From: extropy@denisbider.com
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 15:50:39 MST
[I apologize if this message appears twice - I originally posted the message
with a "from" field other than what I am subscribed as, and it didn't appear
on the mailing list in the past two hours, so I am reposting.]
Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> Another scenario: Drug dealer gets arrested, and
> cuts a deal by providing the 'address' to his supplier,
> which is actually the home of a law abiding individual.
> Police raid the house with a swat team, shoot first and
> ask questions later, the occupant being unable to defend
> themselves.
I have to say I don't really understand this paranoia of yours.
In normal countries like where I live ;-), nobody has a gun. Only licensed
hunters, police officers and army officers are allowed to have weapons. If
anyone else wants to have a weapon, it's a tough procedure to get it - among
other things, you have to get a license and register with the government,
and you can be quite sure you won't get a license if you have any kind of
criminal record. Without a license, no purchase possible.
Sure, there are gangs and lunatics, and they have illegal guns. But they
don't shoot people all over the place - in fact, gangs very rarely shoot
anyone outside of their circles at all [for kidnapping victims, they seem to
prefer drowning], while lunatics typically shoot people they are angry with,
they get caught easily, and then they get something like a 10 year prison
sentence.
Sure, the police can "raid your house with a swat team, shoot first and ask
questions later". But it doesn't happen; we simply don't have a national
culture of shooting each other. The police very rarely use their weapons,
even in extreme cases, and each bullet is accounted for. And that's even
with our police being somewhat corrupt - there are reports that some of them
take bribes to allow some people to do things they shouldn't, but I haven't
heard of a police officer to shoot a person that is anything less than an
arrogant, widely known and notorious criminal.
So, I don't think America's aversion against banning guns has any rational
structure at all. There is no need to buy them back. There is no need to be
easy on guns. You just ban them, instate a heavy fine on owning illegal
weapons, and that's it. Give everyone a year or two to get used to the fact,
and the problem is solved.
In particular, your argument about someone protecting themselves with a gun
while the police "raid his house with a swat team" is, well, far off. I
think your swat teams are expert enough that no one will survive shooting
back against them. If they want to shoot you, they can do it anyway -
pretending a gun provides any real protection against the police is an
illusion. The only thing you might be able to do with it is kill a few good
police officers before they put a bullet in your head for doing so.
Regards,
denis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:04 MST