Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Clar ... HUMBUG! - Wrongthink st - (nf)
Message-ID: <3390@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Oct-83 23:55:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3390
Posted: Sat Oct 22 23:55:03 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Oct-83 00:33:45 EDT
Lines: 22

#R:rabbit:-208500:uicsl:4300100:000:929
uicsl!preece    Oct 21 07:34:00 1983

	WHEN SOMEONE USES A GUN, THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON IS BOTH EVIDENT
	AND CUSTOMARILY PROSECUTED!  THAT HALF IS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF!
----------
Sorry, jj, but in many cases the pro-gun people do indeed have to
share in the responsibility in exactly the same way that you would have
the anti-gun people share in the responsibility for failure of
self-defense elsewhere.  Many of the handguns used in crimes are
obtained perfectly legally. That represents contributory negligence
in failing to recognize an irresponsible applicant.  The Dram Shop
laws make bartenders responsible if they allow a customer to become
intoxicated and he subsequently has a car accident.  Similarly we
could make the gun seller responsible when a gun is used criminally.
It makes exactly much sense as your proposal.

Both proposals are pretty silly, but then I always assumed your
original idea was sarcastic...

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece