|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States24782 Posts
On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart.
I don't agree with your placing school massacres in its own special category. They are very bad. They are not infinitely worse than the other gun deaths in the USA for example. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps.
|
On May 03 2013 00:29 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. Be more careful about what you say. You are much more likely to be killed by a vehicle than a privately owned gun--period. Not everything needs to be normalized to some other number to make it some type of "per capita" unless you really need to find a way to skew things for your argument.
I hope you're high because in your second sentence you compare per capita to per capita, which is apples to oranges.
Let me simplify it for you.
~86% of people own cars
~36% of people own guns
By that alone there's already going to be a conversion factor of 2.38, simply because of the relevant populations. Controlling for usage would require large amount of analysis and would probably make a good statistics paper. Unfortunately, I have limited interest because I'm not the one trying to push a comparison.
|
On May 03 2013 00:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps.
Wouldn't happen if guns wasn't allowed to be bought without a licence 
|
On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:Those people might also wonder why they get such uncompromising push-back, as though parading parents of shooting victims is making a legitimate point.
Most people respond more strongly to emotion rather than reason. Human vs. human violence is probably the #1 phobia therefor it demands the strongest emotional response. I say phobia because it is an unreasonable fear. Let us take terrorism as an example. More Americans are killed per year by BiC pen caps than by acts of terrorism--yet people still chew on them while they are terrified of being attacked.
This is not to discount unwarranted violence, as it is a problem. But people are willing to take unreasonable steps because they think with their emotions. Ban guns or regulate them to the point that they are almost unaffordable/too inconvenient to own? Do they realize this kind of policy is what created the Capones? When purchasing a firearm from the black market becomes easier than purchasing it legitimately, you have caused an almost irreversible problem.
On May 03 2013 00:52 Jormundr wrote:
I hope you're high because in your second sentence you compare per capita to per capita, which is apples to oranges.
Let me simplify it for you.
~86% of people own cars
~36% of people own guns
By that alone there's already going to be a conversion factor of 2.38, simply because of the relevant populations. Controlling for usage would require large amount of analysis and would probably make a good statistics paper. Unfortunately, I have limited interest because I'm not the one trying to push a comparison.
No no. Let me simplify it even further for you. Here are the concerns:
1) Death
2) Injury
That's it.
What is more likely to cause the above? It is a very simple answer. Just because more people own cars does nothing to reduce your chances of being killed by one. You don't do conversion factors for this unless you are trying to find what % of car owners cause death compared to what % of gun owners cause death.
|
On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. The amount of attention we give to stopping each type of gun crime event should somehow be proportional to the severity. One event which kills 10 children is definitely at least 10x worse than one event which kills 1 person, but it is not so much worse that it suddenly becomes unimportant to worry about all those solo individuals (including inner city gang members) who die via gun crime. In fact, there are way more than 10x cases of the latter in the USA. Instead of a thought process of <multi-shooting at school> ---> <proposed laws using that multi-shooting as a leverage point> we should be using a thought process of <objectively, the problems we are having are X> ---> <ways to address those problems somewhat proportionally>. I'm okay with giving the dangers of driving some leeway due to the fact that almost everybody uses and needs cars, but that also means that the large amount of private/legal gun ownership/usage needs to be given some credence when looking at how much damage is also caused by guns in crimes. Instead of just looking directly at proposed gun legislation usually proposed in the wake of some media frenzy like Newtown we should actually try to address the other problems as well which lead to things like tons of gang members shooting at each other in the inner city or people feeling compelled to go into schools and shoot them up before committing suicide. I can't believe how often I hear (both here and elsewhere) "there are other things we can do such as make progress on mental health, but they are all too difficult and unlikely to happen so we should just make the gun laws stricter to compensate." Those people might also wonder why they get such uncompromising push-back, as though parading parents of shooting victims is making a legitimate point.
So your point is that you don't like morons? The reason all this hype happens is because school shootings are great. They generate revenue for media companies, they generate publicity for the NRA, and they generate publicity for politicians. That's pretty much what it boils down to. Dead children are worth a lot more than pretty much anything else. The ensuing debates over whether or not we should have any reasonable measure of gun control also drive gun sales through the roof as the sellers and the paranoid tell us that the government is going to take our guns away. It's always good to note who is going to directly benefit.
As for the parading of parents, pathos is a legitimate (and effective) way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give a shit to think about the issue from a more personal perspective. You can say it's cheap or whatever, but hey that's both sides of the aisle. Unless you think that the gun sellers of america (NRA) consistently make legitimate points.
|
United States24782 Posts
On May 03 2013 00:54 Jan1997 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:51 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps. Wouldn't happen if guns wasn't allowed to be bought without a licence
Um this isn't true. A large percentage of school shootings are committed by people who did not buy the guns themselves (or not legally from a store at least). Also a 'license' could mean anything from a form you fill out with almost nothing to get you denied if you are crazy, due the most extensive psychological evaluation and background check in history.
|
On May 03 2013 00:54 Jan1997 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:51 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps. Wouldn't happen if guns wasn't allowed to be bought without a licence
Ring*Ring*Ring*Ring*
This is your alarm clock! You're dreaming!
Edit: If that was sarcasm, well played. If not, my attempt at humor stands.
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 01:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:54 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps. Wouldn't happen if guns wasn't allowed to be bought without a licence Um this isn't true. A large percentage of school shootings are committed by people who did not buy the guns themselves (or not legally from a store at least). Also a 'license' could mean anything from a form you fill out with almost nothing to get you denied if you are crazy, due the most extensive psychological evaluation and background check in history.
And the parameters for gun licensing should be the main topic of debate in this country. Unfortunately that will never happen because any implementation of such would act as a deterrent to the casual would-be gun owner and thus would not be in keeping with the second amendment, which says that we have the obligation to make sure that gun manufacturers can maximize profits.
|
On May 03 2013 01:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:54 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:47 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:31 Jan1997 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:24 micronesia wrote:On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same. Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions). On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles. And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes. Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts. No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart. Ironically this outlook of putting school shootings up on some type of a crisis pedestal probably encourages other sick people to follow in the shooter's footsteps. Wouldn't happen if guns wasn't allowed to be bought without a licence Um this isn't true. A large percentage of school shootings are committed by people who did not buy the guns themselves (or not legally from a store at least). Also a 'license' could mean anything from a form you fill out with almost nothing to get you denied if you are crazy, due the most extensive psychological evaluation and background check in history.
Well the newtown shooter got his gun from his mom, and if it wasn't allowed to have guns then she wouldn't have had any, and he wouldn't have stolen it from her.
But yeah there's always going to be someone who shoots others regardless of the gun laws but if you support safety and peace then you would think it should be stricter guns laws then there currently is in the u.s because in my opinion guns are way too easy to obtain in the u.s atm.
|
Most people in this thread are at least offering arguments so feel free to join us. I wasn't going to say anything until you posted a giant photo trying to tug at heart strings.
|
On May 03 2013 00:29 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process. Be more careful about what you say. You are much more likely to be killed by a vehicle than a privately owned gun--period. Not everything needs to be normalized to some other number to make it some type of "per capita" unless you really need to find a way to skew things for your argument.
Cars already have a police force dedicated to them. A department of motor vehicles--dedicated to them. Law requiring an insurance industry to be available. Laws requiring registry both to the DMV and to the insurance company. You are required to pass both written and field tests. And every several years--you have to pass those same tests again but with a better grade. You also have to re-register every year. And your license and registrations can be revoked at anytime if you are even simply deemed possibly dangerous.
Cars DO get more laws against them *BECAUSE* they're dangerous.
|
On May 03 2013 01:13 -VapidSlug- wrote:Most people in this thread are at least offering arguments so feel free to join us. I wasn't going to say anything until you posted a giant photo trying to tug at heart strings.
He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety.
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:13 -VapidSlug- wrote:Most people in this thread are at least offering arguments so feel free to join us. I wasn't going to say anything until you posted a giant photo trying to tug at heart strings. He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety.
Pretty devastating arguement and at the same time a very true picture.
|
On May 03 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety.
Then if he had an argument he should have stated it. And if that was his argument I would have corrected him by saying they were not banned to regulate chocolate consumption, but because they have toys embedded in them. Yes, toys.. imbedded in kids' candy..
Edit: this doesn't mean I believe the government should have the power to ban various food items--that is overstepping their boundries. They have just been doing it for so long that we accept it as normal.
|
On May 03 2013 01:29 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety. Then if he had an argument he should have stated it. And if that was his argument I would have corrected him by saying they were not banned to regulate chocolate consumption, but because they have toys embedded in them. Yes, toys.. imbedded in kids' candy.. Edit: this doesn't mean I believe the government should have the power to ban various food items--that is overstepping their boundries. They have just been doing it for so long that we accept it as normal.
So, according to you, children's toys are more dangerous to children than guns and should be regulated. Is that you're stance?
|
On May 03 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:29 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 03 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety. Then if he had an argument he should have stated it. And if that was his argument I would have corrected him by saying they were not banned to regulate chocolate consumption, but because they have toys embedded in them. Yes, toys.. imbedded in kids' candy.. Edit: this doesn't mean I believe the government should have the power to ban various food items--that is overstepping their boundries. They have just been doing it for so long that we accept it as normal. So, according to you, children's toys are more dangerous to children than guns and should be regulated. Is that you're stance?
No, he says government shouldn't have authority over either.
|
On May 03 2013 02:12 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:29 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 03 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
He does have an argument. If we are willing to regulate chocolate consumption for kid safety, why can't we regulate gun distribution--for kid safety. Then if he had an argument he should have stated it. And if that was his argument I would have corrected him by saying they were not banned to regulate chocolate consumption, but because they have toys embedded in them. Yes, toys.. imbedded in kids' candy.. Edit: this doesn't mean I believe the government should have the power to ban various food items--that is overstepping their boundries. They have just been doing it for so long that we accept it as normal. So, according to you, children's toys are more dangerous to children than guns and should be regulated. Is that you're stance? No, he says government shouldn't have authority over either.
Food shouldn't have safety guidelines and health inspections?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-487594-galleryV9-sksn.jpg)
