wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:15:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:26:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when
considering
gun deaths?

Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero
effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give
them another lucrative business to get into.
Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable.

Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but
that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns
available... to secure them better as well.

It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being
used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe
vodka.


You mean like "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?

Look at the UK crime statistics since they have totally outlawed guns.
They are doing worse.
On the other hand the states that started allowing concealed carry are
doing better than before.
Statistical anomaly?
Perhaps,... but the whole Brady campaign is based on statistical
anomalies.

?? This doesn't look worse to me...

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm


You can play all sorts of games with statistics.
Take suicide. Japan is virtually gun free but they have a lot bigger
suicide rate per 100,000 than us. Where there is a will there is a
way. We kill more people with knives than UK murders, all causes.
I haven't done it lately but when I was crunching numbers for a living
I loaded raw data into a database and sliced it up different ways. All
that proves is you can make interesting talking points out of anything
and be 100% accurate with the numbers.
NRA and Brady both do that.

When you get down to what I really believe, I am probably more in
favor of reasonable regulation than most here but I think the idea of
bans and unreasonable regulation is just short sighted and dumb.


Just look at the effect of the assault weapons ban. Before people
really started making an issue of these things, they were a niche
market, involving a very few gun nuts buying very expensive guns,
mostly living in the deserts of the southwest who had safe places to
shoot them. Criminals still had their saturday night specials and were
happy with them. Then suddenly the only thing we heard on TV was the
peril of assault weapons and people who had never heard of them needed
one. To make matters worse there was a threat to ban them and China
sold us 2 million cheap knockoffs in less than 2 years (pre ban and
post ban models). A real collector would not touch this chink junk on
a bet. I blame Clinton for that because he could have stopped these
imports with an executive order but he did not want to upset his new
chinese friends.
After that the people who thought these were such a great investment
ended up holding the bag because the bottom fell out of the market.
That $500-600 thumb hole AK clone was suddenly only worth $250 and
they started getting dumped into the cash and carry market.
The ban didn't actually ban anything, reduced the price of the guns
and put 2 million on the street.

If you're in favor of reasonable gun regulations, then you're way, way out
on the fringes of right-wing political thought and policy.

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing gun
problem we have in this country.