🚀 go-pugleaf

tomg@bnr.ca (Tom G) writes:
>
>That is how you look at it.  Fine.  Others see crime in the population
>(especially urban areas) as a fire.  Easy access to guns among the
>population is viewed as feeding the flames of crime.

    In my lifetime alone, the sales of mail-order weapons has been
    eliminated, sales of new machine guns has been eliminated, 
    gun serialnumbering and registration has been implemented,
    importation of most firearms has been eliminated (twice),
    we now have a national waiting period and and new ban on
    ugly guns.

    Guns have never been harder to get. Period.

>Throw more gas
>in a fire and it goes up.  Throw more weapons into a population and
>crime goes up.  Just look at how the murder rate among urban children 
>has increased over the last few years as their access to guns has.

    Back off a second and take a calm look at what you just wrote.

    Urban children cannot buy guns. There is no place in the nation
    where anyone under 21 can legally buy a handgun. There is no place
    in the nation where anyone under 18 can buy a rifle or shotgun.

    The laws have gotten more RESTRICTIVE, not less so.

    If children are getting guns, it is not via a legal purchase.
    More laws around legal purchases aren't going to put that fire out.
    The fight to pass them will only draw attention and effort away
    from the REAL fire...

    Think about the real target you want to hit, and aim the muzzle
    directly at it. Spray and pray can be an effective device when
    you want the enemy to keep their heads down, but its success 
    against individual targets is not too great, and the expense is
    incredible. 
    
    Collateral damage to the Constitution should make this approach 
    anathema to every civil libertarian.

-- 
    Kevin Langston   
    langston@frontier.lonestar.org