🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <k9RVVc3w165w@aroga.wimsey.com>,
Orion <orion@aroga.wimsey.com> wrote:
>jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland) writes:
>> 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?
>
>  We use them for recreational shooting.  What's the difference to you if 
>we pump bullets into our targets one at a time or in groups? ...

None at all.

>(oh, that's right: you don't think "shooting is a sport", do you?)

Whether I think it is a sport or not is irrelevant.  If you enjoy it,
fine.  I think it's entirely reasonable to enforce strict controls on
storage and ownership of dangerous weapons, however.


>> >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?
>
>
>  We aren't talking about FULLY automatic firearms...those are prohibited 
>weapons in Canada (shouldn't you already know this if you're so willing 
>to give us your 'opinions' on the subject?  Do you have *any* idea what 
>you're talking about here...or are you just another fool motivated by the 
>fear of something you don't understand?).

You may not be talking about them, but the original poster was (see
underlined).  Perhaps it is you who should read carefully before
posting.


>  And the purpose of handgun hunting is the same as it is in the US, and 
>the same as bowhunting: the additional skill required makes it more of a 
>challenge, and thus more 'sporting' than simply picking off an animal at 
>long range with a telescopic sight.  Is that so hard to understand...or 
>are hunters Evil Bloodthirsty Killers in your eyes, too?

You're pulling out all the stereotypes today, aren't you?
Is it possible for you to debate this without accusing me of ignorance,
stupidity, or prejudice?


>> 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?
>
>  Because (as has been pointed out many times already) explosives can be 
>dangerous *in and of themselves*...and have no legitimate sporting, 
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>recreational or defensive uses.  People who do have a need for them do 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>possess them, but not in residential areas...what if there was a fire? 
>What if they exploded spontaneously (as they've been known to do)?
>
>  You guys need some newer, more *relevant* arguments...surely you can do 
>better than these same tired old excuses.

Explosives don't explode unless they are set off for some reason (perhaps
accidentally), just as guns don't fire unless they are set off for
some reason (perhaps accidentally).  What is the difference?

As for "no legitimate..."  Wow!  Are you telling me that because *you*
cannot think of any legitimate uses, that therefore there must be none?

I can imagine it being a lot more fun to blow something up than to
"pump bullets" into it.  I can imagine competitive demolition as a sport.
(Who can do the most accurate job of imploding a building?  Who can...)
I can imagine waving an explosive around and shouting as being at least
as effective as waving a gun around and shouting.  Or tossing a grenade
at an intruder doing at least as good a job of killing him/her "in self
defense" as a gun could.  I have now demonstrated legitimate sporting,
recreational and defensive uses of explosives.  Now can you justify why
*you* want to deny me access to explosives?

-- 
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.