In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: >Gun clubs: >If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??) >You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN >you can start with anything bigger. > >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...... >But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and >bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS. >(If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!) > >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??)  Unfortunately, elections can, and are, bought.  Promise the voters money, and they will vote for you.  > >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.  Same here.  Convicted felons may not legally purchase firearms.  >And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe), >we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.  That you know of.  While I lived in the DBR, a gang robbed a joint US Army/Bundewehr armoury and got several hundred M-16s, ammunition, handguns and some explosives.  When I left two years later, there were no clues.  > >Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one: >What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS! >Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to... >I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;) > >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??)  Who uses them is the problem.  Crime, in the U.S., is "no big deal" if you are the criminal.  How about 5 years for murder.  Credit for time served (in jail, waiting for trial) and you are out in 12 months, worst case.  If we would put criminals, especially violent ones, in the slam for true sentences, crime would drop.  Instead, we reward them for being good and let them out early, very early.  > >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.  Serbs, Croats and Muslims have been killing each other almost since before the invention of guns.  Old women are throwing stones at UN trucks.  This is a hatred that goes beyond reason. > >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...)  Yes, the problem is the user.  Question back (since you are one of the rational ones):  If all gun crime were to stop, would you support dropping all gun controls?  > >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 ??  They did not believe, from experience, that the "police" (including National Guard) could/would protect them.  Unless you want to argue that a human being does not have a right to protect him/herself, they did the right thing.  What would you suggest as a defense against a mob throwing bottles and rocks, and also likely armed with stolen firearms?  > >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)  Criminals would move to Scandinavia??? :-)  The average criminal would look for a less hazardous job, and the rest would likely be buried at county expense.  > >Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works >(in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents... >(Something about throwing stones in glass houses...)  Personally, I criticize the fools who send money to the IRA to "make Ireland free".  Of course, this is the last thing the IRA wants, because they lose power if England pulls out.  But that's for another group.  >Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either.  The U.S. has roughly 20 times the major sporting events as the U.K..  How many riots did we have at sporting events last year (off the playing field)?  Hooligan is a word never used when reffering to sports fans here.  I guess that's where the different cultures thing comes in.  >(Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)  Yes.  The question is, is the problem one of too many guns (mostly from the army) or not enough (nonSerbians can not defend themselves.  > >(My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police >and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??) > >LAST WORD: >Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect  >your citicens.  But disarming responsible gun owners is not the solution.  Yet, that is exactly what HCI is proposing.