🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CzDpoL.FA2@Faximum.COM> George Pajari (pajari@Faximum.COM)
wrote:
> orion@aroga.wimsey.com (Orion) replies:
> >  Because (as has been pointed out many times already) explosives can be 
> >dangerous *in and of themselves*

> And you're implying guns are not?

That is correct. Guns cannot spontaneously explode and are not unstable.
Many explosives are. It is unlikely that adequate storage/handling
facilities could be had in a normal home. If they could, I'd have no problem
with it.

> It seems reasonable
> for all firearms to be restricted to those who have a need, but not
> in residential areas (with some exceptions, of course, as there are
> for explosives).

Since you are suggesting this, presumably, due to the possible or actual
loss of life, your reasoning would apply equally as well to the ownership
and use of vehicles. Since public transportation is available in most urban
areas, there is no legitimate use for personally owned and driven vehicles.
This is why I suggest that your comment may "seem" reasonable, but under
closer scrutiny, is flawed.

> What if they went off accidentally (but of course we know guns never
> discharge accidentally, don't we :-)

People who misuse firearms (are unsafe) should be punished. If the firearm
in question were truly defective, there is legal recourse, just as there
would be if the new car you just bought had defective breaks and you
accidently ran someone over because you could not stop. It doesn't mean that
you are at fault.

> It would seem that James has drawn a reasonable parallel between the
> guns and explosives and rather than try to address his argument you try
> to flippantly dismiss it....

On the contrary. The parallel is not reasonable because firearms are stable
objects that, when properly stored/handled, are not subject to spontaneously
causing damage, while many explosives are. (Some explosives are very stable,
though.)

> You guys need some newer, thought-out responses rather than the knee-jerk
> replies to responable questions.  How about actually reading the post and 
> thinking about it before writing a follow up?

I have.

-- 
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