Virginia

[fahrvergnugen at cox.net (fahrvergnugen@cox.net)]

---- "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca> wrote: 
>   Like it or not, eventually some form of gun control will happen.
>   I understand that US Citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.
>   I understand also that someone can kill with a baseball bat or a 
> hockey puck.

We already have forms of gun control in place, they vary greatly from state.  They may not have been strong enough to prevent this tragedy, but ultimately they cannot.  The only manner this sort of crap could be contained is if -more- folks we armed, while properly trained.  Do you imagine that good, law abiding citizens who carry would have done nothing if they saw this happening?

>   I am a Canadian, but we did lose a Canadian teacher in that mishap, so 
> that gives me (some) qualification to speak my mind :-)
>   Given that, please consider the following:
>   - a baseball bat (or a shovel or a kitchen knife) requires some skill 
> to be used for killing. Not a firearm, the primary purpose of a firearm 
> is to kill. Even small kids can do it.

So, because a tool is designed to kill, it is inherently evil?  Guns can take no actions in and of themselves, they are inanimate, and therefore free of responsibility, unlike man.

>   - since we register automobiles, there is no big technical challenge 
> to register guns. (although some crooks made a bundle screwing up 
> Canada's gun registry.)

An ex-con might disagree with you.  Or someone with mental problems, etc...

>   So everyone has the right (constitutional or not) to own a car or a 
> driver's license. Yet you have to learn to drive and pass an exam before 
> you get a license, and your car is registered. What's the big hangup 
> about requiring a license for a firearm and registering a gun?

Again, most states already have controls in place.  They cannot, nor should they be capable of determining the likelihood that someone will snap.  And if and when that happens, I would like to have a weapon to defend myself.  

I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but let me explain to you how the police work in the States.  They are -not- responsible for defending US citizens, and the battles in court to that effect back-up my assertion.  --There was a woman in CO. who had three kids by her estranged husband, two girls and a boy I think, all under 10 years of age.  The two were divorced and had joint custody.  He came and got the kids one day when he was not scheduled to do so, and took them to a nearby amusement park.  The kids called the mom a few times from the park, saying everything was okay, but there was a restraining order to prevent him from taking the kids (IIRC).  Long-story-short, she calls the cops several times to tell them that the father took the kids and she feared for their lives, they did nothing.  The father ended-up killing all three of his kids, and then commited suicide by cop at the doorsteps of the policestation.  Now, I tell you all this sad story to illustrate one simple thing; who is responsible for protecting you and your family?  Who can you trust to do the most important job anyone here can think of?  The police were taken to court, and they won.  The police are -not- responsible for each and every persons' defense.  Search our legal system and discover it for yourself.

No thanks, I would like the ability to defend myself if I need to.

>   Last September, in Montreal, a young man went berserk and went on a 
> rampage. He had a legally registered firearm. He was known to have a 
> violent web site and to have mental problems,  but that . The gun he 
> used was a Beretta CX4. Splendid machine, see for yourself: 
> <http://www.cx4storm.com/>
>   Why the heck is someone allowed to have such a weapon in a non-combat 
> situation?

I've no idea, but it has little to do with this argument IMO.

>   I do not know what weapon was involved in VT, but I bet if there were 
> reasonable controls he would be at least limited in his ability to hurt 
> so many people.

'Reasonable' as outlined by who?  While I would love to agree with you, guns are not the issue here.  He had two pistols, nothing as impressive as posted above.

  Unless of course some determined victims stormed him, 
> but civilians faced with a powerful killing machine might not react like 
> that.

What if they themselves were armed?  How many lives do you think could have been saved if someone was properly trained, and had an sidearm?

>   Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but take some precautions. You 
> do protect yourself for sex, no?
> 

Depends on how dangerous I am feeling at the moment...  :-)  

Guns are tools, they can be used for good, or evil.  If you believe that they are only used for evil, then your lack of experience with guns is clouding your judgement.  I am not necessarily an advocate for automatic weapons, but I -do- advocate more folks having licenses for concealed/carry.

David

>     Jean-Claude
>     84 8v (step on the gas if it smells like danger!)
>