WB> Running shoes facilitate a get away and may increase
WB> the chances for success of a robbery, but since increased
WB> footspeed is not actually needed to comit the robbery
WB> running shoes cannot be a cause for robbery but rather a
WB> cause for successful escape after a robbery,
   A gun may increase the speed at which death occurs
and thus may increase the chances for being successful at murder,
 but since increased speed in the death of a victim
is not actually needed to commit murder, guns cannot be a cause
for murder but rather a cause for murdering quickly, which is absurd
in the first place because murder is murder, no matter how you
slice...er, commit it.
WB> unless the posession of running shoes increases a prospective
WB> robber's sense of confidence and thus motivation to rob in the
WB> same manner as a gun may increase a prospective murderer's
WB> sense of power and confidence and thus motivation to murder.
WB> Besides running shoes in an urban area have a much clearer and
WB> wider variety of legitimate uses which make a causality argument
WB> based on the shoes impact on social structures far more difficult
WB> to justify, because the impact of running shoes on society can't
WB> be confined to one or two uncommon legitimate uses, as it can with
WB> guns in an urban area.
        My can opener has a pretty limited scope of use, but I bet
I could really rip someones throat open with it in self defense.
Besides, I wouldn't call self defense (a very legitimate use for a
firearm) uncommon at all...it happens somewhere between 1 and 2 million
times each year in this country according to Dr. Gary Kleck
(professor of Criminology at FSU).
WB> He didn't contend that inanimate objects cause human behavior, but
WB> the result of human behavior can be different, depending on the other
WB> material causes(such as a gun)involved.
        Absolutely, if criminals know, or even suspect that their
victims are armed, they tend to think twice about robbing, raping,
mugging or attempting to murder them.  We agree here 100%.
WB> You go on to contend that DC and NY have strong anti-gun
WB> laws, supported by national gun laws so that strong
WB> gun control laws don't work. But your argument breaks down
WB> here. The national gun laws are not as strict as the local
WB> laws and thus haven't succeeded supporting the local laws
WB> which are strict-so guns are transferred from local areas
WB> with less restrictive laws into areas with more restrictive
WB> laws. The national law makes this illegal but it is more
WB> difficult to enforce transfer laws than posession laws because
WB> the time of possession during transfer is less than that of
WB> posession in the location of disposition.
        Ah, so all these laws, even the "strict" ones aren't working
because it can't be enforced.  So therefore, in your correlation,
this somehow carries gun banning laws above and beyond places that have
no gun laws such as these?  I don't follow the logic....
                   Someone call a tow truck...........
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------