And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:39:12 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:02:05 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:52:00 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:58:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> if I give a known
>>>> psychotic the means to go on a rampage in the full knowledge that's
>>>> what he'll do is it still all his fault?
>>>
>>> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>>>
>>> Or they decided not to take their medications?
>>
>> OOC error, but I'll still answer. If it's the case that someone taking
>> medicine is safe to own a firearm, but isn't safe if they stop taking
>> their medication then the question becomes 'what's the likelihood of
>> that happening?'. Think of Asimov's The Naked Sun of the three
>> intelligences involved who was the real murderer?
>
> Weapons purchased prior to their diagnosis is what I was talking about.

There we have another difference, licences here need to be reapplied for  
every year (or two?) so they can be removed from those deemed unsuitable  
to hold them.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message