From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and surrealism
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:35:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <26720@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

>Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
>government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
>the support of the army, because it needs it),
>
>n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

As I pointed out in a recent post to TPG, you don't need to destroy
the tanks.  You only need to shoot the troops who try to take you
away, or search your house, or whatever.  Remember, defeating an army
and controlling an occupied people are two different things.  A
would-be-dictator would have to do the latter.  Small arms are quite
effective in resisting such actions.  Study a bit more military history.

>Now, guns save no one.

The over half a million people who defended themselves with guns in the
US last year might argue with that.  The French Resistance in WWII (God
Bless them) might also.  So would the Founders of the US.

>Look at Europe.

You mean the Europe where the Nazis disarmed the Jews, then massacred
them?  The Europe where the communists took over several countries
after WWII, disarmed the people, and proceeded to establish brutal,
totalitarian regimes?  THAT Europe?  A bit of selective amnesia at work
here?

Comparisons between the US and Europe are of little value.  Europe has
nowhere near the problems of urban decay, overcrowding, racism,
poverty, and other crime-breeding factors that the US does.  ALL crimes
are more common in the US than in Europe.  If you insist on making
comparisons, compare Northern Ireland with England.  Same gun laws,
rather different gun-death rates.  Or compare NI to Switzerland, where
there are LOTS of guns, but fewer people die.  Or look at Mexico, which
has stricter gun control than the US, but has a worse murder rate.
Or...

>If guns save people in the US,
>it's ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME GUNS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS.

Since you're fond of capital letters: WRONG! on two counts.  First, the
"same guns" are not available.  Most US criminals obtain their guns on
the black market already, and won't be affected by a ban.  Banning guns
would disarm many innocent victims, but few criminals.  I point to our
success in banning cocaine.  Second, guns are not useful only for
defense against an attacker with a gun.  If the attacker is larger and
stronger than the victim, and more experienced in violence, a gun may
be the victim's only chance of survival even if the attacker has no
gun.  Many people are killed, crippled, and raped every year by
criminals who aren't carrying guns.  I claim those people have a right
to defend themselves.

>A gun, like tobacco, is a government approved good which, when used as
>directed, causes death.

When used as directed, a gun causes a pellet of lead to move forward.
Where that lead goes is a function of the operator, not the gun.  A gun
is a tool which can be used for good or evil.  The same is true of the
knives in your kitchen.

Many people have successfully DEFENDED their lives with guns.  (I'm not
aware of any such claim for tobacco.)  Do you think people whose lives
are threatened should not attempt to defend themselves?  If you think
they have a right to self-defense, is it not a contradiction to say
that they have no right to what may be the only effective means of
doing so?

>Although it does not seem directly relevant to scf, i feel is sort of
>is...for some reason...shrug...

I've redirected further discussion to talk.politics.guns.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.