🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> Instead, most gun-owners
> adopt an all-or-nothing approach and regard any regulation as despicable.

Naah, we're just a lot more cautious than you. Once burned, twice shy and
all that.

A lot of the more-cautious ones, incidently, *used* to go along with
the rationale given for various laws passed in the past. They just got
to see how they were either mismanaged or, more often, abused.

> 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.

> 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?