Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- From: swamp <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:25:31 -0700
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:00 +1000, Trevor Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:25:01 -0500, "Herb Martin"
"swamp" <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:34:06 -0500, "Herb Martin"Well, since none of your reasons were valid or sensible you might
"swamp" <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageI'm still in favor of a handgun ban, for the same reasons. Simple
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:44:38 -0700, ToddP <todd.prickett@xxxxxxxxx>So are you now opposed or in favor of handgun bans?
I'll say one thing Swamp, you may be the first debator ever toWell.. despite pro-gun's "gun-free" zone statistics and state-by-state
complain about an over abundance of fact, decrying others to base
arguments more on opinion.
amendment ratification dates, that's what it comes down to. Also, as
I've stated from the beginning, I'm not anti-gun, nor had I ever read
question, simple answer. What did you expect?
have decised to re-think this.
You mean valid iyo, which isn't the same thing as being valid or
"sensible." The question is, who's the one who needs to do the
Long gun replacement by handguns for many defensive purposes
have led to FAR fewer innocent deaths and injuries so the main problem
with your "ban" is it would KILL PEOPLE including children.
Zoiks, the Rob Reiner argument is contagious!. Rob Reiner justified an
increase on cigarette tax in CA, even tho data clearly indicate that
smokers cost the taxpayers less because they die sooner and more
quickly than non-smokers. Said it was "for the children." You've taken
it to a new extreme. You should be proud of yourself.
**Incorrect. Smokers do die sooner, but far more slowly and in a much
more costly manner than non-smokers. They contract a variety of
interesting and diverse dieases, before they finally succumb. They lose
limbs, they use expensive drugs, require lung and heart transplants
(incredibly expensive procedures) and they occupy expensive hospital
beds for extended periods. They cost the community a fortune in medical
and associated bills. For those of us who enjoy a socialised medical
system, they cost us in taxes. For those who enjoy a private medical
system, the costs are shared amongst members of HMOs. And it is entirely
appropriate to preventy children from falling for the advertising issued
by tobacco companies.
This study I *can* look up on Monday. It was done by March Fong Yu or
Kathleen Brown iirc (CA state treasurers). Applies to CA only, of
course, however we're the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, so
it probably applies to others as well. Smokers *do* get all the
diseases you mention, but they don't collect as much SS because they
don't live as long. They're bad candidates for transplants and bumped
from beds and transplant recipient lists because of recidivism.
Sounds like you've got a gripe w/ the tobacco industry, and hope I'm
not treading on graves again.. just being as medically clinical as a
treasurer is supposed to be economically accurate.
Either way, it's not "for the children."
- Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- From: Trevor Wilson
- Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Prev by Date: Re: Burglar shot by 93-year-old victim Wednesday
- Next by Date: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Previous by thread: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!