About the same time you agree that approximately 34,300 auto deaths means we need to start restricting who gets licenses. What? You say we already do that by removing people's licenses when they've proven they can't drive? And yet people drive without 'em all the time - and get into accidents - and kill themselves or (usually) someone else. We obviously need more laws for that. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.

And, again, I'd have a problem with punishing the many for the stupidity of the few.


Liftoff in 3.....2......1....

>32,000+ shooting deaths per year is not what I call a "few". The 2 that japan had is a "few". What..exactly - does this number have to be to get you convinced that we have a problem with the wrong people ending up with guns and we should implement some laws to attempt to prevent that?
>
>>Let's see....(applying a little Google-Fu)
>>Population of the US in 2011, approximately 311,800,000.
>>Gun deaths in the US in 2011 32,163
>>That's what.... .01% of the population. Yeah, many (311.8 million) - few (.01% of the population)
>>
>>oh, that's "point zero one percent" or, .0103% if ya really wanna get p1ssy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>No, my problem is with laws that punish the many for the transgressions of the few. The meth/decongestant thing was merely an example.
>>>
>>>Sorry but 900,000+ shooting deaths over the last 30 years does not equal "a few" to me.
>>>
>>>>As I've said before, how about we treat the 'why someone thought going off on a shooting spree was a reasonable reaction' to whatever was going on in their lives? How about we teach kids that guns are not toys, instead of treating guns like some mysterious thing that's automatically going to make kids want to get ahold of them?
>>>
>>>Perhaps you can teach kids that guns are not toys - that they require things like...oooh I dunno...a freakn background check to get one!!!??