From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:30:53 GMT

davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:

[.....]

>Get real!  Do you honestly think you'd be able to get NEAR enough
>to anybody of any importance to shoot them?  Forget it!

First, a person cannot be protected all the time.  Most people cannot
be protected at all outside of what the provide for themselves.  Second,
it is an acknowledged fact that *anyone* can be assassinated provided the
assassin doesn't care about surviving the attempt.

[....]

>>> You'll need MASSIVE quantities of explosives.  Good luck getting 
>>> those without the CIA/FBI paying you a visit.  

>>trip to the grocery store. let the CIA visit. after all, we've -only-
>>got a few assault rifles. and some plastique.

>Man, you've been reading "Soldier of Fortune" too much.  The quantity
>of explosive you'd need would fill a wharehouse.  And if they ever
>found out you had it (which they would) you'd "mysteriously" disappear.
>We're talking treason here, they're going to pull all the stops.

Your education has been sadly neglected.  The basic material for all
manners of explosives, poisons and other noxious items are around you
everywhere.  They aren't sexy like plastic explosives, but you can
make a pretty good fuel-air explosive with $10 worth of purchases from
the local hardware store.  Go down to the local flea market and purchase
an old set of encyclopedias.  They have pages describing in detail how
to make nitro, guncotton, ...  almost all from commonly available
industrial chemicals.  Poison gas? Easy; more than one person has gotten
themselves into real trouble by pouring drano and clorox into the commode.

>>it's pretty difficult to apply force with extreme
>>prejudice when the "good guys" and "bad guys" are all mixed up together.
>>Viet Nam anyone?

>A) Our technology has increased since then.  B) As I said earlier
>in this post, they can cut off every means of communication you
>have.  You seem to have forgotten that they control the country,
>and you're a band of rebels.

In Vietnam, we controlled the cities.  We controlled the countryside
wherever we had troops.  As soon as those troops moved somewhere else,
the local VC or NVA controlled it.  Are you planning on putting troops
everywhere?  How can you be sure they are loyal if a civil insurrection
is in progress (hint:  read about what happened in the US military at
the beginning of the Civil War).

[...]

>Stalin, anybody?  History proves you wrong.  Stalin killed thousands
>of people, and nobody even noticed.  He took over the farms and
>put in his own people.  It worked quite well.   And once again,
>a "whole neighborhood" of ak-wielders is going to get demolished.
>What was that college that got fired on in the 60's?  Open firing
>on a whole group of people is not something the US govt. has a big
>problem with.

Plenty of people noticed.  It was a classic situation where the state
owned the weapons and the people were dependent on the benovelence of 
the state.  Is that the situation you want here?

[...]

>On the contrary.  Then you have more people in the military than you
>have regular citizens.  That's the weirdest logic I've heard in a 
>long time.  "If you have more military, it's harder for the military to 
>take over."  Huh?  In China there are 300,000,000 military.  That's
>more military than the US has citizens.  Do you think that if the
>students in Tienamen square had AK-47's they'd have won?  HA!

Perhaps you have never thought about this.  First, the Chinese had to
bring in troops from remote provences to do the job.  Most could not
even speak the local dialect and consequentially, did not have any
understanding about the issues except for waht they were told by their
officers.  Apparently, the local troops were not considered reliable
and there was some real concern that they might go over.  

The coup in the late, unlamented USSR failed, in part, because
the plotters relied on local troops.  Some supported the coup attempt
but enough others either refused to act or actively supported Yeltsin.

In a crunch, individual soldiers are each, individually, going to be
presented with a crises of conscience.  The last time something like
this happened in the USA was during the Civil War.  It might be
very instructive for you to look at what happened within the military
establishment at the outbreak of hostilities.

[...]

>Yeah, they're civil, we're barbarians.  I'd rather have mortar attacks
>on the White House (which is pretty damn unlikely to happen just
>because we illegalize guns) than to have 20,000 people/year get killed
>by guns.  The White House could be reinforced to withstand it.  The
>Common Man can't afford or acquire heavy-duty body armour.

20000, big deal.  Maybe we should look to see just who is getting killed.
If it is thugs settling business disputes between themselves, I
couldn't care less.  If some of them are put away while they are actively
engaged in a felony perpertrated against an intended victim, I couldn't
care less.  To me, 20000 deaths where 15000 are suicides or thugs settling
affairs between themselves is a lot less repugnant than 10000 deaths
where the deceased are victims of predatory criminals.

>It always depresses me to find that people are actually so 
>self-deceived as to think they could overcome something as formidable
>as the US Military.  Isn't it more productive to try to work WITH
>the government?  I mean, if the government got THAT out of hand,
>you can believe that I'd be one of the first to die trying to fight
>it, but I sure wouldn't expect to win.  I'd be fighting simply as a
>matter of principle.

Do some research.  The government isn't an omnipotent monolith and it can
be influenced by votes and political action.  However at worst case, an
armed insurrection by even 1 or 2 percent of the population isn't
automatically doomed to failure.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.rape