Unsolicited email from South Africa

[Zak Smith]

A link on my personal web-pages has been referenced by several online magazines, and thus I have been receiving more unsolicited email than usual lately.

Here is one of them:

From: "Patrick Collins" <patrickc@debtpack.com>
To: <zak@computer.org>
Subject: guns suck
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:06:02 +0200

Zak

I live in South Africa. We have the highest crime
rate in the world. So high in fact, that the
government refuses to release any crime
statistics at all. So high, that the only reason
you go to the police station is to get a case
number for insurance claims. The police don?t
care about the crime, we know they don?t care;
they know that we know and they still don?t care.
I don?t carry a gun because I really detest the
things.

A gun is a device that projects little
pieces of metal at people in order to kill them.
I don?t like killing people. I?m not going to
kill people. Therefore it is a little silly to
carry a gun if I plan to never use it. So now
everyday that I drive home I fear for my life,
because who knows, maybe I?ll be hijacked and
murdered for my car. This is a very common
occurrence. Most of the guns used in these
violent attacks are stolen from legitimate gun
owners.

I asked a lot of people if they would
prefer a totally gun-free society over
a society where everyone has a gun. And a
surprising number couldn?t decide. Some actually
preferred the idea of a society where everyone
carries a gun! A gun is used to kill people - no
other purpose. Why would a modern civilised
person living in a modern civilised country want
to kill other people? Perhaps because we haven?t
advanced at all in the past five hundred
years. I wish that guns were illegal everywhere
across the globe. Perhaps then we will be safe.
Patrick

Here is my reply. I tried to be reasonable and level-headed:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:06:02AM +0200, Patrick Collins wrote:
> I live in South Africa. We have the highest crime rate in the world. So
> high in fact, that the government refuses to release any crime statistics at
> all. So high, that the only reason you go to the police station is to get a
> case number for insurance claims.

Ok. You have a high crime rate. Crime are committed by people, not
inanimate objects. Guns are mere objects; people are moral agents.

A country's crime rate is more related to social, economic, and
political factors than the prevalence of guns. Witness Switzerland,
which has a government-provided military rifle in each household, but
an extremely low crime rate.

> The police don?t care about the crime, we
> know they don?t care; they know that we know and they still
> don?t care.

It sounds like one of the problems is a completely ineffective police force.

> I don?t carry a gun because I really detest the things.

That is your choice, and I respect that - however, it is immoral for
you to disarm someone else and render them defenseless. Self-defense
is a human right.

> I gun is a device
> that projects little pieces of metal at people in order to kill
> them.

That is true, however the stated purpose of most firearms used in
self-defense is "to stop the attack". It is moral to use potentially
deadly force in self-defense when the victim is in danger of death or
grave bodily injury. The goal of self-defense in that situation is to
stop the attack - to remve the victim from that immediate danger. If
the assailant happens to die from the effects of your self-defense, so
be it. But it is wrong to seek their death as a primary outcome.

> I don
> ?t like killing people. I?m not going to kill people. Therefore it is a
> little silly to carry a gun if I plan to never use it.

Again, it's your choice.

> So now everyday that I drive home I fear for my life, because who knows,
> maybe I?ll be hijacked and murdered for my car.

What does this have to do with guns? Mass killing has been done, in
recent history, by bands of people armed with machetes.

> I asked a lot of people if they would prefer a totally gun-free society over
> a society where everyone has a gun.

I contend that the assumption that "it is possible to get rid of all
guns" is flawed. Just how are you going to get rid of all of them?
Even if ownership is outlawed, there is always a black market (the UK,
for example). In that situation, now outlaws can get whatever they
want, and law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

> And a surprising number couldn?t
> decide. Some actually preferred the idea of a society where everyone
> carries a gun!

They are not as foolish as you imply. It has been shown that when
law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry a concealed pistol (if they
want to), in the USA, the violent crime rate goes down! See
http://web.demigod.org/~zak/firearms/ for links to the studies.

> A gun is used to kill people - no other purpose. Why would a modern
> civilised person living in a modern civilised country want to kill other
> people?

The answer is very simple: not all people are civilized. There are
people who do not respect your rights. They would accost you on the
street, beat you up (or to death), take your things. They would break
into your house, murder you, rape your wife and children. They would
seek to destroy you.

Each person has a moral right to effect self-defense against those who
seek to do them harm. In some cases, those in which the person is
threatened by death or grave bodily injury, potentially lethal force
is the right answer, because it is only what is guaranteed to stop the
attack "right now." And one good side effect is that, when criminals
know *they* run a risk, they will either choose not to do the crime,
or switch to a non-violent crime.

> Perhaps because we haven?t advanced at all in the past five hundred
> years.

I am reminded of two quotes:

"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large, strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages." -- Christopher
Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001

People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're
begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals
among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and
social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work. -- L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach

Firearms are a means by which by grandmothers (both RIP, sadly, but
from natural causes) or my girlfriend could defend
themselves against large men bent on beating, raping, or killing them.

> I wish that guns were illegal everywhere across the globe. Perhaps then we
> will be safe.

Criminals will not be disarmed whenever there is a black market. A
black market will exist whenever *any* guns are in existence, even
used by the police and military. So the situation you will get when
regular citizens are prohibited from owning arms is one in which two
groups of people are armed: the government and the criminals. The
danger from criminals is obvious, as you have described. The danger
from governments is less obvious, but clear if we look at history.
Many times corrupt governments, or those that take too much power, end
up oppressing their subjects, often including genocide.

If you wish to take my arms, I say, as was said 2481 years ago in
Sparta, "Molon Labe!"

Thread is archived here.

 

[Correia]

Excellent well reasoned response. Good job.

 

[WAGCEVP]

Patrick says" I live in South Africa. We have the highest crime
rate in the world."

Heeeeey wait a minute , I thought the US had that honor
NKH

 

[Tommy.Gun]

Fool, he fears for his life but will not protect him self...

 

[ArmySon]

That was a well thought out reply to his email. Personally, I don't know if I would have had the patience

Outstanding!

 

[LawDog]

A gun is a device that projects little
pieces of metal at people in order to kill them.

No. A gun is as complex piece of precision machinery that is designed to initiate and contain a rapid gas expansion, and to use that gas expansion to propel a malleable alloy pellet down a rapidly vibrating, grooved tube and through open space with a consistent level of accuracy.

A gun is used to kill people - no
other purpose.

Again -- no. A gun may sometimes be used to kill another person, but any gun is far more likely to be used for recreation/stress relief by punching holes in paper, tin cans, charcoal briquets, clay pigeons, prickly pear cactus and general plinking targets -- not human beings. Hunting to put meat on the table is also a use of guns that far outshadows the use of guns to injure human beings.

LawDog

 

[Waterdog]

The guy works a for a debt collection agency.

Maybe he is one of the unfortunates, that have to physically collect some of these debts.

No wonder he dislikes firearms.

How about someone suggest that he read Lott/Klecks book.

Waterdog

 

[MAD DOG]

Not all South African are so sheepish.
I have a friend there that not only carries a knife and a gun EVERYWHERE, but he recently ran down a fleeing criminal with his Landrover.
2000 pound projectile doing about 30mph. Now that's stopping power...

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I really have a problem with the contention that guns are only for killling.

Individuals who live in this ignorance need to be informed that there is a major industry involved in strictly recreational shooting; guns made soley for the purpose of shooting paper, steel or "clay" targets and competition where millions of rounds are fired which are not even designed for killing.

 

[George Hill]

If he is so afraid when he is driving home - he should install the South African made Auto-Blaster... an On Board FLAMETHROWER device that shields the car in a wall of fire and ignites any and all those that are too close.

Clever people those South Africans...

 

[MatthewM]

Guy, all guns ARE made for killing. Some people just choose to bend them towards other entertaining uses.
---------
Several years ago I was receiving monthly updates on the SA situation via a somewhat underground online newspaper. The attrocities against whites there in the last few years are astounding. Whole families murdered nightly and once they are killed, their farms are confiscated by the new government.

Anyway, one of the leading outspoken proponents of overthrowing the old government is now dead. His wife lives within eye sight of the police station. Her home has a double fence with razor wire and dogs inside the fence. At last count she has had a home invasion robber three times and in two of those gang raped. She has written that she has changed her mind on supporting her husbands views............

South Africa will soon be a completely bankrupt and forgotten country.

 

[Deadman]

As a South African I would like to distance myself from that pathetic woose as quicly as possible, and I'm sure every other self respecting South African will do the same.

In South Africa you own a gun, there is no option. Unless you're suicidal I suppose.


Last week my mother recieved an email from a friend of hers who still lives in S.Africa. One of their long time friends , Kenny Scott , was shot and killed by black criminals, execution style, while he was on his knees pleading for his life.




Yes Patrick, its nice to pretend that you can be holier than thou, but criminals will kill you just as quickly as anyone else.

 

[Kharn]

And my anti-gun roommate from this past school year is visiting South African this winter as part of a semester abroad organized by the University of Delaware. I told him to stop in the local market and pick up an AK ASAP, but he believes he will be able to get by without a firearm or weapon of any type. Of course, he also denies that crime is as bad as it seems on the news, since the state doesnt publish crime reports, and our school assured him that crime was nothing to worry about...

Sorta like his buddy who wants to climb Mount Democrat in Colorado, without taking a gun, knife or other implement along to deal with the coyotes or mountain lions, since he is a strong believer in "animal rights" and that self defense is stupid. Too bad he's a skinny guy, he wont be able to feed a whole coyote pack.

I hope Darwin teaches them both a lesson, or at least gives them a good scare. Bio-chemists and Chemical engineers don't need both legs to do their jobs.

Kharn

 

[Zak Smith]

The saga continues:

Another person's response to patrick:

From: "Adrian Louw" <Adrian.Louw@eskom.co.za>
To: <patrickc@debtpack.com>

Hi Patrick

A friend forwarded your anti gun letter to me,
so thought I would let you know what thought
of it.

You seem concerned about crime and want to do
something, but you are very confused as to what
you can do.

Your answer is to focus the blame ironically,
on the only hope you have of protecting
yourself.....the gun.

The gun, my friend, is not the only weapon at
the criminal's disposal. If you take all guns
and throw them in the sea, you will only make
life easier for the criminal. His favourite
ways of intimidating his victims, are the silent
methods. Knives, bicycle spokes stuck through
lungs and many other methods far too gruesome to
elaborate on.

You feel frustrated and helpless because you
believe in some well meaning but inadequate
philosophies. Put all those impractical ideas
behind you. Look at guns as equalisers. That is
what they are. Crime can only dominate you when
you make yourself defenceless.

Some of Jesus's disciples carried swords, so it
is not unchristian to defend yourself.

It is better to die on your feet fighting, then
on your knees begging for mercy.

Equalise yourself.

Patrick's response to Adrian:

From: "Patrick Collins" <patrickc@debtpack.com>
To: "Adrian Louw" <Adrian.Louw@eskom.co.za>

Adrian

You can?t attack something and say it is wrong,
without providing a good alternative solution, so
I?m going to try and do so here. I?m a bit tired,
so I?m not sure how persuasive my argument will be
here. Seems okay.

To all the other people who are receiving this
email: I clicked the ?Reply All? button. If you
don?t want to hear me rant, click your ?Delete?
button now.

I dislike guns; I dislike every aspect of them.
Solution 1:
Remove all guns from our country. This won?t work
because our police would be totally ineffective at
implementing this ban. Guns would still be freely
(if illegally) available to the common criminal.

Solution 2:
Improve the police force, so that it can protect
society properly. People now have no need to
carry guns everywhere, thus they stop doing so.
This won?t work because government doesn?t care.
Or perhaps it does care, but doesn?t know what to
do. But, most likely, it doesn?t care.
Solution 3:
Create gun-free zones that are protected by
private security guards, employed by and paid for
by private citizens. When inside these gun free
zones, one can feel more secure because you are
protected. The only person who has a gun is the
security guard. But you still have guns, and now
you? re putting them into the hands of someone
else, a security guard! Well yes, but this
security guard?s job is to protect the people
inside the zone.
That is his only job. So now the only people
carrying guns are the people who have a very
good reason for carrying one. We can ensure that
these people are properly trained to use their
weapon and react to situations, because we know
who they are.
At present I walk through a shopping mall, and I
don?t know who might me carrying a gun. Who is a
danger to me? I don?t know. If the shopping mall
was a gun free zone, I would know exactly who was
carrying a weapon - the guy at the door, and
no-one else.
In this model, the only people carrying guns are
those whose job it is to provide security. You
may not simply carry a gun for self-defence. You
want to own a gun? Fine, leave it at home locked
away in a safe in case the government decides to
steal your land or something. Let experienced,
qualified, dedicated people provide the security
for us.

Patrick

PS: I?m not Christian. Although, I think in the
context you meant ?moral?. To the best of my
knowledge, I am moral. I agree it not immoral to
defend oneself.

And my reply to Patrick:

From: Zak Smith <zak@computer.org>
To: Patrick Collins <patrickc@debtpack.com>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:43:28PM +0200, Patrick Collins wrote:
> You can?t attack something and say it is wrong, without providing a good
> alternative solution, so I?m going to try and do so here. I?m a bit tired,
> so I?m not sure how persuasive my argument will be here.

This is an honest way to approach a problem, but I think we should
clarify "What is the problem?" first.

You are focussing on guns qua guns as THE problem. From what you have
written me, I contend that there are massive social, class, economic,
and political problems in South Africa. As a result, there is an
astronomical crime rate. Since guns are available (at least to the
criminals), they are freely used in the commission of crimes.

Guns are not the cause of the problem. I know this because there
are many countries that either allow people to have guns or whose
citizens have a *right* to own firearms (such as the USA) and their
crime rates are reasonable. The average citizen can walk down the
average street at night and not be in fear of attack.

For example, I live in Fort Collins, Colorado. I know that there are
many guns here. My neighbors have probably 4-10 sporting rifles.
Many of my co-workers own rifles and pistols too. We have active
shooting sports events here, such as IDPA, action pistol, three-gun,
etc. The County Sheriff even issues "concealed carry" permits to
law-abiding citizens, so we can legally carry a pistol concealed (as
to not alarm people).

Yet we have a very low crime rate. The reasons we have a low crime
rate are: medium-high average income, effective police force,
no "class" problems (eg: race), and most importantly, people are
generally civilized.

> I dislike guns; I dislike every aspect of them.

I approach this topic unabashedly from an American perspective. I
believe in freedom to the extent it does not infringe on others'
rights. I believe that no solution to an alleged problem is valid if
it infringes on my basic rights (those listed in our Bill of Rights),
my property rights, or unnecessarily on my liberty and freedom.

It is your prerogative to dislike guns for whatever reason you like.
When you transition to forcing certain behavior from *me*, you need
much more rigorous reasoning than your "feelings." In fact, if you
cannot conclude that *I* am doing something that directly infringes on
your rights, then you are not justified in attempting to restrict my behavior.

> Improve the police force, so that it can protect society properly. People
> now have no need to carry guns everywhere, thus they stop doing so. This
> won?t work because government doesn?t care. Or perhaps it does care, but
> doesn?t know what to do. But, most likely, it doesn?t care.

The freedom (or "right") to do something is not based on "need." I
have no "need" to own rifles and pistols, but I do because I am a free
person.

> Create gun-free zones that are protected by private security guards,
> employed by and paid for by private citizens. When inside these gun free
> zones, one can feel more secure because you are protected.

I guess you are free to do this on your own property.

> You may not simply carry a gun for self-defence.

It is immoral to prevent a person from effecting self-defense.

> You
> want to own a gun? Fine, leave it at home locked away in a safe in case the
> government decides to steal your land or something.

You are nobody to say what *I* can do. And your comment about
government stealing land further exposes the root problems in your
country.

> Let experienced,
> qualified, dedicated people provide the security for us.

So will I have my own personal security guard following my around as I
navigate the big bad world? Police, or security, cannot be
everywhere at once.

In the USA, we have a ubiquitous "911" emergency telephone system, but
the average response time is still around 20 minutes. If someone
attacks you, instead of being able to immediately defend yourself, you
will have to:

1. find a phone
2. dial 911
3. describe where you are and what the problem is
4. wait 10-20 minutes for them to show up, in the best case

It is common in cities, or when civil disturbance breaks out, or in
emergencies, that the "911" system is overloaded and basically nobody
can get through. I guess you're **** out of luck in that situation.

One of my friends lives out in the country. He has spoken to the
local police, and they said that, *best case*, it would take them
around 45 minutes to respond to an emergency call. H was advised to
be able to take care of problems himself, and call htem for "cleanup."

Furthermore, at least in the USA, the police have no legal obligation
to protect you! That's right! If you call them and say, "Someone is
attacking me" or "someone is breaking into my house" and you end up
being killed by the person before the police can respond, they are not
legally responsible. Thus I have the responsibility for my own safety.

> PS: I?m not Christian. Although, I think in the context you meant ?moral?.

For what it's worth, I am an atheist. I don't think the religous
aspect matters much in this debate.

regards
Zak

 

[ICBentley]

My answer?

Think of a relatively physically weak person who is dear to you: wife, daughter, mother, son etc.. Now imagine this loved one cowering in a corner while a burly, sadistic criminal breaks through the bedroom window with a baseball bat and a knife in hand.

Quick, would you rather your loved one live in a world without guns and be tortured, raped, murdered, or would you want your dear one to posses a gun and have a chance of killing the criminal invader?

I have known people who said they would rather die a horrible death than take the chance of killing another human being. I believed a few of them. I wonder if the world will be a better place when they have all sacrificed themselves in the name of non-violence.

I won't try to get you to like guns, or even obtain one for the defence of your loved ones or your self. I will ask you to refrain from bothering me about my choice in the matter.

By the way, if you rely on the police you are relying on men with guns. One who eats the steak is as bloody as the butcher.

Bentley

BTW, guns don't suck, if anything they blow (a projectile out the muzzle).

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

MatthewM,

I disagree with you. Most guns can be used to kill, but thousands are made expressly for the purpose of recreational use and not for killing. This includes most IPSC race guns, PPC revolvers and the Performance Center 627 I use in competition.

Some bullets are made expressly for killing capability, others are intentionally inefficient killers because their intended purpose is target shooting.

Kitchen knives are not far removed from their weapon ancestors, nor baseball bats from war clubs. They can both be used to kill, but were designed and built for other purposes.

I did not purchase any of my firearms for defense purposes, though they may serve that duty if needed. They most certainly would not be candidates for CCW. I feel that the shooting sports are better served in the mind of the general public if they are seen as being useful for healthy recreational purposes. We should not need excuses like self defense for enjoying the shooting sports.

 

[John Marshall]

Patrick's Solution 3 is quite possibly the most arrogant position one can take in a discussion of defense. How much money do you pay someone to DIE for you? How much would you charge someone to die for them? It would have to be enough to see to the needs of your family for the rest of their lives.

 

[paratrooper]

Some people are set in their ways . Me , for example will not risk a lot of money . A guy called me from my bank when my Money Market reached mid-5 figures . He had some very rewarding opportunities for my money with returns above the 6% I was getting . I told him that I was happy with my return and would continue to keep my money where it was . Getting 6% AND FDIC insured . Then he got stupid . He said " How can you be happy getting a crummy 6% on all that money ?" I then said that maybe he was right but since I did not know him could I hear the deal from his supervisor . He was only too happy to bring his boss into the conversation . I told the supervisor that the "crummy 6%" was in my "comfort zone" . He picked right up on what I was saying . He knew that his guy had insulted my position by calling it "crummy" . I never heard from them again .
The same goes for these people . If they consider guns to be killers then they must be allowed to stay that way . The problem is that when they gain numbers they might sway the laws against the 2nd Ammendment . What you MIGHT do to sway them somewhat is to put a loaded gun on the table in front of them and order it to kill them . When it fails to follow instructions you then smack them in the head with a baseball bat . This does one or both of two things . ONE: It shows that the gun is not the culprit and/or TWO: They might pick up the gun to prevent you from hitting them again . Ironic .

 

[WAGCEVP]

I sent this to the South Africa Pro Firearms Discussion list. Patrick's had heard from several pro gun fellow South Africans