Quatermass wrote:
A little qualifier here. I do not mind people of sound mind using guns for self defence or hunting. Problem is, they will fall into the hands of people who don't realise they aren't a toy (ie kids, but controllable with either a gun cabinet or a condom, hahahaha), who do not know what taking a human life entails, or using guns right (nutters, again controllable), or just who do not give a damn (criminal element, only controllable to a small degree).
I know. The problem is, that if you have gun laws, and a gun register, they can come and get your guns very easily. A man in my neighbourhood protested against a new highway that was supposed to be built through his ground (and later was). He did it in an absolutely legal way. He fought the authorities in court and actually had the construction of the road stopped for a long time. But in the end he lost, as people use to do when they fight authorities in cases like this. He accepted the court's decision. He didn't threaten the court, the police or any other authority. However, on the very day that he was supposed to leave his house according to the court's decision, the police came and took his guns (a couple of hunting rifles), despite the fact that he hadn't threaten to use them illegally. After he had left his house, he got them back. But why did they take them in the first place, from a man who had fought for his property in court, as it was his right to do, when he hadn't made any threats or opposed the court order? As far as I know, they're weren't even allowed to do what they did, even if he got his guns back immediately after.
In 1940, when the Germans invaded Norway, they simply went home to any gun owner who wasn't a quisling and took his guns, at least his pistols. Low capacity hunting rifles were still allowed, though, if I remember corecctly. The Germans could do so, because Norway had a national gun register. Do you get my point? In a country with a national gun register a foreign enemy or a domestic dictator can just go home and take peoples guns, whereas in the US, they wouldn't know who were gun owners or not. They would either make controls
on random or go through every home in the country, and they could never be sure that the people wouldn't fight back at them.
Guns would therefore, in my opinion, be totally free. The one who out of ignorance makes it possible for a minor to wound or kill himself, should be severly punished, though. That also goes for "adult" people that themselves wound or kill people out of ignorance or on purpose, if it isn't self defence.
Quatermass wrote:
There is also a disparity of skill, etc, Litigious, between a civilian who knows how to use a gun, and a trained soldier. A soldier is also less likely to think twice about shooting someone. Imagine a group of armed civilians versus an equal group of armed soldiers. The odds tend to favour the soldiers, although, of course, I'm not saying it is impossible for a civilian group to win.
I know. I wouldn't personally hesitate to shoot a criminal or a soldier that made himself a tool of an oppressor, but that doesn't go for most people, not even Swedes with a license or Americans that are intelligent and responsible gun owners.
Quatermass wrote:
But remember this Litigious. A soldier follows orders. A civilian does not have to. Therefore, a civilian can have more potential in any despotic dystopia that you can think of than any group of soldiers, even if they are unarmed. How do you think the Molotov Cocktail came to be made? These were civilians (being bombed by "Molotov picnic baskets") who were able to fight against tanks with a bottle, a rag, and petrol.
I know. Our neighbours the Finns did so very successfully in WWII, until the Finnish Gulf froze, and the Russians could attack them in the back.
Quatermass wrote:
And may I ask, how, in any despotic environment, you would get a military rifle and a sack of pineapples? Do you even consider the logistics of doing so? You'd be lucky to find any lying about, and we know that there would be only three other ways:
1. From a dead soldier, or a live one killed by you (get 'em while they're Freeeeeeessssshhh!)
2. From a supply depot (very risky. You could end up with a hole in your head or abdomen. Very inconvenient)
3. Black market, which would have to use the above supply methods, and I doubt that, if you were in any mindset to resist a despotic government, you may have enough relative currency, whether it be money, gold, jewels, or collectable porno mags.
The irony of it all is, that criminals in this country can get booth military rifles and grenades today. The police found an American Ingram just a couple of miles from where I'm writing this, near a playground. It most probably belonged to a drug dealer. Neonazis have machine guns and bazookas. Therefore, military arms should be legal to buy for law abiding civilians, so the odds are made equal so to speak. In a despotic environment I would have no problem with taking a gun from a dead enemy (or dictator abiding) soldier. He was just a tool for injustice, just like his arms. If I'd be desperate enough and didn't have a chance to survive otherwise, I would have no moral problems with killing such a soldier to get hold of his guns.
Quatermass wrote:
As I have said before, I do not deny your right to have a gun in self-defence. Self-defence can be separate from gun ownership, but you seem set. However, think of the likelihood of your country and mine becoming despotic. It is closer with these new anti-terror laws, but it isn't close enough to warrant full concern, at least in Australia, Sweden (I think) and the UK. The US, however, well I need to say only two phrases of two words each: PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo Bay.
I agree and I disagree. I don't feel sorry for fanatic muslim lunatics going to prison (concentration?) camps for acts of terror. On the other hand, Osama and Saddam were Americas "friends" as long as they surved their purposes. That's hypocracy
par excellence. The idiot G.W. Bush even let members of Osama's family leave the US
after 9/11 2001 even without interrogating them!! ! The "Patriotic act" is totally wrong and goes against everything that America stands for from my point of view, i.e., the "real" America, the America that the Founding Fathers wanted.
But yes, it is much more unlikely for Sweden, UK and Australia to become dictatorships. For the moment.
_________________
Let come what will, I'll try it on,
My condition can't be worse;
And if there's money in that box,
'Tis munny in my purse.
28 Sep 2006, 10:33 pm
