Now the anti-gunners want to restrict or outright ban air rifles!
Don
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:54 PM
>Subject: Fw: Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun 16 July 2003
>
>
>EXCELLENT!!!! Loved this man's answer
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Subject: Fw: Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun 16 July 2003
>
>
>What is far past "beginning to wear thin", Peter Beyer (Letters, 16 July
>2003), is the feeble argument of those who wish to blame inanimate objects
>and punish the innocent rather than lay the blame where it truly belongs.
>
>Do cars bear any responsibility for accidents or crimes in which they are
>involved? Do computers bear any responsibility for silly letters? Of course
>not, Mr. Beyer, and the notion that firearms could be "equally responsible
>for the damage" is equally stupid.
>
>Primary responsibility rests with the criminal idiots who pulled the
>trigger. Secondary responsibility rests with the parents who failed
>miserably in their upbringing including allowing the unfettered use of a
>vehicle. Tertiary responsibility rests with various other segments of
>society: an overall lack of personal accountability and eagerness to blame
>everybody and everything but the perpetrator, a justice system unwilling to
>punish criminals adequately, and self-serving spineless politicians
>unwilling to deal with real causes of problems.
>
>If guns "serve(s) no other purpose than to injure, hurt, or otherwise harm
>a
>human being" it would seem that five to seven million Canadians have wasted
>a huge pile of money on fifteen to twenty million firearms and unknowable
>millions of pellet guns as amazingly few citizens are ever shot.
>
>Murders and suicides are means-independent. Somebody bent upon killing
>himself or another does not drop the intent simply because a certain
>implement is not readily at hand - they merely use a different means.
>Focussing on one particular means only results in a shift between
>statistical subsets: the number of victims remains unchanged, but while
>fewer may be shot more are stabbed, beaten, strangled etcetera. Dead is
>dead, regardless of what method is used.
>
>As a parent of a teenage daughter and two young sons, I am very angry that
>this happened and very sympathetic towards the young victim and his
>parents.
>As a firearms owner I know where the blame truly lies. As a rational human
>being I will not let emotion over-ride logic.
>
>And by the way, the slingshots that I made and used (responsibly) with
>considerable accuracy as a child were more than just "rubber bands"...
>
>Mark L Horstead
>
>end of message
Don
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:54 PM
>Subject: Fw: Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun 16 July 2003
>
>
>EXCELLENT!!!! Loved this man's answer
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Subject: Fw: Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun 16 July 2003
>
>
>What is far past "beginning to wear thin", Peter Beyer (Letters, 16 July
>2003), is the feeble argument of those who wish to blame inanimate objects
>and punish the innocent rather than lay the blame where it truly belongs.
>
>Do cars bear any responsibility for accidents or crimes in which they are
>involved? Do computers bear any responsibility for silly letters? Of course
>not, Mr. Beyer, and the notion that firearms could be "equally responsible
>for the damage" is equally stupid.
>
>Primary responsibility rests with the criminal idiots who pulled the
>trigger. Secondary responsibility rests with the parents who failed
>miserably in their upbringing including allowing the unfettered use of a
>vehicle. Tertiary responsibility rests with various other segments of
>society: an overall lack of personal accountability and eagerness to blame
>everybody and everything but the perpetrator, a justice system unwilling to
>punish criminals adequately, and self-serving spineless politicians
>unwilling to deal with real causes of problems.
>
>If guns "serve(s) no other purpose than to injure, hurt, or otherwise harm
>a
>human being" it would seem that five to seven million Canadians have wasted
>a huge pile of money on fifteen to twenty million firearms and unknowable
>millions of pellet guns as amazingly few citizens are ever shot.
>
>Murders and suicides are means-independent. Somebody bent upon killing
>himself or another does not drop the intent simply because a certain
>implement is not readily at hand - they merely use a different means.
>Focussing on one particular means only results in a shift between
>statistical subsets: the number of victims remains unchanged, but while
>fewer may be shot more are stabbed, beaten, strangled etcetera. Dead is
>dead, regardless of what method is used.
>
>As a parent of a teenage daughter and two young sons, I am very angry that
>this happened and very sympathetic towards the young victim and his
>parents.
>As a firearms owner I know where the blame truly lies. As a rational human
>being I will not let emotion over-ride logic.
>
>And by the way, the slingshots that I made and used (responsibly) with
>considerable accuracy as a child were more than just "rubber bands"...
>
>Mark L Horstead
>
>end of message
