From: masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:51:02 GMT


>In article <1992Sep5.020653.27163@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
>>There are simple statistics.  Fewer guns=fewer deaths.  Isn't that the point?
>
>stricter gun control will do very little to lower the number of guns.
>
>most handguns used in canadian crime are US based, or stolen.
>
We do have a problem with the US being armed to the teeth.  The 'stolen'
guns here couldn't be stolen when there are none around to take.

>>An outright ban seems logical.  Someone mentioned target shooting for sport
>>and that the guns would remain at the range.  Fine.  I'm not sure why archery
>>isn't equivalent, but that's just an opinion.
>
>outright bans don't work, and don't show much respect for the law-abiding
>citizens.
>
>ok, there are way too many auto-accidents, so we are going to ban private
>vehicle ownership, and force everyone on public transit.

Well, that would be fine with me, however I'm repeatedly told that it isn't practical.
Afterall, how would anyone, um, ...gee I've forgotten their argument. 
In the same vein, there are way too many deaths due to heart disease and cancer etc
but we don't ban meat...

But that wasn't my point.
I think the point is that people don't *intentionally* use cars to kill
people and for crime.

>
>alcohol causes way too much harm to our society, so in order to keep that
>minority of abusers straight, we will not allow anyone to drink it.
>
>"An outright ban seems logical" ???
>
>i don't think out-right bans on anything is going to change anything.

It would definitely change things.  It would lower the number of people
killed in crime and violent acts.  The question is, however, 
'is it worth having our rights infringed upond to do so?' 
>
>>If we allow guns, why exactly don't we allow hand grenades and tanks?
>
>oh, don't be absurd.  this is Canada, not the US.
>
From where I stand, I really don't see how it is any more absurd.  A hand
grenade is made for killing people.  In fact, it is not as effective as
automatic weapons for killing large numbers of people.  The fact that nobody
lobs handgrenades for sport though means they don't have any defenders.
Oh, and they are messy.  The psychological ease of killing with a gun
isn't there with handgrenades.

And for those people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill
people", go to your bookstore and look up some anti-gun material.  Some people
are always going to kill, but with guns, it happens more often.  It's the
ease with which one can kill with a gun that is the biggest problem.
Again, fewer guns=fewer intentional deaths.  This is a fact. 

Criminals can always get guns.  But, when guns are difficult to come by 
and extremely expensive, the number of criminals who have them does go down.
And the ones who don't have them are the ones who are 'small time' and break
into your home.

>(mind you KW Surplus in Kitchener, Ontario has an old Sherman for sale)
>
Really?  I could use a tank!!  Think how safe I would be then...


peace,


Peter

-- 
Peter Mason
masonp@nukie.physics.mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ontario (ack! pfffthpt!), Canada
-displaced Nova Scotian
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada