In a message dated 6/11/01 4:47:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Do you really want to use the likelihood of an object to kill somebody as the standard by which we justify government regulations? >> Don't we already? Isn't this why we license drivers or why we require a government inspector to check the electrical wiring in your house when it's built, to take two everyday examples? In the case of firearms, though, we aren't talking about likelihood to kill, but rather the likelihood they will be used to kill someone, or several someones. Judged strictly on likelihood to kill, my bookcase can kill someone if it falls on him. But until I hear about a mass bookcase slaying, I don't think stricter controls on it as a potential weapon are warranted. Patrick Sweeney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Science has a new Martyr John D. Giorgis
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Richard Baker
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Ronn Blankenship
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Julia Thompson
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Ronn Blankenship
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Julia Thompson
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Ronn Blankenship
- Re: Science has a new Martyr William T Goodall
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Doug Pensinger
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Pat10355
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Pat10355
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Julia Thompson
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Doug Pensinger
- RE: Science has a new Martyr Horn, John
- RE: Science has a new Martyr Ronn Blankenship
- Re: Science has a new Martyr Dan Minette
- Re: Science has a new Martyr William T Goodall
- Re: Science has a new Martyr (and a new... dean
- Re: Science has a new Martyr (and ... Dan Minette
- gun control (newbie) Dean Forster
- Re: gun control (newbie) L3 Dan Minette
