A lesson from the Third World about the value of gun control


PDA






Desertdog
October 12, 2005, 03:24 PM
A lesson from the Third World about the value of gun control
By DEAN MUNDY
http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=10/12/2005


I'm sort of an anomaly: a conservative who doesn't own a gun.

You read that right. Not one gun. I've never owned a gun, nor do I plan on owning a gun in the future.

I've never really felt the need to own one. I don't hunt. I'm not in law enforcement. I don't live on a farm where I might need one for varmints.

I'm not involved in anything else where a gun might be needed. I've never felt the need to own one for self-defense. I've shot guns at targets or for practice once or twice, but that's about it.

Part of the reason is that for most of 18 years, I lived in Papua New Guinea, a Third World country that has very strict gun control laws. One expatriate was kicked out for having a pellet gun. Yeah, a pellet gun. They didn't want any guns at all. Period.

You would think in this country that had very strict controls on who could own guns that there would be little violence, right?

Wrong. Their murder rate is twice that of the United States. And guess who had the guns? Sometimes not even the police because the criminals would steal them!

Many leaders here locally have been decrying gun violence, and rightly so. They have instituted gun buyback programs and called for stricter gun control laws hoping that this would cut down on the killings.

But will that curb the violence? It didn't work in Papua New Guinea. It doesn't seem to work elsewhere, either.

Take Washington, D.C. In spite of some of the toughest gun control laws on record, it has one of the highest homicide rates.

Furthermore, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." These laws included banning weapons or ammunition, restrictions or waiting periods on acquisition, or any combination of the various programs including buy-backs.

I know it seems almost counterintuitive, so let me repeat it. The CDC report said that none of the measures commonly called for to end gun-related crimes necessarily accomplished that purpose.

To be honest, we must realize that the report didn't say there was no evidence that gun control measures worked. It merely said that there was insufficient evidence that gun control measures worked.

But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be able to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs or laws work. But there is none.

Some people have also criticized proponents of a newly introduced concealed-carry law. They insist that this will open the door to even more gun violence.

But will it? The fact of the matter is that in spite of having no concealed-carry law, many people still carry guns. What good will any gun control law do in these situations? None.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.

But the old adage is still true. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Until we reach a point where people cease resorting to violence, killings will continue to take place, no matter how strict the gun control laws.

Lots of solutions have been proposed: more jobs, graduating more people from high school, getting guns off the street, stricter prison sentences. If you ask 10 people, you'll get 11 solutions.

The most popular solution by far is controlling guns.

Add to that the fact that a concealed-carry law is back in the news and gun control advocates are upset. They insist this will only add to the problem.

Dean Mundy of Waukesha is a self-employed missionary with New Tribes Mission. His e-mail address is thoughtfulconservative@gmail.com

If you enjoyed reading about "A lesson from the Third World about the value of gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fourays2
October 12, 2005, 05:23 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.


sorry bud, that stupid statement just blew any credibilty or common sense I credited you with.

Walt Rauch
October 12, 2005, 05:50 PM
I suggest not being so quick to, in effect, condemn. For a missionary with, arguably a certain mind set that may well not include the use of arms, to come forth with what he has, allow him to use some mental "salve" to put on his brand new wound of enlightenment.

(The impersonality and anonymity of INTERNET forums, as I see it, allows these sort of snap judgment/statement that might well not be uttered in a face to face discussion.)

Standing Wolf
October 12, 2005, 06:44 PM
I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.

Only better people should be allowed to have guns, and only the better guns, too. Much more aristocratic that way.

torpid
October 12, 2005, 06:58 PM
Statement by Mr. Dean Mundy:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.

Rebuttal by... Mr. Dean Mundy:

But surely, in all the studies that have been undertaken, we should be able to see at least some conclusive evidence somewhere that these programs or laws work. But there is none.

:rolleyes:

R.H. Lee
October 12, 2005, 06:58 PM
Apparently the 'cannibal culture' doesn't have a lot to offer.

fourays2
October 12, 2005, 07:05 PM
I suggest not being so quick to, in effect, condemn. For a missionary with, arguably a certain mind set that may well not include the use of arms, to come forth with what he has, allow him to use some mental "salve" to put on his brand new wound of enlightenment.

(The impersonality and anonymity of INTERNET forums, as I see it, allows these sort of snap judgment/statement that might well not be uttered in a face to face discussion.)

OK then, please explain to me how the AWB was either common sense or a solution.

Dmack_901
October 12, 2005, 07:13 PM
Don't flame the guy. For growing up in a country that was so strict and apparently full of propaghanda, it's suprising to see him support any guns at all. Eventually, if he keeps looking into the information he'll see that "assault" weapons are no more dangerous than other weapons. But if people call his common sense stupidity, it's not going to help anyone.

(lol, I keep thinking that the the poster, in this case DesertDog, wrote the article)

torpid
October 12, 2005, 07:24 PM
But if people call his common sense stupidity, it's not going to help anyone.

I don't think that people are having problems with Mr. Dean's positions that are based in actual common sense.

It's the ones that he calls "common sense" solutions that are a bit suspect to some of us, especially considering his other points.

.

Desertdog
October 12, 2005, 08:05 PM
(lol, I keep thinking that the the poster, in this case DesertDog, wrote the article)
Sorry, I am not able to write an article like that.

Actually, I think that the 2nd Amendment should rule. If it's a firearm the citizen should be able to own it with no restrictions. AWBs, MGs, sawed of shot guns, the whole bit. To go with the privilage of owning them goes the responsibility of ownership, and the illegal use would call for stiff penalties.

Derby FALs
October 12, 2005, 08:17 PM
He lives in a country with a murder rate double of the USA and doesn't see any reason to own a gun? :what:

Baba Louie
October 12, 2005, 08:33 PM
Mr. Mundy's common sense and my common sense don't seem to jive for some strange reason.
It's a good thing that we have not yet run into the Missionaries Converting HeadHunting Natives for Sensible Gun Control here in the US. The next thing you know they'll be making sales & ownership of large Missionary Boiling Kettles illegal as well. ;) Well maybe they should just register those who own and buy the darned things... right?

I wonder how he feels about the dreaded Assault Blowgun?

Bobarino
October 12, 2005, 08:34 PM
Fourays2 beat me to it.

I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.

yup, that did it. made me immediately think i was reading a moderate liberal trying to pass themselves off as a conservative in disguise. BS.

Bobby

artherd
October 12, 2005, 08:48 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example.

This guy needs to actually touch and shoot an assault weapon, then touch and shoot a Browning BAR Safari in .338WinMag :)

Amusetec
October 13, 2005, 12:19 AM
Isn't it strange how many people pretend to say they are inteligent and know the constitution and BoR. Then they show they have no Idea what it says or means. And refuses to learn and when someone tells them and shows them they still call you names. :what: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:
The second admendment was not writen for huntin' or sports shootin. It is there for protection from BG either civilian or government.
Protection from government is the #1 reason the framers put it in.

What part of shall not be infringed on do they not understand.
or shall make no law. 1st. they have even messed up that one too.
Taking the 10 admindments out of the state houses is unconstitutional.
I do not care what the SC says read the framers intent. The Feds are not suppose to make a law for or against religion.
That is a states right. periond that goes all the way back to the 1600's.

cracked butt
October 13, 2005, 02:11 AM
A guy who is not a gun owner writes a condemnation of gun control gets crucified because of a few cherry picked lines in his column? Only at the THR :rolleyes:

Here's where it was originally published in the editorial section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel which mostsly contains crap by Leonard Pitts, Maureen Dowd, EJ Dionne. http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/362372.asp

Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 09:25 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should open the floodgates and let any kind of person buy any kind of gun. I believe in any common-sense solution. Assault weapons bans, for example. A guy who is not a gun owner writes a condemnation of gun control gets crucified because of a few cherry picked lines in his column? Only at the THR This is why I strongly prefer interactive media (like talk radio, forum boards (like THR), and blogs that allow comments to be posted). The old-fashioned "one way" media (TV, NPR, newspapers) are not effective for public debate any more.

If the author of the column could be called directly on the hypocracy of his statement, he would be able to reconsider or explain why he clings to this one aberrent belief.

cuchulainn
October 13, 2005, 09:32 AM
I believe in any common-sense solution. The phrase common sense usually is a preemptive ad hominem attack.

cracked butt
October 13, 2005, 11:43 AM
This is why I strongly prefer interactive media (like talk radio, forum boards (like THR), and blogs that allow comments to be posted). The old-fashioned "one way" media (TV, NPR, newspapers) are not effective for public debate any more

Yup. I pretty much only read the fish wrappers when I have nothing else to read. The guy probably doesn't know the difference between an 'assault weapon' and a machine gun, and even at that probably doesn't understand anything about the purposes of each, most likely because he has never been eduacated by anyone. He's at least smart enough to draw the same conclusions from his observations of strict gun control that most of us have a long time ago. I have relatives and inlaws that own guns and have stronger antigun stances than the author of the article.

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 12:45 PM
The thrust of the guy's article is that bad people do bad things, and that gun control laws don't work. There, he's 100% righteous. Why focus on the AW comment, a minor part of his article?

To support his central thesis, I recommend reading Wright/Rossi/Daly's "Under the Gun", Univ. of Fla. press, 1985. A central conclusion was that in Florida, no gun control law ever passed by the legislature, or any federal gun control law, had ever affected the rate of violent crime.

Art

3rdpig
October 13, 2005, 12:57 PM
From his article he strikes me as someone who's been using his emotions to solve problems and finally opened his eyes and started using his brain for what it was designed for, gathering and processing information and coming to logical conclusions. Good for him, but you can see from the AWB remark that he hasn't totally given up on using emotion for something it wasn't designed for, solving problems.

But he's taken a step forward that he'll never be able to take back. Logic is addictive.

boofus
October 13, 2005, 01:08 PM
Here in the US there is only 1 class of weapons that are required to be registered under federal law (NFA Title II weapons). The gun grabbers got all the 'common sense' regulations they wanted->
1) ATF approval of every transfer
2) Owner registration and licensing
3) Taxing of manufacture and transfer

And after they get all the 'common sense' what do they do? They ban registration in 1986 to create a de facto ban on MGs. They also heap more restrictions onto an already stifling pile of regulations. Remember that stupid Klinton AWB? It effected already registered guns, no magazines/belts could be produced for those guns and you could not mount a registered suppressor on any new rifle.

The liberals will never ever stop at just 'common sense'. 'Common sense' always leads to a complete gun ban and in the case of MachineGuns you can see it clearly.

"You just have to pay the tax to own a MG. Oh by the way we made it so you can't pay the tax, but we didn't really ban the guns!" :barf:

They did a similar ploy in Washington DC. Require all handguns be registered to be legal. Then quit registering new ones. It's also what is happening in South Africa currently.

mondocomputerman
October 13, 2005, 02:37 PM
He's with New Tribes Mission. I am very familliar with that orginization. I don't agree with all of his views. I have friends from that mission In Papua New Guinea. The only thing they can have is flare guns.

New Tribes itself isn't against guns. In fact I shoot on their property often.

With time he might come around.

one-shot-one
October 13, 2005, 02:58 PM
maybe, being a guy who does not own & never will own a gun he is thinking of some of the same people i do when he made the flood gates remark. i have met some folks who i would not want to see with ready access to weapons either but i am not nor do i want to be "the" one to decide who is who, niether do i want you ( not directed to any one specific) to be.
Art i think maybe folks are jumping on the "small" comment because it makes the guy look like the one standing between two large groups that are mad at each other and tries to thow the one he doesn't agree with a bone, this just tends to make both groups mad at him.

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 06:35 PM
one-shot-one, you could well be correct. :) The thing for me, though, is that a lot of folks here in the U.S. who'd get all heated over the idea of their pistol or hunting rifle taken away would--and did--have no objection to the AW ban.

Name-calling doesn't bring those folks over to our more hard-core side.

So, if I see some guy who's headed my way, generally, in an argument, I'd rather throw him a life preserver than an anchor.

:), Art

torpid
October 13, 2005, 08:26 PM
People are bringing up the AWB quote because the article's message comes off as:

"People, stop acting on emotion and rhetoric. Open your eyes and look at real statistics. Feel good and knee-jerk gun laws simply don't work in curbing violence... oh, except for those common sense assault weapons bans- statistics be damned, we all just know the streets would obviously run red without them".

He puts forth a good point, and then doesn't bother to apply it to his obvious (though for the sake of kid gloves- naive) prejudice.

I salute his gun law/crime "awakening", but maybe he needs some stronger coffee- he still seems a bit groggy there.
:)

If you enjoyed reading about "A lesson from the Third World about the value of gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!