From: speednut@zikzak.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:07:37 GMT
Organization: Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: zikzak.apana.org.au

Original Message From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)

>In article <1jvd0tINN8jv@werple.apana.org.au>
>speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>
>>Original Message From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
>>
>>>skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>> .
>> .
>>>>I dont need a gun to protect myself,I dont feel like "they" are after me.
>>>>We have gunlaws that makes it hard to get guns.Almost nobody owns handguns,
>>>>so if noone else have guns,why should I need one?
>>>
>>>Well, it depends.  What you are advocating is a return to the jungle
>>>where the most physically powerful and/or gangs run things.  A lot of
>>
>>I can't see how he is advocating any such thing; or am I missing
>>something?
>
>      Essentially, if you remove mechanical aids, power resides solely
>in physical prowess.  A less physically powerful person will always
>be at the mercy of a more physically powerful person if he has no
>access to a mechanical aid.  (In this case, a gun.)

Still what was intimated was some sort of anarchy where force is the
rule. The original poster (to my mind) disregards other aspects such
as punishment, law and police. [No I don't want to enter a debate into
the relevancy of these].

>       Whether violence "dictates" the need for a weapon is an
>interesting question.  My position is that the need for a weapon is
>no greater in these United States than there is in Britain or Canada.
>If you are the victim of a violent assault by a physically more powerful
>individual, you need a weapon.  If you aren't, then you don't.  The
>likelihood may vary, but not the need.  The need is 100% if it happens
>to you, no matter what the numbers say the possibility is.

Funny thing is that over here we may have violence against a person,
but don't seek to redress the situation (on the whole) by arming one-
self. Whether you need a weapon (IMO) is dictated as to whether you
feel that the assault was a one-off thing where a change of habit,
life-style etc may rectify the obvious danger.

>not fractions, like the statistics say.  You may be the only person
>in your entire country who is attacked, but if you *are* that only
>person not all the low violent crime rates in the world are going
>to change that you are in need of *some* aid.

Agreed, but it all depends (to me) whether it is a one-off situation
or the situation is becoming so common place that you have no
ALTERNATIVE but to seek some form of defence other than that which
your social structure provides for.

>       Things are not, as some would have you believe, as awful in the
>U.S. as you appear to think.  Certainly not across the entire country.
>The U.S., like Australia, is a big place.  Iowa isn't the same place as
>New York isn't the same place as Tennessee and shouldn't be treated

Actually I realise that. What I was endeavoring to point out was that
where there is a perceived "need" to carry a weapon because your
chances are great that you may be assaulted (eg high crime areas) then
I too would carry a firearm. Other than that, I see no "need" to do so.

Again it gets back to whether you feel threatened in your environment. If
you do then, by all means arm yourself for protection.

>argues is that violence in the U.S. is mostly in small geographic areas,
>and it's a mistake to generalize them to the rest of the country, most
>of which have rates fairly comparable to elsewhere.

My aplogies, I didn't wish to offend you. It was used purely as an
example (see above) not as some white-wash of your whole society.
Generalisation was not my goal.


-- 
		Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne, Australia.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns