🚀 go-pugleaf

<3T0qVc3w165w@aroga.wimsey.com>, pook@aroga.wimsey.com
Jim Pook:

>	I wonder if the pro gun lobby would care to try their hand
>	at writing gun control legislation that would recognize
>	their hobby and yet improve the liklihood of assault victims
>	surviving because there were fewer deadly weapons with which
>	to conduct attacks available to the less responsible. 
>
>	What would the gun hobbiests accept?  No controls at all?
>	Better ones? What would they consider better?

I can think of plenty of other measures to ensure the public safety
which should take priority over gun control.  For example:

After reading about the masses of people who died as a result
of religious wars, and now that cult which committed mass suicide
in Switzerland (and which may have murdered a family in Canada
just recently), it is clear that some sort of governmental control
over religion is in order.  What sort of governmental control
would be acceptable to those who go in for this sort of entertainment?

Also, I understand that some people have been harmed a great
deal by books and newspapers containing dangerous ideas.
Throughout the past couple of centuries, irresponsible writings
have spawned countless bloody riots and revolutions, not to
mention blasphemy and countless souls lost eternal damnation.
Clearly, some sort of governmental control over the press
is in order to keep to tools of publication (mightier than the sword)
from irresponsible hands.  What sort of controls would be
acceptable to those of you who are avocational readers?

Many instances of violent child abuse and child sexual abuse
go unreported until long after the damage has been done.
Clearly, the right of children to secure childhoods takes
precedence over selfish concerns for privacy.  Some sort of
governmental monitoring of parents' home life is called for,
so that agents listening in to family squabbles can react
the very instant any abuse takes place.  What sort of home
monitoring devices would you consider acceptably unintrusive
of your lifestyle?

The way you feel about the questions I just asked is
probably more or less the way I feel about _your_ question.
But seriously, I believe that no mere _hobby_ is important enough
to justify putting the innocent public at risk.  Nevertheless,
I believe my status as a free man is contingent upon maintaining
my right to self-defense.  This would require, at a minimum,
the right to carry a weapon which would give me parity with
a larger, stronger, and armed violent assailent.  I cannot
think of any weapon more practical for this purpose than a handgun.
As for gun control, I would accept any measures which put
the _entire_ burdens of cost and inconvenience upon those
individuals who have abused this right.

In any case, for me to give up my guns to rely solely
upon police for protection would be as foolish as for
the state of Israel to disband its army and depend solely
for protection upon the U.N.

Frank Silbermann	fs@cs.tulane.edu