Dear Connecticut...

[patman]

I watch usually a little NBC, BBC(UK) NHK(Japan) and DW(German) news our local PBS station carries all of these-not the NBC of course...not a religious watcher, but different points of view tend to make a larger rather than smaller worldview.  My opinion...yours may vary.

[drbassman]

I agree, I watch and read multiple sources.  Of course I have my own biases, but I prefer multiple inputs.  I try not to be a Kool-Aid drinker.

[uwe]

Invasion of Switzerland was seriously considered, even imminent: "Operation Tannenbaum", the military plan was already in place. The Swiss even knew it and were expecting it. It was scheduled for 1940 and slated for a few days at the most, strategic cities, wham bam, thank you man!

Four reasons why it was aborted (it was close):

- Switzerland was strategically unimportant as regards its geography. Who wants to transport things through the alps at a time when they didn't even have today's tunnels?

- It was around the time where Hitler hoped to goad Churchill into a truce, he didn't want to appear too grabby. As if.  

- A neutral country, even in the worst of wars, is handy for all kinds of hedging your bets (the Nazis had assets there, it is also where they dumped there counterfeit Dollars which by the end of the war had reached amazing quality good enough to dupe Swiss bankers) and secret diplomacy missions. You need some place where you can talk. Hitler met Wallenberg in Switzerland as 1944 to "sell" (repulsive, ain't it?) Jews from the concentration camps to the Swedish Red Cross.

- The Swiss largely cooperated (and bought fine weapons from us paying with convertible currency!). There is a nasty saying in Switzerland: "From 1939-45, the good Swiss worked six days a week for the Deutsche Reich to then go to church on Sunday and pray for Allied victory."   Less funny: Zyklon B, the gas used in Auschwitz and other places of despair, had components produced in Switzerland, the maker was a German-Swiss joint venture.


So it wasn't the guns. In 1940, the French Army was both larger and better equipped than the German one and they had, they thought, their invincible Maginot Line. But they had crappy strategy and tactics (plus a wavering belief in their political position) so the Blitzkrieg blasted through their country straight into Paris.

Take Denmark on the other hand. It surrendered without a shot in 1940 in exchange for mainly two guarantees while its army was disarmed: Let us keep our democracy internally (and so it came that Denmark was the only Nazi occupied country that had democratic elections during the war and, ironically, a left-wing government won!) and "hands off our Jewish population". Initially, the Nazis even held their word. Up to 1944. Then the raids began. But the Danish police refused to cooperate. The Royal family began wearing yellow Jewish stars in solidarity. As did many of the Christian population. Danish police helped Danish Jews make it into Sweden. The Nazis, flabbergasted and dumbfounded, called a halt to the operation, the Danish Jews were saved.

Now why did in that one case non-violent civil resistance work actually against the Nazi beasts? Answer: A semblance of joint values. Had the same thing happened in Poland or Russa, the Nazis would have cracked down draconically as they were used to. But in their perverted minds, the valiant Dutch might have been ill-led democrats and pussyfooting holders of Jewish "pets", but one thing they were not: Untermenschen. They were - no two ways about it - fellow "Aryans". And you can't shoot fellow Aryans like you can shoot Russian and Polish peasants. Perverse, I know.    

[Dave W]

Let the firearms owners bear the costs of their "tools".  Right now society-at-large is bearing the cost of irresponsible gun ownership. That cost should be paid by the pool of gun owners.

Firearms owners have always been legally liable for their use. The typical law-abiding gun owner is a homeowner who already carries liability insurance.

But by all means, let's go with your pool idea. I'm sure the ghetto thugs with unregistered guns -- you know, the criminals who actually cause 98% of the damage to society at large with their guns -- will be happy to join and pay their fair share of premiums.

And while we're at on board with your pool idea, let's have society at large replenish that pool to reimburse gun owners for every legitimate defensive use of a gun. After all, even the anti-gun Brady Center once admitted that there were 108,000 defensive uses a year, and other surveys put the number much higher. Compare that to the number of gun homicides.

[uwe]

See, liebe Amerikaner, that is one experience we have over you: Life without a free press. From 1933-45. Don't try this at your home please.

Media is neither good nor bad, it is a force of nature and often random. If you believe in chaos theories, of course, it all balances out in the end. But absence of a free (or even anarchic) media is hell.

[uwe]

"And while we're at on board with your pool idea, let's have society at large replenish that pool to reimburse gun owners for every legitimate defensive use of a gun. After all, even the ant-gun Brady Center once admitted that there were 108,000 defensive uses a year, and other surveys put the number much higher. Compare that to the number of gun homicides."

Not sure whether the costs of a bullet spent in a true self-defense act would actually matter much in comparion to what a jury would award to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims, Dave. Careful with those apples and oranges crates! 

[Dave W]

Not sure whether the costs of a bullet spent in a true self-defense act would actually matter much in comparion to what a jury would award to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.

Not the cost of a bullet, but the benefit to society. After all, if an armed robbery or homicide's overall cost to society is to be calculated, there's a corresponding benefit when these crimes are prevented.

I find the whole "cost to society" angle one of the most pernicious excuses to limit or destroy freedoms that this country has ever seen.

[patman]

Problem is...the crazies never have jobs, and can never be responsible for the damage they cause. Just like car owners...the tab for an auto accident with injuries is easily into the hundreds of thousands of dollars--the tab for a gun accident is high. Most people can't pay. That's when you insure, and spread the risk over a large area.

And just like with autos, you will have uninsured drivers.

The drug dealer probably doesn't have auto insurance either.

All I'm asking for people to be economically responsible and belly up to the bar to pay for their own decisions.  The market would weed out some of the crazies, that's all.

[Dave W]

Problem is...the crazies never have jobs, and can never be responsible for the damage they cause. Just like car owners...the tab for an auto accident with injuries is easily into the hundreds of thousands of dollars--the tab for a gun accident is high. Most people can't pay. That's when you insure, and spread the risk over a large area.

And just like with autos, you will have uninsured drivers.

The drug dealer probably doesn't have auto insurance either.

All I'm asking for people to be economically responsible and belly up to the bar to pay for their own decisions.

By making the ones who don't cause the damage pay for the ones that do.

The responsible folks already are insured.

[uwe]

Ian Hunter wants to chip in too:

[Dave W]

I'm now in favor of banning totem poles.

[uwe]

Sounds just like you, old grumpy interventionist big government funspoiler. What's wrong now all of the sudden with shapely Indians and poles?

[drbassman]

I'm now in favor of banning totem poles.

Already outlawed in NY!  So are assault hammers (the black ones, not the cammo ones) and jawbones of asses.  

[drbassman]

Invasion of Switzerland was seriously considered, even imminent: "Operation Tannenbaum", the military plan was already in place. The Swiss even knew it and were expecting it. It was scheduled for 1940 and slated for a few days at the most, strategic cities, wham bam, thank you man!

Four reasons why it was aborted (it was close):

- Switzerland was strategically unimportant as regards its geography. Who wants to transport things through the alps at a time when they didn't even have today's tunnels?

- It was around the time where Hitler hoped to goad Churchill into a truce, he didn't want to appear too grabby. As if.  

- A neutral country, even in the worst of wars, is handy for all kinds of hedging your bets (the Nazis had assets there, it is also where they dumped there counterfeit Dollars which by the end of the war had reached amazing quality good enough to dupe Swiss bankers) and secret diplomacy missions. You need some place where you can talk. Hitler met Wallenberg in Switzerland as 1944 to "sell" (repulsive, ain't it?) Jews from the concentration camps to the Swedish Red Cross.

- The Swiss largely cooperated (and bought fine weapons from us paying with convertible currency!). There is a nasty saying in Switzerland: "From 1939-45, the good Swiss worked six days a week for the Deutsche Reich to then go to church on Sunday and pray for Allied victory."   Less funny: Zyklon B, the gas used in Auschwitz and other places of despair, had components produced in Switzerland, the maker was a German-Swiss joint venture.


So it wasn't the guns. In 1940, the French Army was both larger and better equipped than the German one and they had, they thought, their invincible Maginot Line. But they had crappy strategy and tactics (plus a wavering belief in their political position) so the Blitzkrieg blasted through their country straight into Paris.

Take Denmark on the other hand. It surrendered without a shot in 1940 in exchange for mainly two guarantees while its army was disarmed: Let us keep our democracy internally (and so it came that Denmark was the only Nazi occupied country that had democratic elections during the war and, ironically, a left-wing government won!) and "hands off our Jewish population". Initially, the Nazis even held their word. Up to 1944. Then the raids began. But the Danish police refused to cooperate. The Royal family began wearing yellow Jewish stars in solidarity. As did many of the Christian population. Danish police helped Danish Jews make it into Sweden. The Nazis, flabbergasted and dumbfounded, called a halt to the operation, the Danish Jews were saved.

Now why did in that one case non-violent civil resistance work actually against the Nazi beasts? Answer: A semblance of joint values. Had the same thing happened in Poland or Russa, the Nazis would have cracked down draconically as they were used to. But in their perverted minds, the valiant Dutch might have been ill-led democrats and pussyfooting holders of Jewish "pets", but one thing they were not: Untermenschen. They were - no two ways about it - fellow "Aryans". And you can't shoot fellow Aryans like you can shoot Russian and Polish peasants. Perverse, I know.    

I told you not to answer!!!!!!!!!!!!  Although I did like the Danish history lesson.  Something to be admired for sure.

[patman]

If responsible folk are insured already, then requiring insurance either makes EVERYONE responsible, or it takes guns out of the hands of those not responsible enough to insure.

Obviously drug dealers are not included here.