

       How about "firearm related."


       Texas is unusual in this regard.  It would be nice to reduce them
both, though.

       As Texas doesn't appear to have an murder rate that much higher than
the national average, I would expect it is a result of a much higher
suicide rate.


       Be nice if you didn't have to suffer at all.


       Here's where we run into a problem.  I am perfectly willing to
have government regulation on something which is likely to cause others
harm.  What we're discussing, though, is the extreme regulation of a large
group in order to target a small group, and I don't think that's
appropriate. 


        Does this, then, justify anything?  At some point you have to draw
a line (at least to my way of thinking) where the government must have
something a little more substantial than a set of percentages with which
to punish an individual.

        Where do *you* draw the line?  Or is there one?


        Virginia.  It passed.


        Does it?


        Cute analogy. 

        The U.S. doesn't treat drunk driving like a serious crime.  However,
we also don't confiscate cars of people who drink.  We also don't confiscate
*all* cars because some people drink and drive.  It's the core of the legal
system that in order to punish an individual (and I'd call property
confiscation a punishment) you must have evidence against that individual.
That is, it isn't enough to show that the majority of people convicted of
murder are white  in order to convict a particular white guy of murder.


        Huh?