On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 02:06:38 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The best defence is disarmament.
> GM> In a perfect world, your statement would be true.
> This is NOT a reply to Glenn, but a general message concerning this topic.
> Giving everybody weapons is _NOT_ the solution ....
> I find it ridiculous that there is a lawyer sues computer game indutry,
> because the pupils going crazy are caused by computergames ....
> The same games (namely Quake I think) are played here in europe, too, but
> here there are no pupils going THAT crazy ... it is the availability of
> weapons, that makes them freak out ...
In the United States I have met some tourists from England and from Eastern
Europe who tell me that it is just as easy to acquire a gun on the black
market in their own countries as it is in my country. It is their opinion
that the reason why Europeans are not as inclined to commit crimes with guns
is that the punishment is more severe in their countries.
> In some parts of america you can go on the street with a gun, and nobody
> (INCLUDING POLICE !!!) says anything ....
In the area where I live, if a person is bearing arms openly and not behaving
in a threatening manner toward anyone, then there is no probable cause for the
police to consider that person a criminal. If the person were known to be
a convicted felon, or a substance-abuser, or a wife-beater, then the police
would immediately arrest him. If he were a convicted criminal of the type
described, he most probably would have better sense than to bear arms openly
anyway. There are unfortunately some areas in the United States, mainly in
some big cities, especially in the northeast US, where convicted felons are
running around openly brandishing firearms. The only reason why they are
getting away with it is that the police and the city councils are corrupt and
have been bought by the criminals. The citizens of such communities of course
realize this and they are taking steps to correct the problem.
> but just try to drink a beer in public, and off you go to jail ...
> (this is simply unthinkable for me ....)
This is the case in my area, or in any area in the United States where the
predominant religious groups are "protestant fundamentalist". These people
consider drinking, even in moderation, to be disgraceful and sinful behavior.
Because these people constitute the majority, they can impose some of their
values on others who do not subscribe to their religion. Most of them would
condone, but not approve, one's drinking in a private home, or club, or in a
bar. They feel that they should have the right to not associate with people
who are drinking. For that reason they feel that it is good to not allow
drinking in public. I am not defending their point of view, I am merely
explaining it. Personally I feel that the prohibitions against moderate
drinking in public constitute a minor infringement on personal liberty.
To prohibit a perfectly sober and mentally competent law-abiding citizen from
bearing arms in public is a total denial of one's constitutional rights.
> And than they show a documentary on german television about police hunting
> prostitutes. (a female police officer tries to catch man who want to pay
> her .... and THIS in a country, where every few seconds somebody is
> MURDERED ...)
> IMHO Police should have something better to do than THAT !!!
I most certainly agree.
> Sorry for my long letter ....
> I understand that there are GREAT differences between american and european
> culture, and apologize if somebody feels offended, but this is my oppinion
> ....
> GM> Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
> CU, Ricsi
> --
> Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
> -=> Error failed! Press any key to resume error <=-
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
