On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?

People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

Absolute bull****. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.


Regardless of how many AR-15 (the navy/civilian version of the Vietnam era
M-16) are currently in existence, banning future sales can only be a good
thing.

You're clueless. Exactly what does the AR-15 have that a hunting
rifle doesn't?

There are well
over a million defensive uses of guns per year.

You should cite your sources.

Look it up for yourself. You won't believe my sources anyway. But
just to prove me wrong,

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...ords=john+lott


The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have
been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the
director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the
data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the
truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are
in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go
to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence
Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."

Even the FBI estimates on the high side of that. Multiple studies are
in the 1M-2M range, but even assuming it is *only* 108,000. *ONLY?*.
Really?

You're a real piece of work.