Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  	Remember me, Tom?  I hope you'll respond, and I seem to be a Voice of Reason or some such (I've been recieving fan mail, so naturally my ego is somehwat inflated of late), and hope to make a few points here.  >I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America ! >What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially >to many in wrong hands....  	And our argument is that you cannot remove them from the people who need restricting and not remove them from the people who don't.  A fairly simple problem, given our size and numbers.  Do you agree?  We all believe criminals, particularly violent criminals, should not have firearms.  The problem is making a law that does this without trodding upon the rights of the vast majority.  Nobody here seems to be able to do it, and I doubt anybody in Norway can either.  Thus, we are left with a philosophical difference: does the safety of a few justify restricting the many?  We say "no," while others say "yes."  >Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without >affecting good/responcible gun owners ??  	Can you provide a method that cannot be abused?  I doubt it.  >I DO believe in a persons freedom. >What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.  	Of course.  This is not in contention.  What is in contention is how much one has to pay.  >MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE >to give 'a little' to make that society work.  	It is this "giving a little" that makes Americans wary... We have seen this argument before.  You might remember how a Chamberlain "gave a little" to a particular fascist/short asshole, and how such "appeasement" worked.  While it might work in some instances, it doesn't work in others, and since we cannot predict the future we must be cautious in using actions that have a history of failure.  >Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point. >Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b, >so a car is essential in most parts.... >Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't  >argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....  	Cars are not essential in Norway any more than they are in the USA.  I'm willing to bet that you have neighbors that would be willing to drive you anywhere you wanted to go for a price.  Thus, cars are not essential for your transportation.  However, the arguments presented show that, since cars are used to kill far more people than guns in the USA, it makes much more sense to restrict cars than it does guns.  How one defines "essential" often depends upon what one is willing to go through for that service.  When we look at the raw data, such comparisons are not individually weighed.  >EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were >more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!  	This depends upon what the populace was willing to do.  As Desert Storm proved, even an armed populace won't just revolt even when given a chance.  Still, would Hitler have done all that he did with an armed populace?  We have to wonder, as some of his first acts were to confiscate firearms.  Other points in history show that dictators were overthrown by arms in the hands of the populace. Thus, we're left wondering if Hitler would have been overthrown or if King George was just unlucky in keeping the USA as a colony. One can argue both sides; one also has to live with each action.  >Is this discussion about >1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans >            or >2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??  	It is about #2, but so far all proposals to curtail #2 have wound up enforcing #1 as well.  I only wish that "or" was so logical.  >Change of name.......  	That was, on my part, purely in jest.  I merely pointed out how we were from similar backgrounds racially, but of wholly different backgrounds politically.  I thought this would underscore my point on how our cultures were so different despite similar heritage.  >Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons. >(Child abuse for instance)  	BATF can *only* enforce gun/tobaccco/alcohol violations.  Child abuse is a matter for the individual states and local authorities.  >Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.*  >hierarcy ??  (Some seems rather mis/unInformed)  	That hierarchy is a paid-for feed at many sites.  Most people do not get it for this reason, and I suspect money, not censorship, is the main reason.  Do you get alt.sex* at your site?  I can't read it here because of censorship and legal fears, so again our differences show. You have topless sunbathing, and in the USA we can watch a murder every fifteen seconds and yet breasts are forbidden on television.