Great read and good graph

[larrymeyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...ss&oref=slogin

Ne sure and check out the graph in the middle of the page.

[Pector55]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...ss&oref=slogin

Ne sure and check out the graph in the middle of the page.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that 30% of France owns guns? I would have guessed much lower unless you are counting ones with white flags on the end.

Also:

“You have to think about the particular kind of gun control at work, and you have to subdivide gun users and gun abusers.”

GASP! WOW, someone really does get it!

[GunLawyer001]

Interesting discussion, especially if you compare this sort of cost/benefit analysis of infringing a right expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, to the lack of such discussion about infringing rights that the Left likes better.

Do you recall anyone talking about stopping the New York Times from publishing details of classified US missions, or cutting back on criticism of the President during a time of war? Nope, they won't even consider the benefits, the lives saved. They have the 1st Amendment to wrap around their scrawny vegetarian shoulders, we can't touch them.

It wouldn't even occur to them to think that if we can't absolutely PROVE that a restriction on the press does or doesn't save lives, then we should leave it up to the locals to censor according to local needs. Why do local governments know best when it comes to disarming thousands of their people, but those exact same governments become incompetent to control a dozen or so local reporters?

It's just one Bill of Rights, anyone with ethics would use the same tests for all of them.

[er2006]

Interesting discussion, especially if you compare this sort of cost/benefit analysis of infringing a right expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, to the lack of such discussion about infringing rights that the Left likes better.

Do you recall anyone talking about stopping the New York Times from publishing details of classified US missions, or cutting back on criticism of the President during a time of war? Nope, they won't even consider the benefits, the lives saved. They have the 1st Amendment to wrap around their scrawny vegetarian shoulders, we can't touch them.

It wouldn't even occur to them to think that if we can't absolutely PROVE that a restriction on the press does or doesn't save lives, then we should leave it up to the locals to censor according to local needs. Why do local governments know best when it comes to disarming thousands of their people, but those exact same governments become incompetent to control a dozen or so local reporters?

It's just one Bill of Rights, anyone with ethics would use the same tests for all of them.

The lst sentence says it all. Ed