From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Lines: 27

>>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>>gun owners.
>
>       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
>significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
>and *making rules for ownership*.
>
>       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
>have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
>have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
>never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
>a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
>Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
>owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
>numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
>intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
>the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
>they've already seen abused.

Gun safety classes sound good in theory, but they kind of remind me of
the "literacy tests" used in the bad old days to keep blacks from voting.
They came with the "grandfather clause": if your grandfather could vote,
you could vote.  Sort of like the gun safety laws that only let the
political ass-kissers have guns.
						Doug Holland

