🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Nov16.040333.18533@cs.sfu.ca> James Strickland
(jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:

> Why are these laws silly?

Claiming that a magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of
ammunition is a (prohibited) weapon is equivalent to claiming that a gas
tank is a vehicle capable of speeding. 

> What do you use these weapons for?

As long as I use and store my firearms safely and lawfully, is is no one's
business. But, if you still insist: hunting, collecting, recreation,
competition, defence of life and property.

> What "right" is being infringed upon by these limits?

The right to self determination without interference.

> What about the right of others to safety?

My safe and lawful use and storage of a firearm does not infringe on
anyone's safety. If you place restrictions on me for what I MIGHT do, then
you have punished me for a crime that I did not commit, only one that I
might commit. It will always be true that some crimes cannot be prevented.
Punishing people before they make such a decision (to cause a crime) does
not allow them the chance to make the opposite decision. Who should have the
right to that kind of power?

> What use do fully automatic firearms have, other than the obvious one of
> killing a lot of things in very little time?

Recreation, collecting, competition, preservation of life and property.

> Why are handguns useful for hunting?

Handguns are more convenient to carry. It is also more challenging than
hunting with a rifle, and can, therefore, be more satisfying.

> While we're at it, we should remove all restrictions on people owning
> explosive devices.  You don't agree?  Why not?  Please explain the
> difference to me. ... So what harm could there be in allowing it?

If you are suggesting that it is just as reasonable to allow it for
protection of life and property, the problem is one of (literal) control.
With a firearm, you have a great deal of leeway in how much force you use in
situation, and how and where it is directed. Explosives, in the sense that
you are talking about, are indiscriminant and lack such control.

If you are suggesting that it is just as reasonable to allow it simply
because it is another object (just as a firearm is), the problem is one of
stability and suseptibility to uncontrolled circumstances. Many explosives
are unstable and suseptible to fire/heat, or being jarred (ie: old
dynamite). It is unlikely that suitable storage and handling could be
provided for in the home (but if it could, I'd have no objections). A
properly stored/handled firearm, on the other hand, will not damage anything
due to these uncontrollable circumstances.

> requiring licencing does not get rid of the "bad apples",

Just as enacting more anti gun legislation will not ensure that the "bad
apples" will abide by them.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but
> I believe the Criminal Code of Canada already specifies that life
> imprisonment is possible if a gun, *real or fake*, is used in the
> conduct of an indictable offence ... Are people
> intent on using a gun in a crime deterred by this?

No. Just as they won't be deterred by any other laws that are enacted. You
can educate people, so they have the means to do something correctly, and
you can punish them when they don't. You cannot deter anyone from anything.

> The fact that someone does not know the details about the construction
> and operation of guns may shock someone who is interested in guns, but
> it does not necessarily imply that the people do not have a good grasp
> of the important concepts.

When you have someone with the power to ban high capacity magazines as
prohibited weapons (magazines are only a part of a firearm), then they
clearly do not have a good grasp of any concepts.

> I recognize that there is a legitimate use
> for guns.  (e.g. protection from polar bears, peace officers protecting 
> their own lives, "sports" for those who claim shooting is a sport.)

Interesting that you feel that peace officers should be entitled to protect
their lives, but that ordinary citizens should not.

-- 
Roger Walker (403) 465-4962  ****  SysOp, CUE Here BBS (403) 465-7715
               Roger_Walker@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA

    PGP Public Key from:  Roger_Walker_PGP@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA