From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Lines: 77
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....

       How about "firearm related."

>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!

       Texas is unusual in this regard.  It would be nice to reduce them
both, though.

       As Texas doesn't appear to have an murder rate that much higher than
the national average, I would expect it is a result of a much higher
suicide rate.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....

       Be nice if you didn't have to suffer at all.

>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

       Here's where we run into a problem.  I am perfectly willing to
have government regulation on something which is likely to cause others
harm.  What we're discussing, though, is the extreme regulation of a large
group in order to target a small group, and I don't think that's
appropriate. 

>Do you have an insurance??
>Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...       
>
>Do you buy anything??
>YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...
>
>Do you live with other people??
>Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)

        Does this, then, justify anything?  At some point you have to draw
a line (at least to my way of thinking) where the government must have
something a little more substantial than a set of percentages with which
to punish an individual.

        Where do *you* draw the line?  Or is there one?

>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

        Virginia.  It passed.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

        Does it?

>It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only
>problem is that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you 
>hope to cure him first.

        Cute analogy. 

        The U.S. doesn't treat drunk driving like a serious crime.  However,
we also don't confiscate cars of people who drink.  We also don't confiscate
*all* cars because some people drink and drive.  It's the core of the legal
system that in order to punish an individual (and I'd call property
confiscation a punishment) you must have evidence against that individual.
That is, it isn't enough to show that the majority of people convicted of
murder are white  in order to convict a particular white guy of murder.

>Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.

        Huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
