Guns and the Commoners
I caught a portion of a program the other day supposedly about "vigilantism". Admittedly, the program did a fair job in distinguishing (at first) between the true vigilantes and the KKKesque groups and individuals who have come to be falsely associated with vigilante groups in recent times.
Then the program took an ugly--if somewhat predictable--turn.
It presented with much glee the story of a Japanese exchange student who had wandered off at night, gotten lost and killed. He was apparently in the front yard of a house where he supposedly planned on asking directions. The homeowner was alerted to someone in the front yard and responded reasonably--by taking his gun out and ordering the man to stop.
The story goes that the exchange student "didn't understand" the order and kept coming. The man fired.
Any accidental killing is tragic, and even if the slightly suspect story (I'll comment on that if someone asks) is perfectly true and complete, it serves best as a warning to be careful when wandering around at night, or at least to be hypersensitive to homeowners coming out of their homes with guns and yelling in a foreign language--things that most of us were either told as children or had the great perception to learn on the spot if we ever encountered such a situation. (Which most of us haven't.)
But what did the producers of the TV show do? Unsurprisingly, they gleefully held the story up as an example of why private citizens should not be allowed to have and use guns!
They somehow failed to mention the many vicious and very un-accidental murders that have happened because the homeowners were not armed.
They did report a rather happier story--one in which the bad guy took the bullet and no innocents were harmed--but their commentary was pretty dour and limited.
"What if he had missed and hit a bystander?"
Of course, the police never do that! Notice, the question "what if an armed citizen hadn't been present?" is never asked. That's because we know what happens when an armed citizen isn't present!
Take a look at the evening news, and chances are that you'll see the results of a chronic shortage of armed citizens!
Anybody ever heard the phrase "an armed society is a polite society"? It's true.
The propaganda here is certainly anti Second Amendment, but it is also elitist. "Don't defend yourself...leave it to the 'experts'."
The police are not legally obligated to protect everyone, and they couldn't even if they were.
This is yet another way in which most Americans are all too willing to surrender freedom in exchange for a (false) sense of security, an action which Benjamin Franklin said renders them unfit for either.
Why don't we ever hear about the school shootings that are stopped by citizens with guns? (Roughly 1-2/3 of public school shootings in the past have been.)
Why don't we hear about the abject terror that so many people have suffered--often before they eventually died--because they didn't have a gun handy when they needed one?
Because the truth tends to hurt communist regimes. Freedom isn't too popular with the elitist crowd. They want power. Control over the common swine--by that they mean you and I.
The best way to do that is (and this comes straight from the Comintern--the now vanished organization that was charged years ago with spreading communist rule around the world) is to create "systematic chaos"; to cause society to become terrified of itself--enough so that it would accept an elitist ruling class in the name of "safety" and "security".
It's up to us to take a stand for freedom!
posted by David B. Thompson | 3:16 PM
8 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian,
First of all, I am deleting your comment because of your language. Please keep it clean. (I don't seem to be able to edit your post, so I have no option but to delete it and offer to let you repost it without the foul language.)
To answer your question, however, you're right, a Japanese student asking directions doesn't pose much of a threat. However, an unknown man approaching your home at night who refuses to stop when ordered (by a homeowner with a gun no less) does pose a threat, even if only an apparent one. Think about it, if you visit a foreign country, get lost at night, approach a house for directions, and are greeted by a man with a gun who yells at you in another language, what would common sense tell you to do? Keep going? Or stop, probably showing your hands to demonstrate that you pose no threat?
Again, you're also ignoring the fact that there are vicious criminals who intentionally enter private homes with the intent to rape, rob, and murder. A homeowner has no way of knowing at first glance if that dark figure n the front yard is one of those or not--which, by the way, is why he stepped out and ordered him to halt; to give him a chance to respond properly if he was not a threat.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I still can't see 'a stranger in the night is out to kill me and my friends' as a viable excuse to just shoot and ask questions later. Cops show more restraint than that.
Anyway, I have been in a foreign country where someone screamed at me that they were going to kill me. I didn't understand (since I don't speak Tamil..my friend later translated for me), so I just thought the guy was drunk and angry at something else. Thank God he DIDN'T have a gun or else my loved ones might be paying a horrible price for me not knowing when to run away.
My point is that 'protecting yourself' is a lame excuse to pull the trigger when in all liklihood the kid was coming closer to the house because 1.) he didn't see the gun 2.) he saw the gun but didn't think it could be real 3.) he really needed help and he trusted a gathering of people 4.) in Japan there is no concept of running away from a stranger since, without guns, the society is by and large very very safe.
A wrongful death saddens me very much, especially when his family must still be thinking that it was so needless, caused by fear and paranoia.
--Brian
Sorry to take so long with clearing your post! I’ve been busy over the weekend, but here’s my reply:
A few things to think about:
1. The police are not obligated to protect you.
2. The police are typically not there when a crime occurs—they usually show up later to take a look at your cold corpse and see if they can track down the murderer before he strikes again.
3. Japan is not a safe society by a long shot! Their murder rate is more than twice what the rate is for “Japanese-Americans” here in the U.S.. Not only that, but they report quite a few of their murders as suicides. (Consider also that in addition to not really being safer, the government over there controls its citizens’ lives to an absolutely abominable level.)
Empty speculation is a lame excuse for failing to protect your family against a nighttime intruder!
Accidents are tragic, but far more people are killed in car accidents every year than are killed in gun-related accidents. So why don’t we ban cars while we’re at it?
The bottom line is that we must retain the right and ability to defend ourselves, our families, and our freedom. If someone lacks the common sense to stop and reveal themselves as being no threat when confronted by a homeowner with a gun, they will most likely be shot. Tragic? Yes. Avoidable? Yes; in this case by the Japanese student. The homeowner had no way of knowing that this dark figure who refused to halt his approach was not a threat.
If you’re so superstitiously scared of guns, go move to Japan; they seem to have a policy that you can live with. But don’t touch my right to self-defense.
Point taken on more annual deaths in auto accidents...I always support stiffer enforcement of driving laws so as to reduce those needless deaths too. (After living abroad I came home disturbed at how little caution many American drivers use, and how dangerous it can be.)
I also concede that the police cannot protect everybody and everything, hence our Bill of Rights. However, they are (I hope!) well trained and show much restraint in order to avoid needless deaths. I know it's not always the case, but I do think that gun-owning citizens ought to practice the same restraint when using their firearms. (Of course I've painted myself into a corner since I realize there can be no law to mandate proper 'restraint').
However your point about Japan's society not being safe is ignoring that the dangerous thugs like the bosozoku can hardly immigrate to the US thanks to a lack of education, money, etc. Think of the LA Crypts causing trouble in London: it just goes without saying that Japanese-Americans don't have as long a criminal list as native Japanese do in Japan.
Japan isn't a 'free' society as much as the US is, I agree. Their press is highly restricted, their voters highly uneducated, and their politicians highly corrupt. However, the US trumps Japan a hundred times over in terms of violent gun deaths and gun-related crime in general.
Our right to bear arms is a Catch-22 I imagine, and I still support the right. But as an American citizen (who will enjoy living in America, thank you) I'd also like to think how we can exercise this right in the most responsible way possible. I'm not of the opinion that shooting at shadows in the dark just because you shouted 'halt!' is a way to do that. (Firing a shot in the air would have been a much more responsible response.)
--Brian
Empty speculation is a lame excuse for failing to protect your family against a nighttime intruder!
Accidents are tragic, but far more people are killed in car accidents every year than are killed in gun-related accidents. So why don’t we ban cars while we’re at it?
The bottom line is that we must retain the right and ability to defend ourselves, our families, and our freedom. If someone lacks the common sense to stop and reveal themselves as being no threat when confronted by a homeowner with a gun, they will most likely be shot. Tragic? Yes. Avoidable? Yes; in this case by the Japanese student. The homeowner had no way of knowing that this dark figure who refused to halt his approach was not a threat.
If you’re so superstitiously scared of guns, go move to Japan; they seem to have a policy that you can live with. But don’t touch my right to self-defense.
Police shootings involving innocent victims tend to far outnumber private shootings of innocent victims, in case you were wondering. The police aren’t superhuman; they’re subject to the same reactions and errors as the rest of us.
You’re right that you can’t legislate “restraint” or responsibility. That’s the point. We most certainly do need responsibility among gun owners (and we have much more than you probably realize) but this is a matter of personal responsibility.
In fact, gun owning citizens often practice more “restraint” than the police do.
Around 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year by citizens with guns, most of them without a shot fired.
When it comes to the particular situation with the Japanese student, you speak of “firing a shot in the air’. Are you a gun owner? Firing into the air is not a responsible thing to do in most cases, since that bullet has to come down somewhere! There was a case just recently where a woman was hit by a bullet returning to earth after being fired into the air during a celebration.
Furthermore, when you have someone coming at you (as this homeowner did) refusing to fire, or even hesitating beyond the verbal warning that he gave is putting yourself at severe risk for having your weapon used against you!
Anyway, back to Japan. I don’t know that we can ever have an accurate comparison of crime rates, primarily because the Japanese routinely falsify their records. They drastically underreport.
No matter how you dice it, though, Japan is not a safe place to be, and street thugs with Saturday Night Specials may be the least of your concerns! Consider this:
The Japanese police have a detailed dossier on every citizen in the country, and they conduct searches of homes and interviews twice per year. Defendants in a criminal proceeding have virtually no rights, can be held for 28 days without being charged and can be and routinely are tortured to obtain a confession.
If you were to disagree with a Japanese official to the extent that you’ve disagreed with me on this blog, you’d find yourself in a dark hole subjected to torture without any way out.
I don’t call that a safe country. Street thugs are only one type of threat to safety, freedom, and property ownership. Government thugs are more dangerous.
The bottom line is this: gun control does nothing but harm. Life, Liberty, and private property rights are only safe in a well-armed society.
You are thinking of Burma, not Japan.
I've lived in Japan for over three years. I've written articles, given seminars, and organized forums that devalued the very Japanese ministry who employed me, not to mention in their own language...so please know my criticisms and disagreements were quite public to those who could have, as you say, thrown me in a dark hole. And yet they didn't. Do you know why? Because your vision of a thuggish Japanese state doesn't exist anymore than it does in our own country! The only way you could really get thrown into that hole you are describing is to get caught with drugs or pick a brutal fight with someone...and even in that case, what good is a gun going to do for your personal freedom arguement when you've committed an actual offense??
Anyway, I can't see one instance where the "unsafety" of your Japanese government equates anywhere to the unsafety of individual aggressors on other citizens in America. The fact is that, while it may be a lost liberty, Japan doesn't have a murder rate like we do because the regular crazies, addicts, thieves, and other thugs don't have guns. In turn, the general public doesn't either, but why would they if the worst they can be attacked with is a knife? Give the LA street gangs only knives and I promise you people would feel safer walking the streets at night. Now I'm not blasting your/my/our right to own a gun, I'm just pointing out that you are bringing up two uncomparable versions of "safety." The American version of "safety" just sometimes requires a gun. I appreciate and uphold the right...but as an American citizen trying to better the society our forefathers obliged us to constantly build, I can't let myself be complacent about the consequences.
--Brian
Try giving up your American Citizenship and becoming a citizen of Japan and you’ll find that they change their tune!
Keep in mind that crimes can be committed with weapons other than guns as well. Give LA street gangs knives and walk down the streets at night and you’ll find your throat cut in the morning instead of a bullet through your head. Either way, you have a gun, and you’ll most likely be alive to tell about it.
Don’t get me wrong, safety is great. Freedom is far more important, though. Theoretically, in order to get gun control to “work”, you would have to become an absolutely despotic government, closely monitoring every action of each one of your citizens and practically licensing them to breathe! In reality, even that doesn’t work, but that won’t stop people from trying!
The consequences of allowing our right to keep and bear arms to be “regulated” by the government include, not only insufferable crime rates and the inability to defend ourselves on a day-to-day basis, but perhaps more importantly, the loss of whatever freedom we still claim to enjoy.
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry. Sadly, an unarmed citizenry will never have a just government.
At its core, this is an issue of freedom. Sure, it’s been proven that higher gun ownership rates produce lower crime rates, but as our founders noted, the Second Amendment is the guardian of all others. Give that up, and you won’t be able to do a thing when they come to take the rest.
Post a Comment
<< Home