Biden Talks Gun Control Proposals

[Havok]

Stopping cars from killing people by banning where they go causes MASSIVE economic and quality-of-life damage to everybody in society. Every single person is greatly affected as the price of goods go up, jobs migrate out of no-drive areas, and so on. Public transit simply is not able to handle it, nor would it be for decades.

You can stop cars from killing people as readily by making them go slower. 20mph speed limits in areas with significant pedestrian presence reduces road deaths drastically (The human skull is better able to cope with impacts up to 20mph, as that's about as fast as an unaided human can ever bang their head into something).

This is possible because cars are not designed for killing people, by altering their mode of operation in areas where they are likely to interact with people you can vastly reduce the fatality rate from their use.

Well for one, he said "ban" and two he was making a point that there would be a massive detriment to society if cars were banned. If guns were banned and all civilian and criminal held guns legal or illegal disappeared tomorrow, the US would be fine. Of course I never said anything about banning guns.
And in most residential and commercial areas the speed limit is 25. The issue isn't the speed, so much as getting people to drive it and pay fucking attention to the act of driving. At some point in the future there will be speed regulators on all cars the activate depending on the areas.

[Metahive]

That's very poetic. Thank you. Again you input more potentially aggravating material and completely ignore my request for your input on the subject matter.

You requested shit. In fact, you are the one ignoring my point with irrelevant sidetracks. I'm not interested in arguing about other reasons why people might buy guns because this right now is about the Duchess' and her guns=freedom-wankery which is all too common to the NRA-tards. If you don't feel prepared to engage me on this point you may kindly piss off.

[JLTucker]

That's very poetic. Thank you. Again you input more potentially aggravating material and completely ignore my request for your input on the subject matter.

You requested shit. In fact, you are the one ignoring my point with irrelevant sidetracks. I'm not interested in arguing about other reasons why people might buy guns because this right now is about the Duchess' and her guns=freedom-wankery which is all too common to the NRA-tards. If you don't feel prepared to engage me on this point you may kindly piss off.

I would love to see extended dialogue on the merits of gun control and gun possession without a single mention of the second amendment and the alleged freedoms it brings.

[Aaron MkII]

ALBANY, N.Y. — A key New York Senate leader and the Assembly speaker said they expect the state Legislature to vote Monday to enact what would be the nation's first gun control measure following last month's Connecticut school shooting.

"I think when all is said and done, we are going to pass a comprehensive gun bill today," Sen. Jeffrey Klein told reporters Monday morning. "I'm very excited about it. I am very confident we are going to vote on a comprehensive bill that will be agreed on by the governor, the Senate and Assembly."

People familiar with closed-door negotiations told The Associated Press a tentative deal was struck over the weekend.

The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons, limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, down from the current 10, and enact more stringent background checks for sales. Other elements, pushed by Republicans, would refine a mental health law to make it easier to confine people determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

Senate Republicans also have included a further crackdown on illegal gun trafficking into New York, the people said. Most New York City gun crimes involve weapons illegally brought into the state, state and city officials say.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal had not been discussed among rank and file legislators. They say the tentative deal will be debated behind closed doors Monday in the Senate and the Democrat-led Assembly and could be sent to the floor for a vote Monday.

A Cuomo administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal was not final, said there was no agreement yet.

A vote Monday would come exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said the deal will include ways for schools to use state aid to better guard against shootings.

The vote also would require Cuomo to issue a "message of necessity" that would dispense with the three days of public review that bills are supposed to have under the state constitution. There was no immediate comment from Cuomo, who made these gun control provisions a keynote of his State of the State address on Wednesday.

"I think the message out there is clear after Newtown and to get us down this road as quickly as possible to basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of our state want," Silver said. "It's an important thing to do. It is an emergency."

Silver said lawmakers continued into Monday settling the remaining issues of "how you do certain things in drafting it."

He said a registry of assault weapons will be created, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands. He said crimes using guns will get additional mandatory minimum sentences.

"The solution is to get those assault weapons off the street," Silver told reporters.

The bill will be the first test of the new coalition in control of the state Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.

"It was always startling to me the vast cultural divide between New York City metropolitan view on gun control and most of the upstate communities," said Balboni, who represented part of Long Island for 10 years and was a Senate leader.

"Gun advocates see these incidents as almost cyclical and that in the wake of a national shooting incident, they have seen repeated calls for control," he said Monday. "They view it as a slippery slope to the banning and confiscation of weapons. Emotions run high and there will be tremendous pressure on all upstate legislators, Republicans and Democrats, to keep their base."

Also a concern is a major gun manufacturer in upstate New York.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve in Webster, N.Y., when two firefighters were slain responding to a fire. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

Republican Assemblyman Marc Butler warned last week that a more restrictive assault weapon ban could cost the factory 300 jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 72275.html.

[Lord MJ]

So in his press conference, Obama said that the ring up in gun purchases is about some groups fearmongering that the government is going to take their guns away, and there is a profit motive for the fear mongering.

Of course then Fox News sadly (but predictably) used that as "proof" that Obama is not serious about finding common ground with the right on this issue. Even if most of the proposals for curbing gun violence in the Biden commission are from people that own guns...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

A common argument against guns is this.

"Guns should be banned and/or regulated because they are DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE".

That is essentially their entire argument. So, if that is their argument, then anything that was designed to kill people should be restricted. Anything less would be hypocritical.

Another common argument against guns would be this.

"Guns should be banned and/or regulated because they kill a lot of people"

This argument is far more reasonable because it is grounded in a more reasonable belief. But this is where statistics come into play. If guns are worthy of being banned because of a lot of people dying, you can make direct comparisons to other things that also kill people. If 10 million people are killed every year due to guns, well thats a really big fucking problem. But thats not how many people die. Since a great many people who argue against guns take pains to say "I am not advocating a total ban", the exact same argument can be made with cars. You could regulate cars in such a way to more stringently regulate them without banning them. If you want to save lives, you should agree that cars should be banned from urban centers and relegated to suburban and rural locations. But people love driving their cars. They would rather risk running over a little old lady crossing the street than give up the right to drive.

Hopefully I'm not dogpiling you, but I didn't see anyone making this argument:

Why must those two arguments be taken entirely separately? Guns are designed to kill people AND guns kill a lot of people. That's distinct from a lot of things; swords kill almost no one despite being designed specifically to kill people, and cars kill a lot of people but the killing is just a byproduct of their use. Unlike either of those examples, guns fulfill both requirements. You may argue that that's still not enough cause to ban them and I don't think that'd be an unreasonable argument to make, but you should readily accept that this does put them in a different field from swords, cars, alcohol, hammers, or whatever else.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's very poetic. Thank you. Again you input more potentially aggravating material and completely ignore my request for your input on the subject matter.

You requested shit. In fact, you are the one ignoring my point with irrelevant sidetracks. I'm not interested in arguing about other reasons why people might buy guns because this right now is about the Duchess' and her guns=freedom-wankery which is all too common to the NRA-tards. If you don't feel prepared to engage me on this point you may kindly piss off.

Requesting that you participate in the big picture instead of an extremist is a "shit" request. Then by all means. Continue. It is amusing that you've chosen to continue a debate with someone that has flat out stated she doesn't care what you have to say and may even be wrong but still doesn't care and even goes as far as advocating the suppression of information regarding firearms. Please though, continue.

I would love to see extended dialogue on the merits of gun control and gun possession without a single mention of the second amendment and the alleged freedoms it brings.

Haven't these merits been discussed in this thread and the related threads? If you don't think that self-defense, hunting, or hobby is a valid reason to own a selection of firearms then what do you hope to accomplish? Your value system is different.

In my opinion real ground will be reached when people respect the moderate position of both sides. Screaming "ban all guns" will not get results.

[JLTucker]

Hopefully I'm not dogpiling you, but I didn't see anyone making this argument:

Why must those two arguments be taken entirely separately? Guns are designed to kill people AND guns kill a lot of people. That's distinct from a lot of things; swords kill almost no one despite being designed specifically to kill people, and cars kill a lot of people but the killing is just a byproduct of their use. Unlike either of those examples, guns fulfill both requirements. You may argue that that's still not enough cause to ban them and I don't think that'd be an unreasonable argument to make, but you should readily accept that this does put them in a different field from swords, cars, alcohol, hammers, or whatever else.

I and others have reiterated this many times, Grandmaster Jogurt. Alyeska won't have any of it. He's stuck in his little world of denial while clinging to a device that represents eternal and unparalleled freedom.

What you described can be deduced by anyone. The differences between every direct comparison he made to "banning guns" hasve zero grounding in the realm of logic, yet he continues to parrot them like a puppet. I honestly think he's trolling, and it would be best to ignore his posts and address someone like Aaron, who is an unabashed gun lover (in a positive manner) who just happens to see that there are problems. He's the only sane individual here I've discussed the issue with who loves guns and knows what needs to be discussed: mental health.

I'll give a personal anecdote: I have a history of manic depression. I don't think I should be allowed anywhere near a weapon or allowed to own one due to the severity of my condition, including suicidal thoughts I've had in the past. Even though I would love to own a gun, I don't think I should be allowed to take advantage of that pesky second amendment.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I and others have reiterated this many times, Grandmaster Jogurt. Alyeska won't have any of it. He's stuck in his little world of denial while clinging to a device that represents eternal and unparalleled freedom.

What you described can be deduced by anyone. The differences between every direct comparison he made to "banning guns" hasve zero grounding in the realm of logic, yet he continues to parrot them like a puppet. I honestly think he's trolling, and it would be best to ignore his posts and address someone like Aaron, who is an unabashed gun lover (in a positive manner) who just happens to see that there are problems. He's the only sane individual here I've discussed the issue with who loves guns and knows what needs to be discussed: mental health.

Well, he isn't the only one here who has said mental health needs to be the primary focus but I agree it should be. I think you'll realize that people like Alyeska are making the arguments they are making because they feel the same way but are making these arguments because it appears like others are primarily focusing on guns.

I'll give a personal anecdote: I have a history of manic depression. I don't think I should be allowed anywhere near a weapon or allowed to own one due to the severity of my condition, including suicidal thoughts I've had in the past. Even though I would love to own a gun, I don't think I should be allowed to take advantage of that pesky second amendment.

I agree. These laws already exist. The problem is they aren't properly documented and when they are documented they can't be enforced. You might not be on a restricted list at all. Some states are doing better than others, I think CA is doing OK, but for the most part the US gets an ugly F in this category. It'd be interesting to research the names of active shooters in the past and see if they appeared on these lists.

[Mr. Tickle]

Kinna taking things off track here but I read alot of crap about comparing "violent crime" statistics between the US and UK which is used in some way to justify gun ownership "look look it does make us safer, just compare us to the UK!!" etc etc.

Now call me bias but as a brit that pissed me well off so I've done the numbers and suprise suprise as far as I can see it's bull shit. But I respect you guys and you'll pull an argument apart if I've made a mistake. Fundmentally the problem is the UK defines violent crime for near 8 or 9 crimes which are considered to be more low value by the FBI and so aren't included in that side but what I've done is proper side by side comparsion making sure equal things are counted the same.

US Violent crime defined as – Murder, Manslaughter, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault (confirmation on FBI page here - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... lent-crime)

Figure provided by –
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

2011 Rate = 386.3 per 100,000

England & Wales
Like for like comparison using 2010/11 Data from Home Office (Police recorded crimes only)
Source of data –
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/ ... A77-274949

Using June 2012 release. Excel spreadsheet table A4. Filter out all other years other than 2010/11

Numbers of crimes recorded
Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide – 638
Rape – 15892
Robbery – 76189
Aggravated Assault (UK crime used Assault causing Grievous bodily harm, use of substance and use of weapon)* – 20189
Total crimes = 112908

England & Wales census 2011 population estimated at 56.1 million

Therefore (112908/56100000)*100000 = 201.26 US definition of violent crimes per 100,000 in England & Wales

We can then confidently now say England and Wales has a “violent crime” rate which is around 48% lower than the US.

Now I'm not going to directly say that because England and Wales has less guns = less violent crime by that statistic (because that would be bullshit I could never make that link on that data alone) HOWEVER in no way can anyone point to the UK having high "violent" crime which in some way distracts from the very low gun violence figures when compared to the US.

*http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... sault.html does stipulate the US offense is for the “purpose of inflicting server or aggravated bodily injury” furthermore “this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm” – The UK numbers of crimes under “Assault causing Actual Bodily Harm” should not be counted as the injuries sustained would not fall into the US offense which we are trying to compare.

[Alyeska]

This is always the argument people fall back on. And it's wrong. Why?
It's not like you can only stop one source of killing people. And the opportunity costs of stopping or reducing deaths from source X varies.

Stopping cars from killing people by banning where they go causes MASSIVE economic and quality-of-life damage to everybody in society. Every single person is greatly affected as the price of goods go up, jobs migrate out of no-drive areas, and so on. Public transit simply is not able to handle it, nor would it be for decades.

Removing most guns from circulation, meanwhile, mostly gets in the way of people's very specific hobbies for those who have fun shooting targets or hunting. I for one, would have zero lifestyle impact from this. As would a massive number of people. The vast majority, I would dare say.

So no, it's not a reasonable reply. The use of guns for non-murder are for fun, or imagined defense against something that the vast majority of people never will experience.

You can ban 90% of private cars from urban areas and it would have almost no economic impact what so ever. Mass transit can easily move people more efficiently through urban locations and more safely than a car ever can.

Only when you ban cars from suburban and rural locations does the economic factor raise its ugly head. But thanks for not even examining the facts of the argument you are making.

[Terralthra]

You can ban 90% of private cars from urban areas and it would have almost no economic impact what so ever. Mass transit can easily move people more efficiently through urban locations and more safely than a car ever can.

I'm glad to know that you think my job (adjunct professor) doesn't matter, economically.

The public transit network in my urban area is both mediocre at best and manages to both cost a lot per use and still cost the city quite a hefty subsidy every year. It's the opposite of "efficient" in nearly every way, and it's hardly the only city/metropolitan area like this.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You can ban 90% of private cars from urban areas and it would have almost no economic impact what so ever. Mass transit can easily move people more efficiently through urban locations and more safely than a car ever can.

This is patently false, especially in the United States. What about Los Angeles, which lacks efficient mass transit infrastructure? Most major population centers in the U.S. lack comprehensive public transit networks.

Either prove this claim, or stop parroting it.

[Nephtys]

This is always the argument people fall back on. And it's wrong. Why?
It's not like you can only stop one source of killing people. And the opportunity costs of stopping or reducing deaths from source X varies.

Stopping cars from killing people by banning where they go causes MASSIVE economic and quality-of-life damage to everybody in society. Every single person is greatly affected as the price of goods go up, jobs migrate out of no-drive areas, and so on. Public transit simply is not able to handle it, nor would it be for decades.

Removing most guns from circulation, meanwhile, mostly gets in the way of people's very specific hobbies for those who have fun shooting targets or hunting. I for one, would have zero lifestyle impact from this. As would a massive number of people. The vast majority, I would dare say.

So no, it's not a reasonable reply. The use of guns for non-murder are for fun, or imagined defense against something that the vast majority of people never will experience.

You can ban 90% of private cars from urban areas and it would have almost no economic impact what so ever. Mass transit can easily move people more efficiently through urban locations and more safely than a car ever can.

Only when you ban cars from suburban and rural locations does the economic factor raise its ugly head. But thanks for not even examining the facts of the argument you are making.

This is so shockingly wrong that it's not even funny.

I've lived from Pittsburg to suburban New York State, to San Diego and San Francisco. And a car is utterly vital for transit in all of those places. In the east coast, most city workers live some 30-40 miles away in the surrounding suburbs. Bus and rail networks simply DO NOT EXIST that service enough places during transit hours to handle it.

San Diego, here's a great example. There's a section of town, near the 8 Freeway called North Park, which is where a lot of young people live. To get to downtown or a few shopping districts nearby, where a lot of people work, it's perhaps 10 or 15 minutes by car. It's TWO HOURS by bus and rail, due to multiple exchanges.

LA? It's utterly impossible to get anywhere without a car. The design of West Coast californian cities are simply too distributed for it to work.

--

No, you're not getting out by cheating and saying 'only cars that originate from within the city matter!'. A lot of cars come in from those rural and suburban areas into the city to work, or shop, or conduct dozens of sorts of economic activity. Additionally, most harmful accidents even don't take place within a large city's sprawl. They take place on suburban and rural streets, and especially highways/freeways.

[Alyeska]

I and others have reiterated this many times, Grandmaster Jogurt. Alyeska won't have any of it. He's stuck in his little world of denial while clinging to a device that represents eternal and unparalleled freedom.

You don't know a thing about me. I openly support gun control. But that doesn't mean I support stupid feel good laws that punish law abiding citzens while completely ignoring the criminal element. Banning assault weapons won't do shit to stop gun violence. But putting more restrictions and regulations on handguns would have an immediate and dramatic impact on gun violence.

Guns aren't the source of the problem. They are merely a tool used by the symptoms. If you can create laws that effectively target the problem without adversly impacting everyone, that is the ideal situation.

Banning all guns would without a doubt have an immediate impact on gun violence. I just don't its worth it. If we could find ways to target the cause of the problems and the criminal use of firearms. If we could reduce gun violence by dramatic percentages without infringing on the rights of the innocent majority of gun owners, that would be ideal.

Spree Killings are almost entirely a mental health issue. Outside of a complete gun ban, very little direct gun legislation will stop spree shooters. But spree shooters are almost entirely a mental health issue. So tackle the mental health side and see what you can do to help these people, or keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally incompetent.

Yes, some people are too stupid to own a gun. Some people are too stupid to even own a car or walk on their own two feet. The 2nd amendment is a reality. But it shouldn't be a constitutionally enshrined right. Guns should be regulated. They should be regulated in a way to most effectively balance two competing elements. Public safety and private use. With freedom comes danger. The freedom to make choices is the freedom to make very bad choices. Ideally we should try to limit bad choices as much as possible without interfering with the freedom to make a choice in the first place.

I have heard the argument "In a perfect world there would be no guns". I disagree. In a perfect world there would be no violence. And as such, people would be free to own a gun because they act responsibly and there is no violence.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Total freedom is anarchy. Total safety is totalitarianism. Neither are good choices. I think it is possible to strike a balance between public safety and personal liberty that significantly improves public safety without completely banning guns.

But that doesn't mean I support stupid laws passed by idiot politicians who think the barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up". Banning bayonet lugs? Seriously? Name me a single bayonet attack in the last 100 years? Swords are legal. Spears are legal. But putting a knife on your rifle, EVIL!

Someone once asked me if I would be willing to ban all guns just to save the lives of the children at Sandy Hook. My honest reply was no. Freedom comes with dangers. Our freedom to drink alcohol kills 75,000 people a year. Prohibition didn't even work and actually increased violence. Our freedom to smoke kills almost half a million people a year. And even 50,000 people by second hand smoke every single year.

That doesn't mean I wanted those poor children at Sandy Hook to die. There are a lot of things we should do to try and prevent this tragedy from happening again.

Improved community policing. Targeted penalties for criminals caught with firearms. Making carrying a gun in the process of a crime a stiff penalty. Make firearms offenses by criminals a hefty crime. Virginia has an excelent example of this with Project Exile. They showed 30% reduction in gun crime in a very short time span.

Tightened regulations and restrictions on firearms. Safety courses. Licensing. Graduated licensing and regulation on firearms that pose a real danger to society. Hunting rifles are rarely used in crimes. But hand guns? Its the most common criminal weapon. So restrict it. Make people jump through hoops to get them. Test people. Retest people.

Universal fucking health care. Work to improve mental health in this country. And with UHC, crimes that come about from financial burden will decrease dramatically.

What you described can be deduced by anyone. The differences between every direct comparison he made to "banning guns" hasve zero grounding in the realm of logic, yet he continues to parrot them like a puppet. I honestly think he's trolling, and it would be best to ignore his posts and address someone like Aaron, who is an unabashed gun lover (in a positive manner) who just happens to see that there are problems. He's the only sane individual here I've discussed the issue with who loves guns and knows what needs to be discussed: mental health.

You were saying?

[Alyeska]

This is so shockingly wrong that it's not even funny.

I've lived from Pittsburg to suburban New York State, to San Diego and San Francisco. And a car is utterly vital for transit in all of those places. In the east coast, most city workers live some 30-40 miles away in the surrounding suburbs. Bus and rail networks simply DO NOT EXIST that service enough places during transit hours to handle it.

San Diego, here's a great example. There's a section of town, near the 8 Freeway called North Park, which is where a lot of young people live. To get to downtown or a few shopping districts nearby, where a lot of people work, it's perhaps 10 or 15 minutes by car. It's TWO HOURS by bus and rail, due to multiple exchanges.

LA? It's utterly impossible to get anywhere without a car. The design of West Coast californian cities are simply too distributed for it to work.

*sigh*

Banning private cars from cities would require expanding mass public transportation. Of course existing public transportation would not suffice. I never said it would.

Commuter rail, subways, surface/elevated rail, and buses would all have to be dramatically expanded if private cars were to be restricted in urban locations.

But if people were serious about reducing environmental impact and vehicular deaths, this is a very effective solution.

Mass transit is less effective in suburban areas. Commuter rail hubs would be the ideal way to transfer from suburban to urban. And mass transit is impossible in rural areas.

[fordlltwm]

If you reduce the amount of cars in urban areas to near zero, then a) you buses will run on time because they won't be stuck behind a granny who shouldn't be on the road driving erratically / the business man driving irresponsibly etc... b) due to the lower traffic density you can run more buses without causing gridlock c) you may find more people cycling due to the reduced risk of encountering motorists listed in a).
With sensible bus routing it should be possible to get most people around easily, i.e. running some buses that go from point a straight to point z, without stopping at the rest of the alphabet, which is in my opinion the flaw with buses (at least where I live) because the bus that's running from one end of the county to the other is also stopping 5 minutes away from the major stop in the town to let an old lady off at the supermarket, with sensible routing the little old lady would get on a local bus not a longer distance one, and the long distance one wouldn't stop at every village, the villagers would have to get to somewhere decently populated via a local shuttle bus.

[Lonestar]

I can't believe we're still talking about cars and guns.

It's a fucking stupid analogy. Alcohol and guns would be much better.

[Thanas]

Or better, bows or swords and guns.

[Lonestar]

Or better, bows or swords and guns.

The kind of arguments that can be made to ban or strictly control guns(which ultimately boils down "to save lives") can be made for alcohol, except alcohol has no purpose other than the sensation the it provides the consumer.

No one doubts the utility of privately owned vehicles. People dispute that firearms serve a practical nature other than "it's fun", but it's disputed. Alcoholic beverages, however, have zero, zilch, nada use other than the sensation it provides the consumer.


(I suppose if you were exposed to radiation you could pound down some beers to make it pass through you quicker)

[Spoonist]

The practicality or use of guns is a red herring to gun control. It only makes sense in a discussion on a complete ban which IIRC don't think any existing democracy has.
Lots of countries with very strict gun control laws have hunters, farmers and in some of them self protection clauses. But still require gun handling/etiquette trainin, locking them up when not in use and of course licenses. Even countries that have requirements on their citicens to own firearms have lots of gun control measures.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Banning private cars from cities would require expanding mass public transportation. Of course existing public transportation would not suffice. I never said it would.

Commuter rail, subways, surface/elevated rail, and buses would all have to be dramatically expanded if private cars were to be restricted in urban locations.

But if people were serious about reducing environmental impact and vehicular deaths, this is a very effective solution.

Mass transit is less effective in suburban areas. Commuter rail hubs would be the ideal way to transfer from suburban to urban. And mass transit is impossible in rural areas.

Nice backpedal. This wasn't your original claim at all.

You said,

You can ban 90% of private cars from urban areas and it would have almost no economic impact what so ever. Mass transit can easily move people more efficiently through urban locations and more safely than a car ever can.

Only when you ban cars from suburban and rural locations does the economic factor raise its ugly head. But thanks for not even examining the facts of the argument you are making.

Either provide evidence or concede the point.

----------------------------------------

The practicality or use of guns is a red herring to gun control.

I don't think it's a red herring per se, though I agree it might not necessarily be the most important issue to focus on. After all, the primary argument most anti-gun control folks use is that they have a right to own guns, and that bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines or whatever are unfairly "punishing" them for the crimes committed by crazy people. Once you claim to have the moral right to own something, and oppose laws that prevent you from getting access to that something, it isn't entirely irrelevant to ask why it is necessary to have them in the first place.

[Thanas]

(I suppose if you were exposed to radiation you could pound down some beers to make it pass through you quicker)

I knew the US Navy would come up with good reasons for their beer rations.

[Aaron MkII]

Its my understanding that the USN is dry and it's the rest of us who have the two beers per man, per day.

[Alyeska]

Nice backpedal. This wasn't your original claim at all.

Either provide evidence or concede the point.

How about no.

That was no backpedal. That was explaining the meaning behind the original claim since didn't understand the intent.