Ellis Wyatt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Joe Dees wrote:
> > This is a false dichotomy. Those who are found not to lock up
> their guns by something happening (like a kid finding one and
> running around with it0 should lose the right to keep and bvear,
> as they have demonstrated that they are incapable of exercising
> such a right prudently and responsibly. This does not require
> registration, just revocation subsequent to violations coming to light.
> OK, I'd agree with that plan. However, ever gun-control advocate I've
> been exposed to has wanted some sort of ability to restrict ownership
> before the fact.
Joe just won't admit to it. The severity of his idea indicates his sentiment.
I have said that parents whose kids commit gun crimes should be held responsible
for negligent homicide. Finding a kid merely in posession (on the way to rifle
or skeet team practice) does not justify what Joe wants. Joe wants to prevent
all those crack baby gang bangers from being able to protect themselves (and
cause trouble), but is also satisfied to throw the baby out with the bath water
and prohibit harmless use by kids. My dad, living in Lowell, Mass as a kid,
would often ride on the bus, or on his bike, with rifle or shotgun in hand (or
across his handlebars) so he could participate on the rifle team, or to go
hunting with freinds after school...they never had any problems or misuse.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:31 MDT