[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nobody really needs a gun. Seriously. If you absolutely have to have one (and
> I don't know why you would), you should have to demonstrate that need,
> demonstrate proper training in its use, be required to own insurance against any
> possible misuse of your gun by you or by anyone else (thus giving you a powerful
> incentive to take good care of it).
>
> I'm not talking about hunters or target-shooters, but they tend to be much
> more responsible about taking care of their weapons than the gun nuts symbolized
> by Phil Gramm, who, when asked how many guns he had, replied, "More than I
> need but not as many as I want."
OK, the thing that *could* cause me to deviate from my personal
gun-avoidance stance would be if we get too many more big snakes on the
road close to the house.
Does that fall under "hunting"? I'm not sure it does. "Target
practice"? Well, I'd need to practice if I were going to be able to
nail a rattler on the first shot. (I think all the poisonous snakes
that have been in the road were rattlers.)
"Need a gun" in this case would just boil down to "Don't trust my own
ability to kill the thing with a hoe before it could turn on me". Does
that count?
(And no, I'm not going to purchase a gun until I feel a lot more
comfortable around one than I am. And generally, the rattlers just
kinda park themselves in the road, so there's time to get the ammo out
of the separate locked box, load the gun, and go back out to do it in.
And I've heard that rattlesnake tastes like chicken.)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
