> On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> What an absurd statement. Look at the natural world - "nature, red
> in tooth and claw" and all that. One of the first human uses of tools
> (if not *the* first) was probably some ape picking up a stick and beating
> the shit out of another ape with it.
Just because you do something doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to
do it. In my opinion no one (everything included, even government, etc. ...
-- no exceptions) should have the right to bear arms, but being pragmatic I
have to admit that this is a great dream, not reality. I'd really like to be a
pacifist, but this would be not very compatible the world we live in. What
makes me nervous is people who carry weapons "for fun", because "it's cool" or
to lengthen their dick (or whatever may apply here). These are often not very
clever and have no idea what damage a weapon may cause. This trigger happy
attitude of people not aware of the responsibility when carrying a weapon has
caused and will cause severe "damage", just think of the numerous stories of
people who shot others because they mistook them for burglars, thiefs, etc.
IIRC the victims were often members of the own family. These cases are rare
here in Germany due to our restrictive weapon laws, so one has to think about
what will reduce violence -- weapons for everyone or weapons for noone? I'm
not quite sure, but comparing numbers I'd rather apply for "weapons for
noone".
[snip]
> > In my eyes, a society that has learnt how to live with firearms, that has
> > the freedom to use them but also is responsible enough not to, is a quite
> > advanced society compared with the one who just "nannies" their citizens
> > and takes the matches away because they might get burnt.
>
> Precisely. The hands-off, expect-people-to-be-responsible attitude
> of the USA govt (however bastardized it may have become recently) is actually
> considerably more advanced than most other first-world governments have
An "expect-people-to-be-responsible attitude" is not very advanced if you
_see_ that a considerable big part of the people aren't. Having this attitude
regarding to weapons and another one regarding to sexuality and/or nudity
(CDA) (or other issues, this was only the most obvious example) is
hypocritical. Having laws which tell me how I may have sex with my wife and
how not (I've been told that some US states have such laws, correct me if I'm
wrong) is plain stupid.
> become yet. It produces chaos, noise, mess and the odd schoolyard
> massacre, yes. It has also produce *by far* the world's most dynamic,
> vibrant and progress-oriented culture.
You cannot seriously want to tell me that any progress you may have (or not
-- whether this is true or not may be discussed somewhere else) results from
having the constitutional right to carry a weapon.
[snip]
> > > The Australian society has grown up and realised that a society
> > > without guns is a far safer society.
>
> Even if this were true (which it is not), who says that safety is
> the most important thing in the world? I sure as hell don't. ike
> Heinlein said, "you can have peace or freedom but not both at once". I
> prefer freedom, thank you very much.
Typical black and white way of thinking. You always have a certain amount of
freedom and a certain amount of security. You'll never have 100 percent of
freedom or 100 percent of security and it's always a compromise between the
two. Here where I live I'm quite glad with the compromise we have here,
because I've got least hazzle with it. Living somewhere else this might be
different, you must consider the society in which you live.
[snip]
> > and if someone is
> > carrying one he is a criminal for sure.. but I can't see the difference in
> > being killed by a gun and being killed by a knife.
>
> If someone mugs you with a gun, they can keep a safe (to them)
> distance from you and ask you to toss over your wallet. If they just have a
> knife, they'll have to close with you and hold the knife to your throat or
> back to get the same effect. The result is that you are a LOT more likely to
> get hurt or killed when being mugged by someone with a knife. I'd prefer to
> get mugged with a gun any day of the week, if I had to get mugged at all.
It bears a lot less danger to attack someone with a gun, people have a higher
inhibition threshold if they're to attack someone with a knife than if they're
to attack someone with a gun from safe distance.
[snip]
> Not for some people. Already whenever I speak up about my interest
> in martial arts training in a group of people, odds are that someone will say
> something like "why do you want to learn a martial art? Do you want to beat
> people up?". The mindset is that personal violence is a universally bad
> thing. I do not agree. Initiatory violence is bad. Retaliatory or
> defensive violence is a fundamental human right.
>
> > Yes, I would feel safer carrying a gun, _and_ having recieved training.
> > In fact, in a society where you can carry firearms, it'd be a must to
> > receive this training, the same way it's a must to know how to read/write.
>
> Switzerland is like that, IIRC. Every adult male must serve in the
> military, learn how to use a gun correctly, and keep an automatic(?) weapon
> in their house for use in defending the Swiss border if needed.
And you seldom hear of any Swiss people abusing their (sic!) automatic weapons
they got to defend the country. Quite different from the US, huh?
[snip]
Nils
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nils Philippsen @college: nils@fht-esslingen.de Vogelsangstrasse 115 @home: nils@wombat.dialup.fht-esslingen.de D 70197 Stuttgart phone: +49-711-6599405 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe I should patent stupidity so every lawyer will owe me BIG !! (mpare/at/cadvision/dot/com)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/