🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>Except that you never know who is a criminal until after it is too late
>("innocent until proven guilty", and all that). Somebody has to die before
>we can charge somebody with murder. Ideally, you may be correct. In
>practice, it is a lot easier to control the guns instead, and it achieves
>most of the desired result. No, it isn't a perfect system, which is the
>point that the pro-gun people have been making. But it's a darn sight
>better than doing nothing. Do you have any better ideas? If so, we'd love
>to hear them.

I feel the same way.  We cannot incarcerate someone before they commit
a crime (well, we do sometimes).  However, that is what makes our
society better than those of tyrannical nations, present and past.  In
my statement, what I meant to say was that criminals will have
firearms no matter what law we pass saying that they cannot.  No
amount of gun control will disarm them.  And even if we could, they
would still be criminals.  Therefore, it would be easier and more
effective to control the criminal.  I respect the fact that you think
that we can legislate criminals away.  I however, do not believe that
we can.

I do have better ideas, but who would listen?

  
Chris McLeod.
chris.mcleod@sasknet.sk.ca

    "I do not expect this bill to have any effect on violent
    crime in Canada."
                                           -Allan Rock.
                                            Minister of Justice.