[Todd]

>> That's why you don't see this kind of violence in other types of cultures. That's why it's more dangerous living in the city than it is in the jungle.

Part of the problem with Moore is that he simulated such a violent society. It's part of the fiction he's created. Americans pay huge amounts of money for social programs out of compassion (even though those programs cause more harm than good). We give more to charity PER CAPITA than people in any other nation. We give more to help people in other countries PER CAPITA than any other nation. It's not because we're special. It's because we have more money to give. During the Reagan era which people call the "me decade" we gave more to charity then we have before or since.


>> I did notice that. But that statistic really doesn't prove anything. Who else is going to stop a crime?

Like science, I don't expect data to prove anything. It just helps explain. That study explains that guns stopped around 2 million crimes, depending on whether you believe the government or independent research. 400,000 people think they might have been killed, and that's way way more than the number of criminal uses of guns.


>> But just because you're carrying a gun on you doesn't mean that you're safe. Especially since a lot of gun owners don't have a lot of experience using them and have no business owning one.

Guns require very little training and experience; they are truly *point and shoot* It's not a problem, and guns don't go off when you drop them like you see on TV (plus people don't drop them to find out). Most states where people can carry guns require some kind of training, and I have no problem with that. I think gun safety should be taught in schools, but parents have that irrational fear that it will turn their children into criminals.

And sometimes people with no experience using guns DO have business owning them. For instance if you live in a ghetto, it might be more important to have a gun than to have experience using it, because then at least you have some chance to defend yourself even if you can't afford to spend time and money learning how to shoot.

Anyway, carrying a gun means you're a lot safer, the people around you are safer, and less crimes are committed because criminals are afraid of being shot.

http://www.guncite.com/



>> The down side is that such judgments are very often wrong. And then when people see that black people commit more crimes than whites they think, "Those darn blacks are causing trouble again." So it just reinforces that bias. We need to realize, though, that it has nothing to do with race.

The point is that Michael Moore tried to pass it off as sort of urban myth or irrational when it's in fact a very real concern. I saw his interview on the Oprah Show when he implied such and went on to make some actual racist statements. Right after saying blacks aren't any more violent than whites he said that things would have been different on 9/11 if there were blacks in the planes that were hijacked, because they would have been able to overpower the terrorists. So he's not even consistent.

Race simply isn't a factor to me, not is it the most important factor affecting Americans these days. America has become the least racist country according to studies. Black individuals here are more successful than anywhere else in the world, and they certainly aren't leaving the country to live somewhere else. In fact, just blacks in America make up something like the worlds 3rd or 5th largest economy (I forget which, but they're both pretty high up there) even though they only make up a small percentage of our population.

That's because capitalism absolutely requires that people are judged only by their own individual merits. Companies don't care what color you skin is. They care how much money you can make them. Racist employers who don't hire the best person for the job go out of business because they can't compete with companies who do.


>> Well, you should at least watch it before criticizing it. Whatever you think you know about Moore's points, you can't really know anything for sure until you actually hear what he has to say, not somebody else's interpretation of it.

I have read plenty of what he's written, and like I said before, I've seen most episodes of "The Awful Truth." I've seen him in at least 10 interviews. I'm not really criticizing it; I'm just pointing out the lies. I think by attributing our problems to trivial things, he's causing people to totally miss the real problems. He's also using his lies to push an authoritarian liberal agenda which would harm people if enacted.


>> I have to say I did find some of Moore's methods questionable, but I do agree with his overall point. I have to at least give him credit for looking at the matter seriously and raising awareness about some of the underlying factors.

His methods are dishonest and misleading. Most of the awareness he has raised is false, so I can't give him credit.



>> In fact, many of the international transfer students I know, particularly those from Asia, say that their experiences with the school systems of their own countries emphasize that cutthroat attitude more than the American school system does.

Yeah, I don't get it either. School for me was mostly just sitting there waiting for the bell to ring. I had to learn almost anything substantial on my own.

[Todd]

>> Uh, are you seriously comparing the right to own a gun to freedom of speech?

I don't think I did yet, but I can.

Human beings have a right to do anything doesn't take away the equal rights of another human being. The right to bear arms is especially important because it's the physical mechanism that secures our right to live, own property, assemble, and speak freely. Without that physical guard to our freedom, we don't have rights, but only Post-It(TM) notes from the government that say "Trust us." The big problem with that is a few years down the road when the people in the government have changed 5 times over and don't remember who wrote that note.

The founders who wrote the Constitution wrote a lot about the reasons for the second amendment.


>> What about our right to own cocaine and heroine?

Do you not have the right to swallow liquid Drain-O? Likewise you have the right to ingest any harmful substances you wish. It's your body and you rule it. You rule it well because you're a reasonable human being.


>> Child porn?

Child porn is not a right because children aren't old enough to consent to such acts. It would physically harm children, and the government must protect a children's equal rights as well.


>> Weapons of mass destruction?

Guns are often necessary tools for self-defense, but weapons of mass destruction are not. If someone tries to kill me, mass destruction is not a viable defense.


>> I personally can't draw any parallel between basic rights of human beings (ie. freedom) to centuries old laws which, in the first place, were only created to help citizens fight possible intervention of Red Coats.

There's a lot more to it than that. Guns are a defense against criminals, a fact which I have clearly demonstrated, and it is necessary for securing our own rights.

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

You'll find in history that democracies that gave in to tyranny first lost their ability to have useful weapons, then their ability to assemble and speak freely, then their money, then their lives. It's been happening for thousands of years.


>> As far as my knowledge of history goes (I may be wrong), people in Germany were not forced to form the Nazi Germany, they willingly followed their charismatic leader.

Nazi Germany was not ruled by law like the U.S., it was a democracy of some sort. Under democratic rule it's perfectly legal to transfer power to the state, or even to kill everyone with red hair if you can convince enough people to go along with it. The people rule. The most common problem with that has always been that poorer minority votes to redistribute wealth from the rich to their own pockets until the economy is damaged. Eventually most people become poor (except for those who profit from government services that are forced upon people), and a police state must be formed to deal with increasing crime and civil unrest. Once a state can no longer survive on its own it must start invading neighboring countries to steal resources.

The solution to that problem instituted in American government is the "rule of law." Our Constitution doesn't limit individual rights. Instead it limits government power to the job of protecting individual rights. Our federal government actually has no constitutional authority to do two-thirds of everything it's currently doing, like build roads or inflict these crappy public educations on us (which, by the way don't inform citizens of our own rights).

Likewise our Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights even though most Americans seem to believe that. The Bill only ensures the rights every individual is born with are protected. For this reason some of the founders were actually against enumerating specific rights.

No man or government can *legally* take away our rights, no matter how charismatic our so-called leader. The president is only the chief executive of one third of our government. The presidents oath is simply to do whatever is necessary to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

What's rotten in America is that the government *is* taking our rights. It started with the civil war, then got worse in the early 1900's when income tax was legalized, and finally socialism was enacted by FDR when he stacked the supreme court with justices who were willing to purposefully re-interpret the constitution to match their own ideologies. (Liberals like to call our Constitution a "living breathing document" despite the fact that it's a lie.) We are now behaving like a democracy and voting rights away.


>> Of course, there were those who didn't embrace the change but they got along or moved out of the country - I don't see a university professor making it his duty to use a handgun to destroy the Nazi agenda?

That's a good example. The wise minority in Germany had the right to speak freely, but that's pretty useless when they can be shot for it! Read more about Hitler's gun control and the resistence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp

In the U.S., the police themselves aren't so quick to violate our rights, because they're too afraid of risking their own lives. Homes and businesses aren't raided at the mere whim of some government official, because those who actually would do the raiding don't want to risk dying for a mere whim. It's crude, but realistic, and it works better than Post-It(TM) notes.

[Marek]

I haven't read all of what's been written since yesterday, so apologies if I repeat anything.

Originally Posted by mag

But why should we ban guns? It's not going to do that much to make us safer.

Well, in Europe there's a lot fewer guns, and it's generally a lot safer, even in the seedy parts of town. Sure, we've got tons of criminals, but things are overall a lot better.

...it does put citizens in the very dangerous position of having nothing to protect themselves

I was going to say: what about the police? But judging by how most cops acts like total assholes on those reality TV shows, I think I can imagine why people don't put too much faith in them. I mean from what I've seen the American police is very authoritarian and you don't really want to deal too much with them. This might be why some people would prefer having their own gun. (Just guessing though.)

In countries like Holland or Germany the police is generally considered "your best friend". Not in France, by the way. In France the cops are total assholes. But in some other parts of Europe they are really friendly and make you feel safe and comfortable. You know, if you need directions somewhere, you best bet is either a cab driver or a cop. You can even make jokes to Dutch cops, which I wouldn't really dare to in the States. On the reality cop shows over here half the time they're rescuing kittens from trees, or helping someone who lost his keys, or just getting some bums off the street. But if there's a burglar or something they really do kick his ass.

I don't want to present this as a black/white thing, but in very general terms I think the differences are there? Is this a cultural difference? Just curious.

[Todd]

Well, in Europe there's a lot fewer guns, and it's generally a lot safer, even in the seedy parts of town. Sure, we've got tons of criminals, but things are overall a lot better.

Are you so sure about that? What country? I would like to see some evidence please.

I was going to say: what about the police? But judging by how most cops acts like total assholes on those reality TV shows, I think I can imagine why people don't put too much faith in them. I mean from what I've seen the American police is very authoritarian and you don't really want to deal too much with them. This might be why some people would prefer having their own gun. (Just guessing though.)

You seem to get a lot of your information from entertainment shows

If you've ever tried talking to police here, you'd find that they're normal people. My dad's best friend is a retired LAPD lieutenant, and he's one of the nicest people I know.

[Marek]

Yeah, I know. I mean, I asked a US police officer for directions to a payphone once and he was a totally nice guy etc. (Same with the French police.) It's not a black/white thing at all. But the general sense and attitude of the US police is a little more like "we're mean guys, watch out". Maybe it's something you don't see if you don't have any other reference material. It's something that struck me, anyway.

You seem to get a lot of your information from entertainment shows

Yes but not everything, obviously. I haven't been in the US for an extended period of time though, let alone actually live there, so that's why my post was formulated mainly as a question.

Edit: Oh, yeah, I'm pretty sure about that. Erm... I don't know if I feel like digging for evidence right, but maybe I will.

[Todd]

>> Edit: Oh, yeah, I'm pretty sure about that. Erm... I don't know if I feel like digging for evidence right now, but maybe I will.

You can just name the country and I'll be able to find data pretty quickly.

[Marek]

Okay, erm... how about comparing homicide rates between the US and the Netherlands?

[Todd]

>> Okay, erm... how about comparing homicide rates between the US and the Netherlands?

Ok, that won't say much, but I'll do it. If you want to learn something about gun-control (and maybe save some lives), why not compare the homicide and crime rates in various European countries before and after gun-control laws were passed?

http://www.tsra.com/Lott54.htm

You will see that these laws are causing crime and death for no reason except that people fear guns.

_______________

I got most info from here: http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

Years: 1998-2000 (average I think)
Per: 100,000 people

Murder Rate:
US: 5.6 (63.4% involving guns)
NL: 1.11 (got info from FBI)

Robberies:
US: 148.5 (42.0% involving guns)
NL: ?

Aggravated assault:
US: 318.5 (18.3% involving guns)
NL: ?

Gun-related crime totals:
US: 124
NL: 30 (highest: 72 in Amsterdam)

Violent crime rate:
US: 504.4
NL: 625.4 (24% higher than US)

Property crime:
US: 3656.1
NL: 5684.4 (55% higher than US)


The crime rates in the U.S. have been declining for 30 years. They seem to be staying pretty constant in the Netherlands for the last 3 years (which is all I've read) and gun laws seem to be pretty constant as well. It seems to be much easier for law-abiding citizens to attain guns in the Netherlands compared with other European nations. In nations that have banned guns the U.K. crime and murder rates are increasing.

Here's an interesting statistic that should tell you something about where our high murder rate is coming from: In 1993, the homicide rate per capita for the United States was 9.5. In the same year, the per capita homicide rate of black males between the ages of 18 and 24 was 183.4, nearly 20 times the US homicide rate. (FBI/UCR 1993) For the average non-gangbanging American, even with all these guns, we're just about as likely as you to be murdered, and yet we also have a choice about gun ownership so we can choose to defend ourselves if we so desire.

I also find it interesting that while only about 2% of households in the Netherlands have guns compared to 40% of U.S households, we only have 4 times as much gun crime. 20 times as many homes here have guns, and yet we're much less likely to be the victims of violent crime and property crime here.

If we could somehow legalize drugs here, and end welfare, I suspect the U.S. crime and murder rates would decline greatly so that we'd be many times safer than Europeans in all categories.

I'm half Dutch by the way

[mag]

Originally Posted by Todd
Well actually it is the government's job to take out the gang members and drug dealers from society But they're not.

That may be they're job, but it's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter how many welfare programs they cut. It's an impossible task. You can't just take out the criminals and leave everything else because we have a situation that makes people want to be gang members and drug dealers. If the incentive weren't there we wouldn't have the problem.

Originally Posted by Todd
Yet they're also responsible for their own conduct.

I agree with that. When I say that people are a product of their society, I don't mean to say that people don't bear responsibility for their action. We all do. But obviously there's something about our society that makes people believe this is a good option.

Originally Posted by Todd
Public schools aren't giving children the one thing they need: the realization that hard work pays off. Anyone who's willing to get an education and a job in this country succeeds.

This is one of the biggest myths about the invincible American economy ever hatched. If you get a job and work hard you'll be successful. Well, most schools actually do teach that. The reason kids don't believe it is because they can see the reality for themselves. Everything in the world isn't just. Hard work is not directly related to success. Most poor people work way harder than the rich ever will, and it's still not enough for them to get by.

Originally Posted by Todd
Part of the problem with Moore is that he simulated such a violent society. It's part of the fiction he's created. Americans pay huge amounts of money for social programs out of compassion (even though those programs cause more harm than good). We give more to charity PER CAPITA than people in any other nation. We give more to help people in other countries PER CAPITA than any other nation. It's not because we're special. It's because we have more money to give. During the Reagan era which people call the "me decade" we gave more to charity then we have before or since.

He actually didn't simulate. We actually do have about 10,000 deaths from gun murders a year (give or take a few thousand, but around that ballpark). That may not sound like a lot to you, but I find it very disturbing. If you look at most hunter/gatherer societies, they don't have this kind of problem with violent crimes. And when I say they don't have this kind of problem I don't mean they have a lot less of it. I mean they have none of it. And the reason is that their society doesn't provide people with the incentive to kill each other.

Originally Posted by Todd
The point is that Michael Moore tried to pass it off as sort of urban myth or irrational when it's in fact a very real concern.

How is it a rational concern to label an entire race of people as murderers and thieves just because they've been forced into a lower class of society?

Originally Posted by Marek
Well, in Europe there's a lot fewer guns, and it's generally a lot safer, even in the seedy parts of town. Sure, we've got tons of criminals, but things are overall a lot better.

But is that really because of the number of guns? I find it highly unlikely that simply having the means to kill somebody available caused us to go into a psychotic shooting frenzy.

Originally Posted by Marek
In countries like Holland or Germany the police is generally considered "your best friend".

The problem with that is you're putting all of your trust in the government. Now it may be a utopia where you live, but I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it. This is like what I was saying before and what Todd pointed out. All tyrants begin by taking away the weapons because then nobody can oppose them. Yes, Hitler was elected. That doesn't mean that everybody in Germany was a goosestepping Nazi. If they had had guns, some of them might have opposed Hitler. But since they had nothing to resist with that was pretty much impossible. So I guess we'll never know now.

But the founding fathers knew this. That's why they included the Second Amendment. Remember, they had just won their independence in a revolt to overthrow the British government. They knew what a tyrannical government could do, and they knew that government couldn't be completely trusted. I think this is where a lot of people who talk about the Second Amendment go wrong. Look at the actual text:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you see anything in there about hunting? Do you see anything about fighting crime? No. It's for the purpose of "a well regulated militia." The Second Amendment exists so that cops don't have all the guns. It exists so that the power doesn't rest solely with the state and we don't have people like Hitler or Mussolini taking over the country.

mag

[ysbreker]

Originally Posted by tabacco and all the other people commenting my mistake

Seeing as you're *.nl, I'm guessing you didn't go to an american school, so I'm not sure you're in a position to comment.

Ok I rectract that comment.

But todd, I advise you to take a look at europe (and the Netherlands in specific) to see how we handle things like this...

The whole idea that you need a gun to defend yourself is stupid, defend against what? other people with guns?

[Todd]

>> That may be they're job, but it's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter how many welfare programs they cut. It's an impossible task. You can't just take out the criminals and leave everything else because we have a situation that makes people want to be gang members and drug dealers. If the incentive weren't there we wouldn't have the problem.

Exactly. If the opportunity weren't there, we wouldn't have the problem. So where is the opporunity coming from?

Please read the Ten Steps above which talks about how to decrease that opportunity.


>> This is one of the biggest myths about the invincible American economy ever hatched. If you get a job and work hard you'll be successful. Well, most schools actually do teach that. The reason kids don't believe it is because they can see the reality for themselves. Everything in the world isn't just. Hard work is not directly related to success. Most poor people work way harder than the rich ever will, and it's still not enough for them to get by.

It *is* enough to get by. If you go to school and learn, you will get a job that pays you enough to survive. You probably won't become a millionaire, but you will get by.


>> He actually didn't simulate.

Did you read the page about all his lies? That's what I call "simulation."


>> We actually do have about 10,000 deaths from gun murders a year (give or take a few thousand, but around that ballpark). That may not sound like a lot to you, but I find it very disturbing.

1 is too many!


>> If you look at most hunter/gatherer societies, they don't have this kind of problem with violent crimes. And when I say they don't have this kind of problem I don't mean they have a lot less of it. I mean they have none of it. And the reason is that their society doesn't provide people with the incentive to kill each other.

How do you know that? Do hunter/gather societies keep books? I've taken my share of anthropology classes, and even hunter/gather apes murder each other sometimes.


>> How is it a rational concern to label an entire race of people as murderers and thieves just because they've been forced into a lower class of society?

Don't take this badly, but I don't believe that's a rational concern nor even a rational question.

[Todd]

>> But todd, I advise you to take a look at europe (and the Netherlands in specific) to see how we handle things like this...

I have been looking at Europe for years. What are you talking about specifically? Haven't you read anything I've posted? Why don't you read some of the articles?

Or is gun-control a religion with you? Because with a lot of people it is.


>> The whole idea that you need a gun to defend yourself is stupid, defend against what? other people with guns?

No. They can be used to defend life from attackers with guns, no pants on, knives, swords, flower pots, chains, bare fists, etc. It really doesn't matter. An estimated 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 Americans *do* use guns to stop crimes every single year. An estimated 400,000 believe it probably saved their lives. Tell them it's stupid. Find a person who wouldn't be here today if they didn't have a gun when they needed it, and tell them they're stupid for having the sense they needed just to be alive today.

[Todd]

Hey, I'm not going to be able to come back for a couple days... but I will as soon as possible. Need to finish up some work since I've been spending too much time here

[ysbreker]

Originally Posted by Todd

I have been looking at Europe for years. What are you talking about specifically? Haven't you read anything I've posted? Why don't you read some of the articles?

Or is gun-control a religion with you? Because with a lot of people it is.

I don't think gun control is a religion for me. I was more talking in the way our government runs things here. (not that I'm happy with the current parties that are ruling for another 3 years) But more on the whole idea our society is based upon. I think that the duties of a government are to protect it's people, agains foreign agressos aswell protect it against itself, by helping the poor, educating them, and so on...

Originally Posted by Todd

No. They can be used to defend life from attackers with guns, no pants on, knives, swords, flower pots, chains, bare fists, etc. It really doesn't matter. An estimated 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 Americans *do* use guns to stop crimes every single year. An estimated 400,000 believe it probably saved their lives. Tell them it's stupid. Find a person who wouldn't be here today if they didn't have a gun when they needed it, and tell them they're stupid for having the sense they needed just to be alive today.

What attacker? In all my (short) live, I've never had the need to own a gun, or hear from anyone that they needed one, or hear from anyone that they knew anyone who could have used a gun (or any other weapon for that matter) at one point in their life...

[mag]

Originally Posted by Todd
Please read the Ten Steps above which talks about how to decrease that opportunity.

Well, I'm certainly glad that people like that are at least thinking about it. And some of those points are a good start. But I think we have problems that are more fundamental than things that can be fixed with a few policy changes.

Originally Posted by Todd
It *is* enough to get by. If you go to school and learn, you will get a job that pays you enough to survive. You probably won't become a millionaire, but you will get by.

Except that most poor people can't afford a decent education. And they don't have time to spend on high school because they're busy working to try and put food on the table. I'll agree that the American social system is more flexible than most, but it's hardly the representation of the Protestant work ethic that most people present it as.

Originally Posted by Todd
Did you read the page about all his lies? That's what I call "simulation."

Moore did have some dubious information in Bowling for Columbine. But he didn't make up the fact that America has a lot of violent crimes. Maybe he exaggerated it. Maybe he didn't. But it's still there.

Originally Posted by Todd
How do you know that? Do hunter/gather societies keep books? I've taken my share of anthropology classes, and even hunter/gather apes murder each other sometimes.

They don't have books like we do. But we do have anthropologists who study these people. These societies also leave physical evidence of their activities. You can tell how a person died by looking at their remains, after all. The ethnographic literature and the fossil record are quite extensive at this point.

Now, their societies are by no means perfect. Is there some violence? Yes. But it's very limited, especially compared to the violence we have in America. First of all, most tribal fighting is targeted against a different tribe. That's not really the same as murder. It's more what we'd call a war. And even their wars are on a far lesser scale than ours. Do they have intertribal murders? I haven't read about any so far, but I suppose it's possible. It's just extremely rare. That's because you depend on others in the tribe for survival. It doesn't make sense to kill one of them. And if you do you probably won't be in the tribe much longer. That puts you in a very bad position as it's unlikely a person will last long on his own.

Originally Posted by Todd
Hey, I'm not going to be able to come back for a couple days... but I will as soon as possible. Need to finish up some work since I've been spending too much time here

Boy, you've got a lot to learn about wasting your time.

mag

[Ninja Dodo]

http://www.battleroyaleonline.com/

There you go, Todd.

Gee, I never knew the country I grew up in was like Nazi Germany, what with all the lack of guns and all. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Anyway, you seem to want your country to be in a constant state of guerilla warfare, with wide-spread paranoia, every man for himself and all money to those who are already rich (really, who cares about poor people anyway?).

This leads me to the conclusion that you are a very scary person and I dearly hope people like you will never run a government. Of course, in some cases they are already doing just that, but I guess we can only hope the damage will be limited.

I'm through with this discussion.

[Krftwrk]

Find a person who wouldn't be here today if they didn't have a gun when they needed it, and tell them they're stupid for having the sense they needed just to be alive today.

Find a person whos child/friend etc isn´t here today because someone who excersized his rights to bear arms went nuts and blew him/her away. Tell them it´s not a stupid law...

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

http://www.battleroyaleonline.com/

Awesome movie. It's been a while since I saw it. I might watch it again today.

[Ninja Dodo]

Yeah, I never really wanted to watch it because the theme seemed pretty sick to me, but I saw it with my friends the other day and found it was actually a brilliant film.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo
Gee, I never knew the country I grew up in was like Nazi Germany, what with all the lack of guns and all. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I would say it's more like the Soviet Union than Nazi Germany. No offense, but England kind of scares me. I have a lot of respect for a good deal of British politics, but let's face it. They're almost communist over there. I could see a place like England slipping into a communist regime quite easily. Not saying that's what will happen. But it does have the right political climate at the moment for such a change to occur. On the other hand, I see America leaning more towards fascism.

Anyway, the point isn't that all countries that ban guns are totalitarian states. The point is that it sets up a situation that makes it much easier for such states to emerge. I know that people immediately shut down whenever they hear the Hitler comparison, but there are valid historical comparisons to be made here. If you want complete control over a country, the first thing you need to do is take away the weapons. And that's not just modern dictators like Hitler and Stalin. That's a tradition that goes all the way back to the Roman Empire. If citizens have the right to own guns, that does a little bit more to balance out the power.

I certainly don't want to see any nation resort to guerilla fighting and civil war, but it seems to me that people who want the government to control all the guns are putting a little too much faith in the state.

mag