From: googs@pravda.rtp.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Subject: Re: A Japanese student killed in Lousiana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:41:23 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Nov6.211131.498@webo.dg.com>, googs@pravda.rtp.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:
|> In article <Bx82G5.Jqv@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, rtang@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (The One Your Mother Warned You About!) writes:

I got excited and posted before I proofread...

|> |> ... Besides if the owner is a reasonable law abiding citizen,
|> |> whats the problem with getting educated about a potentially dangerous
|> |> tool.
|> 
|> There's nothing wrong with being educated about a potentially dangerous
|> tool.  There's also nothing wrong with having a tool and not knowing how
|> to use it.  There is, however, something wrong with reckless use.  For
|> example, I own a chainsaw (it was my uncle's).  I have never used it and
|> don't even know how to use it, so should I not be allowed to own it?  I
|> don't see anything wrong with owning it.  If I use it to chop off
|> somebody's arm, then I should be charged with a crime.  Until then, I
|> should be allowed free use/disuse of my chainsaw.  I also think the same
|> thing applies to any firearms I might own.  I agree that responsible use
|> is important, but I don't think it can be imposed without an oppressive
                                            ^
                                           pre-
|> suspension of individual liberties.
|> 


|> |> 
|> |> If driving lessons and a license is required for a car, I would 
|> |> thinks its common sense that a gun should warrant the same
|> |> care and precaution.  If someone cant see this point, IMO shouldnt
|> |> owe a weapon. Simply, if they cant treat a gun with more
|> |> care and respect then driving a car, well, there's no hope for
|> |> them.
|> |> 
|> |> RT
|> You only need a license for driving on public property.  This is
|> supposed to ensure a level of competence.  If you're suggesting a
|> competence-based method for using firearms in public I think a large
|> portion of the public would agree with that.  Just don't try to regulate
|> private use, and don't bury the competence testing in miles of red tape,
|> anti-gun politics, and other crap used to deter gun ownership.  BTW,
|> there's a lot of people WITH driver's licenses that speed, make turns
|> without signaling, run traffic lights, don't stop for people in
|> crosswalks, and drive under the influence.  I see that licensing has
|> done a great deal to curb those abuses.  Don't get caught up in the
|> dream that licensing is a cure-all.  Making people responsible for their
|> actions is the answer.

I also forgot to add that there is a distinction between excercising a
privilage and a right.  You need permission to excersise a privilage.
There's no such restriction on a right (i.e the RIGHT to bear arms).
Don't get confused between the two.  There is one similarity - improper
use of either (yelling "FIRE", driving drunk, shooting your neighbor's
mailbox), is a criminal act and is punishable.  

-- 

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...