On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 10:42:35 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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 ...
> SH> In the United States I have met some tourists from England and from
> SH> Eastern Europe who tell me that it is just as easy to acquire a gun on
> SH> the black market in their own countries as it is in my country.
> It is definitely possible to aquire a gun, but it is MUCH harder !!
> AND it is socially not accepted to wear a gun in public !!
It is never difficult to acquire a gun anywhere. If you can't buy one on
the black-market, you can easily fabricate one in your home workshop in
less than an hour. Also you can make your own ammunition components, to
include propellants and primers, but this task will take a little longer.
The chemicals and materials needed are readily available almost everywhere.
Of course I am not recommending that anyone should ever do such things
except in cases where involvement in clandestine political activities may
be seen as the only feasible means by which a nation may become liberated
from a highly oppressive dictatorship. Information on how to fabricate all
kinds of weapons and ammunition and explosives is readily available on the
internet for a free download. For this reason, oppressive dictatorships have
great fear of the internet.
In many circumstances it is not socially acceptable in the area where I
live either, but it is however *legal*. Usually when someone is seen in town
carrying a gun, it is because he is returning from or going out on a hunting
trip, or he might be taking his gun to a gunsmith to have it repaired, or he
might be taking it to a pawn shop, or maybe he has just redeemed it from a pawn
shop. In some cases, the person carrying the gun is a local merchant on his
way to the bank to make a very large deposit in cash. There is nothing
inherently suspicious about the activity of carrying a gun in public. As I
mentioned earlier, if the person were a known criminal, he most probably would
have better sense than to carry his gun publicly. Therefore, the most logical
assumption that we can make about a person seen carrying a gun in town is that
he is most probably a perfectly sober and mentally competent law-abiding
citizen, and that he probably would have a perfectly good explanation for why
he is carrying the gun if you were to ask him about it. If a citizen is
carrying a gun, it must be displayed in plain sight. It is illegal to carry
a gun concealed without a special permit. Without the special permit, it is
perfectly legal to carry the gun in plain sight. That is the case under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Some other states have laws that
are much more restrictive. States that have more restrictive gun laws of
course will have more crimes committed with guns. The old saying is true that
"if guns are outlawed, then only criminals will have guns."
> But it IS accepted to drink a beer in the public ....
This is accepted in most of Europe because there is not a majority of
religious groups opposed drinking, as long as the drinking is done in
moderation. Drinking any amount of alcoholic beverages either in public
or in private is illegal in most Moslem countries.
> SH> It is their opinion that the reason why Europeans are not as inclined
> SH> to commit crimes with guns is that the punishment is more severe in
> SH> their countries.
> Sorry ... but this is ridiculous ...
> America has capital punishmnent ... show me a punishment which is worse
> than that ...
There is no punishment more inhumane than capital punishment. It should be
abolished everywhere, but reserved to apply only in the case of war criminals
convicted of genocide, and crimes against humanity, etc. To attempt to
incarcerate such criminals for the rest of their lives could result in their
eventually getting released for some stupid political reason. War criminals
have political power. Ordinary criminals do not. It may seem that the only
way we have for protecting ourselves from war criminals to execute them. We
may quite adequately protect ourselves from the common and ordinary murderers
simply by putting them in jail for the rest of their lives. There can be no
justification for killing them. To execute them would be to de-value human
life.
Around where I live, the punishment for a first offence of armed robbery is
five to seven years in the penitentary. Northern states tend to be far more
lenient. In most of Europe, the punishment is far more severe, so I am told.
> The reason is that children are trained at low age, that wearing a weapon
> is normal, and cool. (IMHO ... sorry if I insult you with this ...)
Except for water pistols, as they are lots of fun and have not the slightest
resemblance to a real gun, children should not be given toy guns to play with.
Most American parents are beginning to feel this way. Some parents will give
their children toy guns, but will punish them for pointing the toy guns at
anyone. There are other parents who feel that learning to point a toy gun
at people is not at all likely to cause their children to develop criminal
habits in the future. I disagree with this attitude.
>>> In some parts of america you can go on the street with a gun, and
>>> nobody (INCLUDING POLICE !!!) says anything ....
> SH> In the area where I live, if a person is bearing arms openly and not
> SH> behaving in a threatening manner toward anyone, then there is no
> SH> probable cause for the police to consider that person a criminal.
> Yes ... but what I wanted to point out is, that guns are normal 'machines'
> in america ... it is normal to wear them, and gun lobbyists state that it
> is even the law that allows it.
Guns *are* normal machines. There are probably over 150 million guns owned
by private individuals in the US. Of these more than 150 million guns, only
an almost negligible percentage are used to commit crimes. If it were not for
the high likelihood that a would-be crime victim might have a means to defend
himself from criminal attack, then the criminals would have nothing to fear,
and the crime rate would skyrocket.
> SH> If the person were known to be a convicted felon, or a
> SH> substance-abuser, or a wife-beater, then the police would immediately
> SH> arrest him.
> And exactly THAT is the problem ... why not take away the gun _BEFORE_ that
> happens ??
That is exactly what the police will do when a person of the above category is
found in possession of a firearm. In Virginia, the weapon will be confiscated
and the offender sent to prison for five years *before* a repeat occurrence
should happen.
>>> but just try to drink a beer in public, and off you go to jail ...
>>> (this is simply unthinkable for me ....)
> SH> Personally I feel that the prohibitions against moderate drinking in
> SH> public constitute a minor infringement on personal liberty.
> Ok I understand that, I wanted to point out how weired (for european
> people) america is ...
> guns easily accesible to children, and beer in public prohibited.
> This is unthinkable in Europe.
The law provides that whosoever should make a gun easily accessible to
children, may be tried for such crimes as reckless endangerment, criminal
negligence, or even involuntary manslaughter, depending on the circumstances
of the case. What is needed in America is vigorous prosecution of the laws
we already have. There is no need to enact more laws to deal with the problem.
> SH> To prohibit a perfectly sober and mentally competent law-abiding
> SH> citizen from bearing arms in public is a total denial of one's
> SH> constitutional rights.
> This is the difference between america and europe ...
Because of that difference I feel very proud to be an American, and I will
defend her Constitution. Otherwise, no way!
> Here in Austria it is in the constitution to be able to live an unharmed
> live ... :)))
If the Constitution of Austria could really indeed confer upon all its
citizens total freedom from harm, then everybody in the world, including
myself, would want to become an Austrian citizen.
>>> I understand that there are GREAT differences between american and
>>> european culture, and apologize if somebody feels offended, but this
>>> is my oppinion ....
> This applies to this letter too :)
If you were to visit this country you would find great respect for your right
to express your own opinion, even though the great majority of the folks here
would not agree with you.
I am not offended. In fact, I welcome any opportunity to defend my stalwart
convictions on any issue.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
