🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <DJML7v.6rF@freenet.carleton.ca> Colin R. Leech 
(ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

> > In article <4aaji9$fe7@gold.interlog.com> Tim Meehan (duke@interlog.com) 
> > wrote:
> >> Well he sure as hell wouldn't have caused that kind of damage *without* a > >> gun...explain that one to me. 
> > 
> > One gallon of gasoline and a match. Any questions?

> Yes. This approach pretty much means that:

>    1. He can only get one group - he can't run around the building
>       killing one person here, one person there.

The original post implied killing a great number of people at a single
incident. Fire with gasoline has done far more than a firearm, for any
single incident.

>    2. He's toast along with his victims.

If he is foolish enough to be inside when he sets it ablaze, perhaps. Not
all such perps have done so.

> Care to try again?

As I've shown, there is no need.

> The problem is that you never know who's going to be a criminal until it's
> too late.

Then we have some possible alternatives:

1) We can assume that everyone is guilty (C-68).

2) We can severely punish transgressors.

3) We can try to solve the root causes of crime and violence.

4) 2 & 3.

> It's not much consolation to the victims' families that somebody
> is arrested and imprisoned after the fact. A much better approach is to 
> ban weapons *before* they kill people.

Firearms are inanimate objects that require human intervention before they
can kill. A much better approach is to empower people to protect themselves,
deal harshly with offenders, and solve the root causes of crime and
violence.

Remember that many offences are made by previous offenders. The fact that
the Liberals are still in favor of letting these criminals onto the street
sooner than necessary (probably to make room for all the "criminals" who
don't send in a piece of paper), should tell you how hypocritical they are.

> For the record, I disagree with the harsh penalties for people who refuse
> to register their weapons. The penalties seem to be out of all proportion
> to the act.

Then there is some hope for you.

> It would be much simpler to seize the weapons instead.

Obviously I spoke too soon.

> This not only removes the potential harm caused by their owners, but also by
> others (eg. family members and thieves who could have access to the 
> weapons).

I see you favor the solution that presumes everyone is guilty.

- -- 
               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

iQEVAwUBMNNW+aZ872JZyB+1AQHr4wf8DFdsZtG+6lgjNVo5ELH1nCHZdVm2tN5T
uank7Ci6p7BKx/RJBGU36FhQM7CkRoRlAZKCCJZUDCBIn078Y4+byLjGQXdEMy4y
7FUM+OMNtPaXnl7MHHS7cqlBB1ZbMBD4zUNXLSUC0K7cp9JJiaNvX/UZ1G7I+iXX
1GWVIzJuuvDq2Ej7lWlJkqxr5Sc/Jv2I/RfcX/hxiyNLjreC1YLRoQuUPNe+vfYx
PwtcwVtT9jCcm/KI33zb40XrsutMzVs/cnhig69u/PWgkrhGuj7otC61npbj4DFo
cH9ItIq6EVUJD2tGQXklUnf+c9bnGL26CqokNV9dSqTlplC7+B6AsA==
=eNAH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----