Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you
can't
commit a crime with it.

Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,

Oops, I see I've not quite got what I meant over, to you and the other
responder.

Reduce the number of .50 cal weapons legally held, and you reduce the
chances that a legal owner will commit a crime with one. (neglecting the
small point that none have yet)

I'm arguing the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you can't
commit a crime with that gun.

Not that you can't commit a crime without a gun.

Some crimes are impulse crimes.
If you see someone doing something that you violently object to (sleeping
with your (of age) daughter/...), peeing outside your driveway, ...

You can pick up a gun and shoot them immediately.
Or just run outside and start beating on them.

The first is more likely to result in a death, and conviction for murder.

Of course, if there is premeditation, something else can be substituted for
the gun.