🚀 go-pugleaf

Holly Irving (ae326@ccn.cs.dal.ca) wrote:
: Garry B. Dormody (gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca) wrote:
: : Colin R. Leech <ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

: : > The public receives the benefit of having better knowledge and control
: : > over lethal weapons that are in circulation.

: To this I have to say. That it is not so much a matter of control as a 
: message to the gun owners that says owning a gun is a serious business 
: If you own a gun you are responsible not only for what YOU do with it but 
: what ever else the gun may be used for. It is not a ACCIDENT if 
: your children use it on themselves but  an act of willful disregard.



  You've just described the *already existing* firearms laws in Canada.

  But it's never 'enough' for the hardcore anti-gun zealots; every new 
set of laws that are passed and fail to solve the problems are 
justification, it seems, for a whole new set to add on top of the 
*already existing* ones.  When is reality going to finally set in, I wonder?

  (the Auditor-General of Canada slammed the previous government harshly 
for adding new firearms regulations/restrictions without having made any 
effort at all to ascertain the effects of the *previous* round of 'gun 
control' legislation first.)



: :         Why would having "better knowledge 
: and control" over the
: : firearms of law-abiding owners (who are the ones targetted by the
: : registration system) make you feel any safer. You had nothing to fear
: : from them anyway. If we had "better knowledge and control" over those
: : who planned to use their guns to rob, rape, kill etc. you might feel a
: : little safer but you will not see these people lining up to register
: : their guns. They're called criminals and they have this thing about NOT
: : obeying laws. Allan Rock even backs me up on this. He stated:

: The operative word being "planned? what of the unplanned  ??



  What of it?  What of the unplanned stabbing and beating deaths?  What 
of the unplanned impaired driving that results in death?



: : "Laws alone can't stop someone who is intent on committing a
: :         violent act." -- Allan Rock Nov. 8, 94

: Intent.... Laws can stop those who do not iNTEND to commit these crimes.


  Again...what of the above crimes?  How can you possibly justify 
singling out only *one* tool for special restrictions while leaving the 
others untouched?

  (leaving alone, for the moment, the *defensive* uses of firearms)



: : "No laws we can put into place can stamp out all criminal actions."
: :      Canada's Minister of Justice Allan `gun control' Rock (November 8,
: : 1994)

: : "[If someone plans to commit a crime,] they're going to do it
: : regardless." Canada's Minister of Justice Allan `gun control' Rock
: : (November 8, 1994)

: : "I think it [C-68] will help. But I don't want to overstate it.  I don't
: : want to give any guarantees."'  Ottawa Citizen, December 1, 1994, A3

: Ifg we save only a couple of innocent lives is it not worth it??


  Which couple would that be...and how exactly would you prove that they 
(or ANY) had actually been 'saved' by gun registration?

  You can use the old "if it saves just one life" line to justify 
restrictions or prohibitions on literally *hundreds* of different 
objects, pasttimes or activities currently being enjoyed by millions of 
Canadians.  Where exactly are you willing to draw the line?




: :         You may lock your door, of course, but like C-68 the doorlocks
: : only work to keep the honest people out. In all sincerity you should do
: : a little more research. Try Mauser and Bartlett for a start. I'll be
: : happy to provide sources if you e-mail me.

:   
: When you realize that many of the gun crimes are not ones of intent  but 
: of neglect and rage then you will realize that there is no such thing as 
: a responsible gun owner. For we all to varing degrees have committed both.



  Then there is also no such thing as a responsible KNIFE or CAR owner, 
either.

  (using your own logic, that conclusion is inescapable, isn't it?)