick

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are strictly outlawed in prisons naturally yet violent crimes happen daily. This is evidence that its the person not the gun.

 

There will be violence no matter what we do or where we live. Man is by nature a violent animal. Human kind survived over time by being aggressive towards all enemies and threats to their lives.

 

Again I always come down to this argument. Fifty thousand people on average are killed each year in this country in their automobiles and I dont see any attempt to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning guns, is NOT the way to go.  Kinda odd hearing myself say that, but I've got a practical reason for it.  First I completely agree with Tatonka and Ask on their justifications. Amusingly enough, you can cite logic to back both sides of the equation, but the biggest justification for personal ownership is often overlooked.  Usually, that's not civil defence, but rather civil disobediance.  The need, not to protect yourself from foriegn invaders, but from domestic powers that attempt to take away your freedoms.

 

If you look back in history, at the rise of the Nazi party, there's one event that comes to mind. It starts when Hitler is made Chancellor and the Reichstadt (their parliament) was mysteriously burned down by 'communists'. Hitler put through what he called the "Enabling Act, which gave his Gestapo the right to take away the rights of others. More importantly, it removed all traces of firearms from German homes to prevent what the Gestapo leader, Hermann Göring called "accidental shootings of police officials acting in the line of duty".

 

I think what I'm suggesting is that, if we allow our respective governments to take away our guns, then what's to stop them from turning theirs on us?  What powers do we have to keep inscrutable men in check?  Laws?  History's shown us how that goes.  The trick is not to ban guns, but to seriously limit their availability.  Even reduced amounts of weapons would carry an impact on violent gun related crimes. 

 

In Canada,  it takes 3 years to get a license to drive, with lots of supervised practice and testing.  Not only that but we heavily insure new drivers as well. 

 

Why is it then that you can get a license and a gun after only 1 week and an open book test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND..... you don't need any type of licence, permit or training to have kids.... thats the scariest reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a fishing trip in Saskatchewan we over heard someone shooting a gun in a public camp ground near the private fishing camp we were staying. I told the camp owner that I have been around guns all my life and what I was hearing was a large caliber pistol.

 

The owner said "So"?

 

I said "Arent pistols illegal to own in Canada?"

 

He says "Yes but lots of people have them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of how many die of old age.... they should outlaw aging and stop time at 50yrs old!!

 

LOL! See this is what I'm talking about!

I own guns solely for the day that someone has to put diapers on me, well, that'll be the same day I'm taking myself out on a one-way hunting trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian ethos. The Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon all make it clear that there are times when it is both justifiable and necessary for the good to use lethal force against the evil. Provisions for justifiable homicide have existed in every body of law in the history of civilized Man: the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic Code, the English common law, the Dutch-Roman model. From communist nations to capitalist, from the First World to the Third, it has been universally understood that every human being has the right to use lethal force against any individual who unlawfully threatens their life or limb with killing or crippling intent.

 

People kill people both in times of war and peace. Anyone who has ever served in the military has had to face that choice. I have seen what firearms can do to the human body both in the military and in the civilian world.  I have treated gunshot wounds and seen people commit suicide with guns.

I own firearms to hunt with to be able to provide food for myself and others that can use it. When I hear people say the should ban guns it sends a chill up my spine because everyone knows that the criminal element will still have them. They always have and always will. I do not use my weapons for criminal acts.

And as it is posted here there are more people killed each day with automobiles than guns. So why don't we make autos illegal.

 

Or here is one for you to ponder. What if they decided that all edged weapons be banned as they also can kill. How many then would feel that their rights to own and use them were being violated? Imagine having your business shut down because you couldn't make knives or axes anymore. Or what if they decided that cord and rope should be banned because that can kill also. It's not the material things that do it. It will always be the person who had it in their hands that committed the act or crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some more to add to Antagonizers post,

 

Armed citizens:

the deterrent factor

 

By Massad Ayoob   

 

 

Does an armed citizenry deter tyranny and invasion? History and logic both answer emphatically, "Yes!"

 

Some months ago, in an article in this publication titled The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle, I quoted some oral history from war veteran and career Navy man Bob Menard. I first met him at the NH State Championship of outdoor conventional pistol shooting back in the late Sixties. He won that event and held the title for several years. He had been Virginia State Champion prior to moving to the Granite State. Some years later, Robert Menard was the NRA Counselor who certified my wife and I as a firearms instructor through that organization.

 

Bob had told us that he’d been aboard the USS Constellation—he remembered the year as 1960—when he had been part of joint maneuvers conducted with what were by then called the Japanese Defense Forces. Over dinner and drinks, with Japanese and American naval officers talking shop, many of the WWII veterans, the question had come up, why didn’t the Japanese invade what they must have recognized as the wide open West Coast of the United States at the beginning of that war?

 

The officer had replied that his country was well aware that there was a high density of armed citizenry in America, even state championships for private citizens in the use of military rifles, and that the Japanese were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. Menard, even then a man committed to Second Amendment rights, naturally kept a vivid memory of the conversation.

 

The story has found its way onto the Internet. Now comes one "TSB," who holds forth on the Internet against Menard, with remarks like the following:

 

"Darn, those wily Japs thought of everything. How can anyone read this crap without laughing? You know, whomever promulgated this BS obviously thought that making up this mythology would be helpful to the (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) cause, or on the flip side, wanted to make pro-gun folks look like ignoramuses…Sort of like that other cherished myth that the Swiss militia deterred both the Kaiser and later Hitler from attacking Switzerland. T’wasn’t so."

 

According to On Target, the journal of the North Central Florida Sportsman’s Association, "TSB is the handle for ‘The Shooting Bench’ radio show host, Bill Walker." TSB’s position is that the reason the Japanese did not invade was that it wasn’t in their interest to do so, and that they lacked the physical wherewithal for such a massive undertaking. Furthermore, he says, the Constellation was in dry-dock for fire damage repair during 1960, implying that Menard therefore must have fabricated the whole thing. Interestingly, TSB expects us to take as a given his flat statements that an armed citizen militia had nothing to do with Switzerland’s neutrality.

 

I beg to differ. Politico-military recognition of the danger of invading or tyrannizing an armed populace is something long since documented in history. Does TSB forget the American Revolution? In his authoritative book Origins and Development of the Second Amendment, David T. Hardy, an attorney and expert on the history of law, quotes historian William Gordon 1.

 

"William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham, remained the colonist’s defender in the House of Lords. Shortly after Concord, he urged attempts at peacemaking. ‘(T)he Congress of Philadelphia…do not hold the language of slaves: they tell you what they mean. They do not ask you to repeal your laws as a favor: they claim it as a right; they demand it. They tell you they will not submit to them, and I tell you the (Coercive) Acts must be repealed; you cannot enforce them….My Lords, there are three millions of whigs. Three millions of whigs, my Lords, with arms in their hands, are a very formitable (sic) body. ‘twas the whigs, my Lords, that set his Majesty’s royal ancestors upon the throne of England.’"2

 

Pitt’s words fell on deaf ears. England stepped into the quicksand that soon became the Revolutionary War, and came to regret it. A precedent was set that would continue for centuries. From the Viet Cong to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, it has been proven much more recently that peasants with guns and a cause they believed in can thwart the organized might of the world’s greatest military superpowers.

 

The Swiss militia and Switzerland’s carefully crafted strategy of being able to seal off their country and make roads impassable by enemy armor in 24 hours had nothing to do with deterring Adolf Hitler from invading? I don’t know how many times TSB has been to Switzerland. I’ve been there twice, spending much of my time in the company of Swiss military men. They are the ones who should know, and they were utterly convinced that it was the obvious hopelessness of invading a country in which every household was not only armed but skilled with state of the art military rifles that kept the Nazi wolf from Switzerland’s door. A true picture of the powerful deterrent effect of the armed Swiss citizenry is seen in the works of Stephen Halbrook and others.

 

The same principle works in microcosm. Does anyone believe that 12 million armed Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals would have been herded into cattle cars by Nazis and shipped away for extermination? Closer to home, consider the recent comment by Professor John Lott, the controversial but incontrovertible gun law researcher. "(S)tudies—including a recent one by Rand—show that in high-gun-ownership areas, criminals take more time casing a home before they break in, to make sure nobody is home. The reason they give is because they don’t want to be shot." 3

 

"TSB" can, of course, believe what he wants. He can believe that the nightmarish prospect of house to house combat with a nation of citizen sharpshooters would not deter a warlord from sending his infantry there. He can believe that criminals aren’t more afraid of good people who have guns than good people who don’t. He can believe that the Earth is flat.

 

But when he tries to promulgate such opinions, he loses credibility, and when he attacks the veracity of Commander Menard by calling his recollections "BS," he loses his own honor. TSB is legitimately concerned about gun owners losing face with spurious quotes, like the "firearms are liberty’s teeth" line attributed to George Washington which no one could verify. Menard’s account does not fall into that category.

 

Oral history is an honored and respected tradition in this country. Bob Menard’s recollection of that discussion with his Japanese counterpart so long ago is a classic example, and one that we can learn from. If TSB is right and the retired war veteran was off by a year or so on the date, it detracts not at all from the powerful message that conversation sends to those who today fight for critical rights that are in danger. Commander Menard deserves better.

 

Finally, TSB also has the right to say that he knows more about Japanese war strategy sixty years ago than the Japanese naval officer who made that statement to Menard. I suspect, however, that the Japanese officer was a whole lot closer to the situation than TSB, and his opinion carries a great deal more weight. It is significant to note that in 1945, as the US invasion of Japan loomed, the Japanese government began a crash program of training its citizens to shoot back and if necessary, fight back with home-made lances. This speaks of a government that had long understood and respected the power of an armed citizenry, which is probably why from feudal times to WWII, Japan systematically and ruthlessly disarmed every nation it conquered.

 

The deterrent effect of an armed citizenry against invaders and tyrants is inescapable to any graduate of History 101. It is confirmed by Logic 101. End of story. Sorry, TSB. That Japanese naval officer had it nailed, and the honorable Commander Menard was right to spread the word.

 

 

1 Gordon, William, The History of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the Independence of the United States, Volume I at page 443.

 

2 Hardy, David T., Origins and Development of the Second Amendment, Chino Valley, AZ: Blackstone Publishers Corp, 1986, pages 59-60.

 

3 WND Whistleblower Magazine, September, 2001, Firearms Key to Crime Control: WND Talks to ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ author, Prof. John Lott Jr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos Tatonka!

Very well put.

 

The problem with any argument like this, it doesn't matter if it is guns, drinking age, abortion, illeagal drugs, it always ends with the logic going out the door and emotion taking over.

 

The arguments devolve from a frank discussion of facts into people taking the view that any disagreement is automatically a personal attack.

 

The old saying that figures don't lie, but liars do figure really holds true. For example, when Robert Peel first organized his private force, the "Bobbies" in London, and until modern times, one of their proudest brags was that they didn't carry guns in a time when most of the country was armed.

Now with draconian laws that make it impossible for any but the privilaged aristocracy to own personal weapons, the new Metropolitan Police Department carrys automatic weapons.

 

Just as the U.S. Constitution states, "A wel regulated miltita",(every able bodied man between the age of 16 and 60), "being necessary to the security of a free state", ( a state governed by the will and consent of the governed with the right of the governed to overthrow the government if the government looses the trust of the governed), "The right of the people"( the free citizens of the union), "to keep and bear arms",( no mention of hunting or sport shooting, no mention of only flintlock rifles, or for that matter rifles only), "shall not be infringed".(limited, controlled, coerced, registered, or even regulated with an eye to bracing up the governments control over the people).

 

The US Constitution does not limit powers of the people, it preserves the natural rights given to man by their Creator, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

The founders did not set forth our rights, but acknowledged that a free citizen has the right of self determination, to live as he saw fit, with the right to protect his property, his family and his person from all enemies. "Secure in his person".

 

The United States is an experiment in the ability of man to handle self determination. How he accepts responsibilty for his own actions, and that he does not rely on someone else to provide anything for him in his own home.

 

We are at a crossroads here, just as our ancestors have faced. At the end of our Civil War, (1861-1865), when General Grant accepted General Lee's surrender, He allowed the defeated soldiers of the Confederacy to keep their personal weapons for personal protection and to feed their families. Can you name me any other war where the defeated enemy was allowed to remain armed after surrender?

 

Now our choice is to accept the cowardice of surrendering our weapons and beg for the government to protect us, or stand as our forefathers did and say "NO, I am a free man and accept the responsibility for my own life and security".

 

I for one do not trust any career bureaucrat to be anything but a bloated leach living off the hard work and sweat of others.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun issue doesnt bother me in the least. Their never gong to get my guns one way on another. There are restrictions now however. Bans on fully automatic weapons, Bazookas, shoulder fired missals, hand grenades, (oh there not guns")  :blush:  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, personally think battles should be fought with swords, clubs, maces.... you know, the good ol days when you had to look someone in the face BEFORE you killed them.

 

 

I forget what movie this was from (not word for word)....

 

"Okay.... when we make our move shoot the one with the sword, first." "Oh, I see... shoot the officer first and the others will surender"... "NO you idiot, you shoot him because he's got a f'n SWORD... you ever been chased by a guy swingin' an f'n SWORD?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, we've kept this a very friendly discussion.  Kudos! 

 

I haven't posted before now due to the simple fact that most here have already decided for themselves which side of the issue (if any) they share.  No words of mine will alter the views of someone who is dead-set against what I may have to say, and they aren't very likely to be able change my mind either.

 

The NRA takes alot of heat for sticking to its guns, pardon the pun.  Mark my words, if the NRA and its members had not stood their ground our laws would closely mirror those of the U.K. and Australia.  Why don't we "compromise"? on certain laws?  We have!  The instant background check was proposed and supported by the NRA for a decade before it's implementation.  Stricter controls on the ability of the mentally ill to have access to firearms has always been supported by the NRA.  However, there are times when we have to say "enough is enough!" 

 

The other side of the issue calls for "compromise."  Now, when have the anti's ever been content to stop at a compromise?  We give them background checks, they want registration of the purchasers (the Supreme Court says criminals don't have to register theirs, it's against the 5th Ammendment.).  Give them registration/licensing, they want an "assault weapons" ban.  Give them the "assault weapons", they want ALL semi-autos.  It's the whole "Camel in the Tent" arguement.  The old story is that a bedouin pitches his small tent in the desert, but due to the size his camel must stay outside.  Soon, he notices that the camel has stuck his nose under the edge of the tent.  The bedouin thinks, "Well, it is cold, and it's just the camel's nose."  Very soon, the camel's entire head is inside the tent.  Again, the bedouin thinks, "Well, it's cold and it's just the camel's head."  When the camel pushes into the tent as far as his shoulders, it becomes quite crowded and the bedouin has very little room, however he thinks, "It is cold outside, and it's only the camel's head and shoulders in the tent."  The next thing he knows, the entire camel is under the tent, he has been pushed outside, and it is very cold.  We in the NRA have used this arguement to illustrate the idea that the anti's will not stop at one or two new laws.  In fact, during the Brady Bill debate, we used this very story to show our view.  Then, the moment that the Brady Bill passed, HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) President Richard Aborn said, "...Today, we would like to tell you what the rest of the camel looks like."

 

 

Here are a few quotes from those who would like to see some "compromise."

 

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and

military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

 

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights,

it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

 

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on

personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban

is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to

reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their

ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

 

"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there

should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you

have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous."

Rosie O'Donnell during interview with Carolyn McCarthy as quoted in the Ottawa

Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55

 

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

 

"I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a

permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background

check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical

records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental

illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of

Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16,

1990

 

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned

about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have

woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of

American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault

military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

 

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we

are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy

(interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

 

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking

up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could

not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

 

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

 

"The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend

themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."

Official Statement of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI)

 

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

 

"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every

step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you

what the rest of the camel looks like."

HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993

 

One of my personal favs:

 

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing

who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

 

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to

disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols,

and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,

stated to the U.S. Congress

 

 

These are just a few of those who have one purpose in mind:  COMPLETELY outlawing private ownership of firearms in the US.  That is why the NRA is so outspoken against laws that will take firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding.  I know there are those who dislike the NRA, and I hope I've given some insight as to why I am a member. 

 

Would outlawing firearm ownership keep them out of criminal hands?  I doubt it.  We outlawed illegal drugs, didn't we?  That doesn't seem to stop them from being brought in over the borders, or even the illegal manufacture of them at home (meth especially).  We made it illegal to sell more than a few boxes of antihistamines over the counter, and now YOU as a law-abiding citizen MUST sign a statement to purchase Claratin-D from the drugstore!!  Has meth manufacture decreased? 

 

Is it illegal to stab, bludgeon, or beat someone to death?  Yes, but that isn't as news-worthy as banning firearms.  There are no organizations such as "Knife Control Inc" or the "Brady Campaign To End Baseball Bat Violence."  I think that too many people believe that gun control measures will amount to violence-control measures. 

 

Patrick Henry, by the way, didn't just oppose the 2nd Ammendment, he opposed the Constitution as well: 

 

"What can avail your imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?" -- Patrick Henry,  the Virginia State Ratifying Convention on June 4, 1788. 

 

Patrick Henry was an "Anit-Federalist", and he like a huge number of patriots and founding fathers, opposed the Constitution as a whole, believing that it granted far too much power to a central government.  The "Anti Federalists" were not as well organized or well funded as the Federalists, who supported the Constitution.  However, there were enough of them to make it difficult if not impossible to ratify the Constitution without their support.  The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution in order to gain support of people like Patrick Henry and George Mason.  George Mason and Patrick Henry and their Anti-Federalists are the very reason why we have the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Ammendment, in the Constitution.  The opposition of including specific rights in the Constitution was due to the fear that the enumeration of a list of rights would be later used to deny rights not specifically mentioned.  In other words, it would be a list of the ONLY rights the people would have. 

 

Anyway...there's my two cents worth.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, KB.  Don't be too sure about guns being the last word.  I can easily see the very people who want guns gone to propose ridiculous rules on knives.  (Indiana already has one of the more idiotic ones.)  And once knives are only used in their regulated locations (a kitchen knife is illegal to have out of the kitchen setting), then the club regulations will start.

 

Remember that we now have warnings on coffee cups as to their hotness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While ending guns seems to be a way to end violence, this is a hopeless quest.  I strongly urge people who want to do away with violence to think about what a violence-free world would be like.  It is like the old argument, if evil didn't exist...then what is good?  If violence doesn't exist, then what is peace?  I have strongly believed for many years that more weapons (guns) make for a more polite and civilized society.  I could even see my way clear to having some sort of duelling system for those problems that really don't belong in the public venue.  If you think back to the societies that we aspire to go back to, they all included much more access to guns than the current day, and drugs, for that matter.

 

Take the Hatfields and the McCoys (as an example, since I have no idea as to the historical truth of the feud), if these two families have a battle royal and keep the violence from killing people unrelated to the conflict safe, what is the outcome?  Families that are so hard headed (either as a result of heredity or environment) that they can't get along...take each other out of the play.  Those that are left live in peace, and pass that on to their children. 

 

It is the search for the simple answer that is the real evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has gun policies, knife policies, club policies.... you name it, we have policies on it!!! It is ridiculous... and I openly admit the fact that I don't own a gun and have never felt the need to own a gun.... perhaps I've led a sheltered life.... that is why I will NEVER look down on people like K-Bob who feel their rights are being stomped on... it is all relative. If they banned knives outside the kitchen where I live... you can be sure that I'd be raising hell AND be carrying a concealed knife!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, personally think battles should be fought with swords, clubs, maces.... you know, the good ol days when you had to look someone in the face BEFORE you killed them.

 

I forget what movie this was from (not word for word)....

 

 

 

"Okay.... when we make our move shoot the one with the sword, first." "Oh, I see... shoot the officer first and the others will surender"... "NO you idiot, you shoot him because he's got a f'n SWORD... you ever been chased by a guy swingin' an f'n SWORD?"

 

 

  I like the idea of waging wars like that again. Not that war is a good thing. But it has been a part of the human race since the dawn of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×