Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:56:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
193 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> 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.
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 not good. If we
follow your argument to its conclusion, could it mean allowing guns in my
country (Scotland) where they are currently restricted?
>
> 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 answer to this is for crime to reduced, not for a homeowner to have a gun
under his/her pillow.
>
> 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.
The question this raises is; why did that guy have a gun?
Scott A
>
> Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
