--- In [email protected], "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> > Just allowing people to arm themselves to fight real or imaginary > oppression is NOT the answer, in my humble opinion. Gandhi was > inspirational because he defeated the world power of his age with NON- > VIOLENCE! Right on! And we couldn't use the example of Gandhi, a Martin Luther King or a Buddha or Jesus Christ if you want to defend the right of Americans to carry fire weapons. Also the logic here is somewhat absurd: If guns don't kill, why have them in the first place? If knifes are just as dangerous, why not be satisfied of equipping yourself with a knife? Or let's spin this a little further: If the means to destruction (knifes, guns, bombs) aren't really essential in your mind, why get all upset about other countries (Iran, N.Korea) going nuclear. Just make sure their leaders get inspired by Gandhi etc. The whole shock of 911 was due to the fact that there wasn't just an Arab with a knife running around in NYC, but that there was a well organized plan, in which a fully fueled airplane was used as a flying bomb. Of course the means of destruction do matter: Thats why automatic weapons were invented in the first place, because the one who had them could win wars with it. They are just a more effective means of killing, and therefore they present also a bigger danger to the public. If Americans really thought that having guns can protect them against their government going berserk, why not allow them to have private tanks in their gardens, or organize themselves into paramilitaric armies. The equation will be: effectiveness of weapon = greater danger to the public > But returning to the US scenario - I CAN'T see any justification for > people holding on to arms. They would NOT stop an undemocratic "coup" > or restore democracy through violence. Governments these days are > just TOO powerful. Couldn't agree more.
