In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: > >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...)          Mr. Parsli, I have to take exception at this.  There are verifiable, previous *examples* of levels of U.S. governments abusing gun-control restrictions.  I don't think it is paranoid to worry that what has been abused in the recent past might be abused in thye future.  After so many times of getting burned any sane person will stop putting his hand on the stove.  >OR you should >get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)         I'd love to.  But as long as the politicians grab power to sell pork back to their constituents, there's not a lot I can do.           It's silly to suggest that if there's anything we can't trust the government to do, and therefore the government should be allowed to do it, then we should change governments.  Down that road lies total government power.   I've never been a fan of totalitarianism.  >Guns 'n Criminals: >MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.         This is very likely.  >Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control. >And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe), >we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.         The North American Continent is not Europe, no matter how many people would like it to be.  Drugs are very illegal and they're here.  For years Canada has crowed about its gun control.  If it is necessary to control guns over the whole continent, then Canada should have always had comparable rates to the U.S., yet they still don't. Unless you can tell me why the Canadian border is so much more magical than the Mexican border (which is shorter and far more heavily patrolled) then I really can't accept that argument.  >Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one: >What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!         No, there are approximately 31,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S., two-thirds of which are suicides.  (Unfortunately I don't have suicide rates for Norway.)  However, this makes the per-gun death rate about half the per-car death rate.  >The issue (I hope..): >I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem. >Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??) > >I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia: >They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them >to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.        The problem's been humans since before we had stone axes.  The fct of the matter is simply this:  If nobody ever assaulted anybody, whether there is a weapon of any sort around would be totally irrelevent.        Yet weapons are *built*.  I'd suggest, then, that the murderous impulse in humanity pre-dates weapons.        Anyway, the Bosnians et al. have been making an excellent attempt to kill each other for half a thousand years.  Taking away their guns, even if we could, would neither halt the killing nor reduce the brutality.  >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' ?? >(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)          In the U.S., approximately 60% of murders are commited with firearms. (50% with handguns, 10% with non-handguns.)  The reason I say that guns, per  se, are not the problem, is that our non-gun rate exceeds most of Europe's countries *entire* violent crime rate.  I don't really think we've got more knives or fists.           In any case, I think examples of gun control *applied* to the U.S. have been abkect failures, just like drug prohibition and other forms of prohibition.  Until you deal with *why* people are doing what they are doing, you won't solve your problem.  And if the problem is  violent crime, you shouldn't concentrate on the tools instead.  The *vast* majority of guns is never, ever misused.  (On the order of 99.5% over the entire lifetime of the gun).  This says to me that you can't make the argument that the gun itself causes the misuse.  >Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect >themselves. Is this a good situation ??          The situation is not "good" in that people fear for their lives. But recall the scenes of the store-owners during the last riots, protecting their shops with guns.  Would it have been better they, too, lost their livelihoods?  >Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??         The problem of poverty and rage in Los Angeles, no it isn't. However, if that problem becomes a violent action, then yes, it can be appropriate.  Whether or not some person has been hurt by their condition won't make me less dead if they burn down my house with me in it.         You have to examine which problem you're referring to.  If you're discussing someone violently assaulting you, then it is a perfectly legitimate response to make them stop.  (Hopefully simply letting them know you're prepared to shoot them would be enough, as it was with the above-mentioned store-owners.)  >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)         45% of Households have some form of firearm, usually a long gun. That accounts for a level of access for at least 100 million Americans. Firearm ownership is most likely among educated, well-off whites, the group *least* likely to be involved in violent crime.         You may take that for what it's worth.