Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Shaun Eli" <missingchild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Disingenuous comment #1: NYC and DC have high crime rates and strict
gun control laws, so the laws don't work.

First of all, the laws were passed IN RESPONSE to the crime- so you
can't make that comparison.  Secondly, since most of the guns used in
crimes in NY and DC were bought in Virginia and brought to NY or DC and
sold illegally, obviously the need is for federal laws, not state laws
that vary from state to state.

Disingenuous comment #2: Hammers and chain saws are just as dangerous
as guns.

Come on- first of all, I can outrun a chain saw.  Secondly, I can see
one coming.  Thirdly, how many chain saw murders are there?  You can
state that guns aren't bought by legal gun owners to murder people,
but you can't argue the fact that guns do get used for that purpose
(yes, I know, that shouldn't mean we take the guns away from the
law-abiding, and to state once more, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT).

#3: "You don't know how a business is run."

Okay, I've never worked in the newspaper business. But I have a
business degree and twenty years of business experience, and I
understand about profits.

I'm being accused here of not looking at DOJ statistics.  Actually, I
have.  And when you call the NY Times the NY Slimes, well, what can I
saw except that you are displaying such bias that you are actually
swaying undecided people FROM your point of view.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which took no stand on
gun issues until they studied the issue, and is not affiliated with gun
control organizations, studied suicide in the home and determined that
the suicide rate is much higher in homes with guns (again, probably not
because people are more suicidal so much as that they're more
successful with a gun than with other implements).

That, and that there are problems with kids getting their hands on
guns, is what made me choose to want stronger legislation when it comes
to gun ownership.  NOT banning guns, but requiring the owners of guns
to take classes, pass tests, etc.

And I'm curious- if you're against bike helmets for children, is
there anything you are for?  Should companies be allowed to pollute
endlessly, because if it's important to you you'll wear a gas mask?
 Part of the purpose of government is to protect people from others.
In some cases, it's to protect kids from the errors of their
parents- helmet laws, child seat laws, etc.

I'm not an expert on parenting, but to respond to this:

"live for ways to invade the civil liberties of its citizens, that
you're
suddenly experts on parenting. It's not that anyone is caring, or
uncaring.
These laws don't effect much of reality, they provide a "feel good" for
the liberal who thinks he or she is doing something good. But that's
where it
ends. Reality is, you don't give two shits about other people's kids,
nor do
you know them, or their parents. You can give verbal indication that
you do,
so people get the warm and fuzzy you're a good person, but, the bottom
line
is, in reality, it's just a speech.
Does the law contain a fund, for kids who wear helmets, and are injured
from
an accident, money for medical bills? Probably not. Does the law
contain a
fine to parents who's kids are injured who weren't wearing a helmet?
Probably so. How does either benefit the welfare of the child? Neither
does.
It just assumes those parents are irresponsible. But in the eyes of the

idiots creating these laws, it gives them a feeling that it will
protect the
welfare of a child."

Bicycle helmets do 'effect much of reality' to the extent that they
increase helmet-wearing.  This is not about 'feel good' but about
saving lives.  I do care about other people's kids- which is why I
am for all this stuff.  You can make all the claims you want about my
motives, but you don't know me, so don't put words in my mouth and
don't purport to know how I think.

If you don't think that taking legal action against a negligent
parent decreases negligence, you're missing the point.  This isn't
assuming (your words) that the parent is negligent- it's
discouraging negligence and also dealing with the aftermath of such
negligence to discourage further negligence.

When you call strangers idiots, you aren't helping your cause.  Oh, I
forgot.  You don't care.

I do.

Have a nice evening.