🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dp5mpINNfat@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
>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.

Nice assertation.  Too bad it's false.

>
>> 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.

You may be willing to give that up, but I am not, and furthermore, you
have no right whatsoever to expect me to.  You may ask politiely, and
I'll decline politely.  If you ask more forcefully, I'll respond in
kind.  Personally, I'd much rather my neighbors be armed and risk them
being irresponsible (for which they'd be punished appropriately) than
to trust the government, or their agents to protect me.  Oddly enough,
my neighbors have a much better chance of protecting me than the
police do.  Of course, I live in a place where people look out for one
another, and where there are few restrictions on self-defense.  We
also have a fairly low crime rate.

My next question is, are you going to protect me when someone breaks
into my house at night?  When I'm accosted at an intersection, when
the government decides they don't like people under 5'8" and are going
to ship them off to the gas chambers?  No?  I thought so.


>> 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.	

So, what you're saying is that it's not the fault of the cyanide, but
rather the one who uses it?  Does this mean you don't feel cyanide
should be banned?  Careful how you answer, a lot of modern chemistry
utilizes cyanide, it provides many many benefits to society.  Even
more odd,  I can legally posses the chemicals to make hydrogen cyanide
gas, in quantities big enough to wipe out a whole city, and it
wouldn't even be that expensive (relatively).  Personally the only
self defense usage I can see for cyanide is in "mantraps" which are
quite illegal.  My point is that it makes no sense to think that just
because I have the capability to murder (not kill, murder) that I
should be locked up for it, for you'd have to lock everyone up because
we *all* have the potential to murder.


-- 
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