Vince Vaughn on the 2A

[Sam1911]

Well in this case the potential and the evil itself should be of equal concern given how frequently the potential realizes.

Which isn't very frequently, at all, given how much "potential" for it exists. Surely you wouldn't disagree.

As they say, 300 million guns in the USA were used to kill NO ONE last year. A relative pittance of the total were. Vast potential, tiny realization of that potential.

To link the current low rates of violent crime with more guns in private hinds is highly specious.Numerous other variables exist, such as the fact that an enormous percent of our population is in prison, which provide far better explanations. Further, total households owning firearms hasn't actually changed all that much but rather existing gun owners have been buying more.

I didn't link them, as strictly in the "more guns = less crime" way, though I believe that to be plausible. Merely pointed out that vastly more weaponry out there "on the street" isn't contributing to more killings, in the only example of a real world test we can look at.

Short of very draconian legislation though, i do agree that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to significantly reduce access for criminals to guns in this country for the simple fact that there are already so many in existence. At the very least, it would take a long time to have any impact on guns available to criminals. This is another reason why comparisons with countries which have enacted gun bans are problematic. Most had far fewer guns than us, and much lower murder rates, before their bans to begin with.

Or in fact, rising rates of violent crime despite the most draconian gun laws imaginable (e.g. England).

Even then, legal gun owners, as we see with disturbing frequency, do also at times use their guns in very stupid and dangerous ways. Education, maybe, is the only way to reduce such that i can fathom.

Of course, but that's not a legislation problem, and it is also a problem vastly in decline. Firearms accidents have fallen just as violent crime has.

Personally i see violent crime as largely a symptom rather than a disease so i understand why people try to treat symptoms when they can't cure the disease, for whatever reason.

Oh, I understand it, too. It is nonsensical and contemptible and a horrid reason to infringe on the rights of others, but I understand it.

The irony is that opponents of gun control who frequently say, "people, not guns, are the problem" offer no solution either.

See, the thing is, I don't really concern myself with "a solution." I see violent crime as a natural consequence of the society we live in and a eternal reality of the human condition, and (since I'm a history buff) I see us as living in an almost abnormally safe and secure time, wherein violence is actually a pretty distant concern for the vast majority of folks living out in American society. (The fact that violence is concentrated in inner city poverty is a social issue that gun laws can't even begin to touch, and makes people look at you like a racist if you dare to discuss.) So, in very real terms, I don't think violence is a pressing social issue requiring further disruptive efforts to quell. It will never be eliminated and we're pretty far into the law of diminishing returns on that count. (As you mentioned, observe the prison population. Yikes.)

There isn't a solution to violent crime. There is one pretty useful defense against it, and that is the responsibility of each citizen to prepare on their own.

Many love to point to Switzerland as a country with high levels of gun ownership and low homicide levels, but conveniently ignore the fact that Switzerland has in place the type of social systems and programs which they rabidly oppose. The same type of programs that are present in nearly all other first world countries with low murder rates. Instead, we hear ridiculous attempts to blame our high violent crime rate on things like secularization of schools, in spite of the fact that the low crime rate countries tend to be even more secular than us.

Agreed, and this well sums up the reasons that I don't make such links myself.

Hence, the common theme that it isn't about GUNS, it's about CONTROL. Yes, maybe there is some third reason we've not considered. It isn't to fix a social problem, and it isn't control of others for the sake of power and control. So...what's left? What other purpose do you have?

Right, gun control advocates don't actually care about preventing murder and gun accidents, its all just part of their grand conspiracy to implement a totalitarian dictatorship. "Its about control" is just another silly mantra to demonize people who hold a contrary view, another straw-man.

You've missed the point. I was asking you why you felt these were reasonable and positive things to do if you were troubled by my characterization of gun control as an attempt to fix social issues. Yeah, if you AREN'T trying to make society better/safer then coming out in favor of increased legal millstones around the necks of the citizens looks awful suspicious.

You've answered, sort of, that you aren't actually proposing anything or supporting anything or being part of any movement so, I gather you see no reason to make an answer to that question. That's fine. I think the majority of those real grass roots ma and pa type folks who lean toward gun control ARE trying to make society safer. I don't think they're totalitarian statists. Of course, no such assumptions are to be made about their political Pied Pipers.

You're playing a name game. If you believe you can label my position an "ideology" you can then dismiss it by playing your token "ideology=bad" card. But you haven't dismissed it, you've just found a place to stop thinking critically.

I'm not labeling your position as ideological just so i can aptly dismiss it. I'm labeling it as such because your comments followed ideological thinking - guns are always the answer. No, if you want to see the name game, see x-rap's post. No substance, just the tired old "you sound like a liberal".

I have NOT said you sound like a liberal, or called you any such thing. I've made my positions clear and supported. You're dismissing them as ideology. It would be supremely easy for me to make the same claim about your own line of thinking, and claim you simply disguise your statist leanings with a mask of studious political agnosticism, but that's not how I debate issues as I find labeling a poor strategy, weak and self-defeating.

Yes, stupid and irresponsible people do currently own guns, and bad things happen because of such. Its one thing to realize that irresponsible gun owners are inevitable but its something else entirely to make people have guns knowing that such will dramatically increase the number of dumb ones who do as well. Unintentional deaths alone would without a doubt increase, which probably already exceed justifiable self defense shootings as it is now. I have no idea by what means one would cause everybody to own a gun, but at least when we let legal gun owners seek them of their own accord they are more likely to educate themselves than those who have no interest in ownership to begin with. Unless mandating such is also what you're advocating.

Holy cow, you think I'd FORCE people to own guns? Jeez. Not everything is about coercion, man. I said I think the world would be a safer place if people DID own guns, not if they were MADE to own guns. I'm for maximum freedom, not government control -- even seemingly pro-gun government oppression.

I'll direct you back to the phrases "adjudicated mentally defective" and "due process." They really sum up what you need to understand about mental health and gun ownership.

And i'll direct you back to the question which you've failed to answer.

Your question was this, "Or does gun ideology mean that one must take the position that firearms restrictions should exist for schizophrenics and clinical pyschopaths?" Honestly I don't have any idea how to answer because I can't figure the question out. I don't know what "gun ideology" is in your view, and I guess I missed the meeting where they handed out the sheet telling everyone what to believe about restrictions on gun ownership for those people. So, I directed you to the two legal principles that can actually answer the question for you.

But to be more clear so we can quell any further circling the mulberry bush, "adjudicated mentally defective" means that a person may not possess firearms if they've been found by a jury -- through their Constitutional "due process" to be formally charged and to defend themselves in a court of law -- to be incapable of peaceable and lawful conduct among the free citizens of this country. No other limitations are needed or acceptable.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Most violent killings are by other means? Certainly you don't mean today in the US. In 2012, 12,765 homicides were committed with 8,855 being committed by firearms. One would think if other means were just as good, firearms would not account for 70%. Of course some murderers would have used something else if nothing else were available, but certainly not all. A gang member, for example, can't do a drive by knifing. Most other means require a close in encounter, which are in fact likely to be less effective as well as much more likely to result in the actor being injured or caught. Explosives and poison are the exception but most people lack the ability for such sophisticated methods and poisoning generally requires access. Pulling a trigger is also a much easier psychological barrier for most to cross than stabbing, strangling or bashing brains in. The reason we have guns today is that one method of murder is not just as good as another or else we'd still be fighting wars with sticks and stones.



To a degree but not entirely. There is a huge disparity of views as to how we should resolve the "will" issue and i believe some have concluded that addressing means, i.e. gun control, has a far better chance of implementation, via legislation or otherwise. Also, there will always be some who wish to commit violent acts, such as due to mental illness, and that no system can guarantee intervention for all of such people in advance their attempt.



Not if his goal is to paint the other side as irrational, which he would hardly be the first to aim for.



Who is we? I have no doubt that many gun owners and members of this board feel that way but definitely not all. I certainly don't believe that no matter what, more guns in the hands of people is an innately good thing to be strived for. That sounds way too much like an ideology to me and i've found that ideologies by their nature interfere with objectivity. I love shooting, i enjoy guns and i firmly believe that responsible, law abiding people should have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. Beyond that, very little else is set in stone.



Yes, that's the point. There are some, violent criminals and those with severe mental illness, for whom guns most certainly SHOULD be illegal.

You're logic is incredible bad. I'll take this one example: A gang member, for example, can't do a drive by knifing.

First of all, there are two tools here in the above statement--a means of transportation, namely, a car, and a way to stab at people. If I use your logic, I'm going to blame a drive-by "shooting" on a gang member's ability to use a vehicle. So, it's the access to the car that is the problem.

See, I can use bad logic too.

Fact is, a criminal is going to be a criminal and use whatever means he has to commit a crime. It's personal responsibility. This is not an issue of guns, or cars, it's an issue of personal choices.

 

[danez71]

danez71, your response inspired me to see what research is available and I located the following studies/articles. In all honesty i have not read through them but upon initial glance they seem to support my position that availability of guns increases incidence of violent crime. Others are available not listed below from my google search, "gun availability and violent crime".

http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/6.3/4 - Guns and Violent Crime.pdf
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/4/1461.short
http://journalistsresource.org/stud...ilability-homicide-rates-cross-national-level

Don't be too sure too quick.

The 1st starts by saying theres been lots of studies but never comes to a conclusion. It explains 3 theories, presents data that supports 1 (yours) and then lists 5 flaws of their own study that could lead to wrong conclusions. One of the flaws is that it contains zero data for the USA.

I don't think it really supports you overall. Neutral at best.

The 2nd says

Results show a strong positive relationship between illegal gun availability and violent crime, gun crime, and juvenile gun crime. Little or no effect for the legitimate gun availability measure is observed in any of the estimated models.

Id say that doesn't support you at all, really.

Did I mention the countries the 1st link studied? Europe... S. America; huh?

The 3rd is kind of a bust for you too.

The authors conclude that these other variables, which are strong predictors of violence, are significantly influenced by socio-historic and cultural factors. The authors conclude that the relationship among gun availability, gun homicide and homicide does not operate “uniformly across nations to influence levels of violence."

Overall, those sources you cited contradict you more than they support you.

 

[JustinJ]

First of all, there are two tools here in the above statement--a means of transportation, namely, a car, and a way to stab at people. If I use your logic, I'm going to blame a drive-by "shooting" on a gang member's ability to use a vehicle. So, it's the access to the car that is the problem.

If you want to call acknowledging that an act can't occur without a specific object "blaming" said object then so be it, but nobody is assigning human agency to the weapon. If i follow your line of reasoning, i suppose it could be said that if i lock my door when i leave the house, i'm blaming my stuff rather than the criminals who might steal it, but such is just as silly as complaining about "blaming" a gun. At the end of the day, my concern is that my stuff isn't stolen so i'm going to take whatever reasonable steps i can to protect it.

So let's break this down. Why would one do a drive-by shooting to begin with? They could walk up, ring the door bell, shoot the person and then flee on foot, but such puts them at much greater risk of being either shot back or caught by authorities. Instead, the decision to attempt murder is made because from the actor's perspective, shooting from the relative safety of a moving car mitigates risk sufficienty. So yes, the car is a key variable in the decision to perform the act, just as the gun. What you might realize though if you think a little deeper rather than using the same tired "blame the gun mantra", is that while the car can be "blamed" per your usage of the word, very few would argue that the utilitarian value of a car is incalculably greater than the unintended harm that their availability provides.

Fact is, a criminal is going to be a criminal and use whatever means he has to commit a crime. It's personal responsibility. This is not an issue of guns, or cars, it's an issue of personal choices.

I don't know how to make it clearer that the mind does not operate in a vacuum.

See, I can use bad logic too.

Won't argue there.
________________

 

[JustinJ]

The 1st starts by saying theres been lots of studies but never comes to a conclusion. It explains 3 theories, presents data that supports 1 (yours) and then lists 5 flaws of their own study that could lead to wrong conclusions. One of the flaws is that it contains zero data for the USA.

I don't think it really supports you overall. Neutral at best.

You seem to be confusing the review of previous research models and findings with the actual study itself. Survey studies, by their nature, are problematic and generally should be relied on only to offer supportive evidence, not form definitive conclusions, simply because they fail to control for other variables sufficiently as is done a double blind study. Its overall previous research assessment was that when available, criminals will choose a gun when available to commit their crimes over other means which causes more homicides, intentionally or not. Instead of assaulting a victim with their fists, they choose to shoot them, for example. The meta-analysis did not contradict nor confirm that availability of guns leads to murder.

The study itself did, as explained under "Results": These correlations suggest that gun availability is positively associated with all of the crime indicators, hereby lending support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses." The facilitation hypothesis is that "...increasing gun availability can increase total rates
of assault and robbery when the availability of a gun provides encouragement to someone considering an attack or to someone who normally would not commit an attack." That is exactly what my premise has been from the start. Neutral? Not at all.

Id say that doesn't support you at all, really.

What are you talking about? It says in absolutely clear terms that when guns are available to criminals they are increase violent crime. Ya know, the first sentence you copy/pasted form the study. It in then goes on to say: "Findings also reveal that illegal guns have little influence on violent crimes committed with a knife. Offenders seem not to be substituting knives or other cutting instruments when illegal firearms become less available." which is in perfect alignment with what i've been saying. It also says, per the sentence you highlighted, that legitimate gun availability, as in not to criminals, does not influence crime rates. Okay? And? My premise, for the umpteenth time, is that when a person desires to kill another, the decision to attempt it is influenced by access to a means which minimized risk and maximizes chance of success, in our society a gun.

Did I mention the countries the 1st link studied? Europe... S. America; huh?

So what? You think the decision making model i've described is unique to americans?

The 3rd is kind of a bust for you too.

Guns provide a means when the desire is there. If the desire is not there, then of course availability is not going to cause murder. Unfortunately in countries in which many people do have the desire to commit crime, the availability of guns do in fact affect rates of homicides: "Gun availability made gun homicide more likely in Western developed nations and Latin American nations. In contrast, it exhibited a small negative effect in Eastern European nations."

 

[CoRoMo]

Can someone point me to the discussion about the recent pro-gun comments by Vince Vaugh?

Because this ain't it.

 

[JustinJ]

Which isn't very frequently, at all, given how much "potential" for it exists. Surely you wouldn't disagree.

As they say, 300 million guns in the USA were used to kill NO ONE last year. A relative pittance of the total were. Vast potential, tiny realization of that potential.

I hardly see, "it could be much worse" as a valid reason to not be concerned. Especially given that other developed nations are so much lower. We're talking about people losing their lives and suffering grievous injuries, not something trivial. Nuclear weapons have been used against people only twice out of the thousands in existence. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about nuclear proliferation either?

Or in fact, rising rates of violent crime despite the most draconian gun laws imaginable (e.g. England).

Citation? In spite of the vast array of completely inaccurate pro-gun internet memes out there about england's crime, i've read that crime, including violent, is at record lows.

Oh, I understand it, too. It is nonsensical and contemptible and a horrid reason to infringe on the rights of others, but I understand it.

Maybe this is our philosophical difference. While i am concerned with gun rights, i'm also concerned for the right of innocent people not to be murdered. You see, i thoroughly enjoy owning and shooting ar15's with 30 round mags, but i personally struggle with ensuring my positions are based on what is right rather than what i want. If i oppose a magazine ban or conclude it would not prevent the murder of more school children, i shoudl ask myself "am i being intellectually honest or just believing what is convenient"? That type of introspection is sorely lacking in the gun community. I say that not because of positions people take, but because the lack of depth the reasoning of so many lacks. Any pro-gun argument is accepted, regardless of validity.

See, the thing is, I don't really concern myself with "a solution." I see violent crime as a natural consequence of the society we live in and a eternal reality of the human condition, and (since I'm a history buff) I see us as living in an almost abnormally safe and secure time, wherein violence is actually a pretty distant concern for the vast majority of folks living out in American society. (The fact that violence is concentrated in inner city poverty is a social issue that gun laws can't even begin to touch, and makes people look at you like a racist if you dare to discuss.) So, in very real terms, I don't think violence is a pressing social issue requiring further disruptive efforts to quell. It will never be eliminated and we're pretty far into the law of diminishing returns on that count. (As you mentioned, observe the prison population. Yikes.)

As we've discussed, eliminating it is not the only reasonable goal. But what level of violent crime would cause you to be concerned? I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like a cop out. You personally don't feel affected by violent crime so, "eh, it is what it is"?

You've missed the point. I was asking you why you felt these were reasonable and positive things to do if you were troubled by my characterization of gun control as an attempt to fix social issues. Yeah, if you AREN'T trying to make society better/safer then coming out in favor of increased legal millstones around the necks of the citizens looks awful suspicious.

I'm not opposed to trying to make society better by any stretch. Such is absolutely a noble goal. I do object the term "fix" in this case because the connotation is of a complete, 100% solution, which very few actual think is possible. What i personally have is major doubts about is the potential effectiveness of most offered methods to reduce violent crime via further gun restrictions.

I have NOT said you sound like a liberal, or called you any such thing. I've made my positions clear and supported.

I never said you did. Clearly i was referring to X-rap.

You're dismissing them as ideology. It would be supremely easy for me to make the same claim about your own line of thinking, and claim you simply disguise your statist leanings with a mask of studious political agnosticism, but that's not how I debate issues as I find labeling a poor strategy, weak and self-defeating.

Actually, you do support your positions and offer reasoned arguments, which i greatly appreciate, as have i. But ideologues can too. Primarily though, when a person says that the solution is always "x", that to me is a sign of ideological thinking, as i said. The fact that ideologues make conclusions and then find the support for them doesn't mean they don't still have supports of positions to offer. As for me, its highly unlikely that any reasonable argument can be made that i am anything close to an ideologue as my views are way too variable to fit any political model, or otherwise.

Your question was this, "Or does gun ideology mean that one must take the position that firearms restrictions should exist for schizophrenics and clinical pyschopaths?" Honestly I don't have any idea how to answer because I can't figure the question out.

I'm asking your position in a tongue in cheek manner.

But to be more clear so we can quell any further circling the mulberry bush, "adjudicated mentally defective" means that a person may not possess firearms if they've been found by a jury -- through their Constitutional "due process" to be formally charged and to defend themselves in a court of law -- to be incapable of peaceable and lawful conduct among the free citizens of this country. No other limitations are needed or acceptable.

So then you're okay with barring the mentally deficit from owning firearms via due process? Okay, but stop not looking like an ideologue.

Just Kidding. Seriously though, although we disagree on much, i do appreciate the lively debate, Sam. You sir, are a worthy opponent.

I tend to stay offline over the weekend so won't be replying during such.

 

[danez71]

You seem to be confusing the review of previous research models and findings with the actual study itself. Survey studies, by their nature, are problematic and generally should be relied on only to offer supportive evidence, not form definitive conclusions, simply because they fail to control for other variables sufficiently as is done a double blind study. Its overall previous research assessment was that when available, criminals will choose a gun when available to commit their crimes over other means which causes more homicides, intentionally or not. Instead of assaulting a victim with their fists, they choose to shoot them, for example. The meta-analysis did not contradict nor confirm that availability of guns leads to murder.

That's Theory#1. They went to explain 2 other predominant theories.

The study itself did, as explained under "Results": These correlations suggest that gun availability is positively associated with all of the crime indicators, hereby lending support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses." The facilitation hypothesis is that "...increasing gun availability can increase total rates
of assault and robbery when the availability of a gun provides encouragement to someone considering an attack or to someone who normally would not commit an attack." That is exactly what my premise has been from the start. Neutral? Not at all.

This is laughable. The study was done as spark discussion. You know, the part that's titled "Discussion". It wasn't written to come to a Conclusion.

Discussion
This study was the first to examine the relationship between gun availability and crime in a cross-national sample of cities. Three competing hypotheses concerning this relationship were tested using LIML regression. The results lend some support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses.

These results suggest that cities with high levels of gun availability will be characterized by more assaults and robberies. The fact that gun availability was found to influence total violent crime rates is surprising because it contradicts what has been found in previous research (Cook, 1991)

The "Results" that you're talking about on page 11 is NOT the results of the study. It was the result of the data that I said they presented that supported you; Theory #1

THERE IS 13 MORE PAGES!!!! KEEP READING!!!!


Lets go to the last paragraph of the study you cited.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, the analyses performed here represent the first attempt to examine the relationship between gun availability and crime in a cross-national sample of cities. Although the research is exploratory in nature, it points to the continued need to examine the relationship between guns and violent crime at the cross-national level. .If future research can find similar results, while controlling for the limitations mentioned above, the results reported here will be strengthened.

Right there they say their own study is the 1st and is weak because of it having 5 major flaws I mentioned before and it being exploratory in nature.

It doesnt support you. Its neutral at best.

What are you talking about? It says in absolutely clear terms that when guns are available to criminals they are increase violent crime. Ya know, the first sentence you copy/pasted form the study. It in then goes on to say: "Findings also reveal that illegal guns have little influence on violent crimes committed with a knife. Offenders seem not to be substituting knives or other cutting instruments when illegal firearms become less available." which is in perfect alignment with what i've been saying. It also says, per the sentence you highlighted, that legitimate gun availability, as in not to criminals, does not influence crime rates. Okay? And? My premise, for the umpteenth time, is that when a person desires to kill another, the decision to attempt it is influenced by access to a means which minimized risk and maximizes chance of success, in our society a gun.

And that only applies to a segment of the population; The criminal segment. So your theory is that criminals are lazy and will take the easy route. And that they wont find alternative means.

And that's been proven incorrect by (many many people many times over) Tim McVey. Who, despite having guns, chose to make a bomb. And he went through a lot of effort to make it.

So while I'll agree that most criminals are lazy, the truly dangerous one are not. And they've been proven to go to great lengths to commit more crimes with out the use of a gun.

So what? You think the decision making model i've described is unique to americans?

Yes, and if you had actually read the 1st study you linked, you would know that they purposefully and specifically were analyzing that very subject.


Let me quote it for you.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, the analyses performed here represent the first attempt[/B] to examine the relationship between gun availability and crime in a cross-national sample of cities.

And from your quote below:

Gun availability made gun homicide more likely in Western developed nations and Latin American nations. In contrast, it exhibited a small negative effect in Eastern European nations

So, Yes. Yes, the study is about criminal behavior and the accessibility of gun IN DIFFERENT CITIES/NATIONS.


Again, had you read your study, you should know that.

Guns provide a means when the desire is there. If the desire is not there, then of course availability is not going to cause murder. Unfortunately in countries in which many people do have the desire to commit crime, the availability of guns do in fact affect rates of homicides: "Gun availability made gun homicide more likely in Western developed nations and Latin American nations. In contrast, it exhibited a small negative effect in Eastern European nations."

See, you acknowledge it here; the bold part. But you selectively don't acknowledge in your statement above.

The 3rd link you cited also supports it. I quoted the part that does earlier; but again, you subtly gloss over that as if it isn't there.


That tells me (everyone?) you're playing the selective reading/quoting game and not debating base on merits.


I do admit the 1st study has some interesting info that contradicted what I thought.... and that gets me thinking more. Keeps my mind open. I like that.


And I will, however, change my position. After re-reading the 1st study, I'll say its neutral to positive in regards to supporting him. I'll even say its more positive than neutral.


But the other 2 contradict your position more than anything else. And to say otherwise is a misrepresentation.

Can someone point me to the discussion about the recent pro-gun comments by Vince Vaugh?

Because this ain't it.

You're right.

But its obvious that's he's not reading, or selectively reading, because there is some pretty damning statements and data in the 1st link that he hasn't mentioned.

(And then later contradicts itself; because it was written to be a discussion, not as to come to a conclusion.)


.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

If you want to call acknowledging that an act can't occur without a specific object "blaming" said object then so be it, but nobody is assigning human agency to the weapon. If i follow your line of reasoning, i suppose it could be said that if i lock my door when i leave the house, i'm blaming my stuff rather than the criminals who might steal it, but such is just as silly as complaining about "blaming" a gun. At the end of the day, my concern is that my stuff isn't stolen so i'm going to take whatever reasonable steps i can to protect it.

So let's break this down. Why would one do a drive-by shooting to begin with? They could walk up, ring the door bell, shoot the person and then flee on foot, but such puts them at much greater risk of being either shot back or caught by authorities. Instead, the decision to attempt murder is made because from the actor's perspective, shooting from the relative safety of a moving car mitigates risk sufficienty. So yes, the car is a key variable in the decision to perform the act, just as the gun. What you might realize though if you think a little deeper rather than using the same tired "blame the gun mantra", is that while the car can be "blamed" per your usage of the word, very few would argue that the utilitarian value of a car is incalculably greater than the unintended harm that their availability provides.



I don't know how to make it clearer that the mind does not operate in a vacuum.



Won't argue there.
________________

lol, dude I used your argument against you and you're example. Oh, btw, last time i checked cars were way more apt to be involved in someone's death than guns. Also, in your above post you say something along the lines of how it's easier and safer for a criminal to do a drive by shooting rather than walking up to someone and killing them that way because the other person can defend themselves easier (especially if that person has a gun, right?). So the reality is that the car is the key component of a drive by shooting. It's ironic that you are basically saying a crime would not occur without the car.

 

[Al Thompson]

Looks like this one has devolved......