From: Karsten Bander <Karsten.Baender@ivm.de>
>A long time ago (I has my winter vacation and am now drowning in
>nearly 2000 mails),
Judging from the content of this post, you can expect a few more.
>A government has no "interest" in redistributing your money. A
>government is not some evil villain trying to rob you. It is an
>institution based on the common will of those assembled under it's
>power, intended to promote such social and political goals as
>"justice", "peace" and to balance the forces of the so called
>"free market". A government is someone elected by you to provide
>you with certain services you select to vote for. This is why you
>have to pay taxes, cause the government won't be able to provide
>this for nothing.
You apparently live under a completely different government than here in the U.S. Our taxes were never voted in, and must be paid at the threat of armed people showing up on our doorsteps. Questionable services are constantly inflicted on us without any vote what-so-ever, most are some sort of wealth redistribution scheme.
We are periodicaly drafted to serve in the military. and sent off to forsaken places for bad political reasons. While there we are subject to dumbass decisions made by the same dumbass politicians, who conviently have never served themselves.
Actually I enlisted U.S.M.C. when I was 17 so exclude me, but I still think the draft is the most evil thing our republic has.
I'll leave the economics 101 lesson to Michael.
>Police force is necessarry, as you will never be able to
>distinguish between a bad guy and a goog guy carrying a gun. If
>you carry a gun and someone points one at you, he'll probably be
>a bad guy, but then again he won't wait till you've drawn your gun
>and shoot him. He'll probably blast your head of with a grin. So
>all that you said does not advocate any advantage of carrying
>guns, open or concealed. If instead, carrying of wepons is
>prohibited, anyone carrying one is a bad guy, and the police could
>arrst him without having to wait till he actually uses it.
Anyone who points a gun at me is the bad guy, if he/she is in uniform, they usually get away with it.
The advantage of concealed carry has been established here many times, I won't repeat it.
Here in Chicago, handguns have been banned for 17 years, yet Chicago was just named murder capitol of the U.S. The Mayors solution? More gun laws.....
>There can be no equivalent for this on the market. Security should
>not be considered a commodity. It should be available to everyone
>regardless of his or her income, socail standing or other
>differences. Thus it is no commodity. Instead of spending billions
>of dollars for corporate and private security services, it would
>perhaps be more effective to use this money for the improvement of
>police service. If the police force is not effective because of
>lack of personnel, infrastructure or equipment, then
>this deficit can be compensated by using additional credit for
>improving the police force. This leads to better overall
>security, benefitting not only those capable of "buying" it but
>everyone.
The problem is that the police cannot be held liable for failing to protect you, and when someones breaking into your house you probably don't have time to get on the phone and explain things...
>Still, I cannot understand why U.S. citizens still need to carry
>guns. Is it this cowboy feeling?
We call it freedom, and commonsense, we reserve the right to protect ourselves.
>A concealed firearm is not an implied threat because no one knows
>you have it. If criminals know you carry a weapon, they'll see to
>it that you won't use it. You don't draw a gun if someone points
>one at your nose. This gives you a near-nil protection from
>anyone. If someone wants to pickpocket you, you won't draw a gun
>and kill him right away.On the other hand, if you live in Texas,
>maybe you will, but I consider this excessive force. In Germany,
>you'd be in jail for this very quickly. So, the least problems
>arise when no one carries a gun, as you stated in the last few
>sentences. It is always a matter of trust. I am not impressed by
>anyone pointing a gun at my head if I do not trust him to be
>willing to pull the trigger. If he's a wimp, he won't. If the
>victim is a wimp, the victim would not use a gun if he had one,
>even in self-defense. This happens quite often, as some nerds do
>actually think they would only have to show the gun to have all
>people act frightened. Some of them would not shoot, hoping that
>the weapon alone intimidates their opponents. So, if you go ahead
>and carry a gun, be prepared for others carrying a gun. And the
>bad boys will use their guns. So you'd better let your gun at home
>if you do not intend to kill if threatened.
The fact is crime drops dramatically anywhere concealed carry laws are passed. No one should even own a gun without being properly trained in it's use and when it can/cannot be used.
>By the way, do guns protect from being shot in the back?
No, but a level III vest will.
>It is even more simple. I will not travel into an area which is
>not secure. If some area is not secure, I will ask my government
>to resolve this problem, normally, by calling for police force.
>Going into insecure areas means danger, possible loss of
>property, health or life.
We agree on this.
>This is okay for the past case of two rational enemies. But what
>if some lunatic like Hussein or Gaddafi gets his hands on Nukes
>and the capability to throw them anywhere on this planet (read:
>ICBM)? It will never be over as long as it is just an unspecific
>implied threat.
Bad news Europe, [PREDICTION] Hussein will will have the bomb and the ability to drop it anywhere in Europe within 5 years, unless stopped.
>The greater problem with nukes is that no rational man will ever
>use it, cause it's effects backlash very soon. In the hands of
>terrorists or fanatics, they become real dangers, as well as any
>other holocaustic weapon.
Ever hear of an ADM? better known as a "suitcase nuke"?
> What if I were a terrorist seeking to blackmail the US
>government? I would purchase 10g of pure Plutonium. Less than
>enough to build a bomb. But why should I? Pouring 1g of it into
>the water of any large US city would cause mass death of thousands
>of people. What effect would the US nuclear, chemical and
>biological strike force have ... nil. So why should anyone need
>any of these weapons.
Actually you would have to get this passed the filters, and radiation sensors. The nation that tried this would become extinct.
>The real cause the Cold War never became hot was the insight of
>both parties that a war would not have any winners. A modern war
>cannot be won because no city can be conquered. You'd have to
>destroy it completely to really conquer it, and then, well, you
>won't have any use for it.
Tell that to the Croats.
>The second cause is: The NATO would never have attacked. Why
>should they? Their people would never have approved such a war.
>The Warsaw Pact needed the threat from the NATO to uphold it's
>dictatorships. Without an enemy, they'd have no one left to blame
>for their own faults.
The purpose of NATO is defensive, to prevent things like Poland.....
>Luckily we will soon have means to avert such wars by
>"non-lethal weapons", which destroy the (military) infrastructure
>without harming the population. EMP to destroy enemy
>communications, bombing to destroy factories, bridges, streets,
>railways, ports and airfields. You can't conduct war without this.
>The Second World War was won because of this. Terror bombing of
>civilans only increased the hatred and thus prolonged the war.
Wishfull thinking, I can block EMP, so can any other engineer. No EMP device can stop a man with an AK-47.
>Well, the use of force should be avoided whenever possible. To my
>oppinion the carrying of weapons always implies a threat to
>others. I cannot see the advantage of carrying a gun "only in self
>defense", because a weapon always works the both ways. If you have
>the possibility to use force, you'll be willing to use it whenever
>you might feel threatened. This might be objective, but it is very
>probable that you'll judge on a very subjective basis, your own
>perception. If humans where truly rational beings, I would
>judge this different, but in most cases weapons are used senseless
>and irrational. Not to mention all those killed by accidents in
>wepaons usage. Some kids would not have shot othersart school if
>they had no weapons. The problem with any technological advance is
>that some creative weirdo will always see to it that it is used in
>the worst way possible. this is not an argument against
>technology. It is simply the truth. Man is his own greatest enemy.
>In this, evolution has separated us from the animals.
If you do not wish to carry a weapon, you don't have to, but you gain protection in a society with concealed carry, because the criminals never know.
Brian
Member,Extropy Institute
www.extropy.org