somebody wrote:
> Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they have
> no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet).

You're mistaken in this. Even just sticking to the world in which guns are 
pointed at people, there are two uses for such guns: shooting people, and 
threatening people. Numbers everywhere seem to imply that guns used to 
threaten people save more lives than guns used to kill people, outside of 
soldiers and wars. Indeed, if you are being attacked on the street by a 
criminal in the USA, having a firearm is the only mechanism more likely to 
keep you safe than submitting meekly.

While there are places where general citizens having firearms is probably a 
bad idea (e.g., courtrooms), I'd say general citizens having firearms the 
power of pistols and revolvers is probably not a bad idea. If it comes to a 
simple mugger, that should be enough. If it comes to fighting an oppressive 
government, I think enough people would be able to steal the higher-powered 
weapons needed to fight an army by using smaller firearms to start with. 
(I.e., if you want the weapons only cops can have, mug a cop. :-)

 > Private citizens should
> not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.

Prey tell, what is an "assault weapon"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message