🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38eqog$d97@crchh518.bnr.ca>, tomg@bnr.ca (Tom Gargulak) writes:
> On the other hand, what if guns where heavily taxed and controlled?
> Less people would have access to them and there would be less crime.
> Sure, big-daddy crime boss will still have one but he is not who
> I am afraid of walking down the street.

	You mean the law-abiding citizen will not have a gun, and the
criminal element WILL, yet you feel this is okay?

>                                          It is the common punk who
> I have a far greater chance of meeting.  He is the one I don't want 
> to have a gun.  And the only way to reduce his odds of having one
> is to reduce the supply of guns.

	But big-daddy crime boss may be the only that supplies the common
punk with the guns (he has them, you don't, remember)?  After all, if the
crime boss can make money selling illegal guns to common punks then (in
your own words)...
> It boils down to supply/demand.  Simple economics.

	The result being that you have made law-abiding citizen either
defenseless, or a criminal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		              |Inet: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts            |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776                      |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX  75026-0772                  |http://montagar.metronet.com/~davidc/