On 06/03/00 Charles wrote:
>As if there weren't enough nutters in the US as it is, if you got your understanding
>of that country through European TV, you wouldn't believe it's mostly populated by
>ordinary, peaceable people who just want to enjoy life in an ordinary, peaceable way.
>Try to convince people that Europeans don't spend their life at each other's throats
>after that. Yet most of us are ordinary, peaceable people, who manage to be polite
>to each other (even though we don't carry guns :-).
-- My aunt in pre-Mandela South Africa thought the UK must be very dangerous,
solely from TV reports. Our assertions to the contrary fell on deaf ears.
>You may know that in the UK even the police doesn't carry any. That makes me
>glad because guns only exist for one reason: destruction... Despite the fact that
>nobody's armed, there are no armed robberies ;-), no accidental gunshot wounds :),
>no fear of gun freaks :).
-- But there are accidents, and often because of UK police carrying arms. A guy
from the nearby small town was going to a pre-Christmas party dressed as a
gangster with a replica sub-machine gun. He was apprehended by the armed
police response unit plus a helicopter. A policeman visiting from New Zealand
wrote to the local paper that he could now understand why the taxes are so high!
When I was a kid, the police stopped a friend who was carrying some wood
with a nail through it.
-- Firearms serve the purpose of:
a) killing or threatening to kill or wound humans and animals
b) self-aggrandizement through their bearing or ownership
c) sporting activity
A proportion of those licenced to use firearms fail my gut-felt definition of a
responsible human being on all counts. Even sporting activity should be
carried out with less potential danger and annoyance to others and more
skill/benefit to the participant.
I do not regard myself as qualified to make life-or-death decisions, especially
in the heat of the moment, and am glad I live where there is no pressure from
society for me to conform to such a role. Look at the figures for motorists:
most consider themselves "above average"; "more skilfull after moderate
alcohol consumption" etc. The facts are that firearms specialists are a danger
to the innocent, and the casual user may be more so.
Mention was made of road deaths, as a comparison with Vietnam casualties.
The percentage looked exaggerated to me. Haven't more Vets committed suicide
in the intevening years than were killed during the war, or is that a myth?
One correspondent mentioned US casualties during WWII, neglecting the
far higher toll on Russian lives. I would also guess that German civillian loss
of life was higher than US military casualities in Europe.
I should've found some numerical backing for the above, but while the numbers of
deaths and injuries from "acceptable" activities like driving are shocking the basis
for using firearms -- points a, b, c -- should be questioned and alternatives sought.
You don't carry a weapon without the possibility, however small, of causing
someone's death or injury.
Jake
