extropy@denisbider.com wrote:
>
> [I apologize if this message appears twice - I originally posted the message
> with a "from" field other than what I am subscribed as, and it didn't appear
> on the mailing list in the past two hours, so I am reposting.]
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > Another scenario: Drug dealer gets arrested, and
> > cuts a deal by providing the 'address' to his supplier,
> > which is actually the home of a law abiding individual.
> > Police raid the house with a swat team, shoot first and
> > ask questions later, the occupant being unable to defend
> > themselves.
>
> I have to say I don't really understand this paranoia of yours.
>
> In normal countries like where I live ;-), nobody has a gun. Only licensed
> hunters, police officers and army officers are allowed to have weapons. If
> anyone else wants to have a weapon, it's a tough procedure to get it - among
> other things, you have to get a license and register with the government,
> and you can be quite sure you won't get a license if you have any kind of
> criminal record. Without a license, no purchase possible.
>
So in your "normal country" you are totally at the mercy of your
government. Are you sure this is a fine idea? You are also at the
mercy of any young tough you can't outfight or outrun until your legal
protectors get there when you are accosted. Is this such a good thing?
Do you need a lesson from history of what has happened in many countries
where the citizens did not have guns or had their guns confiscated?
>
> Sure, the police can "raid your house with a swat team, shoot first and ask
> questions later". But it doesn't happen; we simply don't have a national
> culture of shooting each other. The police very rarely use their weapons,
> even in extreme cases, and each bullet is accounted for. And that's even
> with our police being somewhat corrupt - there are reports that some of them
> take bribes to allow some people to do things they shouldn't, but I haven't
> heard of a police officer to shoot a person that is anything less than an
> arrogant, widely known and notorious criminal.
>
Ah, but it does happen and it has happened in nations with all manner of
"culture". Are you really counting on rules of good sportsmanship to
always protect you?
> So, I don't think America's aversion against banning guns has any rational
> structure at all. There is no need to buy them back. There is no need to be
> easy on guns. You just ban them, instate a heavy fine on owning illegal
> weapons, and that's it. Give everyone a year or two to get used to the fact,
> and the problem is solved.
>
No, it isn't. Whether you believe it or not people do have an innate
right to defend themselves if they so choose. And some of us will fight
by all means, including force of arms, to never give up that right. Do
you think that your belief in banning guns justifies and trumps our
belief that you are dead wrong? On what basis? Demonstrate to me your
perfect logic that strips me of my right to disagree and to have the
means to protect myself and those I consider it my duty to protect the
best I can. And if in the end we still disagree then come around
yourself and try to take my guns away. Don't send some poor underpaid
flatfoot to do it for you. In the end your type of folks will not do
the dirty work themselves but rely on those who by force of arms on
threat of death come around and take away my nasty old arms. Don't you
see what is wrong with that?
> In particular, your argument about someone protecting themselves with a gun
> while the police "raid his house with a swat team" is, well, far off. I
> think your swat teams are expert enough that no one will survive shooting
> back against them. If they want to shoot you, they can do it anyway -
> pretending a gun provides any real protection against the police is an
> illusion. The only thing you might be able to do with it is kill a few good
> police officers before they put a bullet in your head for doing so.
>
Ah, so now your argument is that we can't really hope to ever win if the
government goons decide to come after us anyway so you may as well just
give up from the beginning heh? How enlightening. How uplifiting.
NOT. And what about the non-government goons who are amateurs looking
for easy (unharmed) marks? Do you believe we should just give up to
them also? You are right about one thing. We can't take on the
federales in open conflict and win. But that does not mean that we
should go defenseless or that being armed is no deterrent at all. Even
the Nazis would have slowed down a little bit in dragging people from
their homes if enough of them had guns and fought back. Do not
underestimate the deterrent value of armed people fighting for their
lives and their homes.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT