🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>Rosco (Roger_Walker@CUEHere.bohica.net) writes:
>> In article <DK6pw3.5p4@freenet.carleton.ca> Colin R. Leech 
>> (ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>> Do you have any better ideas? If so, we'd love to hear them.
>> 
>> For dealing with the firearm issue:
>> 
>> The NFA has presented a licensing scheme (apparently when C-17 was brought
>> into being by Kim), as well as during the C-68 garbage. It was fairly
>> simple, requiring anyone who owned/used firearms (including police and
>> military) to show proficiency in various categories (ie: Proficiency with a
>> shotgun, for shotguns; proficiency with pistols, for pistols; etc.), as well
>> as the usual background check. You don't have the particular license

[snip]

>Uh huh. All you want to do iis make sure that somebody who owns a gun
>knows how to use it. A lot of good this is going to do.

>> For dealing with criminals (after the fact):

>I'll stop it right there. There may be problems with our justice system in
>terms of precedures and sentencing. But that's a totally different issue.
>(Feel free to start a separate thread in can.legal if you wish.)

[snip]


>Now, how about some useful suggestions that deal directly with the issues
>of dangerous lethal weapons being allowed among us?

Roger mentioned an alternative licensing scheme which focused on
improving the safety training of firearms owners.  Why do you dismiss
it as being irrelevant?  If you're ONLY concerned about criminals
obtaining firearms, then you're sadly mistaken if you think C68 is
going to help.

...lars