Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re:Gun Control Petition
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 20:45:42 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) writes:

> >rickie@trickie.UUCP (Richard Nash) writes:
> 
> repetitive stuff deleted to maintain some interest
> >
> >> >Your assertion that guns have no other purpose than to kill people is a
> >> >bald-faced LIE. I'm tired of reading half-baked propaganda from the Walt
> >> >Disney School that equates every use of a gun with killing people, thus
> >> >ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not
> >> >limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock,
> >> >protection from wild animals, etc.
> >>                  ^----------^
> >>                       |- since when can you or I lug around a gun in the
> >>                          National Parks to protect ourselves from wild
> >>                          animals?
> >>                        - Elsewhere is no problem to have a gun,  but where
> >>                          there are the most wildest and dangerous animals,
> >>                          no way!  You are potential food for the bears!
> >
> >Who said anything about National Parks? There are lots of situations -
> >miners, oil exploration workers, forest service workers, etc, who live
> >and work in remote areas where wild animals - grizzlies, cougars, etc are
> >still a real threat.
> 
> Most definitely I have no quarrel with someone whose survival is based upon
> the premise of 'eat or be eaten'.  Perhaps my point has been lost regarding
> the National Parks situation;  these threats that are aledgedly real in the
> great untamed wilderness  are also just as real in the National Parks.
> Recall the horror in the fall of 1992 of a tourist couple from England
> whose misfortune was to be visiting Jasper National Park and made the
> mistake of being in the same locale as a hungry bear.  The bear attacked
> the female person who tried to flee up a tree,  but then was counter
> distracted by the male partner.  The husband died saving his wife.  Yes,
> perhaps a few mistakes were made by the couple,  (assuming a defensive
> position), but the couple had no protective armanents (sp?).  So I ask,
> why is this situation of no firearms, considered acceptable in the National
> Parks where the life and death situation  is just as real as in the great
> untamed wilderness of exploration,  forest  workers etc.,  by my respected
> oposing debater emd@ham.etc ?
> >

It was certainly unfortunate that the couple had no suitable weapons, and 
it was even more unfortunate that the husband died. However, it is my 
understanding that park wardens, etc, DO have access to guns. My point is 
that there are certainly occasions where the use of firearms is necessary 
and legitimate, and your example certainly shows the undesirability of 
banning firearms in areas where they are necessary for self defence.

> >> Is a gun really necessary for survival in our environment today?
> >
> >On occasion, yes. It may not be nearly as necessary in Edmonton as in
> >Northern B.C., I'll grant you. But please stop interpolating city life in
> >Edmonton as the norm in rural Canada.
> 
> No,  I don't interpolate life between that of the big city, and that of
> rural Canada.  Anyone who has lived outside the great walls of mass
> civilization,  knows how differently one thinks about their surroundings.
> Respect!  Mistakes allow for very few second chances.  I know that if I
> lived in the great outback of Canada,  I wouldn't hestitate for a second
> about buying a few good guns.  Understand that where I lived would
> certianly have a lot to do with what for guns, is required.  Living in
> southern Saskatchewan on the plains requires nothing more than perhaps a
> 22 calibre rife to scare off the odd magpie, compared to living up in
> Northern B.C. where a grizzlie can make a meal out of you faster then
> you can say sish-kabob!  But the days of the easy-rider rifle rack in the
> back of the half-ton truck are long gone for most of us.  We don't need
> this in the big city!  The only thing to hunt in the city are people!
> So please,  outlaw the damn guns!
> >

Assuming this was desirable (and ignoring the legitimate target shooters, 
etc within the city limits), how would you outlaw guns in the city and 
permit them in the country? And if you permit them in the country, how 
are you going to keep them out of the city?

> >> Is pleasure killing a justification for the production and legalized
> >> distribution of guns?
> >> >
> >
> >And who said anything about killing for pleasure? Do YOU take pleasure
> >out of knowing some poor cow has died for your hamburger patty? Of course
> >not. It's just a fact of life that animals must die if people eat, and we
> >do, animal protein. The fact that hunters kill their own animal protein,
> >and most people pay others to do it for them doesn't make a hunter
> >someone who particularly enjoys killing.
> 
> These statements I must take exception to.  B.S.!  Hunters love to kill!
> It is a well known fact that in the U.S.A., wealthy hunters pay an absolute
> premium for the priviledge of hunting rare game species.  Just on Saturday,
> (Dec 19, 1992) CNN covered a story regarding a previous Northern Soviet
> state that has allowed fat American hunters into a wilderness sanctuary to
> hunt (destroy) bears.  B.S., because these hunters certianly are *NOT*
> doing it out of necessity,  but rather out of the lust of killing.

Hunters may indeed love to hunt, without a "lust for killing" 
particularly being a part of it. Hunting as a sport/pastime involves the 
hunter in a lot of things besides killing - being outdoors, learning the 
habits and tracking of game, learning about the habitat, being in the 
right place at the right time, marksmanship, camping, etc. 

> A good friend co-worker loves to fish.  He pays between 30 and 100 dollars
> for 5 pounds of fish.  For an equivalent amount of fish, I pay $8.00.
> So why the discrepancy in price?  Because he loves to fish!  He thinks
> nothing of taking 10 hours to travel to a remote location where he will
> fish for 3 or four hours. Me?  I go to the fish market and buy mine!
> >
Do you think your friend fishes because he loves to kill fish? I doubt 
it. He fishes because he enjoys being in the outdoors, likes boating, 
likes figuring out how to catch the fish, catching the fish, and probably 
also likes eating the fish. And if this sounds reasonable, why are 
you not willing to grant that hunters aren't there solely from a lust to 
kill?

> >> >Yes, gun use must be regulated and responsible, but the use of guns is
> >> >entirely legitimate and even necessary for many people. The issue of
> >> >proper gun use is NOT simple or a black and white issue as you suggest.
> >> --
> >
> >Please reread the last paragraph.
> And so I have re-read the last paragraph.  Guns have a place,  but rarely
> are the masses,  a place for such a destructive weapon.  Firing squads,
> riot tear gas deployment (Israel) , may be such legitament uses for guns,
> but.....,
> even what was considered the frontier of civilization no longer requires
> such a barbaric tool.  Owning a gun in the hostile remoteness of Polar
> Bear Haven (Churchill) will probably never be disputed,  however,  don't
> use these situations as a supportive argument for me to own a high power
> gun in urban Canada.
> 
> 
> 

Why not? Hunting is a legitimate pastime for hundreds of thousands of 
Canadians, and they don't all live in the country. Many of them live in 
the city, and there is certainly insufficient reason to take away guns 
from what are, by and large, responsible citizens. 

If there is a problem with a particular person, take away his guns. If he 
has been convicted of a crime, remove his right to access to guns 
completely. Enforce existing laws more stringently, and stop the trade in 
illegal guns on the street - if you can. 

But leave the rest of us, who may have a couple of rifles and a shotgun 
or two alone. We're not creating a problem, and restricting us isn't 
going to have much of an impact on crime, if any.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The Vital Precept

One vital precept isn't taught
sufficiently imperiously:
that other people didn't ought
to take themselves too seriously   - Piet Hein
Newsgroups: can.general