Gun Control III

Found some data on the number of gang-related homicides at NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SURVEY ANALYSIS:

quote:

---

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (FBI — Table 1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

---

--Percy

It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs. Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong. Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt. Marc, how can you get things so wrong? This is simple math from 6th grade and before. There's no "disagreeing with the exact percentages." One percentage was off by orders of magnitude, the other was for the wrong thing. Those aren't subtle errors - they're glaring, but you show no hint of comprehension. Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem. That's because guns are far too dangerous to be in the hands of flawed and imperfect people. I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right?--Percy

Since Kentucky open-carry permits only require a gun safety course and hitting a target 11 of 20 times, why would you think people openly carrying a firearm have any particularly special capabilities? They're just gun nuts like yourself who get a thrill from wearing a firearm on their hip out in the open. They're as likely to be the nutcase as anyone else.You didn't answer most of the questions. Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? Yes, Marc, there were questions in that message. How do you know you won't be the next gun nut who goes off on a rampage? How do you know you'll never get angry or depressed or mentally ill or go postal or just get careless? If you have a gun in your pocket when you were wronged (perhaps you were fired, like Gary Martin at Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, Illinois, who just last week murdered five fellow employees and injured five policemen), how do you know you won't pull that gun out?These are rhetorical questions. No one can make such guarantees. The roughly 24,000 gun-related suicides last year tells us that gun owners cannot guarantee they'll never become depressed, suicidal or mentally ill. Most gun owners don't act on their feelings, most that do only kill or injure themselves, but some commit murder/suicides, and some just murder others. You have a serious math comprehension issue. Obviously the number whose calculation was not described is the 1712 people. That the other calculation was of a proportion of the population of the US was obvious from context, and just as obviously wrong. If you could do math you'd see that. The likelihood of being shot is much less in western countries that have fewer guns.Since you mention gangs again allow me to repeat that your figure of 80% of homicides being gang related is clearly wrong, and I cited correct information in Message 691 from the NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SURVEY ANALYSIS:

quote:

---

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (FBI — Table 1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

---

Get that? 13%, not 80%. Anyone known to broadly accept "split the difference" solutions will simply be confronted with more and more outrageous propositions. I think you owe me $100. You think you owe me $0. Well, then let's just split the difference and you send me $50. Is the absurdity of your approach obvious now?You can choose your opinions, which in your case derive from your susceptibility to manipulation and your lack of critical thinking skills, but you can't choose your facts. There are not "conservative figures" and "liberal figures." There are figures that derive from hard and reliable data (such as 40,000 gun deaths last year), there are figures that are made up out of whole cloth (scuh as 80% of homicides are gang related), and there are figures in between (based upon varying amounts of truth). If you're not using figures derived from hard and reliable data then your arguments will rest on weak ground. Because your figures are simply made up your arguments are like wisps on the wind. You are correct (for the first time in this post) that gang violence is up, but you are dead wrong that mass shootings contribute significantly to the gun crime rate. Mass shootings get the bulk of the attention but are an insignificant contributor to the total number of gun crimes.Everyone is for border security, but how best to protect each particular section of border must be subject to study and analysis. We shouldn't just blindly build walls everywhere, only where they're the best solution. Building walls next to the Rio Grande, which is already a barrier, is particularly senseless.Perhaps you saw Stephen Miller (a Trump senior policy advisor, particularly on immigration) on Chris Wallace's show on Fox News this weekend where when challenged about his claims about drugs pouring across our border said that we can't know what we can't know and we can't catch what we can't catch. Here it is cued to the exact right spot, you only have to listen for about 50 seconds: But what Stephen Miller is saying is that because we have insufficient data, because we don't know, therefore the Trump administration is justified in claiming that drugs and people are flowing across the border away from the legal points of entry.Of course the truth is that we have a very good idea where the drugs are entering because of statistical analyses by Trump's own U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics. As described by USA Today:

quote:

---

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points.
...
Gil Kerlikowske, who headed CBP and the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Barack Obama, said intelligence received from arrested smugglers and law enforcement partners in Mexico indicate that cartels clearly prefer moving high-profit narcotics through the busy ports of entry because their chances of success are better there.

​

He used the example of the San Ysidro Port of Entry in southern California, the busiest port with 100,000 people crossing through each day. Port officials recently completed a multi-year, $750 million upgrade to add more Customs officers and inspection technology, but Kerlikowske said the sheer volume of traffic means smugglers' odds are still better going through there than other parts of the border.

​

"Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater," said Kerlikowske, now a professor of practice in criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University. "It's very clear that (drugs) come through the ports."

---

So Stephen Miller is telling you we don't know where drugs are coming across the border, and the US Customs and Border Protection agency is telling you that we do, and they have the figures to show it. Who are you going to believe, Marc, the people with the figures or the Trump stooge who claims we can't know and therefore the truth is whatever he says it is? I meant that you should post correct figures for your previous claim, not to make yet another claim full of incorrect figures. I see that Theodoric has already debunked it, so I won't respond to it.But I still would like you to post corrected figures and conclusions for your error-filled copy/paste in Message 683. No wonder you're so wrong again. Stop being a sucker for fake claims. Start getting your information from reliable sources. Fox News (their news, not their opinion makers) is a far more reliable source than BaselessBook. If your theory is based on the erroneous information you've provided so far, then no, please do not present your theory. When you're able to underpin your theory with data that is actually true then please go right ahead.--Percy

Yeah, obviously you're right, I share the fascination else I wouldn't have spent any time on it, but I enjoy untangling honest mistakes more, and even when they're dishonest mistakes it feels like there's something missing if there's no explaining where they went wrong because they couldn't follow it. Sure, other people understand, but not the person who made the mistake in the first place, so they just go on believing what they believe. Ignorance and incomprehension are belief's impregnable defense.--Percy

You are as confused as all get out. You didn't mention any "Australian numbers" in your Message 692 that my message was a reply to, so how could I comment on them?Allow me to make the point again. There was almost nothing true in your source. The math was wrong, the data was old, and there were errors of fact. You have to straighten all that out before anything you say based upon it can be true. This subthread is addressing the problems with the numbers you cited in your Message 683. Your "Australian numbers" are the topic of a different subthread, and I'll address them there as necessary. Here in this subthread let's stick to the errors in your Message 683, shall we? Sometimes it's hard to tell if you're just clueless or actually maliciously dishonest. No one would ever say that it is unsupported that the New York Times has a liberal slant, or contrastingly, that Fox News has a conservative slant. Obviously (to anyone but you) what you said that was an unsupported aspersion was exactly what I quoted, where you called the Time "shills for the Democratic party" and biased due to Trump Derangement Syndrome. You're just trying to distract attention from the erroneous numbers in your Message 683. You're trying to talk about everything else but. Having a little reading comprehension problem? Your comment that I responded to was about Facebook, not the NYT. My response was a reference to the large number of Russian accounts found to be embedded in Facebook. Your made-up information originated in Russia for all you know. Way to go, citizen. About 30% of people in the US own guns, and many more live with or near people who own guns, so that's a problem with well over 30% of the population. People are too flawed and imperfect to be trusted with instruments as dangerous as guns. How are you going to do that when you can't even keep straight what you said in your own messages? Find some actual facts, Marc, then build your arguments on them. You'll make a lot more sense that way.--Percy

You chopped your quote of my message, and thereby the context, which had nothing to do with Austraiia, the age of the US, or the second amendment. Why do you feel lucky to be so uninformed about the gun debate? Why do you feel lucky to be so ignorant of simple math that you couldn't pick out the glaring errors in your Message 683 before posting it? Do you think you're somehow special in the way of ICANT whose claimed superhuman abilities make it impossible that he could ever make a mistake, become depressed or mentally ill, become angry, or just become too old and incompetent? Are you not vulnerable to all the frailties to which the human flesh is heir? On what basis should you trust yourself, or anyone, to purchase a gun and then keep it safe and secure in perpetuity throughout their lives. If you want you and those around you to be safe then you will dispense with your firearms. Choose whatever method of disposal you like. Given your history here demonstrating a tenuous connection to reality and a seriously flawed judgment I think pretty much anyone would be more trustworthy with a gun than you, but my main point in this thread has been that no human being should be trusted with firearms. People are too flawed and imperfect to be trusted with so dangerous an instrument. The news confirms this everyday, for example, Husband kills wife, self, in murder suicide. Everyday it happens, on and on and on. Do you proofread what you write, or does it just flow out of your head and onto the Internet with no editing, because that question doesn't follow from your previous sentence and you're not making any sense. I'll just comment that under our Constitution we're all equal under the law, and just as it's illegal for anyone to own a bazooka, it should be just as illegal for anyone to own a firearm, things like the military, special police forces, and legitimate hunting rifles excepted. You have demonstrated no math comprehension. You should avoid cut-n-pasting anything with digits in it in the future. You've already demonstrated your math ignorance, and you're more than welcome to continue demonstrating your ignorance on other topics. Aw, come on Marc, quit the barefaced lying. Anyone with a shred of honesty who can read Fox News (a much better source than Baselessbook, by the way) knows that Democrats are against Trump's wall, not border security. You're off on your own riff now. I never said anything about Democrats being unfairly attacked, only inaccurately characterized as being against border security. And where in BaselessBook did you find this particular faketoid? You're seriously arguing that a drug-addicted Democratic base is lobbying its representatives to oppose border security so they can have cheap drugs? You are one crazy dude. Let us know when you return to Earth. So I take it this means you're not going to defend the numbers you cited in your Message 683 and that you will let the final word be the posts showing them in error. If this theory you're going to tell us about isn't based on your erroneous information, then why mention the erroneous information in the first place? False, for example rising average global temperatures, rising sea levels, land already lost to the sea (Sea level rise has New Jersey residents relocating out of flood zones), melting glaciers, Antarctic ice shelf collapse, increased storm intensity. But let not facts interrupt the flow of your prose. You continue: You are one crazy misinformed dude. Given that I have to leave in five minutes, there's too much wrong in there to break down. Some other time. Skipping to the end: We're all responsible for global warming. The only thing Republicans are being blamed for is ignoring it.--Percy

You are a very confused person if you don't understand how normal it is for people to reply to the message they're replying to and not to other random messages. While responding to your Message 692 I of course did not respond to your Message 693. I hadn't even read it yet. Sometimes I do respond to multiple messages in a single message (usually when Faith posts multiple responses to a single message), and in such cases right at the top I say something like, "I'm responding to multiple messages," and then I identify each message as I respond to it with headings like, "Responding to Message 692" and "Responding to Message 693".In other words I make perfectly clear what I'm doing, yet you can't even understand why someone would reply only to the message they clicked the "reply" button for. You are indeed a weird and confused dude. Look at the top left of any message, Marc, like my Message 697. Right there it says: Why is it so hard for you to understand that when replying to Message 692 that I wouldn't be commenting on your Message 693. When I did reply to your Message 693 a little later that same afternoon I responded to what you said in Message 693, not what you said in other messages, which is what normal people do. Because that would just be a mindless and untrue, "Oh yeah? Well so are you." I'm calling attention to your many errors, and how your math disability prevents you from understanding your errors, and how your lack of critical thinking renders you unable to connect facts to conclusions. We all lead busy lives. Take as much time as you need to respond. There's no hurry. It is not the fault of advocates for measures that would reduce gun deaths that gun nuts can't defend their love of guns without saying things that are confused, clueless and incomprehensible, not to mention that ignore plain facts. You posted bad numbers and lies and now refuse to take responsibility for them. Good show. We would use numbers from reliable and trustworthy sources, and we wouldn't post blatant lies like "These numbers are from the CDC" or "80% of homicides are gang related." Why would you do that? This thread's about gun control, not drug problems or immigration. Stay on topic, you'll cause yourself less confusion. Assuming you're striving for apples-to-apples comparisons and will use examples from western style democracies, go right ahead and tell us about these figures. Can we assume you'll be getting these figures from BaselessBook? Do you know what Democrats mean by "socialism" or "democratic socialism" in the context of American politics? It *is* a bit antiquated, don't you think? You could say that, but there's no evidence that it's true. Meanwhile back in reality there were nearly 40,000 gun deaths last year, up nearly 25% in a decade. The gun control threads are full of facts and figures and tables and charts showing how dangerous guns are. Here's a couple excellent scatter plots showing how higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher gun death rates, both by countries and by states. These were last posted in Message 675, you must have somehow missed them despite your meticulous and thorough approach: BaselessBook leads you astray again, Marc. The consistency with which you're continually wrong is amazing. You have an almost complete inability to accept any fact or figure that is actually true, always grabbing tight of that which is false.We've already discussed suicide rates in the UK. UK rates are lower than the US. Per 100,000 people, the US rate 13.7 and the UK 7.6. If by "think of something" you mean make something up, so far you've identified nothing we've said that isn't true. Those suicide figures come from List of countries by suicide rate over at Wikipedia - the source of their data is the World Health Organization. You invite the insults by going on extended and uninhibited sprees of falsity. Start saying things that are true and we'll pour accolades upon you. I say the same things at any forum. When you return please do try to read back a ways in threads so you don't make the same unfounded and false comments you just made here about no support having been presented for the dangers of widespread gun ownership.Also when you return, please try to draw your data from reliable sources. Wikipedia is very good. Fox News is a good news source, just make sure you're reading or watching their news and not their opinion shows. Sean Hannity and the rest of the opinion shows over there are not reliable sources of accurate and factual information, but the Shepard Smith Reporting news program at 3 PM is.--Percy

95% of your post wasn't about gun control, but I'll respond to all of it anyway. Marc, what is wrong with you? It was you who said, "Maybe I'll be back in 6 months or so, like usual. " Why are you asking me if it's been 6 months when it was you who said that? Your approach, driven at least in part by paranoia, is guaranteed to make a hash of things. Respond to one message at a time, and only to the content of that message. Don't try to cross-correlate the content of messages from different people - that's a hugely difficult task. Two comments. In your age group it is natural to for people to slow down as they age. Second, what is the proper goal of people as they ease into retirement? I question your assertion that increasing numbers of people want to be idle as much as possible, but even if true if it makes them happy then who are you to question it?Just a side comment: among my own circle of friends it is common to hear comments like, "I'm so busy now that I'm retired I can't see how I ever had time to work." This website is a hobby. Writing software is a hobby (like this website's software, or download the RideGuru app if you've got an iPhone). Tennis is my sport. Golf would be one of my sports, but it just takes so dang long. You have casual acquaintances who make clear their political leanings? Interesting. My experience is that politics rarely comes up in casual conversation with people you don't know well. One common topic of conversation is trying to find acquaintances or friends we have in common. So you have a positive view of your casual conservative acquaintances and a negative view of your casual liberal acquaintances. About your criteria, who mandated that people, especially in your age group, must have ambition, and must have hobbies, let alone useful hobbies. And aside from the validity of your criteria, have you considered the possibility that your judgments are colored by your political leanings? Nearly everything we do involves fossil fuels. If you're wearing clothes while you do something then it involves fossil fuels. We need to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and increase our use of renewable non-greenhouse gas generating energy sources. So liberals and Democrats produce little, and with little to lose and everything to gain through government redistribution programs they're not threatened by government seizures of production. And desire for gun control is driven by jealousy of how much fun shooting sports are.That's an amazing fantasy world you inhabit. I have said many times in this thread that I do not know how we get from where we are to where we have to be. You can choose change or no change. Both have consequences. The rise of suburbia and the middle class created shopping malls, the Internet is killing them. Good, bad, or just change? Government mandated change: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the end of slavery, the women's vote, rural electrification, affordable healthcare. Well, that was random. Gun deaths are down in Australia since they took away the guns: You have misread your own link. When you quote the link saying: The link goes on to say that this has been debunked:

quote:

---

The fact-checker site Snopes found the first claim to be "mostly false,"...

---

It's worse than "mostly false" - it's just a lie. The US is not "3rd in murders throughout the world," not even close, not even sort of close, not even remotely close. Look at List of countries by intentional homicide rate. We're around number 97. Your own link says that that second part has also been debunked:

quote:

---

Snopes' overall conclusion: "No matter which way the data is tortured, it seems that there is no reasonable interpretation by which the United States could be ranked 'third in murders' worldwide, much less 'fourth from the bottom' once Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington D.C. are exempted from those numbers."

---

Marc, I can understand resenting the insults, but you gotta admit it's pretty stupid to post a link debunking your own argument. Marc, this is idiotic. You post no details, reference no source, so how am I supposed to respond? Did Bernie Sanders actually heap praise on Fidel Castro? Hell if I know. If he did, was it to praise their communist system of government? Seems unlikely. Was he perhaps praising their healthcare system. Hmmm, that actually seems likely, let me see what I can find on the Internet...In November of 2016 on This Week with Martha Raddatz, Bernie Sanders was asked about his 1985 comments praising Fidel Castro for giving Cubans health care and education. She questioned why he said that given that it was a brutal dictatorship. Bernie replied:

quote:

---

No, of course, their economy is terrible. You're right, it is a dictatorship. They did have a good health -- do have a decent health care system and a decent educational system. A lot of people have left Cuba for better dreams, to fulfill their aspirations.

​

So, no, the Cuban economy is a disaster. No, I do not praise Fidel Castro.

---

But the question remains, do you know what "socialism" or "democratic socialism" means in the context of American politics? Rather than risk another broadly wrong or irrelevant answer from you I shall provide the answer. All socialism means in American politics is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a social safety net, affordable healthcare, jobs that pay a living wage, and restraints on unbridled capitalism. In this context socialism and capitalism are not opposites. All the economies of Europe, which are far more socialistic than ours, are capitalist. You are, again, very confused. Reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels has nothing to do with socialism. You are, yet again, very confused. How do you begin with the 2nd Amendment and end with fossil fuels?The second amendment is anachronistic. There is no necessity for a right to possess firearms. It should be a rare privilege. No one's claiming utopia will follow the banning of guns. Guns won't be eliminated. Murders and suicides will still happen, though at a much lower rate. Again, you misinterpreted your page at the McElroy website - I'm not really familiar with McElroy, nor do I see any reason for increasing my familiarity with her. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but you've given no reason why she's relevant to this discussion.As to bias, if you're talking about news rather than opinion, the New York Times news reporting is generally straight up. For example, the current headline is Testifying to Congress, Cohen Calls Trump a ”Racist,’ a ”Con Man’ and a ”Cheat’. I have no doubt that the headline is completely accurate. The link takes you to live coverage, which given that it is just a camera pointed at Cohen I assume that it, too, is completely accurate.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

About 95% of it wasn't about gun control. If there was a central theme then it *was* unintended consequences, but not anything related to gun control. In a long message you mentioned gun control in only two brief paragraphs. You mean were there any additional false statements beyond all the falsities I already enumerated in my reply to your Message 718? No, I think I covered just about everything that was false. Given that a quick search reveals I discussed unintended consequences as far back as 2008 (and probably earlier, but that's the first reference I found with a quick search), no, you did not introduce me to unintended consequences. You mean your broken link to Wikipedia? For posting a broken link to something everyone already knows about? Are you daft? Again, start saying things that are true and accolades will be poured upon you and you'll actually convince people. Mocking those enumerating your falsities is just being purposefully annoying. You're displaying the same narcissistic characteristics as your hero, praise of self and denigration of others. Everyone slows down as they age, the rate and amount is different for everyone. You accused people of having two primary goals in life: be as idle as possible and be entertained. I asked how it's anybody's business how people spend their time. You didn't say anything about being a burden on society. Is that your true concern, of people becoming a burden on society? What are you thinking of, specifically, that has you concerned. I don't think anyone wants our tax dollars paying people to sit around. Whose idle lifestyles are you talking about? Are you crazy? Unless you're breaking laws or being a general nuisance, why would anyone care how active you are? Jealousy? Are you nuts? You think people are jealous of how active you are and so want to restrict your activity level by government mandates? Again, are you nuts? It has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with you being certifiable. Yes - they vote them into power. Paraphrasing, "First they came for the immigrants..." We're all for free markets, but let us not be so naive to believe that free markets are the only solution or are corruption-free, or to believe that government cannot be a solution and must be more corrupt than free markets. Solving our dependence upon fossil fuels most likely involves a partnership between government and private industry.You are wrong that government mandates cannot help reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Government mandated fuel economy standards and pollution standards are a couple examples. And here's another, though unrelated to fossil fuels: government mandates were instrumental in making cars safer. Free markets are a good thing but not a panacea. Unbridled capitalism has its own downside. Wealth inequality today is worse than in the days of the robber barons. It makes sense that an error rate as high as yours requires you to believe every odd thought that pops into your head, and it helps that you perform no fact checking. In other words, you are wrong yet again. Overall US fuel economy has been rising: U.S. vehicle fuel economy rises to record 24.7 mpg: EPASo you're against Social Secure, Medicare and Medicaid? Can I assume you won't be filing for Medicare next year, or for Social Security ever? The examples are of successful government mandated change, not of Republican achievement. Concerning the end of slavery, did you think at all about the necessity for bipartisanship since the 13th amendment passed both Houses of Congress by more than 2/3 of the vote, and passed the legislatures of more than 2/3 of the states? I hope you realize you're being an ass. And yet despite Trump's best efforts at destroying it, we now have much more affordable healthcare than we did. And somehow or other the rest of the western world has affordable healthcare. Surely if Canada and Europe and Australia can do it the US can do it. Your "liberal/wrong, conservative/right" attitude is leading you astray again and again. It isn't one's politics that decides right or right but the facts. The facts say that you cited a link contradicting your own claim, and now you're disparaging your own link. Anyway, the facts say you are wrong. The US is not 3rd in murders throughout the world. It's more like 97. See List of countries by intentional homicide rate. In the sense of the dictionary definition there is no resemblance to what socialism means in the context of American politics. Nothing I listed remotely resembles anything in the dictionary definition of socialism, which is state ownership of business and industry. We don't have to worry about, for example, Social Security beginning a slide into state ownership of business and industry because they have nothing to do with each other. Socialism in American politics only means programs that help people, not state ownership of business and industry. If you think a good argument can be made then go ahead and make it. I'd like to see that. But before you waste your time just realize that outside of Cuba (Are any other communist countries left? Even Russia is capitalist now.) that socialism only means social programs, not state ownership of business and industry. The only reason you hear American conservatives toss around the word socialist like an epithet is that it calls to mind evil and totalitarian communist Russia, not because that's what liberals actually mean by socialism. Ban fossil fuels? Are you nuts? No one wants to ban fossil fuels. What I hope most people actually want is gradually reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels (even to zero should that ever become practical). That would be a good thing because the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to the greenhouse gases causing climate change. Few want to outlaw private ownership of guns. There's no reason why people can't own hunting rifles. But handguns are responsible for most of the 40,000 annual firearm deaths, so they should be very tightly regulated (meaning training, licensing, registration, inspections and a national database), including government mandates for making them safer. And assault rifles make it too easy to kill many quickly, so they must be banned. You are seriously crazy. No one wants to seize old car engines. There's not enough of them to matter. You are very seriously crazy. An armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. Where do you get this stuff? You're scaremongering. The number of gun deaths is proportional to the number of guns. Reduce the number of guns and the number of gun deaths will also be reduced. The problem for your position is that you can find no evidence for it. Don't forget Fox. They reported it, too. I wasn't even looking for news about Pelosi and knew all about her Hawaii vacation, which took place before she became Speaker. Maybe you should try getting your news from written stories instead of watching the nightly news on TV, where you'll only see the stories they can cram into a half hour. Here's an article you could have read: Nancy Pelosi Defends Government Shutdown Vacation. Here's another one from Fox News: Nancy Pelosi is vacationing at Hawaii resort during shutdown. Why is that natural? What is Fox News? What is the Washington Examiner? Are they unnatural? Today all the media is reporting that Trump wants $8.6 billion for his wall - is it left when the New York Times reports it (here) and right when Fox News reports it (here)? Do you have anything else nutty you'd like to add? How does reporting the news itself create controversy? Is there a controversy because the New York Times and Fox News are reporting Trump's new wall funding request? Is there anything in the reporting by either article that you find controversial? Yeah, but you've said a bunch of crazy stuff in this post alone, and you seem to have little doubt about that either. You're not exactly an example of good judgment or being informed. You keep complaining but never provide any meaningful examples. I don't think many people cared much that Pelosi took a vacation over the holidays during Trump's contrived government shutdown. Trump think's he's God and people like you are just aiding him in his delusion.Could we get back to gun control now?--Percy

You like the brash basher from Belleville, we get it. What do any of my characterizations of and reactions to your nonsense have to do with whether I enjoyed watching Connors style of play? I didn't say anything about my own play, but if it helps stop you from making these nonsensical associations then I'll add that I played college varsity and USTA tournament tennis, and I play an aggressive attacking style not all that different from Connors. Everything has unintended consequences because no one can predict everything that will happen in the future. But your unintended consequences for gun control do not accord with the facts. Based upon what? You're making things up again. From Turns out Americans work really hard...but some want to work harder:

quote:

---

Americans do work hard. Americans work an average of 34.4 hours a week, longer than their counterparts in the world's largest economies.

​

Many work even longer. Adults employed full time report working an average of 47 hours per week, which equates to nearly six days a week, according to Gallup. That's about an hour and a half more than they reported a decade ago.

​

Nearly four in 10 workers report logging 50+ hours on the job.

​

Americans also receive fewer vacation days than their peers elsewhere -- and they don't even take all the time they are given. U.S. workers got about 15 days off in the past year and took 14 days, according to a 2014 Expedia.com survey. Europeans are given an average of 28 days, while workers in the Asia-Pacific receive 19, though they also don't take them all.

---

Here's a nice chart: So much for laziness in this country. Laziness and drug abuse are two completely different things. Drug abuse is a serious problem. Anyone whose drug problem has reached the point where they are a burden on their family and on society is not a recreational drug user but an addict who needs help. First, most people are opposed to illegal immigration, and the statistics on their educational levels, knowledge of English and so forth are sketchy because they try to avoid contact with anything involved with the government. But we have lots of statistics on legal immigrants. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States tells us that about half speak English proficiently and about 30% have a bachelor's degree or higher.I have no doubt that many permanent immigrants desire citizenship for themselves and their children. What's wrong
with that?Immigrants are banned from using welfare for their first five years in this country. Statistics show that immigrants receive less in welfare than Americans. No, Democrats are not trying to buy votes by paying people to sit around. You can't even say who it is that is getting paid for doing all this sitting around. You're making things up again. Something random just pops into your head and puts your fingers in motion, and just like that you've produced yet another fictitious claim. I think Democrats are wrong in promoting voting by illegal immigrants, but there is no support for your contention that Democrats are buying votes with services. How would illegal immigrants draw upon government services anyway without proper documentation like a social security card and so forth? You're just making things up again. You seem to have a great many prejudices that you've made up in your own mind.Strong arguments can be made for permitting legal immigrants to vote in state and local elections. Given that illegal immigrants cannot draw upon assistance programs, they have to work. They're very unlikely to be idle. Where is your information coming from? Drug addicts are people in need of help. Besides the fact that the statistics I quoted earlier show that Americans are not a lazy people, naturally under any bell shaped curve some people are going to be lazy. So what? It takes all types. Why do you care how lazy other people are? If someone wants to spend half their day in executive time watching television and sending tweets that's their business. You are seriously delusional and guilty of projecting your own feelings onto others. And those observing Trump's misogynism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, vengefulness, dishonesty, cheating, ignorance, autocratic nature, immorality and narcissism see nothing to be jealous of. They just hope his presidency ends before he ends our country as we know it. The true difference between us is that any assertions I made would be supported by facts while yours would just be stuff you made up. And how do you explain things like monopolies and companies colluding on pricing and so forth? You're just making things up again. The government didn't legislate out full size cars, but CAFE standards have had a big impact on the size and mix of vehicles that car companies offer. Despite that, average fuel economy across all cars/SUVs/light trucks in the US rises every year. I don't know the precise cost, but here's a nice graph showing how car prices have risen since 1980 when not adjusted for new features and quality improvements (like antilock brakes and roll bar construction) in green, and after adjustment in orange. Prices have been fairly flat since around 1990: Your comparison is way off, plus moderately equipped cars don't cost $35,000 today - your average Camry probably costs around $25,000 by the time you've finished negotiating. There is no such thing as a $35,000 2019 car similarly equipped to a 1975 car. How much today's $35,000 car would cost if you threw out bluetooth, GPS navigation, hands-free cell phone operation, antilock brakes, maintain-distance cruise control, lane maintenance, electronic ignition, airbags, 5 mph bumpers, far better rust resistance, better fuel mileage, lower pollution, etc. etc. etc., I don't know. But if you look at that graph I posted above it should give you a rough idea. The graph only goes back to 1980, but if you extrapolate back to 1975 it looks like cars cost maybe twice as much today. This is true. What do you think we should do? How about tax credits for car purchases for people with low incomes?There's another rising cost of cars: maintenance and repairs. Back in the day it wasn't that hard to do all the maintenance on your own car. Replacing the oil and filter, replacing the rotor, points and plugs, adjusting the timing, replacing water pumps, brake pads and belts, all these kinds of things could be done yourself. Maintenance and repairs are much more difficult on modern cars. A friend's water pump failed last week - it cost him around $800 to have it replaced (granted that's a bit high - the water pump in his particular car is very difficult to access, so labor was much of the cost).So poor people suffer a double whammy with modern cars: they cost more to buy, and when fixing them there are few things they can do themselves. What could be done to help them? Maybe a higher minimum wage? The minimum wage in 1969 was $1.50/hour. Adjusted for inflation that would be around $10/hour today. Well, that was pretty stupid. How does one live year after year to your age without realizing at some point that you need to start saving for retirement? Geez, what a mess. You've shown the same level of knowledge and judgment in your life as you've shown in discussions here. Both my kids already have 401k's, and they're less than half your age. Delay collecting on Social Security as long as possible, until age 70 if you can, because then you'll get the biggest payout. You get 132% by retiring at age 70 of what you'd get at age 66. Bollux on your healthy lifestyle. Tons of people with healthy lifestyles become ill or have accidents. There was a very recent story in the Washington Post by Tonia Ellsworth Smith, a woman with a very healthy lifestyle:

quote:

---

For years, I was the healthiest person I knew. I ate a healthy diet and didn’t drink, smoke or use illegal drugs. I ran marathons and ultramarathons, some as long as 100 miles. I lifted weights and went to yoga classes. I volunteered at my daughters’ school and for the local Road Runners Club. I shuttled my kids to practices and walked our dogs.

---

But she got pancreatic cancer at age 44, and it almost killed her (it kills 90% of people). See Like Alex Trebek, I was given a dire pancreatic cancer prognosis. I survived..You don't control the serendipity of whether you come down with a serious disease or get in a serious accident. You don't control how fast your body breaks down as you age. Have you been able to stop the aging of your skin, the graying of your hair, the decline in your strength and stamina, the formation of cataracts, etc? No, of course not. Aging affects everyone. By the time we're 115 we're all dead. Visit an assisted living facility some time. Almost every single resident uses a walker or wheelchair, and it isn't because 99% of the residents didn't live healthy lifestyles. So you're going to refuse Medicare? You have no money. What are you going to do if you become ill? Refuse treatment and die? Say what? You just gave me whiplash. You just referred above to Social Security helping itself to your money, making it clear it was something you didn't like. Now you're saying you like it. Inconsistent much? It all depended upon whether you had family. I read The Last of the Doughboys not so long ago, consisting of interviews with the last few surviving US soldiers of WWI, all in the neighborhood of a hundred years old. One common element ran through many of the interviews: the WWI veterans lived with a family member, usually one of their children or grandchildren, who were themselves at an advanced age. Government isn't perfect, but nothing is where people are concerned. If you're looking for perfection you're going to have to look elsewhere. You're being daft again. I'm neither liberal nor conservative. Some of my views lean one way, some the other. We disagree not because we're on opposite sides of some liberal/conservative divide but because you can't seem to get anything right.What happened is that you quoted from a link to Snopes whose actual content contradicted you, and then when this was pointed out to you you denigrated your own link by calling it liberal. Snopes is just a fact checking site.
Facts are facts - they're neither liberal or conservative. Rebuttal doesn't consist of putting labels on things. Rebuttal is getting your facts in a row and then marshalling your arguments around the facts. You don't seem to know how to do this. Sure they can vary, in the way that when my speedometer says 60 mph I might actually be doing 58 or 62, but I'm sure not doing 5 mph. Do you have any rebuttal that's worth more than a plug nickel? Face it, you were wrong in an obvious and embarrassing (but only to those if happen to have the embarrassment bone - it seems to be absent in most Trump followers) way. Large cities have large numbers of firearm deaths because they have large populations. They don't necessarily have high firearm death rates. The cities with the highest firearm homicide rates (see Cities With the Most Gun Violence) tend to be smaller, like New Orleans (16.6 per 100,000), Memphis (15.0) and Birmingham (12.6). New York with the largest population has a rate of only 3.4.That cities tend to elect Democrats is just part of the rural/urban divide. Rural regions tend to be much more conservative than urban areas. Are you afraid that state ownership of public transit or of roads and bridges is going to cause a slide into state ownership of business and industry? You don't, right? So why would you think running Social Security, which has nothing to do with ownership of anything, would cause such a slide. You are again making no sense. You can't seem to put two facts together to reach a conclusion, and now that I think about it, you can't even find two facts. What an asinine thing to say. Of course I know about AOC's Green New Deal, and it doesn't say anything about a ban on fossil fuels. What it does say is: As you can see, AOC is stating a goal for eliminating fossil fuels, not calling for a ban, So who told you AOC wants to ban fossil fuels? Can I guess Fox News? What about Greenpeace? Did you read your own link? It says the world has about ten years to eliminate fossil fuel based vehicles or climate change will have picked up too much momentum to be turned aside. The scientific community is saying pretty much the same thing, which is likely where Greenpeace got their information. Where did you get your information? Can I guess Fox News again?As I said in my previous post, everyone should want to move gradually away from fossil fuels because they contribute to the greenhouse gases causing climate change. While Trump has announced withdrawal of the US, the only plan to address climate change that many countries have signed on to is the Paris Agreement, which only calls for countries to submit their climate change goals and plans for how they hope to achieve them. It has no teeth. For example, the US cannot formally withdraw from the agreement until 2020, but we're already failing to live up to what we agreed to. Reducing dependence upon fossil fuels is the main one. Governments should encourage moving away from fossil fuels. How many times does it have to be said. We have to move away from fossil fuels. They already know. We have to move away from fossil fuels. You are seriously delusional. It has nothing to do with controlling human behavior in any way that you mean it. The solution involves incentives for people and mandates for business that will help move us away from fossil fuels. You are not a reasonable or even rational person, but would this "same place" be Fox News again? Anyway, correcting your mistake yet again, an armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. You need to look up scaremongering. Making things up to scare people into agreeing with you, like that reducing the number of guns will increase gun deaths, is scaremongering. Calling for improved gun control because studies show that the more guns the more gun deaths is reasoned argument. Calling for reduced greenhouse gas emissions because of scientific studies showing they warm the planet is reasoned argument. Do you have any data at all for your position? If so, where is it? How is it that you are so consistently confused.First, about Diane Feinstein, it was deplorable the way she talked to those kids about why she wasn't supporting AOC's Green New Deal.Second, no one, including Diane Feinstein, is claiming that "snowstorms in February, tornados and hurricanes etc. are all recent things, that they never used to happen 30, 40, or 50 years ago." If you'd like to quote something somebody in a position of responsibility actually said then I'd be glad to respond, but about this all I can say is that you produce a prodigious volume of made up stuff. Since when did reporting on snowstorms and car wrecks become a liberal thing? Here's a link to that broadcast, ABC World News Tonight for 2/11/19. It's the lead story. Quote something liberal. You think Fox News didn't report on the unusual weather? Oh, what do you know, they did. This is from the same day, 2/11/19: Series of winter snowstorms slam SeattleYou are very strange. The kids visiting Pelosi's office were with the Sunrise Movement, a climate advocacy organization. Why would they ask about Social Security? You're not even addressing the issue you yourself raised. You accused the New York Times of reporting false news in a way that prevents their being accused of outright lies. Back it up. Quote from a New York Times story where they do this. Is there any subject you can't be wrong about? Fox News has the best ratings. Given that, how do you support your claim that being liberal creates even better ratings? Huh? You're dissing all these conservative talk show people as products of a biased, corrupt mainstream media? I agree they're biased, but I have no evidence they're corrupt, and they're certainly not part of the mainstream media, unless Premiere Networks, Fox News and whoever hosts Glenn Beck are now part of the mainstream media. First, you're confusing the thread's topic with a particular position.Second, in case you think my position is "less guns, less crime," it isn't. My position is that guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of most people, and that dramatically reducing the number of guns would have an equally dramatic downward effect on the number of gun deaths.Third, while digressions are fine, if you really have nothing left to say about the thread's topic then you really should consider tailing off your participation in this one.--Percy

Hey Marc, turn on your TV right away, ABC World News Tonight is blathering on about another blizzard. Liberal hearts are going crazy! --Ted

What is the proper response to continuous violations of rule 4? Like I said, start saying things that are true and/or that make sense and the responses will change. How else does one respond to a post full of nonsense such as a demand for accolades for posting a broken link to the obvious, and paranoia like that inactive people are jealous of you and are trying to enact government mandates to restrict your active lifestyle. I'm still neither liberal nor conservative, and you're not conservative. You're repeating a lot of the same stuff of people who voted for Trump, but most of that stuff isn't conservative, just nutty. And you think placing yourself in greater danger is a good thing? You know, you Kentuckians aren't trying hard enough - you have only the 14th highest rate of gun ownership in the country. Even tiny West Virginia beats you, and you'll never catch up to Alaska.--Percy

The gun people have already told us of the terrible consequences New Zealanders will suffer for making it more difficult for the public to have guns. Quoting from posts to this thread and to the Police Shootings thread:

quote:

---

The unintended consequences of that, and many other trade-offs, could result in more deaths than we have now.

---

quote:

---

...the mere presence of guns in a society can be a crime deterrent.

---

quote:

---

I could even add more categories, like...deaths in the hands of past governments who stripped it's citizens of their guns.

---

quote:

---

...when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem.

---

quote:

---

... that was a problem, when criminals are assured that law abiding homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves.

---

quote:

---

Ban gun ownership and watch the homicide by gun rate skyrocket to unprecedented levels within the hour of its legislative passing.

---

quote:

---

I have my guns to keep someone from blowing my head off.

---

quote:

---

It's you "I am the LAW" type of inbred cousin humpers that give the rest of us law abiding gun owners a bad name.

---

quote:

---

...your fear of guns taints your judgment...

---

quote:

---

All I do know is that if you reach for a gun you're going to die.

---

quote:

---

Short of the uninvention of the gun, we're just going to have accept and deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.

---

--Percy

The musket was the weapon of choice when the 2nd Amendment was written. Here's a short one minute comparison of a musket with an AR-15: Here's an entertaining comparison where they actually fire a musket and an AR-15. It's a little longer, 4 minutes, but worth it if you have the time. Be sure to watch the bloopers section at the end - those muskets had a lot of ways to go wrong and not fire. Here is an AR15 being fired both with and without a bump stock (I've positioned the video at precisely the right point, you only have to watch about 15 seconds): The writers of the 2nd amendment did not have modern firearms in mind. Maybe everyone *should* have the right to keep and bear musket loaders, but not modern weapons.Looking at New Zealand, it's amazing how rational people can be about the dangers of firearms when they don't have the issue all confused in their minds with the possibility that some sacred right is being trampled.--Percy

When the gun entered the auditorium I would have exited.--Percy