Right to Arms, Self-Defense Debate a Universal Issue
Date: Dec 29, 2006 7:04 AM
FYI (copy below):
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?cde4e557-3773-42b1-a4a6-7229688f4b8f

************************************************************
Right to Arms, Self-Defense Debate a Universal Issue
By Joseph P. Tartaro, 12/26/2006 11:31:16 PM

There is universality to the firearms and self-defense
debate that surfaces in almost every country of the world.
The debates over public policy in each country sound very
similar to those we experience in the United States.

Perhaps that is because the issues are universal: people
everywhere can debate the moral and social arguments for
arming the good people against the threat of the evil ones
who seem to be everywhere.

The British have pretty much outlawed not only guns but
self-defense and crime has skyrocketed. As a result there
are recent reports of members of Parliament who would revise
the laws in an attempt to re-balance the scales in the
battle between good and evil. It may not happen very soon,
but the debate in Britain is shifting back to serious
discussions about establishing some rules to allow people to
defend themselves against the criminals who ignore all laws.
In Canada, the debate which was once closed has also
reopened.

The debate continues. It doesn?t seem to matter if it is
about allowing the residents of Washington, DC, to have
loaded guns in their homes for defense against the predatory
criminals who prey on everyone in the national capital, or
about the people in some foreign country.

For example, The Manila Times in the Philippines reported at
the end of November that businessmen in that country are
opposed to a proposed ban on firearms for the protection of
private citizens and shopkeepers.

The newspaper reported that Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.
recently proposed a gun ban, saying the availability of guns
has greatly contributed to that nation?s crime wave.

He also rejected the reasoning that criminality will be
prevented by allowing the ordinary civilians to possess and
carry their licensed firearms.

Arming civilian volunteers would increase the number of guns
in the hands of the unscrupulous ones, he explained, in an
argument that is very familiar to Americans.

But The Times reported a group of ?landed businessmen,? led
by Andy Feria, who claims to represent responsible
gunowners, say that depriving them of guns would make them
defenseless in the face of criminalities and terrorism.

Feria said crime and terrorist activities are a daily
occurrence in the cities, provinces and towns of the
Philippines, despite the low volume of guns and other
firearms in the hands of the citizens.

He said Pimentel is not in touch with reality, giving false
hopes that the police would be there on the streets and
residences to give security and protection 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.

?The police are not personal body guards. Rather, they act
as general deterrents to crimes by their presence and by
apprehending criminals after the fact. They have no legal
obligation to protect anyone in particular,? he said.

Sound familiar? Citing government records, Feria said the
police to population ratio is 1 to 715 on the actual
Philippine National Police strength of 114,881, considering
some are assigned to clerical work.

?Civilians, therefore, are aware that the response time of
the police usually takes a few minutes, if not hours, while
an intruder in a house can reach their victim in seconds,?
he said.

Feria also debunked Pimentel?s proposal to ban carrying of
firearms outside of residences. He said that as of 2006, 35
states (sic) and a majority of ?civilized? Americans live in
?right-to-carry? states, and in each, the crime rates fell
after the law became active. States that disallow the
carrying of firearms outside of residences, in contrast,
have crime rates of 11% higher than the national average.

He noted that in America, an estimated 60 to 85 million
households own a firearm. Every year, people in the United
States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals at
an estimated 2.5 million times?more than 6,500 people a day,
or once in every 13 seconds.

?Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than
to take lives. Often times, the gun is never fired and no
blood (including the criminal?s) is shed. For every
accidental death, suicide or homicide with firearms, 10
lives are saved through defensive use,? Feria added.

He also said, according to The Manila Times, that European
?civilized? countries like Switzerland have some of the
lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all
able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a
military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other
equipment in their dwellings.

Feria said a gun ban is not a guarantee that terrorists and
criminals will cease from harming civilians, adding, ?These
people live by violence and cannot live without guns.?

Whether in the US, the Pacific Rim, South America, Africa,
Europe or India, the argument is almost the same and the
selective reporting and coloring of news reports is reflect
in the arguments.

For example, some recent crime reports from Atlanta, GA-area
TV stations focused on an all too common self-defense
shooting. However, the headline reflected some of the bias
against self-defense.

?Pizza delivery driver kills teenager,? was the headline.
Here?s the rest of the story from WXIA and KSDK:

?A pizza delivery man says he feared for his life when he
shot and killed an Atlanta teenager on Sunday night (Nov.
26).

?The delivery man says the teen and two others robbed and
threatened to shoot him when he went to make a delivery at
the Huntingwood Point Apartments off Campbellton Road in
southwest Atlanta.

?Zahid Mahmood says this is the third time he has been
robbed while delivering pizzas for Super Crown Pizza. The
first time in 2004, he says he was pistol-whipped by the
robber. The second time he says he was ambushed in June
2006.

?The 44-year-old Mahmood has a state license that allows him
to carry a handgun. He says he has had the gun for years,
but says Sunday night was the first time he had ever used
his weapon.

?He says he was walking back to his car after dropping off a
pizza at an apartment, when three young men approached him,
demanded his money and car keys, and ordered him to walk
away.

?Mahmood says he did what they told him, but he says that
wasn?t enough. He says one of them followed him, and
insisted he hand over his cell phone. He says that at that
point, he thought his life was on the line.

? ?He was posing under his jacket like a gun,? Mahmood said.
?He showed me and said that he would shoot me if won?t give
him my cell phone. I said, ?Okay, hold on, I?ll give you my
cell phone.? And I grabbed my gun and instead of my cell
phone, I pulled my gun out, and then I shot?just to hurt
him, that he could get away from there.? ?

?Mahmood says he fired a total of three shots, one of which
hit and killed 14-year-old Kenyatta Calhoun. The other two
young men at the scene got away, according to police.

?Police have referred the case to the Fulton County District
Attorney?s office, so prosecutors can decide whether or not
to file any charges against Mahmood, who insists he acted in
self-defense,? the news reports concluded.

What will happen to Mahmood in the future remains to be
seen. But the fact that the he had been robbed and beaten
in the past and his life was threatened by three street
thugs is more important than the fact that one of the thugs
who was 14 years old had his criminal career cut short. The
media?s focus on the fact that he was 14 is just another way
of coloring the universal debate.

Joseph P. Tartaro is the Executive Editor of Gun Week
magazine. See more columns at http://ww.gunweek.com

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !