🚀 go-pugleaf

mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>[I wrote:]
>>But what if the citizens have to defend themselves from the government?
>>Read your history books man!  Not to mention the US Constitution.
>
>	I do read my history books. There's nothing in them that
>convinces me that guns in private hands are necessary for a successful
>revolution, or for a populace to defend itself.

I agree: guns are not -absolutely- necessary.  However, a civilian population
armed with, say, sticks and stones, against a force armed with guns (etc.) is
going to have a heck of a lot worse time of it than the same civilians armed
with guns.  I guess you want to trade protection from some hypothetical
"crazed gun fanatic/criminal" now, for a longer/bloodier/more violent hypo-
thetical revolution in the future.
	Let me make it clear that I think it _amazingly_ unlikely that there will
be a revolution in America anytime in the near geological future, nor do I
want there to be one.  However, I don't believe that disarming the law-abiding
public will significantly protect anyone.  Instant checks nationwide using a
single database of criminal records, _strictly_enforcing_ laws related to
illegall gun trafficking, and making gun owners much more accountable for there
actions with guns would shield the public much better from illegal/irresponsible
gun use than do bans, waiting periods, and restrictions on the number of guns
purchased in a month.
	More than that, we as a society need to look at why we have so many darn
criminals in the first place!  Better prenatal health care, a better education
system, and a welfare system that gets people back to work would do a lot
more than _any_ of the above (at least in the long term, seemingly a foreign
concept to most politicians).  Gun bans and instant checks are both just
bandaids on a greater problem.

>[...]
>If you don't have enough ideological support for your revolution
>that you can't garner support from the populace and the army, you
>probably shouldn't be revolting in the first place, because you
>haven't got a mandate.

I agree, but at what greater loss of innocent life if the populace has been
completely disarmed at the outset?

>	The argument about "guns to defend against the government" is
>*laughable*.

How so?

>If you accept Kent State as a clear case of government
>abuse of weaponry against defenceless populace,

I do, but...

>that makes the score:

>where guns would have helped fight oppression:		1
>where guns got some poor bastard shot over beer:	some large number

You seem to have overlooked the American Revolution.  Destined to succeed,
but at what greater cost had the Colonies not been armed?

Further, it has been the case throughout history that those with the weapons
have oppressed those without them  (I am certainly _not_ suggesting that
everyone in the world should be issued a rifle).  Yes, this happens on the
person to person level too, but I gave my opinions on that above.

Countries that have seen significant numbers of its unarmed citizens
slaughtered by armed forces, in some cases of that country's government:
(20th century only, a very incomplete list)

North Vietnam
South Vietnam
Cambodia
China
South Africa
Liberia
etc.


Just my opinion.  Subject to change without notice.

-Chris
-- 
Chris Mathes, Metters Industries, Inc.      UUCP: {..!}uunet!metter!chris
Tel:(703)418-0323                           INET: chris@metter.fmpmis.metter.com
"The Tao of Programming flows far away and returns on the wind of morning."-TToP