🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

Care to try again?

>> 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.

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

--
#####    |\^/|     Colin R. Leech            || Civil engineer by training
##### _|\|   |/|_  ag414@freenet.carleton.ca || Transport planner by choice
##### >         <  Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
#####  >_./|\._<   Support misc.transport.rail.uk+ireland: CFV closes Dec.18