In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...


IOW -- it doesn't disturb you that criminals will still be able to get
guns,
but law-abiding citizens won't.

Why is that?

In part due to the fact that many gun deaths involve legally owned guns.

Cite, please? That article below doesn't support that statement.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as
follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802;
Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

There were over 40,000 deaths from automobiles. Want to ban them, too?




2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against
drugs?

Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

As stated before there are big differences between the two.

Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

Broader question: what reason is there to think that criminals will obey laws
prohibiting them from possessing firearms? They don't obey existing laws --
why do you think they will obey new laws?


And, for the record, yes, I do think we should eliminate most laws against
drugs. Private consumption of drugs does no demonstrable harm to society at
large, and thus society has no legitimate interest in prohibiting it. If you
want to get doped up in the privacy of your living room, it's no business of
mine or anyone else's. OTOH, if you get doped up and then drive your car on a
public road, then it *does* become society's business, because you're creating
a hazard to other.

I generally agree.


Which brings us right back to guns: possession of firearms by law-abiding
citizens poses no demonstrable harm to society at large, and thus society
has
no legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3
times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is
present.

So because some people misuse them, nobody should be allowed to have them.

Give up your car, Meehan. Some people drive drunk, therefore nobody should be
allowed to have a car. You first.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.