From: ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne)
Subject: Re: A Japanese student killed in Lousiana
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 01:47:21 GMT

In article <Bx82G5.Jqv@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> rtang@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (The One Your Mother Warned You About!) writes:
>
>In which case maybe that person shouldnt be allowed to own a gun.
>Required gun lessons not only serves to inform a potential owner
>of the use/care/responsibility of using a gun, but also provides
>an additional safety net to avoid bad situations.  By screening out
																		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Interesting.. And who does the screening? The Government or at least an
 appointed "deputy" of the government. I know this is extreme, but 
 stay with me.

	Suppose the government enacts a law requiring that you pass a test/class
	on handgun safety. Joe Blow, a political activist who recently 
	attended a No Nukes rally at the local Nuclear Power Plant decides that
	he wants a gun. The government doesn't like people who protest
	Nuclear Power Plants, so they decide to "fail" him. In an indirect
	way, the government has now LEGALLY prevented this guy from owning
	a handgun. Whats stopping them from "failing" anyone for any reason
	they want? Once again, granted, this is an extreme case, and may never
	happen. But would you want to chance it?

 I think that a better solution is that they require (or better yet strongly
 recommend) that the buyer ATTEND a class. The instructor could then 
 give the students an "attendance" certificate, rather than a passing / 
 failing grade.

 I personally feel that ANY government interdiction in the sale/purchase
 of any type of gun should be as restricted as possible. 

>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.

YOu make a good point here about the car and licenses. Makes a defence hard
without being hypocritical! I'll try though..

Actually, I've never really been a fan of licences in the first place, I 
mean who is the government to tell me when I am or am not allowed to do
something, like drive. Anyways, seeing how some people drive, the lessons
and licenses are ineffective. Admittedly, I am having a hard time coming
up with a reason why this your argument is false. The reason I am having
such difficulty is that I don't hold so close my right to bear arms as
my privlege to drive. If I were to really fight it, I would have the
same stance about licenses and driving as I would about shooting and 
required passing of classes. Owning a handgun, to me, is the closest
thing I have to a guarenteee to safety as I think I can get. Driving
a car is not really anything other than a luxary, albeit a luxary that
I rely on almost every day. My safety should not be classified as 
a luxary, but as a requirement. No other person/thing can protect me better,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, than I can myself (1 because I am always
there, 2) because I will not have conflicting interests, 3) I can rely
on myself at all times, whereas this is not the case for any(one/thing)
else). Once the government starts controlling/intervening in my right
to own a handgun, my only 100% guarentee has been violated, whereas if
they (and they do) interfere in my right to drive a car, they don't really
violate anything but a luxary I can afford to lose (but don't want to, mind
you). 

I hope this makes sense. Blast away at it if you want to, I'm always
more interested in the truth than in my own beliefs (ya, I know it
sounds like BS, but it's true)

>
>RT

-Eric


Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns