On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

It hasn't crept into my life beyond paying attention.



Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

See above.

I did. You don't think people should be able to defend themselves? My
reluctance to kill is less than my reluctance to be killed.

No, you have a perfect right to defend yourself. And if you have to,
it's time to move.




Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.

One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

Yeah, like the US. We have malaria all over the place now.

When did you join the idiot brigade, David?

Not so far. So the rest of the world is ****ed as long as the US is OK?

The rest of the world can do what it wants with DDT.




And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

And those already made became very expensive and non PC.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

It doesn't seem to matter. That isn't a factor in success.

Infringing on human rights matters to me, if not to you.

It doesn't matter in terms of whether bans succeed or fail.



Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Guns used in crimes are purchased legally? I suppose all were because at
one time they were new.

Duh... Good morning.

Duh... Good Afternoon.


Interviews with convicts in Wisconsin prisons
say some straw purchases, a very few at gun shows, most stolen or bought
on the street. An outright ban might get 50% compliance among honest(as
opposed to lawful) citizens, 0% among criminals.

Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

Among our many stupid laws, we have practically none regarding
responsibility to keep guns safe. Contrast that with Switzerland, for
example.

--
Ed Huntress