Summations Only

Though as that's a five-year contract, they're going to have to do it in installments. They can shoot everyone between A and F the first year ... Well, the website claims that anyone who's serious about practicing shooting practices with different equipment than they're actually planning to use. Kind of like how Formula One drivers always practice in Honda Civics. But it seems at least possible that someone who's really serious about practicing something might practice the thing they're actually going to do.But if this is not the case, then what are they practicing with? I mean, presumably they do practice, yes? And apparently we can find out what bullets they're buying. So if they're not practicing with the hollow-points, someone should be able to show me a similarly large order of Special Practice Bullets.---Curiously enough, I've never persuaded any conservative to bet on their apocalyptic future scenarios. Could I persuade you or any of your chums to a little flutter? My money says that next year, as usual, more U.S. citizens will be killed by private firearms than by those in government hands. Can I get anyone to take the other end of the bet?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's fairly easy to shoot a hurricane. It's difficult to make one bleed.

And yet they are under the control of our representatives --- if, for example, Congress votes to cut taxes, the IRS can't raise them instead 'cos they think that would be better. This plea for honesty would have come across better if you hadn't followed it by reciting dumb lies. Yes, I know you didn't make 'em up yourself. But you should have checked. No. They were pitiless, but malevolence is not blind indifference. There is a moral distinction between a tornado (for example) that kills ten people --- without, of course, intending to --- and a gunman who does the same, but with intent. I'm fairly sure that's a Christian metaphor, as employed by this chap Jesus, you may have heard of him. E.g. "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." The link is that both are made up in your head. The murderers, as I have pointed out, are pitiless but not blind or indifferent; and people who understand science are usually none of the three. Or we could teach reading comprehension, so that people understand the remarks of Richard Dawkins. Can you expand on how this would work? Yes, well, it's hard to get round the First Amendment. You can't make laws preventing people from accurately reporting matters of fact.Also, if you could do that, where would you stop? I mean, consider the case of the mass shooter Jim David Adkisson: So, if we're allowed to ban speech because it might incite gun violence, then ... wait, you don't fancy the idea so much now? OK.

The Geography of Gun Deaths.The chart below shows the correlation between gun deaths per state and other demographic factors. Note that the correlation between gun deaths and immigrants is inverse. Of course, correlation is not causation, I'm not saying that immigrants make us safer; but on the other hand if they actually endangered us with their "gibber-jabber" and their Mexican restaurants, you'd expect the correlation to be positive. I leave it to you to decide whether we should change our education system to produce more Democrats.

Femoral artery - Wikipedia

I guess because when you drink, I don't get cirrhosis of the liver. If that was how it worked, we'd be doing a lot more to control alcohol.

But again, I have no problem with you blacking out, or with you waking up next to a stranger. I care even less about those contingencies than I do about you damaging your liver. It's no skin off my nose. I do have a problem with you drinking and driving, because it endangers me, and guess what, that's illegal. We did that. Holding a gun does change your mindset.http://www.psychologytoday.com/...gun-inhibits-mentalizationExpert: Holding a gun changes the way people perceive others, objectsApparently, it makes you more aggressive and more likely to see threats that aren't there ... I don't know if anyone's done research on whether it also makes you more likely to sing karaoke.

You'd be astonished how little time dead people spend on introspection.

Perhaps you could set us all a good example by writing more posts containing actual data and links to scientific studies, and fewer posts insulting and whining about the people who have the temerity to disagree with you.

Spoken like a True Scientist.

Have you noticed how reality doesn't conform to this "pure logic" of which you speak? This suggests that while it may be a pure example of something, that something is probably not logic.

"Taking advantage of the situation"?Faith, when the Space Shuttle crashed, people said, let's try to make sure this doesn't happen again. When terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers, people said, hey, let's take steps to make sure this isn't repeated. If an oil well blows up, Faith, if a levee breaks, people's thoughts will turn to one question: how to build a better stable door. There is one, and only one kind of disaster, where you can get criticized for responding to it by suggesting preventative measures for the future. If a tragedy is caused by a a guy with a gun, why then and only then is it "taking advantage of the situation", is it exploiting a tragedy, is it a tasteless politicization of the issue, to say: let's try to stop this from happening again. Why is that, Faith? What makes bad things caused by psychopaths with firearms so different from every other bad thing that's happened in the entire history of ever, that we should react to them in a completely different way? Do explain.

Faith, when other things go bad, there may also be differences of opinion --- may be and usually are differences of opinion --- about what caused them and how to prevent them in the future. All these years after 9/11, and people are still arguing about how much airport security we need. When Americans started dying of Ebola, cue an instant political debate about whether the President, the hospitals, and the CDC were handling it right. But such differences of opinion are not usually taken as prohibitive of discussing an issue. Indeed, if everyone knew exactly how to fix a problem, that would render discussion redundant, and we wouldn't have to think about whether it was "taking advantage" of anything.But when a nutter goes on a rampage with a gun, then, and only then, does it become a gross breach of decorum to say --- "hey, how can we stop nutters going on rampages with guns?" and to start making suggestions. Why? It's not because there are different opinions on that, Faith, because in fact there are different opinions on everything. It's because one side doesn't want us to think about that question, it doesn't want us to ask that question, to consider that question --- much less try to answer it.

Ooh, I found another odd similarity that you seem to have missed. Apparently someone did a study and in every single mass shooting the perpetrators had --- what does this say, my eyes are so bad --- buns, I think it says buns.Someone should look into that.

Yeah, I saw that. It seemed to me to be more of the same, with extra self-pity and paranoia sauce.