On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:03:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:56 -0400, wrote:




It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop.

WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing
chemicals in your basement...

did you think about that before you wrote it?

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach?

all of these things have a use, especially cars. the deaths from
these other things...bleach, etc...are not frequent and are due to
misuse.


guns, OTOH, can, and have been banned in many countries with no ill
effects at all. given the costs, there's no use for them

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:43:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at
least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would
say most cars people own.

UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate
went up.

yeah. from 100 killed/year to 105. big deal.

we have 11,000 killed each year by gunfire. but, many of them are
black. and, given your view of obama, we know what your view of blacks
is

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:19:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other
things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive
amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out
of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics
find the body.

They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell
cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died.

Where do you stop?

So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides?


We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.

Come on. http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers.
Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer.

On in single acts, and they weren't the typical kind of mass killing we're
discussing. Columbine for example. That's more typical isn't it.

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

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:27:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:06:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?


Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown
in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?


Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).

So, to hell with child safety? That's what you're arguing for... let's
go
back to the robber barrons...

http://tinyurl.com/2f57cwl


We already have a buttload of swimming pool rules but drowning it is
still the biggest cause of death for toddlers. (mostly because people
disconnect the pool alarm and leave the door open) Again, should we
throw grandma in jail for it?
The question is where do you stop?

Should we require a fence on your boat dock and all the way down the
canal? How about a fence around every lake and pond? (BTW that has
been suggested here after a kid drown in a lake)

Should we require stoves have locks on them so kids can't turn them on
and burn themselves? (a couple thousand a year)

How about child safety locks on lamp holders so kids can't unscrew the
bulb and stick their finger in the hole (again there have been NEC
proposals to ban edison lamp sockets as the incandescent bulbs are
phased out).



Nope... http://www.statisticstop10.com/Cause..._Toddlers.html

Feel free to cite ridiculous examples.

* MV Traffic 533 10.97%
* Drowning 454 9.35%

Oh I am sorry I left out cars .... but wait, no I didn't.
That was the first thing I was talking about
OK drowning is second ... but #1 in the home.

Notice gunshot is not even on the list.



Yeah, for toddlers. So what.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:43:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at
least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would
say most cars people own.

UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate
went up.

yeah. from 100 killed/year to 105. big deal.

we have 11,000 killed each year by gunfire. but, many of them are
black. and, given your view of obama, we know what your view of blacks
is


By the same token, given your view of GWB we know what you view of whites
is.

On Sep 19, 1:38*am, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides?

We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.

Come on.http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point.
The reason it was banned was the effect on birds.
(Read Rachel Carson's book)
Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the
problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it
into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any
control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we
would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these
days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a
good example.
Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison.
If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking
about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that
could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses.
This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities.

Howabout Chloradane (sp?). That stuff really doesn't hurt the
environment, it was basically banned because workers were using it
wrong and killing themselves in the fields. They would spray and rub
the trees and next thing you know, they find them dead in the field.
At least that is what I was told by a bug guy. I had a gallon of it
years ago, it was incredible. A quater cup or so in a gallon of water
and it even took out ground bees, all of em, dead or gone...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

I've seen military swords used to cut wedding and birthday cakes.

On 9/19/10 9:18 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

I've seen military swords used to cut wedding and birthday cakes.



What a thrill that must have been...Did they later blow up the punch
bowl with a grenade?