🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin R. Leech (ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

: Rosco (Roger_Walker@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA) writes:
: > 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.
:    2. He's toast along with his victims.



  If he uses that gasoline in the right place (or chains any other exits 
closed beforehand, he can easily kill far more people than he can with a 
rifle.

  As for *him* being toast...what are you trying to say here?  That he 
would stand in the middle of the room, pour the gas all around him and 
then set fire to it?  Every lit a propane barbeque the 'fun' way...by 
letting the gas accumulate and then *throwing* a match into it?

  (at least that's how I'd do it; you would probably reach your hand 
right into it, right?..;)



: Care to try again?


  Care to take back your rather inane assumptions?

  (oops...too late: everyone has already read them.)



: >> I think TOUGHER legislation is necessary than the watered-down 
: >> bill the Liberals passed...like a mandatory 20 year term for anyone who 
: >> uses a weapon in the commission of a crime.
: > 
: > Now you're talking (sort of). This outburst indicates that you believe we
: > should be getting tougher on CRIMINALS. This is what we believe, also.
: > Giving the same penalties to a responsible citizen simply because he does
: > not fill in a piece of paper makes no sense.

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


  Ahh, of course.  EVERYONE is a potentially bloodthirsty killer, aren't 
they, if they have a firearm at home.  How silly of me to forget.

  But that puts you in a bit of an interesting quandary, now doesn't it?  
Since an *equal* number of homicides are also committed with knives, now 
your 'reasoning' must dictate that we do something about THAT problem as 
well.  Ditto for impaired driving...but which would you 'ban'?  The cars or 
the alcohol?  I mean, every one of us is a POTENTIAL IMPAIRED DRIVER!

  Yeah...you're absolutely right, Colin.  How could we have been so blind 
as not to see that we can eliminate the 3000+ automobile deaths every 
year by the simple expedient of removing this terrible threat BEFORE it 
happens??  After all, we just *know* that sooner or later every one of us 
is going to hop behind the wheel and kill someone...