🚀 go-pugleaf

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
> category, you don't own/use that type of firearm. There is no need to limit
> the number of firearms (of a particular category owned) or even have
> knowledge of how many are owned by an individual, since he has already been
> certified as proficient and responsible by the authorities.

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.)

> For dealing with crime (before the fact):
> 
> Research the causes of crime (poverty, drug abuse, marital strife, etc.) and
> institute programs to educate people and deal with the root causes.

Ditto.

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


--
#####    |\^/|     Colin R. Leech                ag414@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\|   |/|_  Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### >         <  If you can't return a favour, pass it on.
#####  >_./|\._<   Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.