 
   Did I say that a child who unintentionally shoots someone is not negligent?
 NO.  I hate to repeat myself Jim, but like I told Joe, I was not attempting
in any way to justify gun control.  You're right, any death is serious.
THAT was my point to Joe who said that "anti-gunners" try to convinve
the country that accidental gun deaths related to children are a serious
problem.  I guess I assumed everyone thought that it was a problem.
No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
to a loaded 9 millimeter either.  Don't confuse the issue.  And please don't
say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
guns kill people".
 
    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
having an impact on the community.  When I ask them if they have an evaluatory
component to the program, they say "well no..."  So, in answer to your
question, no, false hope is not the intent.  I think the intent is to
show folks that police are attempting to do something to curb interpersonal
gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.  The police are
essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".
If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.
 