From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<
:::Fair enough but would you apply this logic to other objects that, if
misused,
could severely endanger the public. For instance motor vehicles or
matches?::::::::::::
Yes, certainly.
There are some people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near either of the
above.
My wife being one of them, in the case of cars anyway.
Probably matches, too, if she reads this.
>>
I expected better than that.
I was trying to make the serious point that firearms are only one way that
the public can be endangered. I was trying to find out if you would exclude
certain people from the use of other potentially dangerous objects without
them having been convicted of an offence.
If your answer is yes then I would have to ask who you would consider fit to
make the judgements? The police by any chance? Just how much arbitrary
power do you think the police should have?
If no then why limit access to one thing and not the other. Just how do you
distinguish between someone who in your opinion is not mentally fit to own a
gun but is mentally fit to drive a car?
I think this point drives to the heart of the debate on gun control and the
fact that you answer it with levity disappoints me.
Kenneth Pantling
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
