🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: mtl.general
Article #1015

Re: Illegal Guns (was: Re: The Montreal massacre - this date, 1989....)

#1015
From: Rosco
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:00
97 lines
5566 bytes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <DJoBtp.4BJ@freenet.carleton.ca> Colin R. Leech 
(ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

> Larry Phillips (larry@furble.signs.eh) writes:
> > Making legal weapons harder to get only increases
> > the demand for, and therefor the value of, illegal weapons,

> Cost is one deterrent to buying a gun, so increasing the value of 
> illegal weapons isn't a bad thing.

You seem to think that it will deter people, which is an incorrect
assumption. All it means is that there will be more incentive to traffic in
illegal firearms, since the cost is still far less than all the money, time,
and agravation wasted trying to do things the legal way.

> > while
> > increasing the chances of the criminal not having to face a gun barrel
> > when mugging someone or breaking into someone's house.

> Oh yeah, we should all become vigilantes. Riiiiight.

A vigilante takes action AFTER THE FACT, essentially acting as the
prosecutor, judge and jury. A person who defends himself is taking action
against an agressor AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE. There is a very big
difference. A responsible firearms owner who defends himself with a firearm
is not a vigilante.

> [SARCASTICALLY] A criminal is going
> to be scared off from robbing a house based on a perceived threat that
> there might be a gun inside? In that case the good ol' USA should have an
> extremely low break-in rate, inversely proportionate to their gun
> ownership rate. Maybe you should look at the stats sometime.

I have, and it shows that in Britain, where citizens are less likely to have
firearms in their home, house breakins occur far more frequently (than in
North America) while the occupant is there. This has shown to have far more
serious consequences to the victim, as the perpetrator is more likely to
take offensive action against the victim.

> > If they cannot be bought,
> > they will be stolen (or are you suggesting that we disarm the police
> > and military?)

> There are extremely few guns stolen from police and military, for 
> reasons which I assume should be obvious.

More illegal firearms come from government/police/military armories than
anywhere else. The reason is obvious: The quantity of firearms in a single
location. Another reason is that owners of "gun shops" are more likely to be
prepared to fight back.

> > If they cannot be obtained ready-made, they will be manufactured. 

> Somebody's going to set up a gun factory in his back yard. Uh huh.

It has always been a problem that people who are ignorant of firearms make
such silly statements. I'm sure if I look hard enough, I can still find the
book I had as a teen which describes in simple detail how to manufacture a
firearm in a home workshop. I will also point out that I did not abuse this
information in any way: I am responsible.

> Oh yes, the perpetual plea of the pro-gun lobby. "We're law abiding
> citizens."

We certainly try to be law-abiding. And we are always responsible. However,
when it becomes a choice between being responsible, and obeying bad laws,
more of us are doing what we know is right.

> Hey, I'm a law abiding citizen too, but that still doesn't give
> me unlimited rights to drive 200 km/hr down the highways.

The firearms community is not asking for rights to shoot at people. They are
asking that their rights be respected. There are already laws which deal
with infringing on the safety of others, whether by intention (criminal) or
not (accidental). There is no need to further restrict the responsible
activities of people who are not the problem.

- -- 
               SysOp, CUE Here BBS  (403) 465-7715
               Roger_Walker@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA

    PGP Public Key from:  Roger_Walker_PGP@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMNYdMKZ872JZyB+1AQFkBwgAxxpjUkOXfW6z/0L6EDWb9Fcqd467IJqU
dEOrZMdpune2ikyjBfNsR6byarlUPChlMA0Rn/ILs0K0nzLLkdql/ub/8lqhWRML
3Gs7zr4c0u6Zc3VVLDdEs1Ut8g7Hg3iK4iJvzqIRhoBJLeg7IcFtGC2QhjTrZT2c
/abMmCW+vGdXDc2vGEWFIyfJ0vldSp2zus86cHwZ7X5SsrVesGBsCwzxXq6K4L58
nMJ864gnYGjvqUEiljA7hjOn8qHni+OGBa82ZBms5w3ogTUC4EivDtJth6baqHh/
ieNybVwOj0Uq3g5fQjVJZIZ3KfZT/gJieeGCGqtCvye/G1WgV65TqQ==
=wkSb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Technical Details
Message-ID: <Roger_Walker.6z74@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <DJ6n9B.6GF@freenet.carleton.ca> <4ac7rl$qr@tomcat.sasknet.sk.ca> <4atrud$m7e@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <DJoBtp.4BJ@freenet.carleton.ca>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f504b,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gidf504b,public
X-Google-Thread: 100c8e,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid100c8e,public
X-Google-Thread: f7b9c,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gidf7b9c,public
X-Google-Thread: 10ea42,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid10ea42,public
X-Google-Thread: 111b2d,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid111b2d,public
X-Google-Thread: 114af9,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid114af9,public
X-Google-Thread: 106cdd,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid106cdd,public
X-Google-Thread: 112f74,1cce3fa1d2950587
X-Google-Attributes: gid112f74,public
From: Roger_Walker@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA (Rosco)
Subject: Re: Illegal Guns (was: Re: The Montreal massacre - this date, 1989....)
Date: 1995/12/18
Message-ID: <Roger_Walker.6z74@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA>
X-Deja-AN: 123012331
distribution: can
references: <DJ6n9B.6GF@freenet.carleton.ca> <4ac7rl$qr@tomcat.sasknet.sk.ca> <4atrud$m7e@sulla.cyberstore.ca> <DJoBtp.4BJ@freenet.carleton.ca>
followup-to: can.talk.guns
organization: CUE Here BBS
newsgroups: mtl.general,qc.general,can.general,ab.general,bc.general,nb.general,nf.general,ns.general,can.talk.guns