Tuesday, November 30, 2010
To be free is to be legally armed
JOHANNESBURG : Sonny Cox : 28:30
I have thought hard and deeply about the government and certain elements such as gun free South Africa's agenda to remove firearms from the hands of the private citizens of South Africa. My feelings are expressed in the attachment having spent many years working in a very violent and crime ridden environment.
"To carry a firearm Is Civililised"
As the South Africa government is attempting to disarm the South African public through the draconian laws imposed on the issuing of firearm licenses to its citizens. I offer you a simple example of the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilised society.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via discussion, argument, or to force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilised society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade and convince me, because being armed, I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force should you decide to use force against me.
The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 65 Kg woman on equal footing with a 105 Kg mugger, a 75-year old pensioner on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with chains, broken bottles and baseball bats. The firearm removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the firearm as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilised if all firearms were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislation, it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential victims are armed and prepared to meet force with force.
People who argue for the banning of firearms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilised society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that a firearm makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without firearms involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury to the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a split and bloody lip at worst. The fact that a firearm makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the playing field is level.
The firearm is the only weapon that is as lethal in the hands of a frail 80 year man or woman as it is in the hands of a 150 kg young weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equaliser if it was not both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It does not limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would wish to do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilised act.
Therefore the greatest civilisation is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Comments by Sonny
If a governments wants to disarm its citizens it means one thing only - Dictatorship and one party State.
Zimbabwe is a fine example of this lawlessness!
Yes, I've seen it all!
It has come to our attention that SAPS are contacting people to submit outstanding documents to applications for renewals which have been handed in some time ago (i.e. during the five administrative periods set aside for renewals of 1969 licences). This is no doubt because of the Minister of Police’s recent press statements which indicated that the challenges experienced with the administrative process of firearm licensing will be rectified.
There are, however, also instances where it has come to our attention that SAPS members are now putting pressure on applicants to submit outstanding documents at a specific date or the applications of these people will be cancelled.
Two instances are known where this has happened. The first at Kimberley in last month, and the second recently at Germiston. At Kimberly people were instructed to hand in outstanding documents by 13 November or their applications would be cancelled. At Germiston people have been instructed that if they do not submit outstanding documents by 30 November their applications will be cancelled.
There is no way the SAPS can cancel a legally submitted and accepted application for which any monies were paid (so ascertain that your receipts are kept in a safe place). Only a court of law can do that and then also only for very good reason which the SAPS have to submit.
However, we also advise that you should not unnecessary delay the handing in of such outstanding documents the SAPS may ask, as this only delays the evaluation of your renewal applications.
If there are instances where the SAPS inform you that your applications have been cancelled because of you not handing in documents at a specific time, we request you to please inform the office immediately with the particulars of the specific issue, of the name of the station and the name of the SAPS official who made the statement.
If you would need legal advice on this matter, feel free to contact the association’s lawyer, Mr Juan Kotze at 011 892 1018 or at firstname.lastname@example.org
Be sure to be safe this festive season.