In a message dated 7/18/99 9:45:10 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
Issodhos writes:
> >      Rather than advance deeper into the police state you seemingly
>  > advocate, might I suggest that since the vast majority of firearms
>  > related deaths involves firearms owned by the governments of the
>  > world, and since the vast majority of privately owned firearms are
>  > never used to kill anything, if it is a reduction in firearms
>  > related killing and increased public safety you want, it would make
>  > more sense to disarm all governments and re-arm the world's
>  > citizenry.:-) Yours, Issodhos

Martin responds:
>  No, that's not a good idea because you can't disarm all the
>  governments.  Governments are sovereigns.  The only way to disarm them
>  is to make them not sovereign anymore, which implies creating a world
>  government that would then be the *only* sovereign.  I'm in favor of
>  that, because there can't be sustained world peace without a world
>  governmentt, a single sovereign.  But I'm not holding my breath
>  waiting for it.
>
>  I don't see why strict gun control implies a police state.  I'd like
>  to hear your argument.  In any case, I don't advocate a police state.
>  What do you mean by police state?  A state that has police?  If that
>  is what you mean, then I certainly would not advocate a state with no
>  police, since police *are* necessary and always will be necessary in a
>  social democracy.
>
>  In Norway, a variant of the system you call a police state has been in
>  place for a long time.  It works just fine.  Norway has a vanishingly
>  small number of criminal shootings.  The police are not armed.  Norway
>  also has a high per capita gun ownership, since hunting and target
>  shooting are both very popular here, and since many men are members of
>  the national guard and are required to maintain a weapon.  If you mean
>  Norway is a police state, then, yes, I think there should be more of
>  them.
>

      Of course Norway is a police state.  By their very nature all
nation-states are police states, the only difference between them being one
of degree.  The fact that Norway has a low firearms related crime rate while
its private citizens have access to firearms indicates there is no corelation
between the private ownership of  firearms and crime.  If violent crime did
become a problem you would see how quickly Norwegian police forces adopted
the tactics of those states currently experiencing greater rates of violent
crime.

     You suggest that gun laws in Norway are responsible for their low number
of criminal shootings.  Prior to the introduction of these gun laws, did
Norway have a problem with criminal shootings?  And should police intrusion
into the privacy of the people be justified because of a statistically
insignificant number of criminal shootings - either in Norway or America?  As
to the number of firearms one owns, the only one that is ever a threat would
be the one that is being wielded by someone with criminal intent.  Nothing
you have proposed would prevent this person from acting out his intent, and
the fact is that the vast majority of private gun owners are no threat to
anyone.  I suspect that when most of us go out, it is not the presence of
guns we fear, but the presence of violent criminals.  Perhaps it is again
time to make the violent criminal fear us?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. a one world government is simply a super nation-state and its policing
would be even more vicious than many nations are now used to.