Ian Stirling wrote:

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.

If you don't have hands, you can't stick your finger in your eye either.
Lets ban hands now ?

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder