> Spoken like a disarmed Aussie :-)
Yeah, I hear that the NRA has been saying as much. Did they mention that some of the guns taken in during the 'buy-back' turned up being used in armed robberies? And this, in part, is my point: it's a little disingeneous to be going making nice distinctions between criminals with guns and cops with guns, especially if one is wanting to present oneself as concerned about the violence from guns, isn't it?
> Exactly what crime would you be zero-tolerating of here?
The crime of omission? More seriously... If someone wishes to argue from the perspective of those who are subject to violence, then I cannot understand why this would be limited to defending people from illegal violence alone. If they do argue according to such a distinction, then I can only conclude that their utterances have nothing to do with defending people from violence, but instead in defending the threshold between legal and illegal forms of violence as if the problem resides in the latter. In other words, if someone is going to talk about Zero Tolerance, why make an exception, why tolerate the violence conducted legally?
> Even Kelley is innocent until proven guilty, despite what the
sizzelean think.
The absence of innocence does not mean guilt, and it surely does not imply punishment -- then again, I never did understand catholicism or da law.
(btw, I have a physical reaction to the word 'aussie'. It makes me break out in hives, terrible tantrums, and an acute case of furrowed brow.)
Angela _________