Issodhos responds:
>       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.

Are you an anarchist of the "all government is bad variety"?  If so,
then you have revealed a difference in our thinking that proves that
kind of anarchy won't work.  There isn't much room to manuever here.
A quote from Mortimer Adler indicates the problem:

"The philosophical anarchist is one who mistakenly believes that human
beings can live together peacefully and harmoniously without
government." from "Adler's Philosophical Dictionary ISBN 0-684-82271-7

I don't care what you think about Adler.  I agree with his definition.
Many people do.  I will always be trying to instantiate government
where government belongs, and you will always be trying to knock it
down.  We won't live together peacefully and harmoniously; I'll say
it's because we need government here or there, and you'll say it is
because we don't.  I won't give in and neither will you.  Hence
Adler's definition holds.

> 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.

In fact it *has* become a problem since the breakdown of the USSR, and
Norway has not changed its tactics.  I didn't say there was a
correlation between private ownership of firearms and crime, so don't
try to put those words in my mouth.  My point was that high per capita
gun ownership and strict gun control are compatible.  Norway proves
that.

>      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?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that.  I meant to claim that (a)
strict gun control does not lead to a police state, and (b) high per
capita gun ownership and strict gun control are compatible.

> 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?

What intrusion are you talking about?  I'm not aware of any intrusion.
Are you objecting to showing a police officer your gun when she comes
around to ask you to prove you still have it and have it stored
properly?  Or are you objecting to being held accountable for any and
all mischief carried out with *your* by a person or persons unknown?

> 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,

Like I said, to get a permit to carry a handgun, you should be
required to carry the handgun at *all* times.  Doesn't that give you
the apparent security you long for?

> 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.

And you know this how, exactly?

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701