[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Kathy,
IMO, that analogy to automobiles continues to be ludicrous and a classic
red herring of comparing apples to oranges. Guns are designed to do one
thing. Shoot something. That is their sole purpose. Does the average
citizen really NEED something that shoots things? Compare that need with
the need for an automobile as transportation in a world that requires us
to move quickly from place to place over long distances. There is no
comparison.
A responsible gun owner should be able to ensure that his/her gun will
not be stolen, IMO. Surely that is not asking too much when you consider
that someone stealing the gun is most likely planning to use it to commit
a crime. Except for the actual crime of stealing a car I doubt if the
thief plans to kill or hurt someone with the car.
I am not ignoring the real problem of the people who use guns to commit
crimes. I think the sentencing should be made a lot tougher for all
criminals who use a gun to commit a crime. But it is just as wrong, IMO,
to ignore the OTHER factors relating to this problem as it is to ignore
the criminal element. IMO, that is another red herring sparked by the
NRA and the gun lovers to cover up the stupid and dangerous actions of
the many irresponsible gun owners in this country. Surely you don't
think that the grandfather of that kid in Arkansas should be held
blameless for that tragedy, do you? If those guns had been in a place
where those kids could not access them then a lot of young lives would
have been saved. Do we simply focus all of our anger, vengeance and
justice on the thirteen and eleven year old? I would hope not. Now
multiply this situation by several thousand and you can see the problem.
Since a total ban on guns is neither feasible nor possible, I think we
need to look at other areas where we might decrease the number of guns
getting into the hands of the people who DO commit the crimes. IMO, THAT
is facing the problem a lot more realistically than simply looking at the
single factor of the criminal element.
Bill
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:26:42 -0400 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Bill :)
>
>Your thinking on guns is totally ridiculous to me, to say if someone
>has
>their gun stolen they should be prosecuted, hey Bill guess what most
>of
>them are stolen when the homeowner isn't home! BTW Bill more cars than
>guns kill people so should we also prosecute people who have their
>cars
>stolen and then that car gets in a accident and someone is hurt or
>killed? It's the same damn thing Bill. You can try to argue that cars
>aren't intended to kill, that doesn't matter Bill they do kill and
>people steal cars and kill with them.
>
>Your trying to sell the idea that no one should own anything that
>could
>kill, impossible and ridiculous Bill. You'd have a better chance of
>selling the Brooklyn bridge. OTOH people get killed on that bridge and
>then you could be sued for selling a known death structure!
>
>I am still wondering when your going to face the real problem Bill,
>the
>people who kill not what they kill with. You haven't addressed that
>issue Bill, the reason why is simple, there aren't easy answers. It's
>easy to say outlaw gun ownership, but the problem is Bill people still
>kill. It's the people you need to address not the items used.
>
>William J. Foristal wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
