🚀 go-pugleaf

>Your implication that soldiers are more "skilled" and "mature" than
>civilians is laughable.  Your further implication that civilian gun
>ownership should therefore be severly restricted is equally laughable.

	They are *MUCH* more accountable. You imply that you served
in the armed forces. If that's the case, you know what I'm talking
about. I can assume that you never shot anyone with your service
weapon while participating in a crime, or you wouldn't be posting
the the net, you'd be in Ft. Leavenworth making large rocks into
little ones.

	Military gun use and access, in my experience, *was* very
restricted (except on manuevers and then ammo was restricted). In
fact, one might argue that the lack of gun related criminal incidents
in the military is a good indicator of the effectiveness of restricting
access to guns coupled with personal accountability! Especially since
you seem to feel that the army is no more "mature" than ordinary
civs! If ordinary civs had as much trouble getting their hands on
weapons and ammo without having to account for them as we did in
the army, maybe there'd be less gun related crime, neh?

	[Of course, since I was a '60 gunner, I really never had a
chance to go rob and steal with my '60 or use it for legitimate
hunting purposes, since I had to account for every belt of ammo
I was issued, and '60s are so - distinctive.]

mjr.