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

How about I just say that we can do all kinds of things, we can restrict people in all kinds of ways to mitigate all the micro risks out there. The concept of the limit is a VERY viable technique to see what happens when you take something to the extreme. Often, unless you can prove that there is some optimal setting in the middle of a data range (a peak or ideal), then it is reasonable to assume that if you take something to the limit, you will see the amplified effect of the thing that does not seem so bad, like making everyone take off some clothes or allowing the TSA to stick fingers in your body holes (people apparently do not feel this is over the top either).

It was intended to be a statement of what happens when you take Raees's supported policy of shoe removal. How about why not just allow strip searching, if we do it and there are no events, would that justify it?

In stead of just ripping my wording, why not add some content to the subject at hand. Do you feel that taking off the shoes or any other such proposed activity is effective, how many more would be justified or efficient, that is the discussion I am trying to encourage.

If you are going to be disappointed, I can only assume you expected better from me, I will take that as a compliment.

The same person that did so for you, myself. If someone does not understand cause and effect, I do not want them to design a system where something is done for a desired effect. Why is connecting the dots against policy around here.

If we allow someone that does not understand cause and effect the effect is unlikely to be the desired one.

Woof woof. You are the one that does not understand how the govt telling people they cannot do a limited number of dangerous things relates those dangerous things. Woof Woof.

Perhaps I can put it this way, because I think your goal is different, I am looking for public policy that has the most positive effect, my goal is not to simply regulate guns, it is to find out what the best thing to regulate is if it can have a good effect, since it would be a stretch that it is guns and one shooting of a few dozen people in a group of 300,000,000, it does not make the very dangerous stuff less dangerous, all it means is that you watched too much news and forget what the risks are. You just want what you want, and I want to talk about it and you don't. I guess that is ok. You have made up your mind not to engage the issue and to simply defend you desires to have people's guns controlled and not talk about the cause, the effect or even better the opportunity cost.

on that note wrote: The same person that did so for you, myself. If someone does not understand cause and effect, I do not want them to design a system where something is done for a desired effect. Why is connecting the dots against policy around here.

If we allow someone that does not understand cause and effect the effect is unlikely to be the desired one.

Woof woof. You are the one that does not understand how the govt telling people they cannot do a limited number of dangerous things relates those dangerous things. Woof Woof.

Perhaps I can put it this way, because I think your goal is different, I am looking for public policy that has the most positive effect, my goal is not to simply regulate guns, it is to find out what the best thing to regulate is if it can have a good effect, since it would be a stretch that it is guns and one shooting of a few dozen people in a group of 300,000,000, it does not make the very dangerous stuff less dangerous, all it means is that you watched too much news and forget what the risks are. You just want what you want, and I want to talk about it and you don't. I guess that is ok. You have made up your mind not to engage the issue and to simply defend you desires to have people's guns controlled and not talk about the cause, the effect or even better the opportunity cost.

So you spend your posts telling everyone what it is that they want, what it is that they think, and tell them they are unqualified to discuss the issues, and then pretend that you really want to talk about the issues. Yeah, right.

on that note wrote: 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.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet that fewer people are intentionally killed by cars than are intentionally killed by guns. Has anyone taken an automobile and intentionally killed 20 kids and 6 adults?

The comparisons between regulation of motor vehicles and guns is absolutely irrelevant. Each one should be considered on their particular merits and issues. If there is a lack of regulation of motor vehicles, then that issue should be examined based on the unique particularities of that issue, not compared to something that has no relevance to that industry. This is just a common tact by the NRA tools who want to deflect from the examination of the role of firearms in society. Why not have an honest discussion of that issue rather than deflecting from it?

What are people so afraid of? I think even gun rights proponents will agree that we should limit access to guns by the certified mentally ill, felons, children (except under supervision of parents), etc. What can we do to further that goal? Why not require rules at least as stringent as those for driving a car?

You can have my car when you pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands.

Some posts were split out and moved here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/285forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=25594 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=25594<!-- l -->

archer wrote:

on that note wrote: 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.

I don't have the numbers, but I would bet that fewer people are intentionally killed by cars than are intentionally killed by guns. Has anyone taken an automobile and intentionally killed 20 kids and 6 adults?

That is a reasonable point, but neglect of the known boarders on intention. We know the consequences of not regulating driving more strictly, thus if we don't do something, we have at least deprioritized it. We knew we could have stopped it or mitigated it, like we feel with gun violence, so we can elect to take action. I am not sure what to call it, but our decision to not address it, results in a certain amount of predictable death.

Raees wrote: You can have my car when you pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands.

So you understand where some of the gun folks are coming from. Some things are important to people.

:happier: