🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dp5mpINNfat@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
> mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
> 
> 
> >In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com>, gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
> >|> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >[lots deleted]
> >|> 
> >|> I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
> >|> doesn't change my preference.
> 
> > I'm curious.  Why not?  
> 
> Clearly you are a believer in the maxim that if a solution is not final
> and complete it is not worth implimenting at all. No sane person
> believes that the registring/ banning / whatever of guns would sole all
> problems. Neither does medicine solve the problem of death. But even
> bandaids help ( or don't yo own any of those since they aren't the
> complete solution)/

Strike one - you are overlooking (big surprise) the fact that if one of these
minimally effective bandaid solutions is enforced vigorously, it costs; both
in manpower and money which could be spent on more societally useful programs.
If it isn't enforced, it's yet another unenforced (read useless) law.  Well?

> 
> > If the goal is to make society safer, clearly the problem to be addressed is
> >  violent crime, of all sorts.  Banning handguns isn't gonna solve it - but
> >  you already know that!
> 
> Yes and controlling peoples ability to commit violent acts is part of
> the solution- not all of it, part of it.
> Many of the guns used in crimes are stolen- stolen from all those law
> abiding citizens who never use them. And if there are more available to
> steal they are easier to steal.

This claim has been refuted time and time again in this newsgroup.
You apparently know differently.  Proof please?

> 
> > If you simply don't like handguns, fine.  Don't own one.  
> 
> I don't know about the original poster but I don't like them in your, or
> other peoples hands. Like you I feel that I am infinitely responsible
> and would never never misuse any gun I owned Unfortunately I do not
> have the same confidence in you, or others , and am willing to give up
> my utterly responsile freedom in order to help protect me from other's
> irresponsibility.

Strike three - we have no problem with your desire to waive your rights.
What we do object to is your desire to waive ours.


> > If you feel that they are just too dangerous for people to own, consider the
> >  numbers - there are about 200 million handguns in the US, and about 12000 
> >  firearms homicides per year, and 1400 accidental firarms deaths.  That makes
> >  firearms safer than automobiles.  
> > 
>  Uh, hardly. divide the number of deaths by the number of times they
> are used, not by the number. There are "billions" of molecules of cyanide
> in the universe. That does not make them any the less dangerous when
> used.	

Uh, hardly, yourself.  This little bit of mislogic is too priceless to pass up.
No one would claim cyanide isn't dangerous.  What they *would* claim is that
given the small number of fatalities due to cyanide each year (non-suicide),
it is a safe chemical to keep around - if you know what you are doing.













-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.