🚀 go-pugleaf

On 31 Aug 1999 20:08:57 GMT, dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

>In article <sehix-3008992248270001@192.168.1.5>,
>Steve Hix <sehix@macol.net> wrote:
>>In article <7qeqtn$mng$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
>>dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>>
>>> What gun-owners need to realize is that laws designed to halt the
>>proliferation
>>> of firearms are in their best interests as well and that they should
>>> actively participate in the regulatory process.
>>
>>Sorry, Dimitri, I have to disagree on this point. A lot of the laws in
>>question do no such thing. In particular, they tend to attack a non-problem;
>>the law-abiding.
>>
>>The problem being criminals, who have a distressing tendency to ignore
>>the laws in question.
>
>
>Every criminal was a law-abiding citizen at some point. I'm not suggesting
>that we're all just criminals waiting to happen, but it's not "us vs.
>them". How do *you* suggest we keep guns off the streets and out of
>the hands of those that would misuse them?

It most certianly is "us vs them"! You cannot expect people who ignore
laws to obey the gun laws.  It will not happen.  All you can do if
defend yourself and your family.  When enough people do that the
criminal finds his trade to dangerous to persue.

>
>>> It's not too much to demand licensing, training, background checks, and
>>> the like.
>>
>>It might be. It *is* in many cases, because the supposed benefits of
>>these items are either outweighed by their liabilities, or because their
>>supposed benefits are just that: supposed.
>>
>>I've got nothing against training, I encourage it. I don't think that
>>the government has any business making management decisions about it.
>>(Give minimum standards of what it should accomplish, then get out of
>>the way.)
>>
>>I've got nothing against background checks, per se. The problem is that
>>they are too often abused. There is *no* need to compile lists of those
>>who would pass such a check...they're not the problem. It makes a *lot* 
>>more sense to only keep lists of the prohibited persons...a much smaller
>>list, for starters.
>>
>>Licensing? Whatever for? No real benefit (you've already got your
>>criteria for not being allowed to own/buy), *huge* potential for
>>abuse.
>
>
>To track the purchase of weapons and ensure that weapons only end up in
>the hands of those who are trained and who conform to some given criteria.
>It's much like getting a driver's license. Where is the potential for
>abuse?

That only makes it easier for the criminals. They rarely use legally
obtained firearms.

>
>>> It's also not too much to limit the sale of certain types of
>>> weapons. I realize that the thinking is "give an inch, they'll take a
>>> mile" but that thinking may just backfire as someone else pointed out. 
>>
>>Right...like they actually end up *taking* it.
>>
>>If the thing isn't misused so as to cause harm to persons or property,
>>who cares?
>
>
>Exactly. Unfortunately, they are misused all the time. 
>
>
>Dimitri

So get rid of the cause of the problem, the criminals.

William R. James