🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.071135.2216@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>>Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban would work, 
>>there is no reason to support such a ban.
>
>Name just about any country in the EC.

Go for it.  Name a country in the EC that has gotten significant
benefits from gun restrictions.  Show the before-after data.

>Remember, we're talking about kids finding Daddy's gun and shooting
>each other with it out of ignorance. That's *all* I'm talking about.

If that's ALL Gontier is talking about, he can't show a benefit
because that sort of thing is in the noise.  Given that, there's no
way to show a benefit.  Since his proposals are extremely expensive
....

>>If you realize a handgun ban doesn't address the problem, then
>>for what reason do you support a handgun ban?
>
>A band-aid *does* address the problem. Just not very well.

A band-aid addresses some problems.  It doesn't address others.

What problems does a gun ban successfully address?  Gontier seems
to think that crime won't be affected, and there aren't any other
big problems.  Maybe a gun ban will cure baldness....

>I'm too cynical for that. Maybe when I have lots of money I'll
>start thinking about solutions. For now, band-aids'll do fine.

Why is Gontier so sure that the band-aids chosen will leave him alone?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu