>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
>>:If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the
>>:guns of their body guards?
>>
>>They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in
>>getting rid of OUR guns.
>
>I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of
>a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is
>tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to
>grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their
>toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the
Except reality doesn't show that.
In the real world, those who are normally law abiding tend
not to use it when "somebody steps on their toes". In fact, they tend
to mis-identify targets less often than police officers.
>>Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun]
>>confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary
>>backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and
>>Clinton.
>
>On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly
>pointed towards the powers that be.
No, drive-by shootings *tend* to be targeted at other
combatants--usually rival gang members or rival drug dealers.
They also tend to occur (at least in the US) in the cities
with the strictest gun control.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: *******************************************
Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because
ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow
the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective
criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
