🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:31:02 -0400, David Geesaman
<gees...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> 
>> You say we would be removing guns from the innocent and leaving the
>> guilty armed.  In the short term, yes.  That's true.  However, a ban
>> on guns could possibly work.  
>
>	And you believe that we should 'test' this out on our entire nation?  That we
>should jeopardize the safety of each of us and our liberities by guaranteeing
>criminals and lawbreakers a huge advantage?  That we should permanently ink out
>new laws and dump huge amounts of money for decades, just so that we can attempt
>to treat a symptom of the underlying illness?

Don't be so melo-dramatic.  It's not like it would be a crime wave
free for all, just because Joe Blow can't own a .44 magnum.  You're
blowing it way, way out of proportion.  Get an alarm system if you're
that afraid.  Put a nice big sign out front alerting criminals to stay
away, notifying them of your alarm.  

>	The reason that we have violence and irresponsibility does not lie within the
>steel of a firearm.  It is in the minds of our people - and the only thing that
>can change how we think is by interaction.  This disease has no vaccine, no
>antivenin.  It is more pervasive than the millions of guns in this nation.

The minds of people don't hurl projectiles at 1200 feet per second.  A
bullet can kill from a mile away.  So no, guns aren't the cause; they
just make killing easier.  Hell, why struggle with stabbing someone
when you can pull a trigger?

>	Lets not undercut the framework that has secured this country for two centuries
>for the sake of 'why not?'.  Gun controls should only be implemented with a
>complete understanding of the scope of such a change.

What you declare as "securing" our country is ripping it apart at the
seams.  
I wok in a hospital, and I see these kids riddled with bullets all the
time.  Just yesterday, there were 4 DOA's.  
I've seen a little girl shot in the face, by a bullet that went
through her God Damn WALL!  These  "tools" are destroying lives every
day.  

>
>> Sure, big time drug smugglers, and bank robbers
>> may have access to some form of ammunition, but your local crack
>> addict will not.
>
>	Yet your local crack addict has easy access to the most controlled substance in
>this country - this statement is contradictory.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the contradictory nature.  My point is even
the lowest degenerate in the country can get access to a gun.  They're
a dime a dozen right now.

Ban them, and destroy devices for producing them, and they become like
gold to the underworld.  Making guns a niche item, it would be alot
easier to police them up.
 
>> Considering that most crime in this country is not committed by big
>> time gangsters, I believe a gun ban will work.
>
>	Big time gangsters didn't exist until the doors were opened for them by the
>opportunity of Prohibition.  Big time gangsters still exist in the form of drug
>cartels - the only difference is that they live elsewhere, and their work in
>this country is carried on by peons.

Only making it that much harder for them.  Now instead of just having
to import drugs, they need to import guns as well.  

>> >> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?
>	
>	I hope that no one ever buys a gun for emotional reasons.  This is why I favor
>waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory training.

No one ever enforces mandatory training or background checks.  It's
just another ruse by the government to keep gun control people happy.



This thread is getting really long BTW.  I'd like to comment on the
rest later, but I'm getting tired.  :)