🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>
>>Or could it be that a ban
>>on guns looks to be the quick fix, even though I have yet to see any
>>evidence of its efficacy in reducing either homicide or other crimes of
>>violence, or overall accidental deaths.
>
>Quick, I dunno. Sure wouldn't hurt. Let's give it a try.

Wrong, it would hurt.  History has proven this time and time again.
New York, Wash. DC, Chicago, all places that have banned guns and have
the highest crime rates in the country, with the crime rates rising
dramatically after the citizenry was unarmed.  History has also proven
that the first steps in oppressing a populace is to disarm them.

>>The *ONLY* difference between a gun of some type and another tool that
>>can be used to cause death or bodily injury is that so much of our
>>movie/TV fare glorifies solving ones problems with a bullet.
>
>This leads into a whole other argument: what's the purpose of a
>handgun? I say it was designed solely for killing people. Others
>dredge up handgun hunter magazines. Who knows? But it's another
>argument, so let's leave it alone for the moment.

A handgun was designed to give short range destructive capability.
Wether or not it is used for killing someone or for punching holes in
paper is left up to the user.  A handgun is highly useful for
defending oneself in close ranges.  If defending myself means killing
someone, well, I'm sorry, but I refuse to lay my life down to the
random criminal.  Please don't ask me to give up a very useful means
of defending myself, as you have absolutely no stake in it.


>It's true that addressing the underlying problems would be the more
>elegant solution. But it'll never happen. All we can do at this point
>is patch the system. This seems like a good patch to me.

It's not a good patch.  See examples of certain major urban centers
above.

>>Of course, all this lacks the appeal of the 'magic bullet':  Just pass
>>this one more 'reasonable' law, and all our problems will go away...
>
>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>doesn't change my preference.

It won't be a band-aid.  It would be morally wrong, and it would not
achieve the desired effect.
Even then so, about 5% of adults will carry a gun no matter
if it's legal or not.
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent