Get ready for the next round of attacks on the 2nd.

Do you still have your car?...Is it registered?.... You let me know when the confiscation happens...

"Punishing"? Registration is "punishing"?

Limiting the sale of magazines that hold over 7 rounds?...Oh, the horror... Gee, if you haven't hit what you're aiming at with 7 shots, you should take up tiddly-winks...

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

Isn't it strangey that when people want to drive a car we make them take an extensive test, both written and practical, on how well they can handle a car before they get a license to use it, make them get liability insurance in order to use that car, and have them renew that license to drive every 5 or so years, yet when they want to own a gun no such test.....or insurance, or in many cases even a license is required.

What fantasy world are you living in, ANY IDIOT can get a license, on my test it asked which sign had 8 sides in a multiple choice and I was told to drive my jeep across a field and I passed. Not all states require insurance.

Again, if you want a good example, parenting would be a good example. Many of the killers came from broken homes with poor father figures, and we are trying to regulate guns? Parents are not required to license themselves before producing our future killers, both gunmen and idiot drivers.

Again why the focus on guns rather than the things we can control more easily but kill more people, like the train that runs down a car every couple of hours, every day. Why not a national campaign and exec orders to address this bigger, more controllable problem. Why such a lack of respect for life and limited resources by those that want gun control? Even if you do gun control later, why not deal with the biggest killers first. All businesses are already controlled entities, trains even more so, where is the logic and the compassion for life vs. sensationalism?

Also there is no reason to register and tag a car that would not also justify the same for a human, there is actually no good reason to force everyone to tag their cars, we did not have to tag our horses, one bad policy should not be used as justification for another. I often don't renew tags, people barely ever get pulled over and some states don't require them for trailers and other rigs, but yet no one implodes. It is pretty easy to just grab someone elses tag if you want it, there is no real good ID of bad guys using tags unless they are very dumb, like the average licensed driver. Most Western States don't inspect vehicles, but many back east do, but there are no good data sets showing whether it is needed. But ask someone back east and they can barely understand how the car does not vaporize due to lack of inspection....kind of like people around here feel about the building inspector, needed, yet have no data to prove the effect vs. the cost.

Raees wrote: We still have to take off our shoes at the airport even though only one person has ever been caught in the entire world with a shoe bomb.

Again, one bad policy does not justify anther, it just makes the world worse.

Just weeks before 9-11 I was on a cross country flight with a 4" buck knife. They found it in my pocket, held it up to their ID badge, my knife was 1/8" shorter than her badge so she handed it back to me. I showed the knife to the 80 year old grandma next to me and asked her if she could believe they let me on the plane with that. She was surprised, but I was not after 9-11.

There is a reason that the shoe bomber did not just get a group together and storm the cockpit, it is the same reason the next guy wont use a shoe and the same reason looking in the shoes is pointless. The biggest reason to not do anything, all the stuff that everyone is worked up about barely ever happens relative to the population and most people really don't care about others they do not know.

There have been no bombings by shoe since they started doing this, so how can you claim it's bad policy?

Raees wrote: There have been no bombings by shoe since they started doing this, so how can you claim it's bad policy?

There's no bombings by underware either

on that note wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

Isn't it strange that when people want to drive a car we make them take an extensive test, both written and practical, on how well they can handle a car before they get a license to use it, make them get liability insurance in order to use that car, and have them renew that license to drive every 5 or so years, yet when they want to own a gun no such test.....or insurance, or in many cases even a license is required.

What fantasy world are you living in, ANY IDIOT can get a license, on my test it asked which sign had 8 sides in a multiple choice and I was told to drive my jeep across a field and I passed. Not all states require insurance.

Did you actually get a drivers license without showing you could safely drive a car? What state was that? And if you want to drive a more dangerous vehicle, like an 18 wheeler, you need special training and license......whay should guns be any different?

archer wrote:

on that note wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

Isn't it strange that when people want to drive a car we make them take an extensive test, both written and practical, on how well they can handle a car before they get a license to use it, make them get liability insurance in order to use that car, and have them renew that license to drive every 5 or so years, yet when they want to own a gun no such test.....or insurance, or in many cases even a license is required.

What fantasy world are you living in, ANY IDIOT can get a license, on my test it asked which sign had 8 sides in a multiple choice and I was told to drive my jeep across a field and I passed. Not all states require insurance.

Did you actually get a drivers license without showing you could safely drive a car? What state was that? And if you want to drive a more dangerous vehicle, like an 18 wheeler, you need special training and license......whay should guns be any different?

It does not matter what state, because your state, the one you and your family drive in, honors all other states.

I talk to people that have taken the CO driving test, not difficult. Have you honestly ever heard of a driving test written or on the road that was hard. Most women cannot parallel park or drive in reverse straight let alone at a speed. We let people drive when they are very old with minimal testing and many sons and daughters would subject anyone to death in order to not have to take their parents off the road, but they have to deal with this personally, protect you personally, because your state wont deal with it.

But when you feel your first example is not good enough, using the weapon that kills 44,000 people annually, you turn to tractor trailers? What next, jet planes. And remember, 18 wheeler drivers don't need a license, there are rules that they get them, there is a difference. You are like dog, pretending that people always follow rules. I bet right now a Tractor Trailer dad is letting his 15 year old daughter drive the rig on some US highway, if they get pulled over, swap and deny. Likely happens with wives far more often.

Your response was meaningless.

Raees wrote: There have been no bombings by shoe since they started doing this, so how can you claim it's bad policy?

Because there has been no evidence that it has stopped anything, though it likely has discouraged.

I can reduce plane terrorism to zero by grounding all planes, would that make doing so good policy? One thing that seems to be true about you joining these discussions, is that you are not that deep. The world lives in 1000's of layers and you barely see through the top one. You could justify locking us all in boxes and feeding slime and I fear you may live long enough to actually follow through with this, for our own good of course.

You have very little understanding of causality and thus should not be thinking much about public policy.

archer wrote:

on that note wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

Isn't it strange that when people want to drive a car we make them take an extensive test, both written and practical, on how well they can handle a car before they get a license to use it, make them get liability insurance in order to use that car, and have them renew that license to drive every 5 or so years, yet when they want to own a gun no such test.....or insurance, or in many cases even a license is required.

What fantasy world are you living in, ANY IDIOT can get a license, on my test it asked which sign had 8 sides in a multiple choice and I was told to drive my jeep across a field and I passed. Not all states require insurance.

Did you actually get a drivers license without showing you could safely drive a car? What state was that? And if you want to drive a more dangerous vehicle, like an 18 wheeler, you need special training and license......whay should guns be any different?

Short answer, because cars are more dangerous and hurt more people. Given we have limited policy and enforcement resources, we have an obligation to each other to focus them on the most dangerous activities. Guns just are not that dangerous relative to other stuff and the policies being proposed don't logically indicate that they will change this or make the stuff that is far more dangerous that we currently ignore, any safer.

on that note wrote:

Raees wrote: There have been no bombings by shoe since they started doing this, so how can you claim it's bad policy?

Because there has been no evidence that it has stopped anything, though it likely has discouraged.

I can reduce plane terrorism to zero by grounding all planes, would that make doing so good policy? One thing that seems to be true about you joining these discussions, is that you are not that deep. The world lives in 1000's of layers and you barely see through the top one. You could justify locking us all in boxes and feeding slime and I fear you may live long enough to actually follow through with this, for our own good of course.

You have very little understanding of causality and thus should not be thinking much about public policy.

,

I am DISAPPOINTED in your inane statement (the bolded)........it is a POOR analogy.JMO