In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: >Drivers licence: >Forgot that USA is THE land of cars..... >Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy. >Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......  Is the license required for driving a car exclusively on private property, such as a farm? Here in the United States, the license is required only for the use of public roads.  >Abuse by the goverment: >This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control >would just be abused by the goverment.(!) >Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should >get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)  We also have a nation of 250 million people, _many_ issues and usually only two candidates for a given office. A President might be willing to abuse mild gun control laws and create a de-facto ban (something a majority of the people would object to) and still be elected: The voters might look at issues like the civil rights of minorities, health care, etc... and vote for the "lesser of two evils." I don't think this is a matter of paranoia, since local governments in (for example) New York and Chicago have abused existing, mild gun control laws to  create a virtual ban.  >Guns 'n Criminals: >MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen. >Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.  In which case, the United States already has adaquate gun control laws: According to federal statistic, only 7% of gun-wielding criminals legally purchase their own guns from licensed dealers. If that's the point of gun control (to prevent criminals from legally purchasing guns) then America doesn't need any additional laws to accomplish this.  >Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one: >What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!  How is this any different from guns? There are legal purposes for owning and using a gun: They are appropriate tools for hunting, target shooting and self-defence. Like cars, murder isn't their only (or even a common) use.  >If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them >or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem, >it's the 'axer' ??  I certainly couldn't imagine the American public accepting regulation of axes. While the politics of other nations may be different, in America there is strong opposition to any intrusive law that primarily would effect the average, law-abiding citizen who had not done anything wrong.  >Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect >themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??  A good way to deal with which problem? It is an excelent way to deal  with the short-term problem of rioting and violent attacks. Of course, it doesn't do anything for the long-term issues that start riots. But at this point, what can these individuals do about long-term social problems?   >If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have >guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)  There are, according to surveys, guns in 40% of American homes. In many parts of the country, this is closer to 100%. Those places where almost everyone owns a gun are, on average, safer than those where guns are less common.  >LAST WORD: >Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if >you want to protect your citicens.  This is, I think, a fundamental difference between American government and that of other nations. Here it is not acceptable to punish or restrict the average, law-abiding citizen in the name of some vague "common good."