

But this is all gun control laws end up doing.  Politicians can never
manage to get a handle on those who obtain arms illegally, so all their
laws can ever do is further restrict people who obtain them legally.

Karen McNutt, a local attorney, states that there are about two MILLION
licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.  In the past year, the number of
licensed gun owners involved in gun crimes was something like SIX.
Yet, there were a large number of gun crimes in the state last year.

Does passing laws that will further restricting only those people ALREADY
obeying laws pay any dividents?


So far, I've seen them treated with the least respect by legislators.


See, this is what I call the "argument from religion:" "I believe."  Don't
believe -- it's not NECESSARY to take this on faith.  Go look at the history
of countries that passed gun restrictions.  Pay particular attention to
whether or not violent crime was HIGHER before the restrictions and LOWER
after.  (Don't look at "violent gun crimes," that's begging the question.)
You may be very surprised.


You have this absolutely backwards.  If crime stopped in the presence of
strict gun control, there is NO WAY I would consider lifting any of it.
However, if gun control made absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT in the violent 
crime rate, THAT'S when I would have it lifted.  Think about it.

So far, none of the stats show any improvement...


Do you really think driver's tests are any indication of your propensity
for having accidents?  

I've never known anybody stupid enough to take a driving test while 
drunk; after having been up all night; with two fighting kids in the 
back seat; with a hot cup of coffee on their lap; or while putting on 
makeup, reading the newspaper, or talking on their cellular phone.  
But that's what they're doing when they have those accidents.


How can anything that has no positive effect at all ever be "necessary?"


And it didn't help, any of it.


I'm sorry, I don't remember any story where Winnie the Pooh was
offered weapons.
-- 