On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold of
guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING should
work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.


The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few fools
should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that the people
who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting, because that would
have been true slaughter then. It's great that it then ended because the
potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.

People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.


I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across Manhattan
for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me. Admittedly I
frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th & 1st Ave and 14th to
70th streets).

I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it...

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London