Message-ID: <3431168F.41C6@dma.epfl.ch>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:11:11 +0200
From: Christophe Weibel <weibel@dma.epfl.ch>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01SGoldC-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 6.3 IP32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
To: Dan Bongard <dbongard@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <loop-ya023180002609970248450001@news.algonet.se> <01bccaa1$0484f8e0$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <01bccae6$6318f4c0$244837ce@pbcustomer> <dbongardEH92Lq.HH4@netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: masg27.epfl.ch
Lines: 121
Path: clanworld.com!news.millennianet.com!news.webspan.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-ge.switch.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!epflnews.epfl.ch!masg27.epfl.ch
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8711 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:21006 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14839 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4826

Dan Bongard wrote:

Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing you made a small error in logic
here:

> : Germans had it just as well as any other country in the middle of a war.
> 
> Except for the gays, gypsies, jews, communists, pornographers, racial
> minorities, and anti-government activists. Life was "good" for good
> little Nazis like yourself, but bad for anybody who thought for themselves
> or had the misfortune to be a member of a group the government didn't like.

Okay, so it's wrong oppressing and killing people you don't like.

> Exactly indeed. We (meaning people unlike yourself) need guns to protect
> against the day when a fool like yourself votes the next Hitler into office.

Oh? And what happened to the fact you're not supposed to oppress and
kill people you don't like? Who does decide if the president is "the
next Hitler"? Yourself? Maybe everybody doesn't agree. Especially if he
was elected.

Of course, the United States should never become a dictature. But there
are some people who think it is a dictature now. And who use weapons to
"defend" themselves. One of these people was named Timothy McVeigh. I
hope you'll understand it's a bit of a caricature, but all he really did
was using weapons to defend himself against what he thought was a
dictature. In that case, he probably wasn't allowed to have explosives,
but it doesn't alter the facts HE thought he was doing it for FREEDOM!

The second amendment is not necessary to make a good country. Few
countries in the world have such a law. You can say the lack of it
encourages dictature. I prefer to say that the second amendment
encourages anarchy. Because any good citizen who thinks he has the right
for himself can be dangerous.

And one person who's mistaking is much more possible, than millions of
people voting for the next Hitler. If I had to chose between the sanity
of the government or the sanity of a person which woluld be choosen
randomly, I would trust the government.

> If every adult man and woman in the country had a gun this country would
> have 200 MILLION potential rebels if the government went to far. Even if
> only one percent of them took action they would still outnumber the
> conventional armed forces. That is easily enough to overthrow any tyrant.

I look to this a 200 million people who could very easily kill somebody
else if angry. It exists. Wasn't there a man somewhere in Florida who
shoot a kid because the kid had threw water at him with a squirt gun? He
said: "I don't like to be wet!"... Again, an extreme example, but this
one can happen ONLY if you consider it normal for people to carry a gun
everywhere.

> :> Once again, you prove my point above. The only people you trust with guns
> :> are people who share your political view. You disregard their training,
> :> expertise, competence, and all other qualifications. You only care if
> :> they agree with your "party line" of "despising weapons."

There are always people with different political views, and I feel it's
much safer if people who don't have the idea of violence in their minds
have power. They will try to find other ways of talking. I DO say that
saying everybody should carry a weapon everywhere is putting violence in
their minds. See following.

> Take the above situation: a black man encounters a known KKK member who
> is a good shot. Unless the KKK member is a violent criminal (by no
> means a guaranteed fact) the black man is safe. If the KKK guy is a
> violent criminal, and has a gun, the black guy is dead -- UNLESS the black
> guy also has a gun. All that banning guns does is ensure that only
> criminals will have guns. The situation for the black man is worse, not
> better, because the only circumstance under which he would be in any danger
> is on where the KKK guys was willing to break the law. If a man is willing
> to murder in cold blood he's not likely to balk at an illegal weapons purchase.
> The best possible situation is for those people who know they are in danger
> to possess the means to defend themselves. That means guns.

And then the man with more training wins. Sadly, the KKK guy will
probably be more trained than the black man. After all, he wants to kill
somebody. Or do you suggest black people should be trained from birth to
shoot at KKK guys?

I don't agree with what you say that the KKK guy is willing to break the
law if he's willing to murder in cold blood. In his mind, the fact he
has the right to carry a weapon everywhere encourages him to USE his
gun. After all, what's the use of allowing people to carry a weapon if
they should never use it? He will think it over, first using his gun
first if his attacked, and then gradually, of shooting people he doesn't
like, and so on. But if you don't say to him: "You should be carrying a
gun because the second amendment allows it", he may never think of
murdering anybody, or even buying a gun.

I'll speak of something which is called May 68, and which happened, if
I'm correct, mostly in Paris, France. Shortly put, there was growing
resentment between students and the government, which escaladed into
students barricading themselves in the universities, and throwing bricks
at the police, while the police replied with lacrymogen gases and wooden
sticks. Everybody began to help the students. There were fights all over
the city for a few weeks, people died, and it was called civil war. No
guns were used, or almost none. After a few weeks, the government was
changed, and they called it a new republic (the fifth one).

Now, May 68 is remembered as a great historic situation, of when
students endly managed to get themselves heard. Each time the students
make enough trouble while expressing their opinions, one of them
excitedly says: "It almost looks like May 68".

Now, suppose there had been a second amendment in France. Then students
wouldn't have thrown bricks on the police. They would have used guns.
And the police couldn't and wouldn't have replied only with wooden
sticks. There would have been a REAL civil war, with bullets flying
everywhere, hitting innocent poeple, thousand of deaths. And May 68
would be remembered as a bloody event of when civilisation was
forgotten.

You know, I really prefer the first solution...

-- 
Christophe Weibel
__________________________
E-Mail: weibel@dma.epfl.ch
Phone: +33 21 791-2683
