>>>>>>>>>>>>Cars can be used to kill (intentionally or not). Cars are involved 10s of thousands of deaths in the US alone every year. Guns aren't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In 1999, there were 28874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999.
>>>>>>>>>>>So 10s of thousands is a slight exaggeration
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If the number is correct, do you understand what the number means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>41 x 1000 +611.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>41 Thousand + 611.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2.8874 * 10000=28874. 2.8874 is bigger than 1, so 2.8874 is plural. So 10s of thousands gun related deaths happened in 1999. Where's your logic?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As a side not, in Norway a total of 27 people were killed by guns in 2009. Here we have strict gun control. This should give you something to think about, considering the facts, and not the fiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't bother tore, these people won't change their mind even if the truth is staring them in their face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is why I have stopped arguing with these people. Instead I show some facts from time to time. But to some of these people even undisputed facts are twisted in incredible ways. It's amazing to see how the TV and other media are able to make people totally blind to the reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I can see there POV. At the moment they have the right to have guns and they don't want that right removed. I don't like it here when the government starts to take away some liberty I have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the rate of gun death in the US is shocking but coercing the large numbers who want to own guns doesn't seem a good way forward. Stable countries are built on consensus. Maybe they should give tax breaks or some other rewards to areas that vote to be gun free.
>>>>>
>>>>>Start taxing them more :o) That usually works here...
>>>>
>>>>Oh for goodness sakes. We are undertaxed compared to many other nations. Nations which have a higher quality of life than ours, I mention only in passing.
>>>
>>>Really? How does the corporate tax stand up to your statement?
>>>
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/09/0909_tax_countries/2.htm>>
>>Well that is only one type of tax. We have many, many taxes. Even taxes on taxes on taxes.
>
>The issue with corporate tax rate is that it is one of the dominant factors for businesses moving their headquarters and jobs overseas. A gap in the reporting for GNP allows for "phantom GDP" :
>
>Snippet:
>
BusinessWeek's analysis of the import price data reveals offshoring to low-cost countries is in fact creating "phantom GDP"--reported gains in GDP that don't correspond to any actual domestic production. The only question is the magnitude of the disconnect. "There's something real here, but we don't know how much," says J. Steven Landefeld, director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which puts together the GDP figures. Adds Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at the Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College who until last February was on President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers: "There are potentially big implications. I worry about how pervasive this is."
>
>By BusinessWeek's admittedly rough estimate, offshoring may have created about $66 billion in phantom GDP gains since 2003 (page 31). That would lower real GDP today by about half of 1%, which is substantial but not huge. But put another way, $66 billion would wipe out as much as 40% of the gains in manufacturing output over the same period.
>
>It's important to emphasize the tenuousness of this calculation. In particular, it required BusinessWeek to make assumptions about the size of the cost savings from offshoring, information the government doesn't even collect.
eh.. your point is?
