That pretty much negates the claim that people need guns to protect themselves. The chance they'll need to protect themselves is very slim.

If anyone in the "I accept carnage so that I can have all the guns I want" camp offered ANY ideas for ending mass shootings that didn't include gun control laws, I would listen.

My question to all the conservatives who, in the last two days, have said "we have to fix the mental illness problem", is will you increase taxes on the wealthy to finance the programs?

Since my thoughts and words can affect others, then others should have the right to regulate my thoughts and words?

That reasoning stands on a very slippery slope.

I believe there are many gun owners in this situation, and I have met some at field dog trials,
I have sometimes asked if they are a member of the NRA, and do they subscribe to the various NRA magazines.

This is where the NRA gets it's "membership" numbers, and a some of it's political power.
The NRA counts all magazine subscribers as "members" and is speaking for them.

There is a very simple and powerful way to voice opposition to NRA's political positions - write a letter to voice your opinion and
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS and maybe your NRA MEMBERSHIP.

.

The Catholic Church cooks their numbers similarly. It may be a common tactic across the board to make the general public think these are not tiny minorities of people making demands.

Nope, I don't give a rats ass about what they do in N J, or Ohio, and certainly not NY. The argument isn't whether you can pass a test or not, it's how much information you want the government to know about you and your guns. When the government representing the "thems", come in the night to grab the guns and children, send you to the camps, and turn the elderly into soylent green, will you be prepared? :rolleyes:

Not at all. The chances of me setting myself on fire don't dissuade me from keeping a fire extinguisher. Actually the need to defend the castle, is a slogan, a canned catch all, a conversation ender. The reality is defense is only a small part of the equation, there are other reasons and uses. Personally, I like the benefit of longer, stronger boners, but that's just me, your mileage may vary.

This has always been my opposition to lifetime memberships. Once you're in, you're in. You can't quit, even if you die you're still on the books.

Yes, think of all the people on the mailing list for the insurance seller, AARP. When I approached 50 they offered an 8 year membership for $40. Silly me, 15 years after it expired, they still contribute heavily to my trash. I'm sure I'm counted in their powerbase. :(

I am not saying it generates rights - whether your reaction to how it can effect you has a right to be forceful or part of social organized force is another matter altogether - even if only women had a vote for "womb regulations" it would still be an application of organized force by whoever side won over the side that didn't, whether they had a right to do so would still have the same questions and problems, and is not granted by the fact they'd all be women.

Rather, I am saying that the "if you aren't x you don't get to decide comment or have opinions on things related to x" line of arguments is nonsense - you don't have to be something to have invested interest in it, whether it's womb owners or gun owners.

I agree - I have never really liked the 'if you don't have X experience then you don't get a view' argument. I have never been a soldier, but I'm damn sure I have an opinion on what my country's soldiers do when they are in someone else's country. I don't drive, but I have an opinion on the state of the roads.

My only real problem with the earlier points was the equating of vaginas and guns. Women's bodies are routinely objectified in a way that male bodies are not. Time and again I hear people make the argument that girls and women should take precautions against rape, for example, by equating the woman's body to an unlocked car or house risking burglary and theft.

I get what you're saying about men having a sense of the child as theirs, in arguments over abortion - but the 'get out of my vagina' argument is not just about the right to an abortion - it's about contraception, family planning, and enforced and medically unnecessary procedures for women who are seeking abortion as a way to make those abortions more difficult to obtain. And, probably more importantly, it's about recognising the awesome power over another person's body that this implies.

Self-defence is also a matter of power over one's own body - I can see that part of the equivalence - but, classic's snarky comment about transgender women aside, we don't get to choose our gender it is something we are born with. The reason the 'get out of my vagina' trope came about is that there is a profound gender imbalance at a political and law-making level. And this is just where we are now - coming from a historical perspective where that imbalance has generally been much more profound and women's bodies far more a matter for male legislation and ruling.


I don't, as it happens, believe that men should not have a say in issues around abortion. That's ludicrous - it is a thing in the world that they live in. But I am sick of women's bodies and the things that are done to them being equated with inanimate objects and the things that are done to them.

And that's why we have school massacres, because kids today can't refrain from agenda drift. Interesting demonstration.

This is the first thing you've said which I agree with ... no I am questioning myself. :neutral:

Awww, I am sorry, I thought of it as such a casual thing... If I knew I was taking your being right virginity I would have tried making it a little bit more special.

He didn't say he was wrong, he said you were right for a change. :p:

Back off the poor guy, he just had his first time and now your rubbing it in his face that he didn't go again? That's mean.

-.-- --- ..- / .-. . .- .-.. .-.. -.-- / .- .-. . / .- / -.. .. -.-. -.- .-.-.- / ... .-. ... .-.. -.--

.- .-.. .-.. - .... . -... . - - . .-. - --- ..-. .. - .-. .. --. .... - .. -. -.-- --- ..- .-. - .. - .-.. . -····- ... .- -.- . ..-. .-. --- -- .-.. . .- -.- .. -. --.

#FAIL
ALL THE BETTER TO FIT RIGHT IN YOUR TITLE SAKE FROM LEAKING

It's an established relationship:

If you guys are done? Here is a phenomenal Malcolm Gladwell article which tells us all we need to know about how school shootings come about.

It's very long so I will sum up what this thread needs to know.

1. IT'S NOT GUNS
2. IT'S NOT (VIOLENT) CULTURE
3. IT'S NOT BAD PARENTING
4. IT'S (MOSTLY) NOT MENTAL ILLNESS
5. IT'S NOT ANYTHING SOLVED BY POLITICS

I doubt that they are done yet.

UT, you've told us what it is NOT.
Now tell us what it IS...

From the article, it does seem to have something to do with mental illness, but not necessarily an illness that can be detected until it's too late (though there was an anecdote about a potentially concerning, in hindsight, reaction to hunting).

Also, it tied into the original Dawkins concept of memes (though not by name); ie, contagious thoughts that can take hold in particular people's brains.

It's hard to say what the course of action is in that scenario. Never report on mass murder?

Read the article, it's not simple enough to explain in a paragraph.

Right, the article did such a fine job developing the point, it's really hard to sum it up. It's not exactly copycat, not exactly hero worship. And there is a social element, so strong that these guys are actually kind of going against their own norms when they end up in it. Like a slow-motion gang or a slow-motion riot.

One danger is that they go beyond guns. The article details this one shooter, caught before he could put everything into action. He had a storage locker with several pounds of ingredients to build powerful explosives. When they asked him about it:
One of his goals was to correct the mistakes Klebold and Harris made in building their explosives. But this kid also had guns:

I usually do, but it's UT's posting and it would be very easy to follow up with sarcastic replies...
... it's NOT ABOUT PEPPERMINT CANDY CANES
... it's NOT ABOUT... etc.

I'd like to know first what UT thinks it's about that motivates him to make this post in this thread.

Still looking gift horses in the dentures, eh.

This posting is from the Weird News thread where it was not really appropriate

UT, this is the part of your post I question most. I agree setting priorities is necessary;
but saying gun-murders vs gun-deaths are “the thing we really care about”
… ”in the ghetto” and “And black non-ghetto neighborhoods are not a problem anyway.”
make your statements highly subjective and political.

What is your basis for excluding “gun deaths” ?
And what do you mean by “It is a ghetto thing” ?

Regarding the link to Nate Silver, he is actually using homicide rates, not numbers of homicide victims.
Using homicide rates in different countries is an apples-and-oranges distraction to slice data
thin enough that the US does not appear to be an outlier among other countries !
How is that even relevant ?

But with respect to numbers of homicide victims, the differences in population sizes
of the three major US ethnic groups yields a different perspective.

Whites : 318,857,056 X 77.4 % X 2.5/100k = 6,169 deaths = 36% of all homicides
Blacks : 318,857,056 X 13.2 % X 19.4/100k = 8,165 deaths = 47% of all homicides
Hispanic: 318,857,056 X 17.4 % X 5.3/100k = 2,940 deaths = 17% of all homicides

These numbers of homicides speak for themselves.

I shall quote you on that

"Blacks are only 13.2% of the population and yet responsible for 47% of all homicides" - LL

To dismiss rates is below amateurish and puts you in that ^ position

You are arguing statistics with wizard Nate Silver, infamous NY Times predictor of Obama's electoral outcomes, you may be a little out of your element

Yes, I know who he is and have been familiar with his data/argument for some time.
Now please tell me how his comparison of gun-homicide rates in other countries is relevant to the US.

And pushing statistics based on rates or % can be hazardous.
Just be aware that the wording in your post was imprecise and misleading.

I agree with you that rates are higher among the smaller Black population.
I would hope you agree that the numbers of homicide victims in White
and Hispanic populations are large, but not 10 or 12 or 20 times higher.

If you have already decided you are willing to ignore thousands of other deaths, that's your choice.

.

This is a bit ridiculous ... it appears UT and xoB have had a knee-jerk reaction
to my use of the word "concealed". So, let's try again.

With respect to "intimidation" of a spouse/S.O./child/neighbor,
we are talking about situations where one person is using a gun
to dominate/threaten/force a family member.
... obviously... without actually firing the gun !

Such intimidation often leads to concealment or denial of actual physical abuse.

Law Enforcement, Public Health, Social Workers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, and family members
know this is happening, but have not had a "legal" means of intervening.
Various formal and informal groups have attempted to prevent this kind of abuse via legislation.

The NRA campaigns vigorously to stop such efforts as being "anti-gun" legislation.
But the NRA was NOT successful in California and the Governor has now signed 3 bills into law.
Here is an article describing Assembly Bill 1014, the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) Law.

California’s New Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
Posted October 30, 2014
This is the NRA’s take on this law:

Assembly Bill 1014 authorizes a family member or law enforcement officer to file
for a restraining order against you to have your firearms forfeited.

.

So anyone who rejects your assertions is knee jerking? Why not eliminate the knee and ing. :rolleyes:

Where are the statistics in this "intimidation"? Oh that's right, they keep statistics on facts, not rumors, unproven allegations, and possible.

California's new legislation is a feel good law. In most places even an unproven allegation of abuse causes the cops to seize all guns in the house and you'll play hell trying to get them back. She, "He said he would go get the gun and shoot me". He, "No I didn't". Bam, he's out of the house, and the gun(s) are gone.

Now "Law Enforcement, Public Health, Social Workers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, and family members can act on their suspicions, with no complaint from the suspected abused? :eek: The NRA, unfortunately, are against everything, reasonable, or in this case unreasonable, or not.

The intimidation issue is a bastard. The authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't on that one. In the US and in the UK there has been, historically and unfortunately continuing into the present in many areas, a tendency not to act until serious or fatal violence erupts and there's a victim to carry out. Case after case of victims, mainly but not exclusively female, reporting intimidation and threat by partners or ex-partners, with sharp escalation and multiple attempts to seek help and police have done nothing. Then the victim, or victims are gone and there is an enquiry to see what more could have been done. Every time those enquiries start up it seems they find the same thing: warning sign after warning sign, reports of mild violence or serious threat dismissed or simply not acted upon, victims intimidated into silence and support authorities simply dropping away and not pursuing the case, victims and concerned third parties filing reports that were ignored, little to no attempt to seriously enforce stay away orders where they've had them.

On the other hand, an absolute assumption that the woman is right and the man is a threat puts an awful lot of power into the hands of the vindictive in an argument.

Color and ethnicity are not the determining factor, being poor and forced to live in a high density crime ridden neighborhood, (can you say ghetto, boys and girls) increases the chance of being a victim by an order of magnitude. That speaks to the risk, it does not say it doesn't happen everywhere.

When the waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island, they typically sought there own kind in NY City. Also typically, they were poor and forced into that exact type of neighborhood I'd call a ghetto, and suffered high crime rates including murder, until they could manage to flee to the wide open spaces. Once there, the suffering wasn't gone completely, but decreased substantially.

So add economics to mental health, and a slew of other causes that some do-gooders wish to ignore for the convenience and easy slogans of a simple ban all guns campaign. When guns are gone, altering the lives of millions, and shit still happens, they'll find a new boogie man to chase.

This does not happen in the UK. The gun problem is solved there, hence there is no intimidation.

There are guns. And there is intimidation. There are also lots of other weapons.

The argument for gun control is not that it will stop murders, but that gun murders and accidental gun deaths will be reduced.

It's gotta be a ton less intimidation, like a tenth or so of what it is in the US?

I see a lot of asbos issued for possession of a knife, in the UK news. Confidence the victim isn't armed with a gun seems to have convinced assailants a knife is sufficient.

That is on YOU not me. Stop projecting your bullshit in my direction.
The rest of your crap was handled well by Bruce & UT.

At what point will you realize that you are wrong? We all can see you DESPERATELY WANT to be right, but you aren't.

Remember this?Number 2 and number 4. http://cellar.org/2015/shades.gif

great

I specifically told people in the directions, who visiting me from over the Barry bridge, I don't care if your bladder is bursting, DO NOT stop at the Boots & Bonnets. Which is at the first stop sign after the bridge, in Chester. I would repeat the urban legend of a Chester cop stopping in to check for violations, walking in, making a quick tour inside looking for underage or out of control drinkers, then unable to open the door to leave because a dead body was against the door outside. Got their attention. :haha:

This question applies to all of us.

Half of what I believe is bullshit. I just don't know which half.

Dumb people are everywhere.

http://cellar.org/2015/bullet.jpg

You can plainly see they were painted red, so the are harmless training bullets for an automatic assault rifle. ;)

I squeeze the trigger and the little light comes on.
Then the bullet starts spinning, but it never fires.

What's wrong, are they all duds ?

No, they're all screwdriver bits, one regular, one Philips, and two torx.
I'm sure glad it was carefully researched. :rolleyes:

bruce is right. Those are screwdriver bits. Which passed me right by when I first saw that pic.

No hubcaps were lost during the filming.