When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
their angle now.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
> their angle now.

Probably something like "God bless our military, of which members gave 
their lives to keep us safe.  Hoo-rah!"  (Otherwise the shooter would 
have been killing civilians!)

:P

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick
> to point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would
> have been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder
> about their angle now.

Isn't this exactly what happened? I. e. an armed military policeman shot
back and stopped the guy?

Here (in South Africa) the week before last and the one before that,
incidents were reported where citizens with private firearms used them in
self defense. In two cases the alleged criminals were killed and no
law-abiding citizens were harmed. In one other case a robbery was prevented
(alleged robber wounded and critical) and in yet another an alleged armed
robber was stopped but the defending citizen killed (his family survived
though.)

Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on earth,
that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape, evisceration,
vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and children, etc. - there
is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.

Robbers, looters, rapists and murderers are criminals - by definition they
do not abide by the law. If you legislate against a basic human right -
that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that says
nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then there
can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to defend
themselves.

I do believe an armed society is a safe society. I grew up in apartheid
South Africa, were 90%+ of all Afrikaner households had fully automatic
military assault rifles (FN FAL's in the late 80's, IMI Galil equivalents
in the early 90's) in the house, with ready ammunition (just like it used
to be in Switzerland). These were provided to reservists of the South
African Defence Force (or so called "Commandos") - in which all white males
were compelled to serve. This was true from the early 70's right up to
1994. Yet never have I been able to find one incident where a schoolgoing
boy from that era took his dad's machine gun to school and shot all the
teachers and other children. And that was in a militarized society, with
constant threats and propaganda being forced into your brain each day about
how dangerous the world is, how aggressive you must be, how wonderful a
system apartheid was and how worthy of defense to the last drop of blood,
etc.

Yet no Columbine or Dunblane shooting -ever- happened then. Which makes me
wonder about the arguments against civilian firearm ownership. 

The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense and
survival. 
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on earth,
> that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape, evisceration,
> vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and children, etc. - there
> is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.
> 
> I do believe an armed society is a safe society.

In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to 
stay alive is, by definition, not safe.

> The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
> confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
> power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense and
> survival. 

That's right. Because you can't defend yourself without weapons. Oh, wait...

(In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually 
unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> 
>> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on
>> earth, that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape,
>> evisceration, vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and
>> children, etc. - there is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.
>> 
>> I do believe an armed society is a safe society.
> 
> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.

Correct. The concept referred to above started to have effect in my country
in the decade after 1994 (non-racial elections, end of apartheid) when the
old SADF was disbanded and all those hundreds of thousands of military
assault rifles I referred to where withdrawn from each and every house
where they had been deployed for decades. 

Of course our society isn't safe - while the government is constantly
enacting stricter and stricter gun ownership, background checks and
purchasing laws. Thousands of legally owned, privately held firearms have
been handed back to the SA government. Contrary to various arguments, this
intensive disarming of society has not curbed gun crime - quite the
opposite. More people are getting killed with firearms now, of all races,
than the times in my country when you could almost guarantee that if you
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, due to apartheid, all this was predicated on race. But the fact
remains, and this is simple history - when the entire Afrikaner society
here was armed virtually to the teeth, -extremely- little violent gun crime
was perpetrated. House invasions with concomitant rape, murder, robbery and
torture as is common today here were virtually unknown when I was a lad -
when almost every adult white male had several guns in the house, including
fully-auto military assault rifles.

>> The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
>> confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
>> power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense
>> and survival.
> 
> That's right. Because you can't defend yourself without weapons. Oh,
> wait...

Not true. It is possible to turn almost anything into a weapon - the thing
about handguns especially though is they are -easy-. It takes years of
intensive training, not inconsiderable physical strength and dexterity to
become, for example, a high level Judokan, or Karate artist. This is
completely out of the question for many groups of people - the elderly,
single mothers, etc. These types of people should NOT be restricted and not
allowed to have access to firearms. Of course, the ease also makes it
usable for criminals - but as I said, criminals are by definition NOT law
abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
criminals?
 
> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)

I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently 
has fifty or so "Armed Police" vehicles on duty at any one time. The police
officers who crew these are very definitely armed, and they are deployed in
such a way that they can reach any area of the metropolitan whole of the
city in minutes. So the police aren't "unarmed" as a whole, even in
Britain...

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

>> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
>> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.
> 
> Correct.

It seems we agree on something.

Of course, the questions of whether you need a gun and whether you can 
get a gun are not necessarily strictly related I suppose...

> criminals are by definition NOT law
> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
> criminals?

Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of 
them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

>> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
>> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)
> 
> I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
> quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently 
> has fifty or so "Armed Police" vehicles on duty at any one time. The police
> officers who crew these are very definitely armed, and they are deployed in
> such a way that they can reach any area of the metropolitan whole of the
> city in minutes. So the police aren't "unarmed" as a whole, even in
> Britain...

London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so 
forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists 
absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist. 
(Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then 
they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )

Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You 
don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have 
guns in this country.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>>> In my humble opinion, a society where you *have* to be armed just to
>>> stay alive is, by definition, not safe.
>> 
>> Correct.
> 
> It seems we agree on something.

Tee hee hee! Well at least we're having a reasonably civilized discourse. If
this was Africa I'd have long since burned down your house, castrated you
and then eaten your granny.
 
> Of course, the questions of whether you need a gun and whether you can
> get a gun are not necessarily strictly related I suppose...

Ever heard of Mark Steyn? (He's a right leaning blogger and writer in the
US) He wrote on his blog that when he was in France once, a high-ranking
French Gendarmerie (Police) official approached him and boasted that in
France "People want guns but can't get them! But they're still free! So
there!" He merely replied "In Texas people want guns, and they CAN get
them. Texans will ALWAYS be free."

Besided the point I guess, but here, it is related. One of the basic
principles the government here looks at when issuing a firearms license is
whether you have a demonstrable need for said firearm. Getting one is hard
too, 95% of all gunshops when bankrupt here around 2004 when newer,
stricter laws were enacted. If you listen to often postulated arguments
against private gun ownership (disarm private citizens and have peace) this
sounds like heaven, right? Only, since most people here were disarmed, an
unbelievable orgy of violence, rape and murder has descended - most of it
committed at gunpoint with ILLEGAL weapons... since the citizens have been
mostly disarmed, and have no means to defend themselves - the means
(private guns) having been legally removed by the government.
 
>> criminals are by definition NOT law
>> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
>> criminals?
> 
> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of
> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

You're right of course, but only partially I think. That's the whole
problem - this "quarantine" paradigm cannot be guaranteed. There's no
difference as regards procurement between guns and drugs. If you make
something illegal but people still want it, sales and procurement of said
items merely moves underground, and turns something which earns tax for you
(all those gun-related sales and services that were taxed here, all the
thousands of tax-paying people who lost their jobs when the new law came
into effect and made possesion virtual impossible) into more work for your
already overloaded, desperately corrupt police force.
 
>>> (In the country where I am right now, even the *police* are usually
>>> unarmed. And it's fairly rare for them to get killed...)
>> 
>> I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
>> quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently

> London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so
> forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists
> absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist.
> (Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then
> they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )

Haha well put! No, not only Islamic people are evil of course, it is unfair
and oversimplified to state as such. Just like stating that anybody who
likes firearms or likes owning and shooting with them is a "gun nut", a
severe danger to society and can't wait to shoot the neighbours' little 3
year old girl. 
 
> Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You
> don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have
> guns in this country.)

Ok, I suspected as much. But I was AMAZED at just -how- heavily armed
your "Armed Police" are... here, every cop carries a gun. Usually its a 9mm
model 92 Beretta or Z-88 (a local knockoff of the 92F Beretta in 9mm.) The
program I saw was on Discovery Channel, they did ridealong with a couple of
armed officers. They had a Ford Sierra (this was quite a while ago when it
was filmed then, eh?) - they both had Heckler & Koch MP5s (submachine guns)
and in the back of the Sierra they had 12 gauge shotguns, and I also seem
to remember they had SLRs (the ex-British military rifle - the one before
the SA-80 Mark 2 your army uses today) for "distance work". That's way of a
lot more firepower than cops here carry as a matter of course.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 7:26 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> If you legislate against a basic human right -
> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that says
> nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then there
> can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to defend
> themselves.

Law-abiding South Africans don't have a very good record when it comes 
to human rights, either.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
> their angle now.

Exactly.

And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one 
might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side 
are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The 
gun companies are getting richer.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> It seems we agree on something.
> 
> Tee hee hee! Well at least we're having a reasonably civilized discourse. If
> this was Africa I'd have long since burned down your house, castrated you
> and then eaten your granny.

[Insert joke here about burrying meat and eating it once it's rotten.]

>>> criminals are by definition NOT law
>>> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
>>> criminals?
>> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of
>> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.
> 
> You're right of course, but only partially I think. That's the whole
> problem - this "quarantine" paradigm cannot be guaranteed. There's no
> difference as regards procurement between guns and drugs. If you make
> something illegal but people still want it, sales and procurement of said
> items merely moves underground, and turns something which earns tax for you
> (all those gun-related sales and services that were taxed here, all the
> thousands of tax-paying people who lost their jobs when the new law came
> into effect and made possesion virtual impossible) into more work for your
> already overloaded, desperately corrupt police force.

If your police force is corrupt, then yeah, you probably need guns...

I guess the key is to not have a corrupt police force.

It's worth remembering that firing a gun makes a hell of a lot of noise, 
and it likely to attract attention to you real quickly.

>> London is the capital city of the entire country, and since 9/11 and so
>> forth the government has gone all paranoid about there being terrorists
>> absolutely everywhere. Anybody who looks Islamic could be a terrorist.
>> (Because, obviously, only Islamic people are evil. Right? ...And then
>> they wonder why these guys want to kill us. :-P )
> 
> Haha well put! No, not only Islamic people are evil of course, it is unfair
> and oversimplified to state as such. Just like stating that anybody who
> likes firearms or likes owning and shooting with them is a "gun nut", a
> severe danger to society and can't wait to shoot the neighbours' little 3
> year old girl. 

I don't think all people who want guns are automatically crazy. 
(Although I think plenty of crazy people want to own guns.) I just don't 
think owning a gun should be necessary.

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 7:26 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> If you legislate against a basic human right -
>> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
>> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that
>> says nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then
>> there can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to
>> defend themselves.
> 
> Law-abiding South Africans don't have a very good record when it comes
> to human rights, either.

Hmm... human rights. There's a strong undercurrent here against
so-called "human rights." It is -REALLY- not a concept that is very popular
here, or ever was very popular anywhere in Africa. Human rights is very
much a Western and European secular concept, devised in a completely
different environment and at a level of societal sophistication that is
completely and totally absent in South Africa and the rest of the
continent.

A very commonly held position about human rights here (among all races,
black and white) is that human rights is merely a shield for criminals to
hide behind. Many criminals have gotten parole here or been released on
humane grounds, only to rape and kill once more. You'll mostly find
air-headed journalists, deluded rights advocates, career criminals and
government functionaries (who have 24/7 bodyguards and live in armored,
guarded fortresses) here blabbing about human rights and the liberal
constitution and all such kinds of claptrap. Practically, on the ground in
South Africa, human rights do not exist. It still classic Africa here - you
get what you grab, and if you are stronger than somebody and you want
something of his, you simply TAKE it. (And hopefully rape his old lady and
his daughters in the process.)

Exactly -because- your "human rights" are not respected in Africa, you need
to have arms and be capable of defending yourself. Somebody or some
organization that infringes on those rights are putting you, and your
family in direct danger.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
>> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick
>> to point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter
>> would have been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I
>> wonder about their angle now.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one
> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side
> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The
> gun companies are getting richer.

The difference here might be that even on a military base, not all personnel
are armed all the time. During my time in the military, when on base, you
were usually just armed when going out on a patrol, returning, or on guard
duty. This meant that you could have 400 or 500 guys, and maybe five or six
may be armed at any one time, AND have ammunition. The situation can be
considered to be no different from a civilian situation where only the
perpetrator is armed, and the "gun nuts" have their argument predicated on
this. In this case, from what I read on CNN, a lone, armed, military member
did return fire and stopped the perpetrator, who wasn't killed.

Thus the argument that "if everybody was armed, it would have turned out
differently" still holds true. Merely being a soldier on a military base
doesn't necessarily mean you are armed, no more than being a civilian in a
country that allows citizens private firearms means you are armed at any
given moment.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 9:03 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> A very commonly held position about human rights here (among all races,
> black and white) is that human rights is merely a shield for criminals to
> hide behind. Many criminals have gotten parole here or been released on
> humane grounds, only to rape and kill once more. You'll mostly find
> air-headed journalists, deluded rights advocates, career criminals and
> government functionaries (who have 24/7 bodyguards and live in armored,
> guarded fortresses) here blabbing about human rights and the liberal
> constitution and all such kinds of claptrap. Practically, on the ground in
> South Africa, human rights do not exist. It still classic Africa here - you
> get what you grab, and if you are stronger than somebody and you want
> something of his, you simply TAKE it. (And hopefully rape his old lady and
> his daughters in the process.)

In that case, the "human right" of self-defense is also not important, 
since it only shields criminals.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 9:15 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> This meant that you could have 400 or 500 guys, and maybe five or six
> may be armed at any one time, AND have ammunition.

This is still a lot more than the average office complex or neighborhood 
school. Hence the "arms race" where the number of guns is increasing.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>>> It seems we agree on something.
>> 
>> Tee hee hee! Well at least we're having a reasonably civilized discourse.
>> If this was Africa I'd have long since burned down your house, castrated
>> you and then eaten your granny.
> 
> [Insert joke here about burrying meat and eating it once it's rotten.]

s'true! When I still was in the fire brigade here (I was the local
equivalent of a 911 dispatcher) I once had to dispatch an ambulance to a
guy who shot his brother over a R1 coin (i. e. he killed his brother for
about 10p). Another time some old geezer raped a 3 year old girl 'cause the
witchdoctor told him it would cure him of AIDS - not only that, he then set
fire to her to try and "hide the crime" - burning her to death. So my
remarks are really, really not far from the mark (for Africa).
 
>>>> criminals are by definition NOT law
>>>> abiding... so would making a law against firearm ownership disarm the
>>>> criminals?
>>> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of
>>> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.
>> 
>> You're right of course, but only partially I think. That's the whole
>> problem - this "quarantine" paradigm cannot be guaranteed. There's no

> If your police force is corrupt, then yeah, you probably need guns...

That's the whole point. There is no guarantee that in any given country in
the world, this kind of situation cannot come into being, by whatever
means. If it comes into being while citizens are armed, they at least have
recourse to arms to protect their lives and freedoms from a blatantly
unjust and / or corrupt oppressor.

This is why the United States constitution has the much quoted, maligned,
fiercely debated, hated, passionately loved Second Amendment or so
called "right to bear arms". The drafters of that amendment understood that
freedoms are fragile, and can never be entrusted to a government's care -
it must be each and every citizen's personal responsibility. Logically,
each and every citizen, if he has personal responsibility for his own
liberty, must be armed in order to defend that liberty against any
conceivable oppression of it.

What would the recourse be of British citizens, for example, if your
government slowly, by degrees, enacted new, oppressive laws (take a look at
the BNP, for example...!) so that at the end of the process it is illegal
for a British Citizen of Pakistani descent (or those who even LOOK
Pakistani!) to live in certain areas (for a start), and maybe later not
being allowed to work, or own his own business...? And later being expelled
from the UK or interned, or eventually put into a gas chamber?

It happened in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Russia, Argentina,
Rwanda, the Congo... and its called ethnic cleansing.

Surely you'll say that will never ever happen. But -WHY- will it never
happen? If somebody is not interested in talk or debate, HOW do you change
his mind, or defend your way of life if it doesn't happen to suit him,
you've got the wrong color of skin or eyes, or whatever? What is the
absolutely -final-, backs-to-the-wall guarantee that you can keep living as
you have lived, and that you still have the basic freedoms you enjoy? On
what basis is the preservation of your liberties and freedoms built?

In the United States, this base is that there are millions and millions of
guns in private hands that can conceivably be used against an unjust or
oppressive state or federal government in an insurrection or secession.

Armed citizens give a government (or an invader) pause. Or a corrupt police
force. 
 
> I guess the key is to not have a corrupt police force.
> 
> It's worth remembering that firing a gun makes a hell of a lot of noise,
> and it likely to attract attention to you real quickly.

True. But the mere presence of weapons can often times defuse a situation to
such a degree that actually firing a shot is not needed. This happened to
me once or twice, and if I had NOT had a weapon, things might have been
very different. Being clearly and capably ready, and armed, can have a
deleterious effect on somebody who means to do you harm.

>> "gun nut", a severe danger to society and can't wait to shoot the
>> neighbours' little 3 year old girl.
> 
> I don't think all people who want guns are automatically crazy.
> (Although I think plenty of crazy people want to own guns.) I just don't
> think owning a gun should be necessary.

In a perfect world it would not be. But the world isn't perfect. It is a
inalienable fact that there will always be people who mean ill to others,
or who want to take, and kill, and rape. There will always be politicians
who eye absolute power, no matter how "democratic" their countries are
supposed to be. As long as people remain people, there will be
acquisitiveness, envy, hate, religious jihad, etc. And there will always be
weapons - hopefully in the hands of law-abiding citizens as well, vs. just
in the hands of criminals.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

>> - you get what you grab, and if you are stronger than somebody and you
>> want something of his, you simply TAKE it. (And hopefully rape his old
>> lady and his daughters in the process.)
> 
> In that case, the "human right" of self-defense is also not important,
> since it only shields criminals.

:)

You spotted the gap! Self-defence is explicitly NOT a right in the South
African constitution. As far as I'm aware it isn't a human right in most of
the world's so-called democracies either - except maybe an "implied" right
vs. the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution.

Nevertheless, self-defence -should- be a "human right" IMO.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen escreveu:
> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on earth,
> that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape, evisceration,
> vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and children, etc. - there
> is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.
> 
> Robbers, looters, rapists and murderers are criminals - by definition they
> do not abide by the law. If you legislate against a basic human right -
> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that says
> nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then there
> can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to defend
> themselves.
> 
> I do believe an armed society is a safe society. I grew up in apartheid
> South Africa, were 90%+ of all Afrikaner households had fully automatic
> military assault rifles (FN FAL's in the late 80's, IMI Galil equivalents
> in the early 90's) in the house, with ready ammunition (just like it used
> to be in Switzerland). These were provided to reservists of the South
> African Defence Force (or so called "Commandos") - in which all white males
> were compelled to serve. This was true from the early 70's right up to
> 1994. Yet never have I been able to find one incident where a schoolgoing
> boy from that era took his dad's machine gun to school and shot all the
> teachers and other children. And that was in a militarized society, with
> constant threats and propaganda being forced into your brain each day about
> how dangerous the world is, how aggressive you must be, how wonderful a
> system apartheid was and how worthy of defense to the last drop of blood,
> etc.
> 
> Yet no Columbine or Dunblane shooting -ever- happened then. Which makes me
> wonder about the arguments against civilian firearm ownership. 
> 
> The basic fact remains that an unarmed man may be attacked with more
> confidence than an armed man - and no government, ever, should have the
> power to deny its citizens the most basic human right - to self defense and
> survival. 

That was so friggin' insightful.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 9:15 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> This meant that you could have 400 or 500 guys, and maybe five or six
>> may be armed at any one time, AND have ammunition.
> 
> This is still a lot more than the average office complex or neighborhood
> school. Hence the "arms race" where the number of guns is increasing.
> 
> Mike

Ok, I see your point there - my argument sucks as regards that particular
illustration. An arms race is of course taking place, and the people making
the guns benefit, and it is to their advantage to sell more and more of
them.

But what is the difference between making guns, and making medicine? Either
serve a purpose or fills a need. You could probably say there is no
comparison, since guns kill people and medicine heals people. That's the
old hackneyed "guns don't kill people, people do". Misuse medicine and it
could kill or make you sick. Same with firearms. Misuse it and it could get
you killed.

What do you think about the nuclear arms race then? It was on a different
scale of course, but the fact that the "West" (the United States and its
allies) had thousands of nukes and the "East" (Russia and its allies) had
thousands of nukes, lead to a long period of relative peace and stability
between nation states that could have conceivable obliterated mankind, if
they ever warred. Both sides knew complete and utter destruction was
ensured, so both sides went to considerable lengths NOT to get embroiled in
conflict.

Doesn't this compare to the private citizen having automatic firearms, if
the criminal who wants to steal from and murder him have automatic
firearms?

Or what do you consider proportional if you find the argument above
specious?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> Here (in South Africa) the week before last and the one before that,
> incidents were reported where citizens with private firearms used them in
> self defense. In two cases the alleged criminals were killed and no
> law-abiding citizens were harmed. In one other case a robbery was prevented
> (alleged robber wounded and critical) and in yet another an alleged armed
> robber was stopped but the defending citizen killed (his family survived
> though.)
> 
> Where it is the norm, in the country with the highest murder rate on earth,
> that most house invasions include torture by branding, rape, evisceration,
> vaginal impalement of females, murder of babies and children, etc. - there
> is simply NO way that citizens CANNOT be armed.

I don't think the situations can be compared in any way.

In "Wild West" times, the situation was possibly somewhat similar in the 
US. Nowadays, they appear to have a working law enforcement system, 
which should reduce the need for personal firearms. (After all, that's 
exactly their job, isn't it?)

> Robbers, looters, rapists and murderers are criminals - by definition they
> do not abide by the law. If you legislate against a basic human right -
> that of self defense - by abolishing private gun ownership, you merely
> disarm the law-abiding. No criminal will suddenly obey a new law that says
> nobody may have guns. And his "job" gets even easier - because then there
> can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be able to defend
> themselves.

Here in Germany, we live quite safe, despite(?) private gun ownership 
being  subject to severe restrictions, and being far from common.

I guess the situation in the US is closer to Germany than to South 
Africa. I do concede that in a country where gun ownership restrictions 
cannot be enforced successfully, any restriction to gun ownership will 
only hurt the law-abiding. But is the US such a country?

> I do believe an armed society is a safe society. I grew up in apartheid
> South Africa, were 90%+ of all Afrikaner households had fully automatic
> military assault rifles (FN FAL's in the late 80's, IMI Galil equivalents
> in the early 90's) in the house, with ready ammunition (just like it used
> to be in Switzerland). These were provided to reservists of the South
> African Defence Force (or so called "Commandos") - in which all white males
> were compelled to serve. This was true from the early 70's right up to
> 1994. Yet never have I been able to find one incident where a schoolgoing
> boy from that era took his dad's machine gun to school and shot all the
> teachers and other children. And that was in a militarized society, with
> constant threats and propaganda being forced into your brain each day about
> how dangerous the world is, how aggressive you must be, how wonderful a
> system apartheid was and how worthy of defense to the last drop of blood,
> etc.
> 
> Yet no Columbine or Dunblane shooting -ever- happened then. Which makes me
> wonder about the arguments against civilian firearm ownership. 

I dare to ask how many shootings of black people committed by white ones 
happened during that time.

In a society where there is a consensus about a common "enemy", it is 
easy to address any aggression against "the others" instead of your 
fellow people.

American society does not have such a common enemy, so a person under 
strong diffuse psychological pressure will, in a desperate attempt to 
"defend" against it, just kill any random target.

In a society where the blacks are the bad guys, a person under similar 
diffuse psychological pressure will blame it on the blacks, and have at 
them. And nobody will bother because all he killed were some of "the 
others". And he may not even go as far as to kill, because he can just 
kick a black ass anytime he feels like letting off steam, and all his 
fellows will pat him on the back for it.

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> Of course our society isn't safe - while the government is constantly
> enacting stricter and stricter gun ownership, background checks and
> purchasing laws. Thousands of legally owned, privately held firearms have
> been handed back to the SA government. Contrary to various arguments, this
> intensive disarming of society has not curbed gun crime - quite the
> opposite. More people are getting killed with firearms now, of all races,
> than the times in my country when you could almost guarantee that if you
> 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).

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.

> I know bobbies are unarmed, but surely you're aware of what's called in
> quaint British terms "Armed Police"? As far as I know, London apparently 
> has fifty or so "Armed Police" vehicles on duty at any one time. The police
> officers who crew these are very definitely armed, and they are deployed in
> such a way that they can reach any area of the metropolitan whole of the
> city in minutes. So the police aren't "unarmed" as a whole, even in
> Britain...

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.


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.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 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).

Sounds about right.

> North America, OTOH, /is/ a somewhat tame society by now.

Um... Is this the same North America where seemingly even the police are 
not above harassing people who deny the Christian faith?

For example, the story about the little girl who wouldn't say the Lord's 
Prayer in class, and got expelled from school. Her dad said she 
shouldn't be forced to say the prayer, and soon the entire family found 
themselves being virtually driven out of the town. And then it ended up 
being a court case, I forget why...

Sounds like Britain in the Dark Ages to me. :-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> Here (in South Africa) the week before last and the one before that,
.
.
. 
> I don't think the situations can be compared in any way.

You're correct. As you state below, Germany is a completely different place
(I see your soccer team is being advised to wear bulletproof vests when it
comes here next year! A bit extreme I'd say... an over reaction). It is not
THAT dangerous, but Bayern Sekur (I think that's what your soccer team's
security company is called) clearly doesn't have local knowledge. If you
keep aware of what is going on around you, and get out of most city centers
here before nightfall (and DON'T venture into squatter areas, or got to
a "shebeen" - pub) you should be OK. 
 
> In "Wild West" times, the situation was possibly somewhat similar in the
> US. Nowadays, they appear to have a working law enforcement system,
> which should reduce the need for personal firearms. (After all, that's
> exactly their job, isn't it?)

You are correct, but my opinion about it differs, methinks. How do you
define a "working" law enforcement system? And when does the law
enforcement system get itself a "conscience" when it comes to unjust laws
that it must enforce? The police is the servant of the state - it does what
the state tells it to do. There is NO guarantee that the state will always
have your rights and safety as its primary concern. A state wants to
safeguard and perpetuate its power (look at Communist Russia, for example,
or Robert Mugabe's government of Zimbabwe). Interestingly, one of the very
first things Mr. Mugabe did when coming to power in 1980 was to make all
private firearms illegal. Once the citizenry was disarmed, he got Korean
training and assistance for his Army, and then proceeded to murder tens of
thousands of members of the Zimbabwean Matabele tribe (Mugabe is a Shona).
 
Surely no country on earth has a policeman for every citizen, every hour of
every day? That is where a citizen must take responsibility for himself. I
find it completely anathema to completely depend for physical security on
the state - you MUST take -personal- responsibility for yourself too,
BEYOND what the state can, or will do for you.

>> then there can be no possibility that his law-abiding targets will be
>> able to defend themselves.
> 
> Here in Germany, we live quite safe, despite(?) private gun ownership
> being  subject to severe restrictions, and being far from common.

Granted, but then again Germany is a highly-advanced, first world country,
with world-class social services, extremely low unemployment (compared to
SA, for example), an very homogenuous population both racially and
culturally,  and a deeply entrenched respect for human life. I can
understand how, in such a society, it is not necessary to have firearms and
be ready to defend yourself and your family. But as you say above, a
comparison is difficult to make.

Again, it begs the question - will Germany ALWAYS stay like that? Will it
for ever and ever be a country with efficient police, courts, excellent
social support structures and infrastructure, etc? That is what the
drafters of the United States' 2nd Amendment to the constitution were on
about - the only guarantee that such a state is not misused for oppression
of one group or people, some time during its existence, is when ALL the
people take personal responsibility for such a state of affairs to
continue. Germany has a duly constituted army to protect the German state
and interests. Those old geezers who wrote the US constitution decided that
each free man should have that same capability on a personal level, and
thus should have weapons.
 
> I guess the situation in the US is closer to Germany than to South
> Africa. I do concede that in a country where gun ownership restrictions
> cannot be enforced successfully, any restriction to gun ownership will
> only hurt the law-abiding. But is the US such a country?

Hmm... you make a good point. I'm not sure, maybe they are not? I've
referred to them mostly since they are unique in the sense that a "right to
arms" is in their very constitution, and the citizenry are enjoined to have
a personal conviction and responsibility for the freedoms they enjoy.
Having access to weapons written into the core document of their
nationhood, and freedom is associated, in writing, with being armed and
with being capable of deterring oppression with violence. I think the
result is quite good on a global level, and worked out well for them.

Additionally, you have to define what is "successful enforcement" - one
illegal gun missed by the police can be pretty fatal for the citizen who
gets shot with it (and is not able to defend himself because he is not
allowed to have one of his own.)
 
>> Yet no Columbine or Dunblane shooting -ever- happened then. Which makes
>> me wonder about the arguments against civilian firearm ownership.
> 
> I dare to ask how many shootings of black people committed by white ones
> happened during that time.

Good point. You are suggesting (if I read in context with your statements
below) that ethnic unity was a factor? The "common enemy" idea which Hitler
used to such good effect?
 
> In a society where there is a consensus about a common "enemy", it is
> easy to address any aggression against "the others" instead of your
> fellow people.

See above. You may have a large element of truth here. I did not think about
it like that.
 
> American society does not have such a common enemy, so a person under
> strong diffuse psychological pressure will, in a desperate attempt to
> "defend" against it, just kill any random target.

Ok, that makes sense. Still, for me, it does NOT make sense to say that the
rational, 99% segment of your society who are law-abiding, should be FORCED
(as you are in Germany) to -completely- depend on a state funded and run
police force for their safety, IF such a person decides to target them in a
killing or shooting spree.

As I referred to in my Mark Steyn vignette to Invisible, in the EU mostly
you might WANT to have a weapon, but you CANNOT. In the United States you
mostly can, as many as you might want, even automatic ones in certain
states or principalities. This, to me at least, is being "more free" than
if you are a citizen of the EU, and it is decided FOR you what you may, and
may not own, or do.
 
> In a society where the blacks are the bad guys, a person under similar
> diffuse psychological pressure will blame it on the blacks, and have at
> them. And nobody will bother because all he killed were some of "the
> others". And he may not even go as far as to kill, because he can just
> kick a black ass anytime he feels like letting off steam, and all his
> fellows will pat him on the back for it.

This is blatantly not true. Sure this did happen, but it is just like the
criminal / law abiding element comparison, or the "any guy who likes guns
is crazy, and a potential murderer" argument referred to in my other posts.
Being an Afrikaner in apartheid South Africa didn't mean by default you'd
go and kill blacks because you "could" - if you tried it you'd get arrested
and processed, and hung (we still had the death penalty then) like any
other murderer. Blacks weren't hated, or considered the "bad guys". (At
least, I certainly was never taught that, not in any state school - the
propaganda was more against communism, pro-Christianity and the "Total
Threat") - very little at all was said about black people. Sure you did get
your trailer trash whites and crazies, who did do things you refer to. But
in the mean, at least among whites, the paradigm remains - everybody was
armed with stuff capable of causing mass death, quickly - but at least
among that group, NOTHING every happened. Nobody took it into their minds
to go and do a school shooting with the military weapons they had close at
hand - which was my original argument. Weapons, or the presence thereof, I
think, does not "stimulate" anyone to become a mass murderer or school
shooter. That happens elsewhere, and it is grossly unjust to disarm 99.9%
of the firearm owning public, because one person in a decade decides to go
crazy and shoot innocent people.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

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

SharkD schrieb:
> On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
>> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are 
>> quick to
>> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter 
>> would have
>> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
>> their angle now.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one 
> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side 
> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The 
> gun companies are getting richer.

Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.

If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns 
(which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) - 
would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok 
run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

If /everyone/ is carrying a gun around, then the first reaction to 
someone drawing one is probably "gee, what's happening here? Is there 
any danger? Damn, this is serious - he's having a real firefight with 
those guys over there! Man, if only I knew who's the good guys here!", 
rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND 
COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN' HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"

Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before 
anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take 
him out.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> clipka wrote:
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Sounds about right.

I agree.
 
>> North America, OTOH, /is/ a somewhat tame society by now.
> 
> Um... Is this the same North America where seemingly even the police are
> not above harassing people who deny the Christian faith?
> 
> For example, the story about the little girl who wouldn't say the Lord's
> Prayer in class, and got expelled from school. Her dad said she
> shouldn't be forced to say the prayer, and soon the entire family found
> themselves being virtually driven out of the town. And then it ended up
> being a court case, I forget why...
> 
> Sounds like Britain in the Dark Ages to me. :-P

Tee hee hee! Naw... they didn't burn the child and her family at the stake
for apostasy. But stay tuned, who knows what may come out of the Deep
South...?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> >> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one
>> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side
>> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The
>> gun companies are getting richer.
> 
> Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.
> 
> If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns
> (which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) -
> would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok
> run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

Have any of you guys been in the military? It seems to be a common
misconception that a military base is awash in guns. In my albeit limited
experience of the old SADF, this was NOT the case, and neither does it seem
to be the case with the US Army at Fort Hood. Besides gate guards (in a
civilian setting, compare to an armed policeman on patrol) and sentries,
MOST people on a military base in "peacetime" are -not- armed. In a well
disciplined force, weapons are held in a central storage location. If
troops on base DO have LOADED weapons (UNLOADED ones are much more common -
for training and drill) they are usually on the way to an operation, or
coming back in. Properly trained soldiers will also NEVER just fire back,
if fired upon - it depends on what orders they have been given. Granted, a
soldier that has got no orders might just take cover, instead of
automatically returning fire. I vividly remember how it was hammered into
our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND your
target. The sequence was always "wait for my command" - especially if you
had loaded weapons and a properly trained officer.

A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

> Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before
> anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take
> him out.

Or they had to wait until they could get hold of somebody with a LOADED
weapon, ready to fire. And then that person too, if properly trained, would
have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
which can cause just as much harm.

Incidentally, this has happened twice here in SA where a subordinate shot
his commanding officer, on a military base, mostly over racial tensions. In
one situation the murderer wasn't shot, for the same reason the American
officer wasn't shot - nobody had a loaded weapon at hand. In the other
occasion, a gate guard (if I remember right) shot the perpetrator.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

> I vividly remember how it was hammered into
> our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
> without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND 
> your
> target.
...
> And then that person too, if properly trained, would
> have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
> which can cause just as much harm.

A very good example of why people who are not continuously trained should 
not be allowed to have guns.

Can you imagine someone trained in firing guns doing this?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7091904.stm

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> I vividly remember how it was hammered into
>> our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER
>> fire without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is
>> BEHIND your
>> target.
> ...
>> And then that person too, if properly trained, would
>> have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
>> which can cause just as much harm.
> 
> A very good example of why people who are not continuously trained should
> not be allowed to have guns.

Which is a requirement here for ownership. You have to be shown to have
regularly gone shooting with your firearm (there is a register at every
shooting range you must sign), and you have to pass a training course at an
accredited training facility here to be allowed to have possesion of a
firearm.
 
> Can you imagine someone trained in firing guns doing this?:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7091904.stm

You can't fix stupid. Its like a guy I once turned out to who has working on
his car after jacking it up and placing plastic milk-bottle crates as
supports. No surprise, the car fell of the braces he put up and squashed
his head literally as flat as pancake. If you're stupid, you can injure
youself with an ice cream cone! :)
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 11:24 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
> or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
> which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
> told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> had the other people had guns as well, 

I don't think the doctors and nurses carry their rifles with them on a base 
on US soil in the hospital.

What's your alternative to shooting back at such a person? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of 
> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

If guns were illegal for everyone to own, that would likely be true. 
However, there's lots of stuff that's illegal in one place and legal others, 
and lots of large locked shipping containers moving from one place to another.

Plus, this isn't nuclear weapons. People were making really excellent 
firearms by hand 200 years ago. Ever hear of a "zip gun"?

> Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You 
> don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have 
> guns in this country.)

I think it's more that police in the UK don't need guns because of the 
culture there, than it is the police lacking guns makes the crime less violent.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

> You can't fix stupid.

If "stupid" can pass the training requirements to own a gun, then that makes 
the training requirements stupid.

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> He merely replied "In Texas people want guns, and they CAN get
> them. Texans will ALWAYS be free."

I have a friend who was at a business meeting over dinner in France. He 
wanted some ice tea. The waiter doesn't understand. "Tea, cold, with ice in 
it."  "We don't have that."   "Well, bring me a pot of tea and a glass of 
ice."  "What do you want in the ice?"  "Nothing."  "We don't do that."

At that point, his host muttered something in french to the waiter, who ran 
off, brought ice tea, and in general acted like my friend was royalty the 
rest of the night.

The friend asked "What did you say to him?"

The host said "My guest here is American. You should do what he asks, as he 
*may* have a gun!"

  * * * *

I was also amused to be watching a cop show with french subtitles, and the 
one cop says "who's that?"  The other cop says "A big name in the organized 
crime department. A real gang-buster."  And the subtitles said
   Un vrai cowboy.

I realized that the stereotype other countries have of Americans probably is 
close to the Wild West.  It never hit me how often someone talks about gun 
ownership in modern america like we're all walking down dusty streets with 
guns on our hips.

> and in the back of the Sierra they had 12 gauge shotguns,

Cops here usually have a Glock 9mm semi-automatic, a backup gun (like a 
small revolver in a leg holster or something), and a shotgun in the trunk of 
the car. Lots of paperwork if you actually take one out of the holster, in 
theory.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> In the United States, this base is that there are millions and millions of
> guns in private hands that can conceivably be used against an unjust or
> oppressive state or federal government in an insurrection or secession.

My brother is a career cop, and he laughs at that idea, given the firepower 
cops have let alone soldiers.

The other real difference is that soldiers swear to uphold the Constitution, 
not some random leader. Someone did a survey that asked several hundred 
enlisted soldiers (i.e., not officers) if they'd obey an order to go out 
into civilian areas and confiscate the firearms, and something like 60%-70% 
said they wouldn't.

We do have a constitution that's written down and fairly clear and succinct. 
You can argue over the details, but it's pretty easy to see that there's no 
provision for (say) the president to stay in office past his term just 
because there's an emergency. Indeed, I'm pretty impressed we even had 
general presidential elections during our civil war.

> Armed citizens give a government (or an invader) pause. Or a corrupt police
> force. 

Unfortunately, corrupt police in the USA really don't expect to get shot 
back at, and if a copy breaks in, fails to identify himself, shoots your 
dog, shoots a hole in your door, and has a warrant illegally obtained for a 
house on a different street, and you shoot him, chances are you're going 
down for murder. If the cops got in trouble more often for doing things 
wrong, we'd much safer from our own corrupt police here.

> True. But the mere presence of weapons can often times defuse a situation to
> such a degree that actually firing a shot is not needed. 

The FBI reports here show that the presence of a gun without firing stops 
more violent crimes than the presence of a gun that does get fired.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> In "Wild West" times, the situation was possibly somewhat similar in the 
> US. Nowadays, they appear to have a working law enforcement system, 
> which should reduce the need for personal firearms. (After all, that's 
> exactly their job, isn't it?)

In Wild West times, the USA had a working law enforcement system. The 
citizens were the law enforcement when firearms were needed. Look up 
"Posse". :-)

And yes, the need for personal firearms is reduced. It's rather rare to see 
someone blatantly wearing a firearm, and I'd suspect most people don't even 
carry them concealed.

> Here in Germany, we live quite safe, despite(?) private gun ownership 
> being  subject to severe restrictions, and being far from common.

I think it's a culture thing. First you have to make it safe even when 
firearms are around. Then you can start removing the firearms.

> But is the US such a country?

I'd expect so. Too many people already have firearms here.

> American society does not have such a common enemy, 

We're working on it!  Watch out, towel-heads!  ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> I think the
> result is quite good on a global level, and worked out well for them.

I think the fact that the rules *are* in writing and that most educated 
people know what they are is one of the biggest helps. If something starts 
getting abusive, one can always say "Hey, that's not right at all."

Not just the 2nd amendment, but all the limits on powers, who has 
responsibility for what, limits on what you can change with how many votes 
in what timeframe, and so on.  People talk about Bush "stealing the 
election", but really, the courts decided how it had to go based on the 
writings, and that's how it came out.

> Additionally, you have to define what is "successful enforcement"

It's not hard to define. It's just hard to measure.

> See above. You may have a large element of truth here. I did not think about
> it like that.

See the "Black Panthers" in the USA.

Funny enough, I think you need to have most of the population thinking that 
that sort of discrimination is reasonable. I don't think we're quite there 
yet in the USA with muslims or those of middle-eastern descent. We're not 
quite there with atheists either. But in some areas, for sure.

> This, to me at least, is being "more free" than

Free as in beer, or free as in speech?

Oh, sorry, wrong topic.

> go and kill blacks because you "could" - if you tried it you'd get arrested
> and processed, and hung (we still had the death penalty then) like any
> other murderer.

Wind back about 150 years in the USA. :-) Slaves were property. Read Huck 
Finn.  "Electric pole fell in the stream."   "Was anyone hurt?"  "No, but a 
couple niggers got killed."  I'm glad the US finally moved away from that 
mindset.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> This is still a lot more than the average office complex or neighborhood 
> school. 

How do you know?

Grade school, sure, I'll grant you. But the last office I worked in, at 
least two people carried, and that was about 40 or 50 people in the company. 
Indeed, I've never worked at a company of >10 people that I didn't know at 
least one person who carried.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> If /everyone/ is carrying a gun around,

Did you read where it happened? How many people in a hospital in the USA do 
you think are carrying weapons with them?  How many doctors are ready to use 
lethal force even to defend themselves? How many psychiatric patients do you 
leave with firearms? How many people getting a cast put on are holding their 
rifle?

This wasn't on patrol, or someone breaking in in a foreign country. Chances 
are nobody had firearms in the immediate vicinity other than the military 
police, who shot him.

> then the first reaction to 
> someone drawing one is probably "gee, what's happening here? Is there 
> any danger? Damn, this is serious - he's having a real firefight with 
> those guys over there! Man, if only I knew who's the good guys here!", 
> rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND 
> COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN' HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"

Uh, on a military base? I think not.

You think if a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop and you pick up a 
firearm, he's not going to draw on you, but rather run away? No.

Not to try to claim that fiction reflects reality, but did you ever see 
Lethal Weapon?  The undercover cop all scruffy and dirty comes in to meet 
his partner. While waiting, he takes out his weapon to check it over. 
Someone yells "GUN!" and tackles him and handcuffs him, to much 
embarrassment when they find out he's a cop.

> Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before 
> anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take 
> him out.

No, I'm pretty sure they teach soldiers how to shoot someone who is killing 
people in the same color uniform. If he wasn't shot immediately, I'm pretty 
sure it wasn't because it was "OH SHIT, HE HAS A GUN!"

I mean, what army could possibly be the least effective if its tactics is to 
shit themselves when someone shoots at them?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

>> If your police force is corrupt, then yeah, you probably need guns...
> 
> That's the whole point. There is no guarantee that in any given country in
> the world, this kind of situation cannot come into being, by whatever
> means. If it comes into being while citizens are armed, they at least have
> recourse to arms to protect their lives and freedoms from a blatantly
> unjust and / or corrupt oppressor.

I don't believe this argumentation.

> What would the recourse be of British citizens, for example, if your
> government slowly, by degrees, enacted new, oppressive laws (take a look at
> the BNP, for example...!) so that at the end of the process it is illegal
> for a British Citizen of Pakistani descent (or those who even LOOK
> Pakistani!) to live in certain areas (for a start), and maybe later not
> being allowed to work, or own his own business...? And later being expelled
> from the UK or interned, or eventually put into a gas chamber?
> 
> It happened in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Russia, Argentina,
> Rwanda, the Congo... and its called ethnic cleansing.

You can't prevent that by putting the right to bear arms into a 
constitution.

If a government (or, let's rather say: society) wants to go for ethnical 
cleansing, first thing they'll do is cut down the rights of bearing arms 
/for that group of people/.

And the rifle enthusiasts will scream "Hooray" because /they/ will be 
allowed to keep their rifles, while there will be /some/ reason why "the 
others" shouldn't have them.

They may even happily come to the aid of the governmental forces, so 
that you'll have the majority of the personally-owned firepower 
/against/ the oppressed.


No, the individual's right to bear arms doesn't protect minorities 
against a corrupt government. The world isn't as simple as that.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> True. But the mere presence of weapons can often times defuse a 
>> situation to
>> such a degree that actually firing a shot is not needed. 
> 
> The FBI reports here show that the presence of a gun without firing 
> stops more violent crimes than the presence of a gun that does get fired.
> 
Yeah. Its one of those interesting catch-22s. If everyone in a room is 
armed, and someone fires, not everyone is going to be looking to *see* 
who fired, so what you get its a room full of armed corpses. If, on the 
other hand, someone guy walks in, and notices that people have guns, 
unless he is mentally unstable, he won't try pulling his. The problem 
being, some people ***are*** mentally unstable.

Its a complex mess, but what it comes down to is that the less you have, 
the less likely you are to be "in" a situation that you would have 
needed one, but the more likely you are to get shot, having not had one. 
So, the question is, how do you balance that? Is the risk that you might 
have a run in with the one idiot that is mentally unstable, and got hold 
of a gun of some sort, worth 99% of the time not having to worry about 
such a person? Or is it better to live in the world of people defending 
the questionable value of a, "right to bear arms", who think that having 
every single person in sight armed is a good idea, on the entirely 
imaginary position that no one is mentally unstable enough to pull one 
in such a situation? How about if you have a crowd of 100,000, three of 
which are unstable, but only one of which could "get" a gun? Would you 
rather be in the group closest to the two that don't have them, or the 
one closest to the one that does? If you where armed, would that really 
change things? How about completely unarmed, without even a pocket 
knife? What is the risk that the 50 other people around you, if you, and 
they, are armed, will see "you" holding your gun, and assume, based on 
people dropping to the ground, that you shot someone?

The only "safe" world is one which doesn't include guns. All else is an 
exercise in making people feel safe, when they might not be. And the 
only real difference between pro and anti gun people is which situation 
they "think" is safer, the one where they might be shot by accident, or 
the one where they might, by shear misfortune, actually run into a guy 
that got hold of one. The constitution does not even **try** to address 
this issue, and that makes arguing from its authority on the matter, 
when the guy you are running into might have a damn 100 round machine 
gun, instead of a muzzle loaded musket, problematic at best.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:

>> North America, OTOH, /is/ a somewhat tame society by now.
> 
> Um... Is this the same North America where seemingly even the police are 
> not above harassing people who deny the Christian faith?
> 
> For example, the story about the little girl who wouldn't say the Lord's 
> Prayer in class, and got expelled from school. Her dad said she 
> shouldn't be forced to say the prayer, and soon the entire family found 
> themselves being virtually driven out of the town. And then it ended up 
> being a court case, I forget why...
> 
> Sounds like Britain in the Dark Ages to me. :-P

Um, yes... possibly we need to differentiate between America and the 
Outback... um, I mean, Missouri or wherever nowhere you're talking 
about... :-P

(Also note that I said, "/somewhat/ tame" :-))

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> then the first reaction to someone drawing one is probably "gee,
>> what's happening here? Is there any danger? Damn, this is serious -
>> he's having a real firefight with those guys over there! Man, if only
>> I knew who's the good guys here!", rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A
>> GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN'
>> HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"
> 
> Uh, on a military base? I think not.
> 
> You think if a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop and you pick up a
> firearm, he's not going to draw on you, but rather run away? No.
> 

If a cop pulls you over and you pull a gun, chances are that you are not
in the same uniform as the cop.

>> Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before
>> anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to
>> take him out.
> 
> No, I'm pretty sure they teach soldiers how to shoot someone who is
> killing people in the same color uniform. If he wasn't shot immediately,
> I'm pretty sure it wasn't because it was "OH SHIT, HE HAS A GUN!"
> 
> I mean, what army could possibly be the least effective if its tactics
> is to shit themselves when someone shoots at them?
> 

The problem, for the average soldier who had a loaded gun, was which guy
should they take down; the one firing, or the one being shot at? What
was the situation, maybe the guy with the gun was another sentry or
guard who got their first.

This wasn't a case of someone wandering on to a base without security
catching them. He worked there, he was probably authorized to carry a
gun on to the base if not carry it around with him. So the first guard
on the scene sees someone he works with firing at someone else he works
with, and may have had no clue which one was the bad guy. And if he
opened fire, would the next guard to come along mistake him for the bad
guy as well?

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> 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.

Wouldn't work. If they really wanted to kick your ass, they'd make sure 
to find a reason to take away the guns from you (and only you) /first/.

Maybe by provoking you a bit, so you start shooting at them, as of 
course you know right from the start that your freedom is at stake.

Or if you don't shoot, they'd go further and further, until you either 
do shoot (giving them a reason at last to take away your weapons) or 
have come close enough to take your weapon right out of your hand anyway.

So either way you'd lose.

Unless the government is going against /everyone/ - but I've never heard 
of a case of governmental oppression without anyone benefiting from it, 
so they'll always have someone on /their/ side.

> 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.

Yes, but life isn't bullet-proof anyway. There's always a tradeoff 
between sweating under a heavy flak vest each day, or taking the risk of 
getting shot. What to do depends on how likely it is that someone may 
point a gun at you.

> 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.

Some of the cases cited should also tell you that at least in more 
prosperous contries, an oppressive government will typically come 
silently through the back door. Or being let in by someone living in the 
house.

"Oh, son, did you bring a friend of yours?"

"No, mom, it's just a guy who said he wants my brother's money and rape 
my sister. I don't really care about those two, so I thought I'd let him 
in. He promised there'll be something in for me, too."

 > 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.

I disagree on this topic. I do think there's a human right for 
self-defense, but I don't think this automatically includes the right 
for having a weapon of your personal choice loaded & ready for that 
purpose. I consider that a secondary right derived from that first one, 
and as such depending on the circumstances.

Should Bill Gates be allowed to buy a private squadron of F117, loaded 
with one or two tactical nukes each maybe, just in case the government 
might feel an urge to go nuts, so that there is adequate firepower in 
private hands to prevail?

Of course this is extreme example, but the point is that there must be 
/some/ limit to the right to personal armament for potential 
self-defense; and I guess this limit depends on the imminent danger 
you're living in, not just some possible danger lurking in your darkest 
dreams.

Consider this:

If personal armament is there to prevent the government from going nuts, 
then that personal armament must obviously be superior to the armament 
under governmental control.

However, if the personal armament is superior to that under governmental 
control, what can a /good/ government possibly do in case the /society/ 
should go nuts and fall into disarray and anarchy?

Both scenarios are true possibilities. Preparing for one automatically 
means being unprepared for the other.

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> You are correct, but my opinion about it differs, methinks. How do you
> define a "working" law enforcement system? And when does the law
> enforcement system get itself a "conscience" when it comes to unjust laws
> that it must enforce? The police is the servant of the state - it does what
> the state tells it to do. There is NO guarantee that the state will always
> have your rights and safety as its primary concern.

You don't have to tell /me/ - I'm a German. But two six-shooters at our 
sides per person and a semi-automatic gun in each closet wouldn't have 
stopped that government. Because my grandparents let him in through the 
back door. Or maybe even the front door. With a hello and a greeting and 
a fresh coffee and cake.

Experience in Germany tells me that guns don't prevent governmental 
oppression.

Being prepared to act with civil courage may, and you don't need 
ordnance to fire /that/.

Heck, our East German brothers even got /rid/ of an oppressive 
government without firing a single round.

 > A state wants to
> safeguard and perpetuate its power (look at Communist Russia, for example,
> or Robert Mugabe's government of Zimbabwe). Interestingly, one of the very
> first things Mr. Mugabe did when coming to power in 1980 was to make all
> private firearms illegal. Once the citizenry was disarmed, he got Korean
> training and assistance for his Army, and then proceeded to murder tens of
> thousands of members of the Zimbabwean Matabele tribe (Mugabe is a Shona).

Did I mention before that the European/American and African situation 
cannot be compared?

Everyone here /knew/ that Zimbabwe was far from being stable. There's 
not /too/ many hints about any instabilities in the US, Germany or 
whatever. Even Northern Ireland has become comparatively quiet.

> Surely no country on earth has a policeman for every citizen, every hour of
> every day? That is where a citizen must take responsibility for himself. I
> find it completely anathema to completely depend for physical security on
> the state - you MUST take -personal- responsibility for yourself too,
> BEYOND what the state can, or will do for you.

The question is, do you need an automatic rifle for that, or will the 
baseball bat or the large kitchen knife do?

> Granted, but then again Germany is a highly-advanced, first world country,
> with world-class social services, extremely low unemployment (compared to
> SA, for example), an very homogenuous population both racially and
> culturally,  and a deeply entrenched respect for human life. I can
> understand how, in such a society, it is not necessary to have firearms and
> be ready to defend yourself and your family. But as you say above, a
> comparison is difficult to make.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't believe in the German 
government going all oppressive anytime soon, at least no more than I'd 
believe in the society going all nuts and falling into a routine of 
daily anarchy.

At the same time I can quite well imagine that the situation in many 
African countries may be unstable enough to expect the next corrupt 
government to take over with just a few months', weeks' or even days' 
notice. And yes, personal firearms to defend against an unjust 
government don't sound like a bad idea /there/.

> Again, it begs the question - will Germany ALWAYS stay like that?

History especially of Germany teaches the lesson that a permanent "good" 
government cannot be guaranteed, but it also teaches that a bad one may 
well come as something nobody will point their gun at even if they have 
one - and also that there are other ways to effectively oppose a bad 
government even without any other weapons than pure courage.

 > Those old geezers who wrote the US constitution decided that
> each free man should have that same capability on a personal level, and
> thus should have weapons.

They, too, lived in different times. They had just rid themselves not of 
a corrupt government, but of foreign rule; and it was civilians that had 
formed the army for that fight. Granting every civilian the right to 
bear arms meant being prepared for a potential return of the Brits.

US America isn't going to fight hard against foreign occupation anytime 
soon I guess.


> Good point. You are suggesting (if I read in context with your statements
> below) that ethnic unity was a factor? The "common enemy" idea which Hitler
> used to such good effect?

Yes, precisely.


> Ok, that makes sense. Still, for me, it does NOT make sense to say that the
> rational, 99% segment of your society who are law-abiding, should be FORCED
> (as you are in Germany) to -completely- depend on a state funded and run
> police force for their safety, IF such a person decides to target them in a
> killing or shooting spree.

The German law doesn't forbid me to grab whatever weapon I can get hold 
of if there's someone endangering my life - or that of others, for that 
matter. Whether it is a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, or even a dead 
policeman's firearm (IANAL, but I guess the latter is covered as well). 
It is sure to come with a lot of legal trouble, but I /do/ have the 
right to employ any adequate means for self-defense.

Still, I think it makes sense to limit items designed for the sole 
purpose of killing or severely injuring other people to a subset of the 
people, who are specially trained to use those tools adequately and 
efficiently, and to quickly assess how much force will be adequate to a 
particular situation.

> As I referred to in my Mark Steyn vignette to Invisible, in the EU mostly
> you might WANT to have a weapon, but you CANNOT. In the United States you
> mostly can, as many as you might want, even automatic ones in certain
> states or principalities. This, to me at least, is being "more free" than
> if you are a citizen of the EU, and it is decided FOR you what you may, and
> may not own, or do.

Following the road to the very end, that definition of freedom leads to 
anarchy as seen in South Africa (and probably worse). Well, it may not 
be /legal/ there to do whatever you want, but what the heck, you /can/ 
do it if you have a gun...

Not that I argue against going even a single step along that road, but 
the point I want to make is that there must be /some/ limitation to 
freedom as defined this way.

If the government tries to restrict my freedom of shooting my neighbor 
in the head... well, is that a bad thing for a government to do?

Again, I don't intend to liken shooting my neighbor to merely possessing 
a firearm; my sole point is that there must be a limit, and I personally 
think there is no clear-cut answer to whether this does or does not 
include the individual right to bear firearms.


>> In a society where the blacks are the bad guys, a person under similar
>> diffuse psychological pressure will blame it on the blacks, and have at
>> them. And nobody will bother because all he killed were some of "the
>> others". And he may not even go as far as to kill, because he can just
>> kick a black ass anytime he feels like letting off steam, and all his
>> fellows will pat him on the back for it.
> 
> This is blatantly not true. Sure this did happen, but it is just like the
> criminal / law abiding element comparison, or the "any guy who likes guns
> is crazy, and a potential murderer" argument referred to in my other posts.

I did exaggerate there of course, to outline the principle that may have 
been at work even without becoming that obvious in practice.

How many highschool shootings do occur per year in the US? How many more 
people live there as compared to South Africa? Translated to South 
Africa, the number of similar shootings would have been rather small I 
guess.

It would suffice that all those blown-fuse people rather preferred to 
shoot black people than white people. And I wouldn't be surprised if the 
South African media would have made not much fuss of it. After all, why 
should the whites bother about the blacks?

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> coming back in. Properly trained soldiers will also NEVER just fire back,
> if fired upon - it depends on what orders they have been given. Granted, a
> soldier that has got no orders might just take cover, instead of
> automatically returning fire. I vividly remember how it was hammered into
> our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
> without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND your
> target. The sequence was always "wait for my command" - especially if you
> had loaded weapons and a properly trained officer.

That's what I'd expect. Be sure of the situation first. Though I guess 
some armies would accept /some/ kind of personal initiative if fired 
upon by a "friedly" who doesn't comply to "cease fire!"

> A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
> or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
> which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
> told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

Well, to some degree there's a reason to this discipline, isn't there?

If I'd be in a shopping mall with someone starting a shooting spree, I 
wouldn't want other people to make it worse by shooting first and 
checking later whether they might hit some innocent bystander.

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

>> Can you imagine someone trained in firing guns doing this?:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7091904.stm
> 
> You can't fix stupid.

No, of course. But if you cannot deny him access to tools in general 
that /might/ kill if used wrong, you can at least deny him access to 
tools that /do/ kill /especially/ if used according to the handbook.

 > If you're stupid, you can injure
> youself with an ice cream cone! :)

Duh - that would be a stunt indeed... :-P

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:

>> then the first reaction to someone drawing one is probably "gee, 
>> what's happening here? Is there any danger? Damn, this is serious - 
>> he's having a real firefight with those guys over there! Man, if only 
>> I knew who's the good guys here!", rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A 
>> GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN' 
>> HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"
> 
> Uh, on a military base? I think not.
> 
> You think if a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop and you pick up a 
> firearm, he's not going to draw on you, but rather run away? No.

The point was not really about what /exactly/ to do, but about the 
problem of properly assessing a fucked-up situation. A cop pulling 
someone over knows for sure who's the good one. A soldier witnessing 
some other "friendlies" shooting each other probably doesn't - nor does 
someone witnessing random people shooting each other at a mall. The 
difference is that a soldier is probably trained to assess a situation. 
That gun-crazy Texan happening to sit next desk at the local steakhouse 
likely isn't.

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] polardcom> wrote in message
news:4af415c0@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick
> > to point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter
would
> > have been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder
> > about their angle now.

> Isn't this exactly what happened? I. e. an armed military policeman shot
> back and stopped the guy?

I don't have any statistics, but death toll of 13 seems rather on the high
end for shooting rampages, and I much doubt he'd be killing 50-60 people had
he not been shot. Besides, well, it *was* police.

There was another such shooting in USA today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/orlando.shootings/index.html

resulting in only one death, in spite of there being no armed citizens (nor
police, not that that's the point) to stop him during the act.

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote in message
news:4af42f16@news.povray.org...

> Thus the argument that "if everybody was armed, it would have turned out
> differently" still holds true. Merely being a soldier on a military base
> doesn't necessarily mean you are armed, no more than being a civilian in a
> country that allows citizens private firearms means you are armed at any
> given moment.

And you trust civilians will be so much more diligent in being armed *and*
better trained? If someone can kill 13 in a military complex in the blink of
an eye, what chance do grandma and Mr. CouchPotato stand? If we are going to
believe in a utopic society where every citizen is armed, trained and
sensible, why not believe in a utopic one where nobody needs a gun?

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote in message
news:4af439d2@news.povray.org...

> But what is the difference between making guns, and making medicine?
Either
> serve a purpose or fills a need. You could probably say there is no
> comparison, since guns kill people and medicine heals people. That's the
> old hackneyed "guns don't kill people, people do". Misuse medicine and it
> could kill or make you sick. Same with firearms. Misuse it and it could
get
> you killed.

Medicine is regulated too, for that very reason. In fact, it can be more
difficult to obtain certain medicines and drugs, and while gun ownership may
be legal, there may not be any legal avenues for medicinal drug use.

Post a reply to this message