A change of heart regarding self-defense

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by chala

Dark night, lonely and large harbour, only 2 boats at anchor and a fair distance from shore. Time: a little after midnight and me, by-myself. Suddenly out of the other boat come a terrifying woman
...snip ... Where I live these days I would not be able to get a licence for an air rifle or a slingshot. So because some of this gun post writers are so keen on guns they should organize some summer vacation on the Somali coast where they could make a real evaluation of their guns and even of some wire guided missiles and on my way to St Tropez, if they get rid of the pirates, I will bring them some ice-creams.

First rule of armed combat: Know your target.

[Mule]

Ya know, what escapes me is why the paranoid attitude toward guns is so prevalent. I realize that people die because of the use of guns, but if the target is doing bad, then so what. Stealing my property, threatning me or my family, guest, again, so what?

A gun is nothing more than a tool, just as a hammer or a marlinspike and when used for protection the use is good. Needless to say if used for bad well all is bad. Police are geared for after the crime not to stop it, usually by the time the police get involved you are already a victim.

I sometimes think anti gun laws enforced by some countries are there to make honest people, (read Mexico) helpless to the local criminals. Hell the way things are going in Mexico they should issue you a gun upon arriving at customs if you do not have one.


The very fact that a country will not allow you to have a gun on your boat (read home) really flies in my face and in the case of Mexico it makes me seriously think about staying away from there and thereby not spending my money there.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Mule

A gun is nothing more than a tool, just as a hammer or a marlinspike and when used for protection the use is good.

Well, the essentially difference is that a gun is much more likely to be ziplocked and tagged "Exhibit A" than are a hammer or marlinspike.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mule

... A gun is nothing more than a tool, just as a hammer or a marlinspike ...
... The very fact that a country will not allow you to have a gun on your boat (read home) really flies in my face and in the case of Mexico it makes me seriously think about staying away from there and thereby not spending my money there.

The effective use of a firearm as a "tool", always results in injury or death. This makes it a somewhat unique item, in our toolbox.
It has no other useful purpose, excepting it’s benign uses as a "toy" (target shooting) or "work of art".

I agree that, feeling as you do, you should probably avoid those countries that place conditions upon lawful firearms possession.

[TaoJones]

And further to Gord's point, I think many might be surprised to know that those in other countries aren't obsessed with our currency the way we often assume. Sure, if you are truly enjoying their country and not causing any trouble for them, then your infusion of cash is most welcome. But if a person is a troublemaker - and, in Mexico, bringing a firearm into their country makes that person, ipso facto, a troublemaker - then it generally costs them more than it is worth. It's an additional burden on them they would just as soon do without.

TaoJones

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The effective use of a firearm as a "tool", always results in injury or death. This makes it a somewhat unique item, in our toolbox.

Firearms are also effective deterrents, so they don't always result in injury/death.

It has no other useful purpose, excepting it’s benign uses as a "toy" (target shooting) or "work of art".

Well, there's always hunting, so it's no more unique than a fishing rod or speargun.

[Southern Star]

Tao is correct - in many countries there is no inherent 'right' to bear arms, any more than there is a 'right' to drive an automobile. Each sovereign nation has the right to determine its own policies regarding firearms and in that connection, it should not be forgotten that the murder rate is much lower in many of the countries which place significant, or to those who perceive it as such, draconian restrictions on the possession of the same.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the laws of a foreign state, we are bound by them once we enter their territorial waters: break them and it is you who is the criminal. If you don't like their laws, you can freely choose to stay out.

It has already been pointed out that in this particular instance, the occupants of this vessel survived the attack despite having no firearms at their disposal. Were they lucky? Undoubtedly. But one cannot conclude that they would have been just as lucky if they had carried a firearm and had chosen to use it, instead of a flare gun. Clearly their attackers were unharmed and chose to remain that way, perhaps looking for an easier target. But if one of their own had been wounded or killed, it is also possible that their 'macho' mentality would have been moved towards revenge - towards an escalation of the firefight.

I also ask everyone to harken back to the murder of Sir Peter Blake in Brazil several years ago. As I recall, when his yacht was boarded by armed thieves he pulled out his handgun in self-defence, only to end up being shot and killed himself. It is surely no coincidence that he was the only person of many onboard who was injured, let alone shot. The others were unarmed and, while using Zerokini's reasoning, their pride may have been hurt (and some of their property lost), they were at least physically unharmed.

I would not suggest that no one should carry a firearm on board a vessel; it is a personal choice that will ultimately reflect personal values and beliefs. But make no mistake about it, there are still strong dissenting opinions both on this site and elsewhere, even if many of us have tired of contributing to an unresolvable debate.

Brad

[Zerokini]

[QUOTE=Southern Star;280936]Tao is correct - in many countries there is no inherent 'right' to bear arms, any more than there is a 'right' to drive an automobile. Each sovereign nation has the right to determine its own policies regarding firearms and in that connection, it should not be forgotten that the murder rate is much lower in many of the countries which place significant, or to those who perceive it as such, draconian restrictions on the possession of the same.[/ QUOTE]

To assume that is to assume that governments issue rights (which, of course, governments cannot do. When governments purport to issue rights, they are in fact issuing privileges which can be revoked at their whim). The fact of the matter is -- regardless of how "arrogant" you regard this statement -- rights are issued by Nature's God, and it is not within the lawful power of man to put them asunder. Those that do so are doers of evil, and nothing else. They are to be opposed.

Furthermore, in recent years it has been revealed that the old bromide about countries with strict gun control laws having much lower crime rates is not only a crock, it turns out that the imposition of gun control has caused a steady increase in crime levels pretty much across the board. Of course, the issues of gun control or the lack thereof are not the only factors affecting the crime rates of a given population, but where they can be statistically isolated, it never fails to be true that more guns equals less crime (given the existence of any functioning government, of course).

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Regardless of whether one agrees with the laws of a foreign state, we are bound by them once we enter their territorial waters: break them and it is you who is the criminal. If you don't like their laws, you can freely choose to stay out.

I wonder if you would feel you are honor bound to obey the laws of, say, Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany, or Cambodia's Pol Pot or if perhaps there might be some other reason why you would want to "freely choose to stay out"? My point is, tyranny is tyranny, and no man or woman is honor bound to respect the laws of tyranny, any where, at any time, on any level. On the contrary, man and woman are honor bound to resist tyranny at every level. To do less is to honor the tyrant, and to honor evil.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

has already been pointed out that in this particular instance, the occupants of this vessel survived the attack despite having no firearms at their disposal. Were they lucky? Undoubtedly. But one cannot conclude that they would have been just as lucky if they had carried a firearm and had chosen to use it, instead of a flare gun. Clearly their attackers were unharmed and chose to remain that way, perhaps looking for an easier target. But if one of their own had been wounded or killed, it is also possible that their 'macho' mentality would have been moved towards revenge - towards an escalation of the firefight.

It is equally likely, upon encountering two or three armed victims and being repelled in their attack -- with or without injury to one of their own -- that they might have considered a different line of work.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I also ask everyone to harken back to the murder of Sir Peter Blake in Brazil several years ago. As I recall, when his yacht was boarded by armed thieves he pulled out his handgun in self-defence, only to end up being shot and killed himself. It is surely no coincidence that he was the only person of many onboard who was injured, let alone shot. The others were unarmed and, while using Zerokini's reasoning, their pride may have been hurt (and some of their property lost), they were at least physically unharmed.

You recall wrong. Sir Peter Blake tried to use a rifle in self-defense, not a handgun, and he had failed to properly maintain the weapon and it failed to function. Like many who think firearms are better left alone, Blake thought he could load it, lock it and forget it. As I said in an earlier message (with no intent to speak ill of the dead) stupidity can be a capital offense.

I would also point out that the circumstance of his attempted defense led the pirates to believe there were other weapons on board, and for that reason they did not kill the rest of the crew and in fact "unassed the AO" as fast as they could.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I would not suggest that no one should carry a firearm on board a vessel; it is a personal choice that will ultimately reflect personal values and beliefs. But make no mistake about it, there are still strong dissenting opinions both on this site and elsewhere, even if many of us have tired of contributing to an unresolvable debate.

Brad

Good deal. Then I trust your ethical obligation would be to support laws allowing individuals to make that decision for themselves without government interference? Thank you in advance.

[Southern Star]

Zerokini, comparing the leadership of countries like Canada, England, Sweden etc. with Hitler and Stalin is not only inflammatory, it is ridiculous. It trivializes the experiences of minorities or other groups that were subject to religious/cultural/political genocide by comparing them to the 'victims' of what you perceive to be 'fascist' gun control legislation. You may see the fight against gun control as one that entitles you to enter foreign countries and disobey their laws. I suspect, however, that your individualist bent will not stop you from trying to engage the assistance of your embassy in freeing you from jail should you be lawfully (and in my opinion, rightly) imprisoned for your criminal conduct, if apprehended abroad.

I apologize for referring to Peter Blake's use of a handgun, rather than a rifle in leading to his demise. That being said, my position remains the same: the fact that none of the unarmed parties were injured tends to show that the intruders were not intent on killing, or maiming anyone. On the other hand, in order to justify your position, you prefer to conclude that despite seeing no other firearms and hearing no other shots, the intruders thought everyone else was armed and hence fled without resort to coverning fire. So be it.

As I said, I in fact do support the right of people to carry arms on board their vessels, so long as in doing so they are not in violation of the laws of the territorial jurisdictions in which they sail. Rather than believing that freedom includes the right to ignore and violate laws with which I disagree, I tend to believe in the social contract.

Brad

[bene505]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Zerokini, comparing the leadership of countries like Canada, England, Sweden etc. with Hitler and Stalin is not only inflammatory, it is ridiculous. It trivializes the experiences of minorities or other groups that were subject to religious/cultural/political genocide by comparing them to the 'victims' of what you perceive to be 'fascist' gun control legislation. ...

I think that is his point, that if the population of those countries were not first de-clawed, those atrocities would not have happened, or even been possible.

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Zerokini, comparing the leadership of countries like Canada, England, Sweden etc. with Hitler and Stalin is not only inflammatory, it is ridiculous.

Is it really? Are you not aware that on 18 March 1938 Hitler signed the Nazi Weapon Law that disarmed the civilian population of Germany and allowed the persecution and murders of Jews and Gypsies and other "undesirables" to proceed? Are you unaware that there have been 12 major genocides in the world in the last 100 years (the Jewish Holocaust was only one) and that every single one of them was preceded by using "gun control laws" to disarm the population? Are you unaware that the aforementioned Nazi Weapon Law served as the template for the Gun Control Act of 1968?

Originally Posted by Southern Star

It trivializes the experiences of minorities or other groups that were subject to religious/cultural/political genocide by comparing them to the 'victims' of what you perceive to be 'fascist' gun control legislation.

As the above proves, those victims of genocide WERE the victims of fascist gun control legislation. Except for the Warsaw Ghetto experience, where a few brave Jews with a handful of firearms stopped the shipping of Jews to the murder camps for thirty full days, the victims of the holocaust had nothing to say about their fate -- because of fascist gun control.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

You may see the fight against gun control as one that entitles you to enter foreign countries and disobey their laws.
I suspect, however, that your individualist bent will not stop you from trying to engage the assistance of your embassy in freeing you from jail should you be lawfully (and in my opinion, rightly) imprisoned for your criminal conduct, if apprehended abroad.

I "may", as you say, but I haven't said so, have I? You "suspect" this or that about me, but you can't base that on anything I have said, can you? You and another anti-gun poster here jump to the conclusion that I advocate flagrantly violating the tyrannical laws of another country just because I don't like them, but you can't support that by anything I have said. I have advocated resistance to tyranny, and that can take many forms other than a head-on collision with the local government thugs. There are legal avenues, press releases, quiet rabble-rousing, teaching the locals about firearms -- civil disobedience doesn't come until the people want change, and then they have to be the ones disobeying the tyrant, not some visitor from another country.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I apologize for referring to Peter Blake's use of a handgun, rather than a rifle in leading to his demise. That being said, my position remains the same: the fact that none of the unarmed parties were injured tends to show that the intruders were not intent on killing, or maiming anyone.

Actually, they were. Do a little research, Southern Star: The pirates inflicted knife injuries on two of the seven crew, leaving the other five unharmed. Obviously, the seven crew members should have all been armed and resolute, and then likely no one would have been injured, except perhaps the pirates, and that would have been a good thing.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

On the other hand, in order to justify your position, you prefer to conclude that despite seeing no other firearms and hearing no other shots, the intruders thought everyone else was armed and hence fled without resort to coverning fire. So be it.

So I was wrong. They hacked away at two of them and then fled. Gee, are you sure people on boats shouldn't be armed? Oh, BTW: Doesn't Brazil prohibit arms on boats? Didn't stop the pirates, did it? Thank God it didn't stop Blake, either -- too bad he only got off one round, hitting a pirate in the hand, before his weapon malfunctioned.

There is the failure of your position on obeying the law even if it kills you: Criminals by definition don't obey the law, and often, obeying the law does kill you.

Originally Posted by Southern Star

As I said, I in fact do support the right of people to carry arms on board their vessels, so long as in doing so they are not in violation of the laws of the territorial jurisdictions in which they sail.

(Snicker.) What does that leave? List for me all the countries, or any countries, that allow you, a foreigner, to maintain a weapon on board in their waters in a condition in which it can be used if your life depended on it, without criminal sanctions after the fact?

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Rather than believing that freedom includes the right to ignore and violate laws with which I disagree, I tend to believe in the social contract.

Brad

I don't believe in social contracts founded upon tyranny. I believe in social contracts founded upon principles of liberty.

(BTW, if you want to research any of the above about Hitler, you could start at Nazi Gun Control

[SaltSeaSailor]

Nicely put Zerokini, I am unsure about these people who take offense to guns and the right to protect your life even if it means being disobedient, however I am sure there was some guy in the back of the train to Auschwitz yelling at everybody to stay calm and to obey the rules (that were there for their protection) and everything was going to be just fine.

[SaltSeaSailor]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Firearms are also effective deterrents, so they don't always result in injury/death.




Well, there's always hunting, so it's no more unique than a fishing rod or speargun.

The mere presence of a gun saves old ladies from road raged thugs...

Grandma pulls a gun on road ragers - FOX 4 Now - WFTX

[Wotname]

Hmm.. seems this thread is drifiting just a little bit..........

[bene505]

Originally Posted by SaltSeaSailor

Nicely put Zerokini, I am unsure about these people who take offense to guns and the right to protect your life even if it means being disobedient, however I am sure there was some guy in the back of the train to Auschwitz yelling at everybody to stay calm and to obey the rules (that were there for their protection) and everything was going to be just fine.

I agree. Nicely put.

I've been to Auschwitz (many years later). It was methodical, engineered murder. And it's a reminder that the giving up of rights is a very slippery slope.