Re: Not always joking, it seems

Seth wrote:
> In article <uimvj.8568$5K1.6427@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Wayne Throop" <throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:1203626461@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> So, you're saying that if you make deterrence cheaper
>>> (in terms of money, time, and bureaucratic hassle),
>>> you'll get more of it, right?
>>
>> But now you're talking about secondary effects.
>
> Making deterrence cheaper leading to more of it isn't a secondary
> effect any more than making chocolate cheaper leads to more of it
> (being bought and consumed).
>
>>  Try to say with a straight face that everyone who kills with a gun
>> would have killed had the gun not been available at that moment.
>
> No, not everyone would have.
>
> Try saying with a straight face that everyone who successfully defends
> herself with a gun would have been just as successful without one.

Careful with matches around that strawman.