L.D wrote:
>I think you have this wrong ...
And I had hoped I could get out of this now ;)
> Arming people doesn't mean telling them to shoot first and ask
>questions later.
I agree, but arming people that think they should shoot first and ask
questions later is dangerous. And that's what can easily happen when many
people have fire arms. I also find it strange that you are allowed to have
the weapons loaded, if they are securely locked in one place and all the
amoo in another then stealing it isn't as easy. This was a reason why most
weapons that were stold in the begining of the 90's here was taken from the
military. (They have since been moved into the diffrent areas that can be
supervised).
>You can only
>shoot when you feel you [or member of household] are/is in "right now"
>danger of being killed ... not "beaten up" not "raped" -- only "killed."
I'm not entirely sure of the legal situation - but I think that you can't
shoot someone because you are afraid of beeing killed here.
> That "if there are no legal guns" argument holds about as much
>validity as someone saying I shouldn't own a car, because if I own a car
>then some bad guy can steal it and kill someone while being chased by
>cops, or driving drunk, or whatever.
I don't think that's the same thing. A car's main function is to transport
people. A guns main function is to kill (both can be used for other things
of course - but so can everything).
>You want a gun? Go to the right
>park of the right street and you can buy an Ozzi -- and they are illegal
>already.
I think you need to add "in the right town" and perhaps "in the right
country" as well to that. Not many people spend their times in a park
around here (probably since the woods are so close by).
>The majority of the people do not deserve to be, and should
>not be denied freedoms, or otherwise punished, because of what "the bad
>guys do.
I think the reasons of our diffrent views come from the fact that you are
living in a country (much from my point of view) on the right side and I
(much from your point of view) on the left side of the politcal scale.
The reason why guns should be kept at a minimum is to make sure no innocent
people get hurt by them. It's just the same as the reason why I understand
and agree with the law doesn't allow one person to take in as much alochol
from the EU into Sweden as one can take into ex. Germany (or any other EU
country).
L.D perhaps we can agree on this: we disagree - and this debate has nothing
to do with Arachne ;) (If you want we can continue it off-list).
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
