🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <qgiuVc3w165w@aroga.wimsey.com>,
Jim Pook <pook@aroga.wimsey.com> wrote:
>I think I could come up with some good rules for gun owners. For 
>instance, I would do away with silly laws that restrict semi-automatic 
>centerfire rifles, magazine size limits, etc.

Why are these laws silly?  What do you use these weapons for?  What
"right" is being infringed upon by these limits?  What about the right
of others to safety?


>I would allow full-automatic firearms to people trained and authorised to 
>use them. I would allow handguns to be used for hunting.

<sounding like a broken record now>
What use do fully automatic firearms have, other than the obvious one of
killing a lot of things in very little time?  Why are handguns useful for
hunting?

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.  Surely any law abiding citizen is entitled to own
any number and type of explosive devices - after all, the law abiding
citizen would never break a law, so what harm could there be in
allowing it?


>I would require a national training standard and licencing of people who 
>wish to use firearms - much like a drivers licence. To be renewed every 5 
>years.

This sounds like a good idea, but you picked a terrible analogy for
your argument (IMO).  Driver's licences are mostly a waste of time and
money - they may weed out some of the people incompetent to drive cars,
but they are also awarded to a lot of people who have poor attitudes,
poor skills, or both.  The result is an intimidating environment for
pedestrians, cyclists and even other motorists in some cases.

In other words, requiring licencing does not get rid of the "bad apples",
and it does nothing to address the fact that there is now another easily
lethal weapon which may be easily accessible under times of emotional duress.
(I say "easily lethal" to differentiate guns from things such as knives,
which may be lethal but require a little more guts to use and usually do
not result in as quick a death.)


>Use a gun in a crime (such as robbery, murder, assault, etc.), lose your 
>right to own and use a firearm for minimum 5 years - max. life.

Fine.  Is this likely to change anything?  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 (this is from memory of grade 11 law,
taken a decade ago, so I may have some details wrong).  Are people
intent on using a gun in a crime deterred by this?

"Oh dear, now I might be unable to legally own a gun while I'm in prison
- I guess I won't commit the crime now." :-)


>I would provide for national educaution of ALL people with respect to 
>firearms.

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.

BTW, your typo ("educaution") is an interesting one.. :-)

>- Jim Pook - pook@aroga.wimsey.com
>- Jim's Fishing Charters (604) 433-8817

In an earlier posting you implied that gun control does not reduce the
number of people killed or injured by guns per unit time.  This would
imply that the situation in Canada would be the same without any gun
control, and the situation in the U.S. would be the same with tighter
gun controls.  Do you really believe this?  How do you explain the
difference between the two countries?  Are U.S.ians just naturally
more violent?

BTW, your characterization of gun control advocates as people who would
not be happy until all guns are removed from existence is not accurate.
I am a gun control advocate (not an active one, but enough of one to
respond to your post), but 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.)

-- 
James Strickland          It's not healthy to exercise on city streets
jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca        because of the exhaust fumes - therefore, 
                          everyone should drive to their health club.