From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:31:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto"
Message-ID: <199710022114.XAA25096@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Alex Le Heux wrote:
>>>You people just don't get it do you? A gun has one purpose: To
>>>kill. Just like any other tool, a gun, if it is available _will_ be
>>>used at some point.
>>
>>Although guns are obviously designed for killing things, this does
>>not mean that they will be used.  This can be seen from the
>>statistics.  There are far fewer murders than there are guns.
>>Almost all of them are never used for killing someone.
>
>You can't deny that the more guns there are available, the more
>people will get shot.

Oh yes, I can.  In fact, I believe the opposite is the case.  The
statistics bear this out.  But, your claim was that a weapon will
eventually be used to kill somebody.  I guess it's clear at this point
that this was wildly inaccurate.

>There may be some people that are capable of owning a gun and using
>it wisely (ie. not), but I don't believe that this is a significant
>fraction of any population.

You should come to the United States and spend some time around the
shooting community.  The people are real pleasant, real easy to get
along with, and real careful with their weapons.

>>You are also not considering the case where one person has a gun and
>>another does not.  The situation is more stable if both people are
>>armed.  (And don't claim you are talking about disarming a whole
>>society.  You aren't, just part of it.)
>
>Urgl? The situation only becomes more explosive if both sides are
>armed.

That can occur, but in general nobody likes to be shot.  Even if you
are going to shoot your opponent regardless, if he has a gun you move
more cautiously.

>Look at the arms race, which is now, thank god, over. I am amazed at
>the amount of restraint both sides displayed during that time,
>although it's been really close a few times.

What would have happened if the Russians didn't develop nuclear
weapons?  I think they would have been nuked sooner or later, don't
you?

And, we aren't talking about an arms race, here.  We are talking about
whether citizens are allowed to own a few rifles.

>It's really simple: If there are no guns, no one will get shot.

You will find this difficult to achieve, however.

>I _am_ talking about disarming a population. I don't know which 'it'
>I'm not part of, but I am definately not part of the 'it' that
>promotes death by gunshot.

You are not talking about disarming the police and the military are
you?  Just as I thought: you only want to disarm the civilians.
That's not such a great idea, judging by history.

>>>So making sure there are lots of guns around only serves to make a
>>>lot of people very dead. This is a Bad Thing.
>>
>>Depends who they are.  Bet the Dutch resistance made good use of
>>their weaponry, eh?
>
>Even if they did, dead people are still a Bad Thing. We had no
>quarrel with the soldiers the resistance killed. Neither did most of
>them had any quarrel with us. Just like the US troopers in Vietnam or
>some other place.

Are you arguing that the Dutch resistance should not have resisted?  I
believe they did the right thing, myself.  I do not believe it was a
Bad Thing.  I believe it was a Good Thing.  I believe they did not
kill enough people.

>>Be aware that the gun control lobby has often used misleading
>>statistics.  For instance, you will hear a lot about "handgun
>>deaths".  It turns out that most of these are suicides.  While
>>undesirable, most people perceive a difference between somebody
>>killing themselves and a nutcase doing his thing at a school.
>
>I am not the gun control lobby,...

No, but it appeared that you may have been misled by them.

>I am a citizen in a mostly gun-free society, and glad of it. People
>getting shot here, be it robbery, suicide, police violence or self
>defence is a rare occurence.

Police violence is caused by gun ownership?  I doubt this very much.

>Over her, drive-by shootings are something from fairy tales.

Oddly enough, this is mostly true here as well.

It is unclear what is magical about the words "drive by shooting."  I
believe this phrase lacks real content and is simply a trigger for
hysteria.

The implication is that people are randomly firing on people in the
streets.  While this may occur once in a great while, it is extremely
uncommon.  Usually people kill for a reason.  Usually they are trying
to kill their enemies.  In the U.S., this is often related to the
black market.

Whether somebody kills their enemy from a car or not is irrelevant.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNDP3UZaWtjSmRH/5AQEHIQf/RaA4NODawPxLEEI5mMGPnMG/+7ASceoL
p6i2oM8c0w2Qu7yx7FfK5uC0wtRpyQFZXFaPpZ7AoMUYumAXCnnVLdksKaxMdsCP
0Dv0I1Bg5lh+Ko5XEyCHBl472MQH5P7rg6sWil3+X6D4KPEh6IhfQ/WAdczAOhGG
h1pDDTHOiRYO52x4Lb5vyH58OtyzxAqoBUH2YD6ReVcdYbgUXcXD54UGTbzsPbzw
5Rlx/M5gCMXOpKoISZnsCPhZyPrw8a/kG3VPdbmJC4XbE4evohCeA+CDZzy2HTDb
x3S2iUnmPEw6Cg4KhXeKfyznIXNgLWLDUu5tOpc9qtuCNrWeBc1DzA==
=/9qs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----