X-Ftn-To: Jeffrey C. Dege

jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:39:49 +0200, Danijel Turina wrote:
>>I'm from Croatia, and I know a thing or two about the proliferation of
>>weapons; before the war, there were practically no weapons on the
>>streets; now, the mafia clans are actually shooting it out on the
>>streets, sometimes not even with guns, but with "Wasps"[1].
>
>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. Almost no gun accidents, and no street
shootouts. When somebody actually waved a gun, the police was all over
him so fast that he was in jail before he could figure out what's
going on. In the States, there are so many guns around that the police
simply cannot intervene properly, so, this "self-protection" thing
actually incapacitates the police and makes people even more
vulnerable.

>In a world with violent lunatics, gun control doesn't work.

You would be surprized. I remember times here when violent lunatics
were dreaming about having a gun, but actually getting one was totally
out of the question - the chance of getting caught was bad enough, but
being a man with a gun in a country without guns makes you such a good
target for police that you cannot believe.

>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. 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. 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.

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

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> That is, unfortunately, highly unlikely. However, I am confident
>> that a country without guns available to the general population
>> would be a much safer place.
>
>Safer for whom?

Have you ever seen a European city?
People don't need guns because nobody else uses them. Even the
criminals often don't need them, because if you are a small thief,
you're less likely to get shot by the police if you're caught. So, the
shootouts between criminals and the police are very, very rare.
There's a very, very relaxed atmosphere. In Zagreb, there was a huge
panic when recently a mafia boss was shot in the center of the city,
and then the assassin was also shot by the bodyguard (fortunately
nobody else was hurt). There was a huge scandal because this usually
_never_ happens. People just don't shoot each other on the streets,
and the only problem are the small skinhead gangs of troublemakers,
but so far there were no major incidents because not even they carry
guns. Actually, it's a very safe place, but it became less safe here
since the war, because people got weapons, and the greatest number of
deaths was by accidental self-injury.
The American phenomenon of gangs shooting it out on the streets with
Uzis is totally unheard of in Europe. Our gangs usually just destroy
football stadiums when they go on a rampage, and this is not a small
problem, but the police manages to control them quite nicely.
But, my friend from Vancouver told me that she was completely
terrified when she visited her friend in the USA - gangs are literally
shooting each other on the streets and often the innocent bystanders
get killed. This just doesn't happen in the civilized countries,
because the weapons aren't easily accessible.

And don't you tell me that those countries are especially safe if
you're a thief with a gun, because those countries have extremely
effective SWAT teams and the season is always open on armed criminals.
If a guy has a gun, he's not safe at all, actually he's the endangered
species soon to be extinct. This is the reason why criminals in those
countries almost never carry firearms. That would put them into
unacceptable risk. So, a criminal _could_ buy a gun, it wouldn't be as
easy as in the States but can be done, at a very high price. However,
only the organized crime would actually do that, not the ordinary
street scum.

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

X-Ftn-To: Caustic Caucasian

"Caustic Caucasian" wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> >Not only that you're a broad which means you're doubly stupid.
>>
>> :) Oh, now you really did express the essential argument that proves
>> your theory. ;))
>
>Please PLEASE - kill-file the kook.
>Is it worth your precious time ?
>He's not worth mine.

Well, it would be nice if we just bypassed him and talked about
something else for a change. :) For instance, there have been some
talks about the definition of God. This should be an interesting
topic.

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

X-Ftn-To: Bill Twist

cj697@bfn.org (Bill Twist) wrote:
>Do you know why there was a problem with "ethnic cleansing" in that area
>of the World? Could it be that the serbians had most of the weapons, and
>an arms embargo prevented muslims and croats from obtaining weapons to
>defend themselves?

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, 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.

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

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> But, the issue was the effectiveness of weapons,
>
>Actually, the original discussion was about the INeffectiveness of
>weapons, with some arguing that if we merely got rid of icky guns,
>nobody would ever be hurt again, since all that would be left would be
>sticks, stones and fists.

That is, unfortunately, highly unlikely. However, I am confident that
a country without guns available to the general population would be a
much safer place.

>> agree that a 10 megaton thermonuclear device is a much more
>> effective killer than a machete? ...
>
>I think it's time to introduce a new corollary to Godwin's law: In any
>discussion of weapons suitable for self defense, somebody will
>eventually introduce nuclear weapons into the mix.

Actually, since some people said that a weapon is a weapon, and that a
killed man is a killed man, I don't see how all of the sudden there's
a quantitative difference that disqualifies nuclear weapons from the
discussion.
After all, there are people who keep "Wasps" for self-defense, why
wouldn't there be people who keep a nuclear warhead with the same
pretense?
All in all, this would be a powerful deterrent - nobody would likely
attack a person who can click a nuke, so there would be peace on Earth
and good will among men - EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A NUKE AT HOME, IT'S
OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!!

:)))

I think any further discussion on this topic is futile, because its
motive isn't logical, but emotional. People have irrational motives
that make them seek the protection of weapons, and others have the
irrational motives that make them commit violence. I don't have a
solution for this, except by changing people's nature, and this would
be a slow and difficult process indeed.

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

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>> I agree with you completely, and this is the reasons why armies all
>> over the world are armed with bows and slingshots instead of rifles,
>> tanks, missiles and nuclear warheads. After all, dead is dead, and
>> you can kill a man with anything - bare hands, knife, a rock, a
>> gun... all the same.
>> ;>
>>
>
>I take it that you're unaware of the carnage wrought by mobs (armies,
>if you like) of people wielding nothing but machetes, spears and clubs
>during very recent events in Africa and Asia?

Oh, I'm aware of it. I'm also aware that in massive warfare, the
powerful weapons actually seem to reduce the number of casualties -
compare the Gulf war or the Croatian "Storm" operation, and the
Hutu-Tutsi massacre, or mass killings with knives and simple weapons
in India-Pakistan war. Sophisticated warfare often results in minimum
casualties.
But, the issue was the effectiveness of weapons, and I guess you agree
that a 10 megaton thermonuclear device is a much more effective killer
than a machete? However, exactly because of its greater effectiveness,
it is less likely to be used, and one is less likely to expose oneself
to the risk on being targeted by it. This is a complex problem.
However, I guess you would agree that it isn't wise to make the
thermonuclear devices widely available "for self defense"?

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

"Scout" wrote:
>> Luckily, it's pretty hard to kill someone with sticks and rocks and
>> knives when compared to guns and explosives.
>
>Then your ignorance is showing.

I hoped this was a reasonable discussion, but I see that it has
nothing to do with reason.
Recently, a guy in Israel blew people up with explosive. It took him
just one push of the button. Tell me, how long do you think it would
take him to do the same with a knife or a stick? Would he manage that
at all, or would ten people shove his baseball bat up his ass if he
tried it? However, with some explosive he made a slaughter within a
single second.

We're not talking about massive warfare, where powerful weapons can
actually reduce the number of casualties by serving as a deterrent. We
are talking about the proliferation of firearms among the general
population. Firearms have no place in the general population, they
should be restricted to military, police and the professional guards.
I'm from Croatia, and I know a thing or two about the proliferation of
weapons; before the war, there were practically no weapons on the
streets; now, the mafia clans are actually shooting it out on the
streets, sometimes not even with guns, but with "Wasps"[1]. "Wasp" is
not a slingshot, or a stick or a rock. This thing can turn a bus full
of children into a smoldering can of cooked human flesh, within a
second. Just like that. After this war, some people keep those at
home. And do you know how they justify it? Self-defense. They need a
"Wasp" (or an automatic assault rifle, or a spray fire gun, or a .357
magnum, add at will) at home in order to feel safe.
Lunatics like that are a danger to society, starting with themselves
and their children, because guess whose kid is most likely to blow his
brains out by accident, playing with his dad's gun? I would bet that
the number of accidental injuries is far greater than the number of
cases where a weapon was effectively used for self-defense. It is here
in Croatia, I don't know about USA. So, the firearms should be
completely removed from the general population, acknowledging the
exceptions in which a gun could be necessary.

---
[1] "Zolja", a disposable anti-tank rocket launcher, widely used in
the recent Serbia-Croatia war.

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

X-Ftn-To: Scout

"Scout" wrote:
>> see, it's not that guns are more dangerous, it's that they can be used at
>> a distance, where as bats, knives, "sticks,"
>
>I wonder if Welsh bowmen would agree with you on that, or more accurately
>the people they shot at.

I agree with you completely, and this is the reasons why armies all
over the world are armed with bows and slingshots instead of rifles,
tanks, missiles and nuclear warheads. After all, dead is dead, and you
can kill a man with anything - bare hands, knife, a rock, a gun... all
the same.
;>

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

X-Ftn-To: Phoenix (tm)

"Phoenix (tm)" wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:06:09 +0200, Romana Panduric
>, the mortal one, wrote:
>
>
> Jel bi mogli s tim offtopicom od negacija na mail?

Ma daj, pa tko bi u mailu pricao o takvim pizdarijama, jedini razlog
zasto se to povlaci je taj sto je ovaj idiot Bruno isao kritizirati
moju gramatiku koja je iznimno tada bila dobra, pa se sad ljudi
nasladjuju trljajuci mu lice u drek, i javno prave budalu od njega,
sto je skroz zasluzio.

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

X-Ftn-To: Vjera Lopina

vlopina@mudrac.ffzg.hr (Vjera Lopina) wrote:
>>Mislim da je puno tocnije reci: "Ja nemam nista".
>
>Tu se slazemo, ovo je puno tocnije. No, bojim se da je to jedino oko cega
>se slazemo.

:)) Zanimljivo je uociti da je doticna individua meni prigovorila
gramaticku gresku kad sam mu rekao "ti nisi nista". :)))

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