X-Ftn-To: Jeffrey C. Dege

jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>>>And if they hadn't been able to obtain weapons, things would have been
>>>peacable?
>>
>>Definitely so, because that's how it used to be while the guns were
>>extremely hard to find.
>
>So you think that Croatia was perfectly peaceful and safe, and then some
>evil force imported all those guns and the society exploded into chaos.

Nope. Actually, I believe that it was full of people who were ready
and willing to commit violence, and who sometimes did just that, but
the consequences were less dramatic because they weren't armed with
anything effective. However, I read the papers today; a drunk idiot
slaughtered a 17-year old kid with a broken bottle, without
provocation.
Things like that always happened. But, there are other news articles,
like, people using AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and "Wasps" for
settling scores. _That_ didn't happen before the war - never. They
only had broken bottles and knives.

>>>In a world of peacable people, gun control isn't necessary.
>>
>>This is a sophism. Owning guns is a psychology thing: people feel
>>unsafe and they buy a gun and then the others feel threatened and buy
>>guns and the only result is that less people feel safe, and there's
>>more feeling of being threatened.
>
>In other words, the problem is that you have too many people with irrational
>fears.

Exactly.

>>However, if the general population
>>doesn't have any weapons, then the job becomes very easy for the
>>police, because those who _do_ have guns are always the dangerous
>>criminals who are often shot on sight. When the police does that, the
>>general population feels very safe and nobody needs guns, because they
>>know that the crime problem is under control. This is what I call a
>>civilized country.
>
>It's what _I_ call a police state.

Not at all. In a police state, the police implements the state
politics upon the general population. In other states, the police
implements the law by handling the crime.

>Shot on sight?

Well, of course.
A country where only criminals use weapons. Someone wields a gun and
threatens to shoot. The police puts a bullet through his head. Alles
in ordnung, indeed. One idiot less in the world. Mind you, not all
violence is bad; selective violence against criminals can be very
useful.

>>In an uncivilized country, the issue of
>>self-defense isn't regulated on the level of the society but on the
>>individual level. This is not a safe world at all, which caused people
>>to organize and pay a police force that would defend them, so that
>>they wouldn't have to own and use weapons. I hope that America will at
>>one point evolve to this stage.
>
>It doesn't seem likely. It seems more likely that those societies who
>are relying on the state for all of their security, and who are trading
>off liberty and freedom for security, will eventually realize that the
>state can't guarantee their security, and that the peace they have sold
>themselves for is only temporary.

Maybe. But, then again, if you can't trust the state regarding your
safety, this usually means that it will soon break apart in a bloody
civil war.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> Yes, world wars really do qualify as a case of proliferation of
>> weapons among the civilians. ;)
>>
>They were not killed as a result of any battle action; they were
>killed by the "legitimate" civilian governments, and by their
>neighbors.

So, what does this prove? That people and governments can commit mass
murder? That killing people isn't a good thing? I know that. I also
know that merely removing guns from circulation won't result in less
violence; if the causes aren't treated, the symptoms will stay, maybe
only manifest in a different form. The cure is given in Romans, 13.10,
IMHO.
However, until people learn to love each other, we should at least
make it more difficult for them to inflict harm. But, if someone is
determined enough, or insane enough, very little can be done. How
would you protect those children in Tokyo? Arm them all with guns,
just in case? Arm the teachers with guns?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>usenet@mike-warren.com (Mike Warren) wrote in news:JPuT6.110355
>$Ub.1236027@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com:
>>
>> Luckily, it's pretty hard to kill someone with sticks and rocks and
>> knives when compared to guns and explosives.
>>
> June 8, 2001 Posted: 2:23 AM EDT (0623 GMT)
> TOKYO, Japan -- A man armed with a kitchen knife has forced
> his way into an elementary school in western Japan killing at
> least eight children and injuring dozens, authorities and news
> reports said.
>
>Yes, otherwise somebody might have gotten hurt.

Actually I don't see why you folks advocate possession of guns, when
knives and sticks would be perfectly sufficient. ;>

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>Dozens of my family members died in your peaceful Europe in the last 75
>years.

Yes, world wars really do qualify as a case of proliferation of
weapons among the civilians. ;)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bruce Mills

aj233@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce Mills) wrote:
>: Otherwise, we would have a militarized society, which nobody needs,
>
>Tell that to Israel. Tell that to Switzerland.

I found an interesting article on this:
http://www.igc.org/raenergy/guns.html

"The extreme of government involvement is Switzerland where everybody
over fifty is in the militia and has semi automatic rifles at home.
This is the beehive effect as far as a conqueror is concerned and it
does have an equalizing effect and people have a general respect for
one another."

and

"There was a town in 'Tennessee that made it illegal to not carry a
gun. Crime went to zero and they were able to close their police
department. "

I tend to agree with this, because it's all a matter of psychology: if
everybody owns a gun, everybody feels safe from others and at the same
time unmotivated to compromise the others. But, since guns pose a
threat to safety (accidental injuries), it would be possible to just
remove the weapons altogether and the feeling of safety would remain.
Right now, I live on an island where the crime rate is exactly zero,
because it would be morally unthinkable to commit it. Why? Because
everybody knows each other, and even stealing matches from a store
would completely ruin one's reputation, so nobody ever does anything
morally questionable. And nobody owns any weapons.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bruce Mills

aj233@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Bruce Mills) wrote:
>: This is necessary.
>: However, the
>: general population has no need for guns, because if they need
>: protection from the criminals, they have the police,
>
>Unfortunately, some court cases in the States have proven that the police
>have no responsibility or requirement to protect any given individual at
>any given time. They are there to protect "the public peace".

This is, of course, true. But, they protect the public peace by
providing a safe general environment, and in most cases this is
enough. Nobody can protect _everybody_, people are mortal beings and
they all eventually die. In a generally safe environment you are much
more likely to get killed by slipping in the tub, or by being hit by a
car, than by being intentionally or accidentally shot. It is only when
the probability of getting shot becomes so high, that people feel
unsafe in their daily activities, when we can talk about compromised
public peace. It is police's job not to allow this. However, if the
society in general doesn't work, and produces ghettos and slums that
in turn produce crime and violence, then even the police can't do much
about it, and if such things are prominent, the state will probably
collapse. In _this_ situation, it would be really wise to actually own
a weapon, because it's every man for himself, and against all others.
However, if it came to this, I would probably prefer death to such
life.

>Besides,
>criminals are not stupid - they know enough to select their victims, and
>the time, and the place, and make fairly certain that the police are *not*
>around before committing their crimes.

Yes, that's the reason why the jails are empty, because the criminals
are so smart they never get caught in the act. ;)

>: and if the
>: country is attacked by some hostile neighbor or whatever, this should
>: be the job of the army. And of course, the army _should_ be well
>: trained and equipped with weapons, _unlike_ the civillian population.
>
>Ok, but who makes up "the army"? It is the civilian population, is it
>not? By the time some enemy attacks you, you don't have the luxury of
>training new crops of recruits wholesale, and I don't know of many
>countries that can afford to keeep a standing army around doing nothing
>all day, in case of attack. So, the only answer is, to allow the
>civilian population to have arms, and to train in their use.

This is brimming with logical fallacies.
The army consists of the state's citizens, armed and trained, and at
the time when citizens are members of the army, they are not the
civilian population, but a military force. During that time, they are
allowed and demanded to use the weapons against the enemy, and to do
so within the chain of command. However, when they are no longer in
the army, they become the civilians, leaving their weapons and
returning to their normal civilian activities.
And, being trained in the use of weapons is one thing, and owning
weapons is something completely different. For instance, I am trained
in the use of weapons, I can disassemble and assemble a rifle
blindfolded, but I don't own a weapon and I hope I never will.
However, in case of war, I could be enlisted as a soldier and use the
gun against the enemies. This is not that difficult to understand.

>: Otherwise, we would have a militarized society, which nobody needs,
>
>Tell that to Israel.

Israel is a military state surrounded by hostile countries, and the
entire population must be in a state of constant combat readiness.

>Tell that to Switzerland.

Switzerland is an extremely peaceful country filled with traditional
legalists. You could give those people all the weapons you want, and
they would just take them to the attic and never use them.

>: because more weapons result in less safety which in turn increases the
>: need for weapons. This is a magical circle that can be broken only by
>: removing the weapons from the civillians and restricting them to the
>: professionals.
>
>This is *your* "magical circle" that you have dreamed up from somewhere.
>You cannot prove a causal relationship between "more weapons" and "less
>safety". If there *were*, Switzerland would be awash in blood by now.

AFAIK, in Switzerland people don't have weapons because they fear for
their safety, but because the state assigned them weapons in case of a
war; BTW, Switzerland doesn't even have the army, so this is probably
a logical thing to do. So, both Switzerland and Israel are bad
examples, because in neither case is the possession of weapons a
result of mass hysteria and paranoia, as it is in the USA; in both
cases it is a part of a national defense strategy. It all seems to be
a matter of psychology.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Maya

mayaemmett@aol.com (Maya) wrote:
>I signed on with iUniverse about a year ago and have had nothing but
>problems with them. These problems involved customer service (delayed
>orders, orders not received though paid for, etc.), PSA (I have had
>3), and production (book cover and book block errors). iUniverse's
>response to these problems was to cancel my contract reverting all
>rights back to me instead of correcting errors of their own making.

I had a similar problem with them.
I joined their "SPAN partnership" program, which mean that they
provided the printing services for small publishers; I provide the
files, they print the book and distribute it on demand. Sounded good,
and the percentage was great.
The first thing was that they took 6 weeks to ship (!) the files to
Shanghai (!!!) for a quality check (?), and after that, they sent me
the final files, to see and report any errors, which I did; the colors
on the cover were completely screwed by the RGB->CYMK conversion,
which I reported. There was also an error in the book block, which I
corrected and sent them the corrected file. Also, they messed things
with the covers, did a bit of unnecessary cutting on the spine, which
I also reported, saying that if they give me the exact specifications,
I will produce another, correct file. Mind you, this was in the
process of book production, before the book was actually set up for
printing and distribution.
They didn't respond at all; however they accepted the corrected book
block, but they did nothing about the covers, and the flawed book was
produced. It took me a long while to find out; one of my friends
ordered the book from their website just to test the process, and it
took them 2 months to actually print it (and 5 days to deliver). When
I saw the book, I complained, which resulted in two things. They just
cancelled their small publishers program, and the person who was
responsible for contacting me resigned his job at iUniverse and found
himself a better company. The entire process lasted a bit less than a
year.
I then went to LightningSource, and after signing all the papers, the
book was produced in less than 2 weeks, with quality exactly as I
designed it. The title was almost immediately registered on B&N and
Amazon. The only complaints that I have against them are that they
don't print hardcovers as frequently as they do paperbacks, which
sometimes causes a couple of weeks of delay in delivery, and that the
production of a 240p hardcover costs more than 8$ - everything else is
cool.

The iUniverse seems to be a fraudulent company incapable of delivering
what they promise; they are disorganized, confused, clumsy and slow,
and I wouldn't recommend them to anybody. I have no good experiences
with them whatsoever.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Dralasite

dralasite@farside.fr (Dralasite) wrote:
>>>snip... philosophy psychobabble
>>
>>OK, this ends our discussion, bye-bye.
>>
>(drala)
>well, I don't think there was really any conversation!

True.

>in fact, his only hope is to get everyone fed up with "talking" to him, then he
>would announce a great victory and go on spamming other newsgroups...

Let him, what else can you do. The basic requirement for a fair
discussion is willingness to reconsider one's arguments when proven
wrong. If there is no such willingness, there can be no serious
discussion.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Gromit

Gromit wrote:
>> OK, this ends our discussion, bye-bye.
>
>Too bad, I enjoyed your very to the point contributions. That Hammond rejects them surely
>should indicate that you have something valuable to contribute. Why else the ad hominem?
>Looking forward to more contributions on your part, even if it is not in
>response to Hammond.

This thread is crossposted on alt.talk.creationism,
alt.philosophy.debate, alt.politics.religion, alt.philosophy and
rec.org.mensa; which group do you post from, so that I can subscribe
to it?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Michael Dix

Michael Dix wrote:
>> You are diverting the issue into matters of national defense, and as I
>> already said, the police should have weapons in order to be able to
>> oppose the violent criminals, and the army should have weapons in
>> order to oppose the hostile forces. This is necessary. However, the
>> general population has no need for guns, because if they need
>> protection from the criminals, they have the police,
>
>How do the police protect you from criminals, in your country?
>In this country, by the time the police arrive, it's too late
>for the victims.

Here too, sometimes. But, very often the police comes very much in
time and when they do, the criminals are in serious shit. Also, there
are professional, uniformed guards, trained in martial arts and
weapons handling, who are hired to protect property - even the
government uses them, rather than the police. Very often it's them who
actually stop the criminals. For instance, a company that owns the
public parks in Zagreb hires the armed guards who patrol there; this
makes the city parks a rather safe place at nights. The gun use by the
police and the guards is seriously limited by the law - they are
allowed to use them only if they're seriously threatened, which makes
things even safer for the ordinary citizen. There were many cases in
which the armed guards incapacitated the villains with pure skill and
strength, without even needing the guns. They are very effective, and
they are all over the place - banks, big companies etc. all use them
to protect their buildings, which makes them strategically distributed
all over the place. The odds of needing help and not getting it are
there, but the odds of needing help and getting it are very good, too.
This creates a feeling of public safety, and removes the need for
guns, as I already pointed out.

>> and if the
>> country is attacked by some hostile neighbor or whatever, this should
>> be the job of the army. And of course, the army _should_ be well
>> trained and equipped with weapons, _unlike_ the civillian population.
>> Otherwise, we would have a militarized society, which nobody needs,
>> because more weapons result in less safety which in turn increases the
>> need for weapons. This is a magical circle that can be broken only by
>> removing the weapons from the civillians and restricting them to the
>> professionals.
>
>So, if you were to give firearms to the normal citizens in
>your country, they would immediately begin shooting each other?

No, but the rate of incidents did raise when this happened, and this
results in less feeling of safety and more guns and less safety, and
after that it the USA, followed immediately by total hell.

>Interesting. This may explain the advantage of restricting
>firearms to professional criminals.

Exactly. This makes them a perfect target for SWATs. Let them have the
guns, but if they use them, they are dead meat. In Croatia, if they
see you on the street with a gun, you can end up in prison for a long
time, even if the gun is empty. If you keep the gun at home, and you
don't have a licence (which BTW is extremely hard to get), again you
are severely punished. Figure it out.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org