On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.