🚀 go-pugleaf

In <37vkqg$ejj@news.utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K Goyal) writes:
>: The HCI (Handgun Control Inc... the folks who want to ban ALL guns) and
>
>WRONG!  HCI supports everything *but* a ban on handguns.  They are very
>clear on this issue.
>
>The only national group which advocates a ban on all handguns is CSGV.
>(Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
>
>: their loved ones at home.  Liberals do not want people to be able to
>: defend themselves (or even be independent in any way).  This is one
>: reason why they are taking guns away.
>
>Yeah, yeah, yeah...statistics *clearly* show that there are more 
>accidental shootings then self-defense shootings.  More innocent
>people die from guns than criminals.

Which statistics?  The ones I have seen do not show this.  Also, I'll
bet your statistics don't include cases where just showing the gun was
defense enough.  

>
>: If they wanted to take guns away that were being used in crime they would
>: take away .38 Specials and .25 ACP Ravens.  If they wanted to take guns
>
>The NRA makes it impossible for Congress to take away any but the most
>outrageous guns.  They almost succeeded in blocking the ban on semi-auto's
>



>: The real problem is that the laws we already have are not being enforced
>: very well.
>
>This is also incorrect.  This is the core argument of almost every conserv.
>when it comes to gun control.  The fact of the matter is that it is
>extremely easy for almost *anyone* to not just legally buy a gun, but
>legally sell them too.
>
>It is also very hard for government to control guns.  The NRA has managed
>to push through legislation in many(most?) states that bars local comm.
>from having stricter gun laws than the state has.
>
>: Think about why Ann Richards didn't even want to let the citizens of Texas
>: make their own decision about allowing permits (it would not have been a
>: free thing) to carry guns.  Does she not trust the people?  Does she not
>: want to let people make their own decisions.
>
>She simply had enough sense to realize that it wasn't worth the *risk*.
>People should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.  It is safer
>for everyone.  Just finds stats on states which allow this vs. states
>that don't.

Like Florida (I'm from there) where the crime rate has actually 
gone *down*?  

>
>Why do you have a problem with the govt. regulating guns, such as they
>regulate most everything else.(toys, cars, etc)
>Why do you have a problem with a national licencing program for guns,
>so that it would be easier to track the history of a gun/
>
>Do you think minors should be allowed to buy guns?  Do you think it is
>wrong to limit the amount of guns a person buys to say, 1 per month?  Why??
>
>BTW, when I say "guns" I'm actually referring to handguns, since they are
>the root of the problem.  Not semi-automatics, or shotguns, or the like.
>

What the government can regulate, the government can take away.  Are you 
willing to say that our government is driven by a higher moral imperative 
than 'we the people' are?  If not, then why would you want to arm your
government and not yourself?  If you do believe this, then what about the
radiation experiments in Nevada?  Or the cases where the gov't screws up and
shoots innocent people and then doesn't pay reparation?  What makes you 
think that any gov't employee meets any higher standard of excellence in
character, morals, intellect, or ability than most ordinary citizens?  
After all, the government is made up of ordinary citizens.


-Zac

   IBM won't admit to agreeing with me.