Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:43:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
212 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I heard something on the news yesterday that puzzled me, and I hoped a few of
> the more politically-savvy around here might help me to comprehend it. It
> seems George Pataki of New York favors certain measures of gun regulation
> including, among other things, mandatory trigger locks and ballistic
> fingerprinting. I understand the more popular arguments against trigger
> locks,
> (in that, if one can steal a gun, one can steal the gun's key), but the NRA
> has
> voiced its opposition against ballistic fingerprinting, and that's what
> confuses me.
> It seems they object to it on the grounds that it would establish what they
> call national gun registration. I suppose it would, but why would that be a
> problem, exactly? I'm not trying to be inflammatory here; this actually
> seemed
> like a good measure. I know that fingerprinting won't prevent a stolen gun
> from being used in a crime, of course, but I feel that I'm failing to
> comprehend something about the NRA's view here.
> I don't often agree with the NRA, but in this case I'd at least like to try
> to understand where they're coming from...
>
> Thanks for listening,
>
> Dave!
This is so typical of liberals: to impinge on the rights of all, supposedly for
the protection of all. The problem is that laws are made to be efficacious only
after they've been broken; and in this country we are innocent until proven
guilty. These types of preventative laws only curtail the law abiding. The
truth is that 99.8% of gun owners are law abiding. I don't think we need to
take such drastic measures because of the actions of so few. More people die at
the hands of doctors than by gun violence.
Besides, trigger locks may actually cost lives. If your gun is for self defense
and someone breaks into your house to harm you, your ability to defend yourself
is diminished because you may have to fumble with the trigger lock.
The fact is that in areas where gun ownership is prevalent, crime is much
lower. That shooting in the jewish daycare in California is proof of this -
that guy chose that target because it was undefended - he passed over other
sites that had armed guards. Guns save more lives than they take.
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) for (...) only (...) at (...) defense (...) yourself (...) Simple solution here. Buy a holster, remove the trigger lock and keep the weapon at your side at all times when at home. When it is not at your side, re-apply the trigger lock. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) for (...) only (...) at (...) These sort of stats add nothing to the debate, your are comparing apples and oranges. I remember reading that a person is shot every 30 seconds in the US, that may well equate to 0.2% of gun owners, but is still (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Trying to understand
|
| I heard something on the news yesterday that puzzled me, and I hoped a few of the more politically-savvy around here might help me to comprehend it. It seems George Pataki of New York favors certain measures of gun regulation including, among other (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
