KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/24/86)
From: Charles <MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
They should not, and are not, allowed to use those dangerous
things to harm others.
... did I lose something, or are you advocating guns that aren't
dangerous? What's the point of having a non-harmful gun?
I think you lost something. All I am saying is that people should
be allowed to have guns but not to initiate force with them (or
without them).
... I'd be interested in seeing your explaination of the success
of India's non-cooperation campaign against the British, which
used economic non-profitability to force the English out.
Well, the noviolence movement generated a lot of publicity which
caused many British citizens to symathize. If there had not been a
(relatively) free press, or if the government of Britain had been more
repressive and had simply shot Gandhi on day one, or if the government
of Britain was not responsive to the will of the majority of citizens,
this would not have happened. Look what happened to the non-violently
resisting Jews in Nazi Germany. If India had been a German colony,
Gandhi and Nehru would have simply disappeared, along with any other
dissenters. Just as happens today in all communist countries,
including the many colonies of the USSR (Estonia, Lituania, Latvia,
etc). I don't think India ever became unprofitable.
How many guns are necessary amongst the American people to keep
the government in line?
Once again, your question begs the question we are debating. Your
question contains the implicit assumption that people should only be
allowed to have guns if someone can find some justification for the
guns. This is true of course, but the someone should be the owner of
the gun, rather than the government or the majority or "society". If
you accept that it is the potential owner of a gun who decides if it
is needed, your question is irrelevant, since it is up to each
individual to decide, as well as to decide which is the appropriate
question, depending on the reason(s) for which he is considering
getting a gun.
...Keith
[ I don't see what the value of a gun I can't use. 'Initiation of
force' is a matter of opinion. A guy jumps into a karate-like stance,
and I fear he's going to attack me, do I have the 'right' to shoot
him? He could be just break-dancing... What if a dangerous-looking
fellow (and in my opinion he's getting ready to shoot me with a
concealed gun) starts walking toward me on a dark street. Do I get to
shoot him now, or do I have to let him have the first shot? We're
back to the question of will people be able to deal properly with all
these guns.
I will point out that the Jews of Warsaw did arm themselves, and
the German response was to to bring in an SS Panzer division and level
the ghetto. Arming the people just moves the level of government
counter-violence up one level.
Concerning the number of gun-owners, I argue that we have exactly
what you want now. People who want to buy guns can do so. So what if
they're registered. They've still got them, which is what you want.
So what if you live in a anti-gun place like New York City and don't
feel safe - and can't buy a gun? Move! Vote with your feet, right?
Wait, isn't that your line? - CWM]
-------