NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/general/6131

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 6.5 KB

Xref: sparky can.general:6131 can.politics:11009
Path: sparky!uunet!van-bc!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!ersys!trickie!rickie
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:47:01 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Not an Organization
Lines: 112

>[e-mail] (Richard Nash) writes:

repetitive stuff deleted to maintain some interest....
>
>> >Your assertion that guns have no other purpose than to kill people is a
>> >bald-faced LIE. I'm tired of reading half-baked propaganda from the Walt
>> >Disney School that equates every use of a gun with killing people, thus
>> >ignoring all the entirely legitimate uses of guns - including, but not
>> >limited to, hunting, competitive shooting, protection of livestock,
>> >protection from wild animals, etc.
>>                  ^----------^
>>                       |- since when can you or I lug around a gun in the
>>                          National Parks to protect ourselves from wild
>>                          animals?
>>                        - Elsewhere is no problem to have a gun,  but where
>>                          there are the most wildest and dangerous animals,
>>                          no way!  You are potential food for the bears!
>
>Who said anything about National Parks? There are lots of situations -
>miners, oil exploration workers, forest service workers, etc, who live
>and work in remote areas where wild animals - grizzlies, cougars, etc are
>still a real threat.

Most definitely I have no quarrel with someone whose survival is based upon
the premise of 'eat or be eaten'.  Perhaps my point has been lost regarding
the National Parks situation;  these threats that are aledgedly real in the
great untamed wilderness  are also just as real in the National Parks.
Recall the horror in the fall of 1992 of a tourist couple from England
whose misfortune was to be visiting Jasper National Park and made the
mistake of being in the same locale as a hungry bear.  The bear attacked
the female person who tried to flee up a tree,  but then was counter
distracted by the male partner.  The husband died saving his wife.  Yes,
perhaps a few mistakes were made by the couple,  (assuming a defensive
position), but the couple had no protective armanents (sp?).  So I ask,
why is this situation of no firearms, considered acceptable in the National
Parks where the life and death situation  is just as real as in the great
untamed wilderness of exploration,  forest  workers etc.,  by my respected
oposing debater [e-mail] ?
>
>> Is a gun really necessary for survival in our environment today?
>
>On occasion, yes. It may not be nearly as necessary in Edmonton as in
>Northern B.C., I'll grant you. But please stop interpolating city life in
>Edmonton as the norm in rural Canada.

No,  I don't interpolate life between that of the big city, and that of
rural Canada.  Anyone who has lived outside the great walls of mass
civilization,  knows how differently one thinks about their surroundings.
Respect!  Mistakes allow for very few second chances.  I know that if I
lived in the great outback of Canada,  I wouldn't hestitate for a second
about buying a few good guns.  Understand that where I lived would
certianly have a lot to do with what for guns, is required.  Living in
southern Saskatchewan on the plains requires nothing more than perhaps a
22 calibre rife to scare off the odd magpie, compared to living up in
Northern B.C. where a grizzlie can make a meal out of you faster then
you can say sish-kabob!  But the days of the easy-rider rifle rack in the
back of the half-ton truck are long gone for most of us.  We don't need
this in the big city!  The only thing to hunt in the city are people!
So please,  outlaw the damn guns!
>
>> Is pleasure killing a justification for the production and legalized
>> distribution of guns?
>> >
>
>And who said anything about killing for pleasure? Do YOU take pleasure
>out of knowing some poor cow has died for your hamburger patty? Of course
>not. It's just a fact of life that animals must die if people eat, and we
>do, animal protein. The fact that hunters kill their own animal protein,
>and most people pay others to do it for them doesn't make a hunter
>someone who particularly enjoys killing.

These statements I must take exception to.  B.S.!  Hunters love to kill!
It is a well known fact that in the U.S.A., wealthy hunters pay an absolute
premium for the priviledge of hunting rare game species.  Just on Saturday,
(Dec 19, 1992) CNN covered a story regarding a previous Northern Soviet
state that has allowed fat American hunters into a wilderness sanctuary to
hunt (destroy) bears.  B.S., because these hunters certianly are *NOT*
doing it out of necessity,  but rather out of the lust of killing.
A good friend co-worker loves to fish.  He pays between 30 and 100 dollars
for 5 pounds of fish.  For an equivalent amount of fish, I pay $8.00.
So why the discrepancy in price?  Because he loves to fish!  He thinks
nothing of taking 10 hours to travel to a remote location where he will
fish for 3 or four hours. Me?  I go to the fish market and buy mine!
>
>> >Yes, gun use must be regulated and responsible, but the use of guns is
>> >entirely legitimate and even necessary for many people. The issue of
>> >proper gun use is NOT simple or a black and white issue as you suggest.
>> --
>
>Please reread the last paragraph.
And so I have re-read the last paragraph.  Guns have a place,  but rarely
are the masses,  a place for such a destructive weapon.  Firing squads,
riot tear gas deployment (Israel) , may be such legitament uses for guns,
but.....,
even what was considered the frontier of civilization no longer requires
such a barbaric tool.  Owning a gun in the hostile remoteness of Polar
Bear Haven (Churchill) will probably never be disputed,  however,  don't
use these situations as a supportive argument for me to own a high power
gun in urban Canada.

 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Richard Nash              Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
 UUCP:                     [e-mail]
 Amateur Radio Packet:     [e-mail]
                           VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA
                           ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca [192.75.200.15]