[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[John Wallace]

On Aug 7, 5:03 pm, David Froble <da... at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> >> Civilians *should* be able to buy all kind [sic] of military weapons, but
> >> they cannot.
>
> > I would not trust my neighbors. One of the teenagers was busted for
> > possession of a "controlled dangerous substance".  Also for unlawful
> > possession of a firearm (pistol).  I haven't seen him in months!  His
> > mother may miss him but the neighbors don't!
>
> If his mother was going to miss him, maybe she should have done a better job of
> teaching him some moral values.
>
> >>>> What most refuse to acknowledge that none of the weapons do any harm
> >>>> without help from people.
>
> > There is no shortage of people who will use them to get into trouble of
> > one sort or another!
>
> I do agree.  But if you try to do away with weapons, the law abiding people will
> be without, but the criminals, by definition, won't abide by the laws.
>
> You might say that you can make weapons harder to get.  You will never do away
> with them, and they will be harder to get for law abiding citizens.
>
> Just look how successful we are with outlawing drugs.  From that we get drug
> lords, and there are plenty of drugs available.  What next? Weapon Lords?  Or
> the drug lords just expand their horizons.  Actually, I think that is already
> happening.

Once upon a time, various countries had significant problems with
deaths and injuries caused by bad people drinking and driving. In many
countries, drinking and driving is now not only illegal, but socially
unacceptable. Consequently the number of fatalities and casualties
caused by drinking and driving is greatly reduced. Those who still
indulge are viewed (rightly) as criminals and it is quite possible
that if they are drinking and driving they will be reported by people
they know.

s/drinking and driving/carrying guns/

How big is the difference? Why?