Subject:
|
Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 21:48:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> <slrn7k3ois.1dt.cjc@VADER.NS.UTK.EDU> <FBy91u.K5w@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Martin Legault wrote:
> > All these restriction an different mentality than in the US make
> > there is lot less house that have gun. This result in lot less violent crime
> > commited with guns except in the west (Alberta an Saskachewan) where the • number
> > of house is comparable with the US.
>
> You came late but your statement above is the crux of the debate.
>
> A lot of people do not buy this link, do not buy the cause and effect
> that is asserted between control of a tool and control of behaviour,
> that is, that decreasing the availability of guns reduces crime. If you
> buy this link, and you buy that it is OK to control potential
> behaviours, why then, you should be in favor of gun control. If you
> don't you'll be against it.
>
> Similarly, a lot of people do not buy the cause and effect link asserted
> by the other side, that concealed carry laws, trained citizens with guns
> in their homes, and so forth, reduce crime, that is, that increasing the
> availability of guns reduces crime. If you did buy it, why then, you'd
> be against gun control. If you don't you'd be for it.
>
> Nice parrallel dichotomy, eh?
>
> Finally, a lot of people think that both of the above are irrelevant,
> that owning one or more guns is a right, either specifically enshrined
> in the constitution of the US, or a general right that devolves from the
> right to own whatever property one chooses as long as one does not
> violate the rights of others, and the notion that one cannot be
> restricted from most property classes just because of potential uses.
>
> If you buy that you're against gun control just as you are against
> control of cars, drugs, garishly painted houses and a lot of other
> things that may be bad for the owners or potentially bad for bystanders.
> If you don't you're in favor of whatever restrictions on property you
> believe will make society a better place.
>
> Know what? I've got my opinion of which one or more (if any) of the
> above is valid. Most of the readers of this whole thread know what it
> is. They also know what their own opinion is on all three. I suspect
> that nothing that anyone said here changed the opinion of anyone. Still,
> I do like to hear myself talk, and I do like to throw out statements
> that set everyone else off, I did both those things, so by my
> perspective, this debate was successful. :-)
>
> Nothing will change and I'm sorry I set it off. Keep debating though...
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
> See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
I feel happy to know another (1) american that is not "gun crazy". Some time
poeple realy realy want to do or own wathever they want that they will find any
excuse possible to validate their choice even if they now that they are wrong.
I realy can't understand who some one can feel in safety because he have 2 or 3
guns in is house if all his neabour also have guns and 2 of them are frequently
drunk, another will shoot anything for any reason, 2 other are constatly in
fight about every things...
What about the amendement XYZ of the constitution, we're not in 1780's(??)
anymore, the're is no indian in the woods all around who want to protect their
lands again the white invader. we are not in the wild west era anymore when
ther was 1 sheriff for zillion of square miles
Canadian statistic from province to privince is a proofs that easy gun acces
generate more violent crime with guns.
(1) actualy the 3rd I am aware of
Martin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 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
|
|
|
|
