In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  > If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from  > the police and to be a member of a gun-club. > The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or > records of SERIOUS mental diseases. > Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun > -club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.  So, like, what do you do during those six months to be "active?" My town has a similar requirement, and it's rather stupid.  Before you can buy a handgun, you have to be an active member of a gun club. Well, how active can you be without a gun, chief?  Most gun owners feel a check of criminal records for crimes and mental disorders would be a very good thing -- IF it couldn't be abused by the government.  But every time this is proposed, there is always some trapdoor by which the government can deny your purchase EVEN IF you are perfectly qualified to own a gun.  And we oppose this.  > It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ??? > You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...  Since the fatal accident rate for licensed automobile drivers in the US  is around 50 times the fatal accident rate of largely unlicensed gun owners, I'd think twice before using this analogy.  Besides, the problem is criminal use of guns, not accidents.  (There are about 500,000 criminal uses of guns in the US every year -- but only 1,400 accidents.)  I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot of energy making sure a criminal CAN shoot a gun before he gets one.  Just like the check, most gun owners feel positively about requiring safety courses -- IF they couldn't be abused by the government.  But  they already have!  One state doesn't hold the courses, another doesn't  fund them, a third holds them only once a year with limited attendence  to those with political connections.  Is this fair?  > Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short  > time befor the crime.  And how many of them acquire these guns from legal retail outlets? How many are borrowed, stolen, smuggled, bought on the black market?  > Use of knives: > It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'. > You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open > in public -rigth ??  Some states allow ONLY open carry.  Some allow ONLY concealed carry. Some allow both.  Some allow both, but require licenses for concealed  carry.  All you can say is if one of these modes has a clear advantage over another in terms of reducing crime or any other public good, then state legislators SOMEPLACE are doing exactly the wrong thing. Which means that they really don't have any objective reasons for  these laws other than their preferences -- a bad way to govern.  > Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive': > We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide > to take action we DO.  ("Hot-livered."  I LOVE that expression.  Here, we say "hot-headed.")  > Individual vs masses: > Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some > extent.... > Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ?? > What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of  > all the others ??  Typically, the only criminals who can affect the rights of ALL the other people are criminals in government offices.  The rest of our criminals affect the rights of only one or a few people at a time, and they do this during the commission of a crime.  POSSESSION of a gun by someone hurts NO ONE else.  It is when they do something violent with that gun that the crime occurs.  Of course, it is a crime for a felon or ex-felon to possess a gun, but we don't feel it is right to treat common citizens who have lived good lives as if they were just "pre-felons" waiting to commit crimes.  > We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....  I don't understand this sentence.  > IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME. > But should it have to be like that ??  Life isn't fair.  I shouldn't need a fire extinguisher either, or flood and theft insurance, or to lock the doors of my house and car. But pining for a better world won't do anything to address what I have to do to live in this one.  > Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??  None of ours, I'm sure.  > If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think > it should be free to buy guns ??  Frankly, I'm not sure I know what good a driver's license does anyone, either.  The people who drive safely never use it, and the people who  drive drunk, drive without it!  However, a car is a good tool, but not one that protects my right to life. I rank the right to life somewhere north of the right to travel freely.  > I'm not a pacifist or anti gun.  > I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as > neccities or toys. > I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't > want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....  The question is not whether or not you want to own guns personally.  It's whether or not you think that ALL people should be forced to do as you do. I don't have any problem with someone who says they would never own a gun. I do have a problem with someone who says I should be prevented from owning one, too. --