🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Nov16.040333.18533@cs.sfu.ca>,
James Strickland <jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
}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?

There is no right to safety -- no right to have other human beings
restricted for what they might do.  Nor does restricting
semi-automatic centerfire rifles impact safety anyway.

}>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?

My guess (I've never fired one) is that firing one is fun in much the
same way as drag-racing a muscle car is.  

} Why are handguns useful for hunting?

Probably because they can put holes in animals.

}While we're at it, we should remove all restrictions on people owning
}explosive devices.  You don't agree?

I agree, up to a point.  I have no problems with requiring people to
take safety precautions to prevent the explosives from going off
themselves--- e.g., not allowing the storage of nitroglycerine in an
apartment building.  Guns don't have that problem-- they only go off
when the trigger is pulled.

}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?

Yes, apparently.  Look at the non-gun homicide rates.

}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.)

What about non-peace-officers protecting our own lives?  Unlike cops,
we don't generally have a bunch of armed buddies ready to back us up
and/or avenge us if necessary.