XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns   
   XPost: aus.politics.guns, aus.politics, can.politics   
   XPost: can.general, soc.culture.canada   
   From: dave-no_spam@nospam.net   
      
   "Colonel Colt"  wrote in message   
   news:1219013585.22202.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...   
   > "Don H"  wrote in message   
   > news:B80qk.29171$IK1.23725@news-server.bigpond.net.au...   
   >>   
   >> If there is a ban on guns, this also makes them inaccessible to   
   >> criminals, or should do so.   
   >>   
   > How on earth did you figure that one out?  Handguns have been 'banned'   
   > here in the UK for the past 11 years but those with criminal contacts are   
   > able to acquire them with ease.  Why do you think it would be any   
   > different in the US?   
   >   
   > And why does there have to be a 'ban'?  There are compromises between no   
   > controls whatsoever and total prohibition.  It seems to me that the   
   > Supreme Court decision opens the way for a regime of licensing.  The   
   > court's decision should reassure gun owners that licensing cannot be used   
   > as the thin end of the wedge to effect a total ban, as happened in the UK.   
      
   And you should see the Canadian debacle over the issue.  Only the criminals,   
   armed forces and police have weapons.   Yet the people who need them the   
   most in a crime incident, the honest person does not have them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)