Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:16:39 +0100 From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <20000326131639.E234@parish> In-Reply-To: <20000326015310.A846@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>; from cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com on Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 01:53:10AM -0500 References: <20000325104927.B234@parish> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003251446080.3693-100000@acp.swbell.net> <20000325231656.E234@parish> <20000326015310.A846@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 01:53:10AM -0500, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:16:56PM +0000, Mark Ovens wrote:
>
> > I have a 13-year old daughter and her freedom is severely curtailed
> > (by me and my wife) compared to the freedom we had at that age (early
> > '70s). OK, so this isn't specifically because of guns, but because of
> > a general increase in lawlessness which threatens her safety. Even so,
> > she has had her freedom taken away.
>
> But how much of that is real and how much is perception? I don't have
> crime figures for GB at my finger tips, but I suspect things have not
> changed all that much in real numbers since the 70's. I'm a USA'n and
> I happen to know that _reported_ crimes and people's perception of the
> crime rate have steadily increased, while the actual occurance of
> crimes has not really changed all that much and has definately dropped
> in the last decade. (Note I am strictly talking violent crime; like
> those Mark listed.)
>
I believe that occurrence has increase, although by how much I'm not
sure, but you are almost certainly correct that perception has
increased, and probably more so, due mainly to improved communication;
the chances of hearing about a crime committed several hundred miles
away (remember, that's a long way over here) is much, much greater
than 20-30 years ago.
> > A popular TV programme over here is "Police, Camera, Action" which
> > comprises footage from the video cameras used in police cars and
> > helicopters and includes clips from many countries including the US.
> > Whilst a lot of it is amusing and entertaining some of it is decidedly
> > scary. One clip from an American police car showed the officer pulling
> > over a car full of kids. He walked to the driver's door and the driver
> > just shot him with a handgun. The officer was unhurt, apart from some
> > heavy bruising, thanks to his bullet-proof vest. Although it didn't
> > specify in the programme it is perfectly possible that the kid may
> > have owned the gun legitimately. How can anyone justify the "freedom"
> > to own firearms when that sort of thing happens?
>
> Well, right there we see a problem with how the media focuses on the
> extremes. Police officers have been shot by legal and illegal guns as
> long as their have been guns and police. You bring this up like it
> happens all of the time, and it does not. We just get it in our faces
> every single time it does, makes good press. You point out that you do
> not know if the gun is legal or illegal... so what is the weight of
> the argument?
>
No, I wasn't suggesting that it happens all the time. I consider
myself intelligent enough to realize that, even in the US, it is the
exception rather than the rule. The point I was making was that the
chances of this happening are much greater under US gun law than UK
gun law. In his instance the car had been stopped for a routine
driving offence, if it had been stopped because the occupants had just
held up (or were suspected of holding up) a petrol station, for
example, I'm sure the officer would have been a lot more defensive in
his approach.
> > Do you own a gun? If so, why do you own it? Have you ever used it in
> > anger?
>
> No. I don't. No. But the last one is a good point. If you own a gun,
> you are more likely to be killed by it than any other.
Can you elaborate? Is this due to accidently shooting yourself or
being shot by someone else using your gun?
> You are also more likely to be killed by a gun than someone who does
> not own one.
Again, can you elaborate? Is this because a criminal is more likely to
shoot you if you, his victim, pull a gun to defend yourself? If so
then does it not disprove the theory of those who are saying that
firearms related crime/deaths would be reduced if *everyone* was
armed.
> Safer for everyone if you don't have it; someone else
> might use _your_ gun in anger on _you._
>
> > Americans and Britons will probably, for the most part, never agree on
> > the subject of firearms as we grew up in countries whose gun laws are
> > at opposite extremes.
>
> Oh, well, as a USA'n, I must say things probably are not too
> different. I think any arguments that handguns and assault weapons
> have any redeeming quailities is silly, look at the numbers. I grew up
> around rifles and shotguns, and I see value beyond the risks.
>
I acknowledge that the there is much more justification for firearms
in the US if you live, or go visiting, in the mountains etc, because
you have some pretty dangerous wildlife which we don't (although
if Deliverance is realistic then the wildlife is the least of your
worries ;-)) but I would imagine that a rifle, or shotgun, is a better
weapon in that situation than a handgun.
> And for those who are defending themselves from the Feds, ask that
> crew at Waco or Ruby Ridge how well that works. If you're a small
> group and the gov't wants you, it don't matter how many guns you
> have. There were injustices and abuses of power there, but the guns on
> either side did not help at all. Personally, I'm not afraid of the
> Feds turning all bad on us because (a) they just are not that smart or
> have the vision (remember a President only serves 8 years max, if he
> can't disarm enough before his term is up and declares martial law,
> why start the process?) to plan something like that and (b) I know too
> many military people and they are the most patriotic bunch around
> and are not about to be part of a military state (and would not be
> tricked into it because of (a)). The ATF, FBI, NSA, etc. don't give me
> warm fuzzies, but they _are_ accountable soley by the fact that if
> they piss off the people enough, then they piss off Congress enough,
> then they don't get $$$... And that is the worst fear of any gov't
> agency, cuts in appropriations. One of the things the Founding Fathers
> did get right (even if some ammendments about bearing arms were
> written too vaguely), give Congress the purse strings. It costs the
> tax payer some serious pain in pork barrel money, but it's worth the
> popular control on the rest. OK, give the Brit Parliament for being
> the model there.
> --
> Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
Seminars, n.:
From "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000326131639.E234>