🚀 go-pugleaf

donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>I take issue with your comment that a "lot" of people with guns are out
>of control.

	Ok. "too many" people with guns are out of control. One is
"too many." We have more than that, by far, and possibly we have
"a lot."

>One of the books I've read on gun control said that an intelligent gun
>control law should 1) prevent violent jerks/loonies from getting guns
>2) should not excessively impede upstanding citizens from getting guns.

	Sure. That's the ideal. I submit that it probably can't be
implemented, and I prefer to err on the side of caution, since
lives are at stake.

>>with a shotgun for no apparent reason. He's shot 4 people so far -
>>just folks like you & me who were minding their own business got
>>rewarded with a blast of pellets in the head.
>
>And no one has had the capacity to shoot back.  That wouldn't last
>long in this neighborhood and California has moderately strict gun
>laws...

	You didn't read my posting. This guy has been shooting people
by surprise at random. It's not a matter of shooting back, it's a matter
of one second you're walking along, and the next you're bleeding on the
street.
	We've disagreed about the usefulness of guns for self-defense,
based on their ability to scare off attackers (firing into the air to
chase off an assailant) but surely you must agree that they're even
LESS useful against a complete surprise attack. Anyone with a rudimentary
knowledge of tactics will understand this.

mjr.