🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <4bkfni$lmc@ra.isisnet.com> Bruce Thornhill (ak921@ccn.cs.dal.ca)

wrote:

> Should we allow "law-abiding" chemists make biological weapons or 
> "law-abiding" phyicists build small nuclear bombs because they get a kick 
> out of the boom?

> The issue at hand is public safety, not how you get your kicks.

Let's look at the "issue" you raised, then (public safety).

About 60 people per year die from the accidental discharge of firearms
(non-criminal, remember, since C-68 and "gun control" does not affect
criminals). Would you care to present the figures for vehicular accidents
(hint: It is MUCH higher). Anyone claiming that they want to reduce the
number of responsible firearms owners for reasons of public safety are
either hypocrites or bigots (or both).

Let's look a little closer at your examples.

Biological weapons are "animate." That is, they can do things without human
intervention. Obviously, it would take a great deal of resources (more than
any individual or government IMHO) to ensure that they were stored and used
safely.

Nuclear weapons are also "animate." There is nothing that can prevent
radioactive decay. Again, a prohibitive amount of resources would be
required to ensure safety.

Firearms are "inanimate." That is, when left alone, they will just sit
there, forever. It takes human intervention to pick up that firearm, load
it, and discharge it. The INDIVIDUAL doing such determines whether the
discharge is a positive event or a negative one. The action is measured
against the principle: You can do as you please AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT
INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS AND SAFETY OF OTHERS. Therefore, if that discharge is
to support violence, it violates the principle, and the individual is a
criminal; if that discharge is to fell a deer, legally, during hunting
season, or to fell the criminal previously described, it does not violate
the principle, and the individual is responsible; if that discharge was an
accident, it violates the principle and the individual is irresponsible
(Intent determines the difference between criminality and irresponsibility,
although both should have consequences).

Use of firearms by responsible citizens is one of the most safe activities
available, and this is largely due to the (mostly) self-funded education
that the firearms community provides. (BTW, the "government" firearms
training which must be taken for an FAC is not funded by the government,
only controlled by it.)

- -- 
               SysOp, CUE Here BBS  (403) 465-7715
                 Roger_Walker@CUEHere.bohica.net
               Roger_Walker@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA

    PGP Public Key from:  Roger_Walker_PGP@CUEHere.Edmonton.AB.CA


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMOIEdaZ872JZyB+1AQGPdwf9FOj3K+SJoRtttRoeVPcCJUyFwg8KP881
DYwKUSXWgjfAXpLgGANTEteybx7wcMiA5xtW5VeY/ivT+UOxvObBb/BevhJU5Qba
P1czIB3vT/LCDavbxNS2w3z4WfwdUjvl9YqM8vO1Z7LSQ7IhmbcKTmaV+nDIJKw8
w6H0QqokELMV4GHh1f7PI+bijV5UGKJiwic1DmPNLLTRhXlYQhnV+9hCgAB0fVqj
INoqtzPkdBIm1LRUE5Uw8Yi7knu9Hj5gHdgAAziij57OPETgKdtS/oDz3IWt6lFZ
Nq72GtMEukgKanTB4ayp8pEniaDFeUWtfQnO+8DcBNhB5I7VlpNMXA==
=V4wF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----