10 to 1

[_subgenius]

As the gun debate becomes rather predictable and almost laughable from the likes of posters KG and company, I cannot help but wonder why posters like KG refuse to despise the act of killing, whether it be 10 or 1.
Shooting 10 people is somehow worse to liberal fear mongers than just strangling one person....yet the motivation usually remains the same in both instances. When the guns, knives, spears, hammers, and ropes are all regulated away how will the liberal regulate hands and fingers? When will the liberals relinquish their juvenile insistence that inanimate objects are the cause of such strife?
Sure, shooting someone may be the most convenient means to manifest one's dysfunction - and doing it from a moving car is even easier...so perhaps the liberal is just insisting that murderers be more self-actualized or more active in their crime? Do they truly believe that people are just to lazy to murder?
The fact is that in the US the murder rate, aggravated assaults, and robberies involving guns has been declining while gun ownership has been increasing.

New data presented at the conference by a Dutch scholar, Pieter Spierenburg, showed that the homicide rate in Amsterdam, for example, dropped from 47 per 100,000 people in the mid-15th century to 1 to 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.

...

A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.

By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000. The 1992 national homicide rate for the United States was 9.3 per 100,000.

...

according to research by Roger Lane, a history professor at Haverford College. The drop occurred as the city became industrialized and despite the greater availability of firearms during the period.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/hi ... perts.html

Ironically, when you review the historical data, the spike upwards began in the 1960s...the steady decline form the 1880 to the 1960s was somehow disrupted...when one considers the several cultural, economic, and social "revolutions" that occurred during the "Me" generation it leaves little doubt that, ironically, the emergence of the modern liberal has brought more strife, destruction, and death to civilization than any other modern cause.
The biggest problem the "community" faces today is those who veil themselves behind the cause of community, those who have been slowly destroying it from within.

the eugenics of planned parenthood
the systematic oppression of women by feminism
the economic oppression of long term welfare programs
the degradation of the police
the degeneration of individual liberty
the cult of personality
the elitism of opinion and knowledge
the promotion of illicit substance abuse
the hoarding and denial of natural resources
the grassroots movement of "fascism for all"
and many more banners of modern day American democratic liberalism (a.k.a. - the cult of oppression)

So, why do liberals think 10 lives are more important than 1 ?
(Is it quantity versus quality? Is it the pace, whereas 10 over 30 days is better than 10 in one day?, etc.)

[_Kevin Graham]

A lot of progress/studies have been made over the last 21 years since this article was published. You'd do well to try to keep up.

[_EAllusion]

Shooting 10 people is somehow worse to liberal fear mongers than just strangling one person....yet the motivation usually remains the same in both instances.

Yes, "somehow."

Policy A results in 10 deaths per 1000.

Policy B results in 1 deaths per 1000.

Subgenius's take on this is that one cannot prefer policy B to A because that is like saying 1 life is less important than 10. Indeed, it is crazy fear-mongering to prefer 1 vs. 10 lives lost.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that powerhouse of logic.

[_subgenius]

Shooting 10 people is somehow worse to liberal fear mongers than just strangling one person....yet the motivation usually remains the same in both instances.

Yes, "somehow."

Policy A results in 10 deaths per 1000.

Policy B results in 1 deaths per 1000.

Subgenius's take on this is that one cannot prefer policy B to A because that is like saying 1 life is less important than 10. Indeed, it is crazy fear-mongering to prefer 1 vs. 10 lives lost.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that powerhouse of logic.

um, is that your answer? because it seems to be the usual deflection and avoidance that most liberals offer instead of an actual stance on their position.
The question of the OP is quite clear, yet your 'answer' is just as muddied as your reasoning.

[_subgenius]

A lot of progress/studies have been made over the last 21 years since this article was published. You'd do well to try to keep up.

again, predictability.
The variety of studies that have "been made" do not dismiss the premise and conclusions of this article.
But your passive-aggressiveness is certainly a great rebuttal as usual. Ever consider having your posts include substance over spittle?