🚀 go-pugleaf

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


>larry soo (larry_soo@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:
>> ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> 
>>>Indeed. The "beauty" of a gun from the point of view of a terrorist or
>>>madman is that hardly any preparation is required. You don't have to be
>>>smart enough to figure out the quantities of ingredients required to make a
>>>bomb, you don't have to take the time to assemble it, etc. You just pick it
>>>up, and you're in business.
>> 
>> Right...and you have to be within line-of-sight with your victim,
>> somewhere in the immediate vicinity and willing to make a lot of noise
>> which would reveal your position.  Guess that's also why terrorists
>> use bombs, gas, knives, garottes, etc etc.
>> 
>> Oh, so what the hell was your point?

>Somehow, I don't think that being quiet was high on Lepine's list of
>priorities at that point. Line-of-sight isn't a problem since he wanted to
>see his victims - he was only interested in killing women, after all.
>Sophisticated terrorists may use more elaborate schemes such as gas, but
>the simple way for a crazed madman to inflict damage is to pick up his gun.

>I think my point was pretty clear: guns are attractive because they are so
>easy to pick up and use ont hespur of the moment. That's why domestic
>violence involves guns and knives, for example, but not gas or bombs. Now
>what the hell was your point?

If that was your point, why are you talking about terrorists?  By
including terrorists in your statement, you contradicted your
implication that explosives are too difficult to acquire because many
terrorists do, indeed, use explosives.  Furthermore, Lepine did not
"just pick up" his gun.  He successfully passed a police background
check.  Now, if I'm not mistaken, you've been arguing for C68.  If so,
then your example in no way supports C68 (which was largely a response
to Lepine's shooting spree).

So are you arguing that all guns should be banned?  Or are you arguing
for C68?

...lars