Right to Arms, Self-Defense Debate a Universal Issue
December 20, 2006

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

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.
Return to Archive Index