Foreword: This article was originally published on this blog on June 09th, 2016. However, it still holds true. It has been partially edited to be a bit more up to date. In the wake of the tragedy that occurred on March 15th, in New Zealand where 50 people lost their lives, the NZ Government responded by announcing strict new rules banning many commonly owned types of firearms including most semi-automatic rifles. I am not familiar with NZ laws or due process but this is a sweeping overreach of power in my opinion. While this was a tragedy, an emotionally driven policy is rarely a good idea. A quick search on wikipedia shows that the last time there was a massacre involving a firearm in NZ was in 1997. This would suggest that such events are not common in NZ and this is, in fact, an emotional, politically motivated driven decision. Generally speaking, when you actually look into detailed breakdowns of stats from organizations like the FBI, RCMP, Stats Can or any major government body you will find that the truth rarely matches up with the anti-gun grab narrative that is often pushed. In fact, a quick search can usually find that top law enforcement agencies rarely support outright gun bans. I just did one and found one in which the RCMP commissioner does not support a handgun ban in Canada. Despite this, the current government is trying to push one to gain mostly political favor in certain municipalities (Mainly Toronto, which has a gang problem) which have failed to resolve gang violence issues. I will, of course, be perfectly honest, I am not going to in-depth research to find the stats around this, but if it matters to you they generally are not hard to find. Also if you look into most mass shootings in western countries they are often preventable as the individuals who did so are usually mentally unstable or often regularly are fairly open about their opinions and willingness to use violence. Often, gun grab policies are to appease a particular group of individuals who are loud and emotional and have not bothered to look into the facts. The irony is they often speak of being scientific and fact-based yet the facts are gun grabs are rarely based on facts because the facts do not support them.
Joe Rogan famously said, referring to America ” This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. And a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.”
This is very close to the truth. When politicians are not sure how to fix a problem they usually tighten the rules, ban more things and make things difficult for those who didn’t do anything wrong because it’s generally easier for them.
Ok I lied, since it was so easy to pull up some stats here is a report from Stats Can on firearms violence in Canada from 2012 (Yes a little out of date but still fairly relevant) Generally you really have to pay attention to these kinds of reports as they often mix things to make firearms crime look worse even when they are supporting firearms owners.
Figure 2, shows a break down of violent crims with firearms vs other weapons. It clearly shows firearms comes second. Additionally, the term homicide often includes accidental death or death due to legitimate police activity which often skews the actual data.
If you looked into it further to update modern firearms-related crimes you would find it is mostly Gang related and generally involves illegally purchased firearms which means the individuals broke the law simply by having the guns.
Chart 5 also shows the majority of homicides (remember the earlier definition) are handguns. Simply by taking a handgun somewhere, it is not supposed to be, such as in your pants in public you would be breaking Canadian Law. Based on this alone banning semi-automatics would not be justified in Canada at least would not be based on any facts. It is likely that in most places that have major gun restrictions, they will be heavier on handguns based on the fact they are easier to conceal. I suspect, putting the March 15th event aside in NZ you would probably see a similar trend.
Chart 6 also states that most firearms homicides are gang-related. Which to this day is most likely also accurate. This means if firearms crimes are gang related for the most part then it would be a failure of government policy or police activities to curb gang violence and not anything to do with stricter gun laws. Gun laws in Canada are already tough enough to prosecute gang members using guns in such a fashion.
It should also be noted that recently, in Canada, many types of firearms deaths have been reclassified as a “misuse of firearms” this includes suicide, homicide, and accidental death. According to the manufacturers and the courts, this is not what they were designed for thus it is a misuse of firearms. Keep in mind even self-defense deaths are still considered homicides. This means that future stats my just lump everything together under this term without really breaking down the data openly and truthfully. See how confusing and misrepresentative stats can be?
While I could go on and on about this in-depth ( I don’t want to because I’m not writing a research paper) the facts are that the fact shows that stronger gun laws don’t do much to curb already illegal behavior. Mentally ill people should be blocked from having guns, yes, but if they go the illegal root like the gangs do then increase the laws more doesn’t actually do anything. Anyways, I thought I would add some additional context prior to the original post which discusses why in my opinion it is important that everyone has firearms to prevent tyranny and other things. (It should be noted that in almost all cases resulting in firearms used in Canada in self-defense you will face criminal penalties. WHich means having a firearm for self-defense in Canada is not considered legal or an appropriate reason to have firearms. An while I do not agree with this, it is the law and is not at this point debatable)
ORIGINAL POST (Edited for spelling grammar and updated some irrelevant items as contextual to today.)
Note: I have since watched all seasons and it is a great show.
A while ago, I saw a preview of the AMC TV series Into the Badlands. Something has happened to create a world without guns, and with guns no longer available, the old ways of martial arts came back. Those who are able to train or control those who could fight have become warlords. While I still have yet to see it (waiting for it to appear on Netflix), the premise of the show got me thinking.
This means that the ability to teach or train martial arts and hand-to-hand combat would become a highly sought after commodity. It is likely that many of the best trainers would then become available to the highest bidder, or to those with enough power to control the trainers–much like the character Hundred Eyes from the Netflix original Marco Polo: One Hundred Eyes who has Kublai Khan holding power over him.
As such only those with power and money could afford to train armies and fighters. Sound familiar? Seems like a repeat of human history to me. In the past, kings and queens of Europe and emperors of Asia held power because they had the trained warriors and money. Meanwhile, the average person did not have the time to train properly since they needed to do other work to provide for themselves and their families. As such, martial arts training was a privilege, and the poor or less fortunate would be at the mercy of the upper class who could afford to spend time training.
So how does this relate to guns being a social equalizer?
Why is this relevant today? In today’s 21st-century-internet-media-driven world, stories surrounding firearms and gun laws easily take over news streams. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to guns and what should or should not be allowed. In addition, with the upcoming US presidential elections, as well as recent UN small arms treaties, it is likely people who believe in the right to own guns will be louder than ever.
For example, I am such a person who believes that any human being of sound mind, no criminal record or history of violence, and with proper training should be allowed to have guns. I write from Canada where the gun culture is radically different from the US, and where possessing firearms is not considered a human right–though I think it should be.
Any human being of sound mind, no criminal record or history of violence, and with proper training should be allowed to have guns.
In America, the founding fathers enshrined gun laws into their constitution the Second Amendment. The way it is written leaves some room for people to debate who can and should own and use firearms. However, often times people get too caught up in semantics and forget the intent with which something is written, and thus its true meaning. To me and many gun supporters, the reason is clear–to give the average person the ability to easily defend him or herself against oppression and tyranny.
Real knife defense is simply to shoot the person, assuming they are aggressive and non compliant.
In Krav Maga, we have hand-to-hand combat solutions to deal with knives. However, people should remember that in Israel where Krav Maga was developed, real knife defense is simply to shoot the person, assuming they are aggressive and non-compliant of course. The reality is that hand-to-hand combat solutions are last resorts in the event of an emergency, and using a firearm is a much safer method for such a defense scenario.
Being for social equalization and firearms go hand in hand
Imagine a government with a large army, well-trained in both hand-to-hand combat and strategy, who is determined to oppress its people. Opposing the government is a group of farmers living in the mountains who simply wish to live a free, happy life. If these farmers have guns, I guarantee you they can make a stand. Without guns, though, it is likely that their stand for freedom would fail.
Why? Guns give the ability to strike from afar. The “enemy” will be forced to re-think their strategy, as now they may face unacceptable losses. This scenario is quite plausible in reality. For example, in Afghanistan, the locals were able to hold off both Russian and American forces in two different wars simply by having guns to defend themselves.
In the world before guns (or a world with no guns like Into The Badlands), it was arms and legs, swords, and bows and arrows. These take significant time and training to become proficient, and it limits people’s ability to use them to defend themselves or hunt. On the other hand, guns can be learned in a relatively short amount of time, which renders everyone on equal grounds when it comes to general defense.
Guns protect the the weak and less fortunate from being controlled by the wealthy and powerful.
From a military perspective, an army is far more likely to engage a group with no firearms because that is an easier target. A group with firearms means that the army must think twice and create a better tactic before engaging.
Therefore, guns are the great social equalizer. Guns protect the weak and less fortunate from being controlled by the wealthy and powerful. Historically, guns and the ease of access to guns has fundamentally changed how rulers controlled the world, as they could no longer use force and fear mongering. Resistance was simply one gun away.
Why being anti-gun doesn’t make sense
So now, left-leaning (politically) individuals often claim that the government is corrupt and unjust and whatever else they think, AND they are also anti-gun? That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
So the government decides to clamp down and initiate martial law because they think the left-leaning individuals are out of control. However, left-wing voters opted to get rid of guns. Now, citizens can be easily overwhelmed by the government and hard pressed to protect and defend themselves because the government has all the guns and the people do not. This concept goes on both sides of the political spectrum as historically tyranny occurs when the power of the people to defend themselves, legally or physically was rapidly or slowly eroded away.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” –
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
Thus, if people are for equal rights, for social justice, and for general equality, then they should also be for reasonable gun access. There should be rules and regulations around gun access, licensing, training, ownership, use, and so on. However, simply saying guns should be taken away from everyone just because they are dangerous or “scary” is unreasonable. Guns, like anything, are tools created by humans to make life easier.
