From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Re: Justifications for owning guns?
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.165102.23841@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, masonp@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Peter Mason) writes:
|> 

|> 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.
|> 
	Yeah, but 'none to take' in the US will NEVER be possible.


|> >>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...

	Your vegitarian choice is a different issue.
|> 
|> But that wasn't my point.
|> I think the point is that people don't *intentionally* use cars to kill
|> people and for crime.

	It has happened before.  McDonald's in the states and that restaurant
	in Texas last year have had madmen 'driving thru the window' (like the
	sign said!)

|> 
|> >
|> >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?' 
|> >

	It wouln't change as much as your utopian mind would like to believe.
	The people who do nasty mean things with guns, are mean and nasty
	people.  If they want guns, they will get them from underground
	suppliers.  This will support more organised crime.  It will also
	make guns more 'valuble' because they will be 'rare'.  People 
	will want guns.  People will kill with or wothout guns.

|> >>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. 
|> 

	Well, state the sources.  What books, authors?  Where did they
	get the stats?  I'm not against you, I just want more FACTS.

|> 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.

	First sentence OK.  BUT, I've heard of people waking up
	at gunpoint whhile some thug goes through the jewelry!!  
	Are ALL criminals the SAME? NOT.  Are you willing to take the chance 
	that these 'small time' guys are gunless?  
|> 
|> >(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

-- 
  
    Craig Hamm, Memorial University, | I don't think the letters which appear
    Newfoundland                     | on your letters page are genuine. I 
    DoD #1500,                       | think you just make them all up.  In
    81 Maxim 650                     | fact you probably made this one up
    ------------                     | too.  -J. Clark, Rotherham (Viz comics)
	another displaced Nova Scotian

Xref: sparky can.general:4417 soc.culture.canada:6464