clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

>> have a house, and there is an adult white male there, there WILL very
>> likely be fully automatic weapons and ammunition... and he'll know how to
>> use them.
> 
> Of course that's doing it wrong: You have to /first/ establish a
> comparatively safe society, by addressing crime arising out of habit or
> dire need (the former by force and punishment, the latter by trying to
> improve the economic situation), and /then/ take away privately owned
> guns to reduce the acts (or the lethality thereof) of spontaneous "blown
> fuse" type violence (or accidents).

We've been telling this, almost word for word, to our government for about
14 years now. No result. Again, there is no guarantee that the state will
always be "perfect" and behave in the way you describe. It is when states
fail, or become oppressive of the mass of their citizens (as the old
Apartheid state was towards black people) that those citizens
must -already- be armed and ready to defend themselves. Against the state,
if need be.
 
> I think gun restrictions can effectively prevent the latter, as well as
> helping to reduce the costs of a /functioning/ law enforcement system.
> With a /non-functioning/ law enforcement system, however, they only make
> matters worse.

Correct. As I keep moaning on about it - there is no way you can say that a
state or law enforcement system will forever more remain good and right and
benevolent. It is in the nature of government to take on more and more and
more power and responsibility, if it is not stopped at some point by an
angry citizenry. Sure you can say that you could stop that at the polls,
but that will only work if EVERYBODY respects democracy and its
institutions - a vote does not make an enemy uninterested in democracy stop
his unjust acts. If somebody does not oblige the democratic compact, and it
happens to be the state in the interplay of laws and obligations that is a
country, and the citizens are not capable of insurrection against the
unjust state (by being unarmed, as you are now in Germany), ethnic
cleansing and dictatorship ensues.
 
> But as you can see they can get away with quite a low level of armament
> /even/ in the police force. Which I guess is /only/ possible due to
> severe restrictions on privately owned weapons. Which in turn date back
> long ago, to times when the law /was/ enforced primarily by armed men,
> who helped sort of "tame" society.

Good points. It was interesting however, to note after the London
bus-bombings, how quickly the "iron fist" of massively armed police almost
everywhere was brought out of the "velvet glove" of the unarmed Joe Bobby
on patrol. Again, as you say, it only works because (up to now, apparently
this is changing) everybody understood and respected the law. So you could
probably afford to disarm your police, since the citizens were not armed.
Still, the lone armed criminal will be a nasty and fatal surprise to the
unarmed policeman or citizen - the citizen or policeman will promptly get
killed in that case. While an armed policeman or citizen might be able to
offer resistance.
 
> South Africa isn't "tame" at present, and that's why it wouldn't work
> there yet. Great Britain got there over some hundred years of time.
> 
> North America, OTOH, /is/ a somewhat tame society by now.

Hehe "somewhat tame" - I like that. Once again, the same refrain - you have
to decide what is "tame" and at what point it is "tame enough" to disarm
your citizens. Hitler and Stalin also decided what "tameness" level they
wanted out of their subjects, as did Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Galtieri,
Muamar Ghadaffi, the list of dictators goes on. I just think that
the "tameness" should never be decided by anybody. The citizen MUST remain
capable of armed resistance against the state, and of armed protection
against criminals. Take note that I'm referring to a RIGHT, not a duty. If
you do NOT want to have a weapon, or hate them, or whatever you opinion is,
DON'T BUY ONE! It is your right NOT to have it as well. But it is unjust to
DENY a right that is intrinsic to personal freedom of others, and of
peoples.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message