🚀 go-pugleaf

pajari@Faximum.COM (George Pajari) writes:
>orion@aroga.wimsey.com (Orion) replies:
>>jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland) writes:

>(I normally manage to ignore the various (mostly unsuccessful) attempts at 
>reasoned discussion on the gun control issue, but Orion's recent post was 
>just too silly to let pass.  I know I'm going to regret rising to the bait 
>but here goes...)

Your response wasn't much better...

>>> 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.

>>  Because (as has been pointed out many times already) explosives can be 
>>dangerous *in and of themselves*
>And you're implying guns are not?
No, *in and of themselves* they are *not* dangerous. They are
inanimate objects. Until somebody comes along and pulls the trigger,
the gun will just lay there.

As opposed to explosives, which may degrade and become unstable over time.

>(b) Claymore mines have wonderful defensive uses.

Mines may also go off without people tripping them. The blast cannot
be directed, 

>The question all hangs on what is considered legitimate.  And I (and
>fortunately the government) sees few *legitimate* uses for many
>firearms.

Define "legitimate", as you are using it here. I consider hunting,
target shooting, and self-defense to be three (there are more)
legitimate uses of a firearm. 

>> People who do have a need for them do possess them, but not in 
>> residential areas...
>And why should not the same rules apply to firearms?  It seems reasonable
>for all firearms to be restricted to those who have a need, 

No, it doesn't. Until your life is threatened, the _need_ doesn't
arise.  Better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need one,
and not have it.

By a similar argument to yours, "it seems reasonable to restrict fire
extinguishers to those who have a need" for one. You don't have
a fire? You don't need one.

>>What if they exploded spontaneously (as they've been known to do)?
>What if they went off accidentally (but of course we know guns never
>discharge accidentally, don't we :-)

Rarely, if ever. Guns "going off by accident" is a euphemism for "the
operator was STUPID and pulled the trigger when s/he didn't mean to".
Instead of accepting responsibility, they try to blame the gun.

-Lee