re: Gun Legislation

[Robert Moore <oshkoshc1@moscow.com>]

	What is the piont?  Guns are still not the reason people die, its the
nimrod pulling the trigger!  There is no way you can stop selling guns that
are of a certin qulity.  Because a cheap gun in the right hands is just as
deadly as a top of the line gun.  I however do think an assult type wepon
has no place in the hands of the general public!  But by using the "rapdily
firing" gun phrase you have just included all semi-automatic guns.  By
lumping them together you would include almost half of the guns producded
and owned in this country.  I personaly disagree with what most of the NRA
does and fights for (once again assult rifels and teflon coated slugs need
not be sold to the public) but by grouping guns you will end up with laws
passed against things they were not intended for.  I do however see your
point.  But untill we can take care of the people behind the guns there
will not be a good solution that all can agree on.
Robert Moore 
Moscow








At 02:41 PM 4/30/99 -0700, Dale Goble wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Marc wrote:
>
>> At 08:51 AM 4/30/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> >Imposing restrictions on the purchase of rapdily firing weapons is
>> >different than prohibiting ownership of hunting rifles.  Restricting the
>> >sale of cheap hand guns differs from prohibiting the sale of target
>> >pistols.  The refusal to acknowledge such differences is nonsensical.
>> >
>> >Dale Goble
>> >Moscow
>> >
>> I love it. An ad hominim attack!  So if I refuse to acknowledge that such
>> restrictions are goo, I am nonsensical?  
>
>
>to read my posting as an ad hominem is a distortion of the meaning of the
>phrase, which my dictionary defines as appealing to emotions rather than
>to intellect.  marc's response does demonstrate my larger point: that a
>discussion of the issue becomes impossible when the world is perceived as
>black and white.
>
>Dale Goble
>Moscow
>
>