Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
In Poland and England, only about one out of every million people die in gun homicides each year — about as often as an American dies in an agricultural accident or falling from a ladder.
Once (some 10 years or more) the green card to go to the USA was something very valuable.
With view on all those possibilities offered.
Today this has gone. Nothing more attracting.
Even if you do NOT want to travel to the states - you feel the long arm of US justice in your neck:
taking a plane in south Africa to Europe for example - you have to spill all fluids taken with you...
and a lot more!
Or if you are in the internet - NSA is spying always on your data...
It is obvious that the states are only taking profit on others even far away from their country.
But now I shut up like Mike as I am living in a more peaceful country without armed "terrorists"
or guns in the pockets.
I don't have to reflect on every "terror news" flocking in.
Site Administrator Swing Trader Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
Posts: 49,780 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,308 given,
97,567
received
The problems facing America took decades to create. And will take far longer to fix, if it's even possible any more.
Think about how quickly you can ruin a company, or destroy a building --- versus how long it takes to build it from the ground up. That's what is facing America today, decades of destruction has eroded 200 years of construction.
And of course, the real problem is -- it's no longer a democracy, so the people are less likely to really be able to exercise the changes needed, without some sort of massive revolution.
Anyway, it's all depressing. I made a decision a while back to leave. It was the most difficult decision of my life, and I was questioning my duty to my country to stay and fight, or to leave. It's a difficult decision, but one that I do not regret. The biggest problem was that even my more intelligent friends were completely clueless about what was happening behind the scenes, so there is virtually no hope for the mass public to ever be informed enough to push for change.
Site Administrator Swing Trader Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
Posts: 49,780 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,308 given,
97,567
received
This video is a clear demonstration of why nothing positive gets done in America, by Congressmen. This guy has clearly been told to adhere to a certain party line rule, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue (paying for healthcare for first responders on 9/11). Even blood on his hands is not enough to get him to question his party line from the leadership.
I give the man the benefit of the doubt, in that I think he has a heart. Yet he can't think of anything that could possibly be done in order to pay for the bill that would allow healthcare to be given to these 9/11 first responders.
He, and his party, had no trouble spending money for tax credits to the ultra rich, or spending money for subsidies paid to the oil and gas industry, or any other of millions of things. But 9/11 first responders? Nope, we can't afford that.
This is applicable to the thread in that the same applies for any legislation that is for the benefit of the people.
And I am very thankful that people like Jon Stewart exist and use their influence to do good in the world. Too bad Congressmen don't agree. And of course, the majority of them are of a certain affiliation.
Don't worry guys, I'll peace out from this thread. I know I am pissing off my members in this community, since most of them are from the same party and would strongly oppose everything I've said.
The key in that sentence is "in gun homicides". They still die due to other weapons.
Yes in my opinion an increase from 1-2 to 2-5 people every 100,000 inhabitants is very small. Percentages can be deceiving. If I have a dollar and you give me 2, I've increased my money by 200%, but it's still a very small increment. If I have a million and you give me 500,000$, I only have 50% more but it's a lot of money.
The following user says Thank You to Malthus for this post:
I think this number doesn't tell us much. Yes, there are more gun homicides in the USA than other countries simply because there are more guns, but if the total number of homicides (including all weapons, poisons, etc) are the same between countries than the problem is not the guns.
Well isn't that the point? If they reduced the number of guns then it will reduce the number of homicides via guns, if there are simply less guns.
Australia is a good example, we can't buy guns here easily, not by a long shot (pun...). We get shootings here once in a while but it's almost always gang related.
Machete easier to deal with, just run - you can't really run with a high probability of surviving from a gun.
The following user says Thank You to PeakGrowth for this post:
It could be but my point is that knife homicide is just as bad as a gun homicide. The Government should focus on reducing homicide rates, not guns, since homicides are very similar between countries with/without guns. Also there are huge differences between homicide rates in countries where guns are permitted (see the difference between Brazil/Argentina/Mexico and Canada/Switzerland for example).
Now, if you tell me that gun ownership correlates with a higher number of homicides (of total homicides /100,000 people, not gun homicides which tell us nothing), than yes, ban them. However I still haven't seen that correlation posted and in fact some studies show there isn't one (like the chart I posted earlier about the UK banning guns).
The following user says Thank You to Malthus for this post:
It could be very easy to reduce gun crime in the US. They could set up some very harsh penalties..such as a 20 year minimum prison sentence for anyone caught illegally owning a gun..or committing any type of crime with a gun. The overwhelming majority of gun violence are gangs, drug dealers, thugs, and criminals. Of course, this will never happen since the argument would be that it "unfairly targets minorities."
Again, concealed permit holders commit very little in the way of gun crime and they should be allowed to carry for protection against the above mentioned groups.
Since virtually every lone mass shooter (except the Muslim ones) has been on psyche meds such as SSRI anti-depressants, I would support legislation that prohibits guns to be sold to people on those meds.
So, the only other group that is of real concern are the Islamist extremists. I believe this will be a new source of more mass killings in the U.S. Also, since many gang members convert to Islam in prison, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these team up with ISIS and other extremist groups.
More than ever, citizens will not be able to rely mainly on police for protection. I make it a point to practice frequently at the gun range and am enrolling in some defensive and tactical shooting courses as well.
I also fear that we will see much more Paris style shootings happen in other parts of Europe such as Germany and the U.K. Why wouldn't there be? There's more than enough potential radicalized groups there, many more will infiltrate the Syrian refugees...and they have tons of weaponless, disarmed people to slaughter at will. scary days are ahead.
Failure is not an option
The following 2 users say Thank You to lancelottrader for this post:
No you don't : the American Dream has, most unfortunately, become the American DREAM...
As a European who loves the US, first drove coast to coast in the '70s, lived in California for a year in the '90s, I can tell you a LOT has changed in my lifetime... & it's not all good.
I appreciate that with the Second Amendment, gun control is not going to happen, but to anyone outside the US the typical pro-gun myopia amongst otherwise intelligent people is truly staggering.
Well, that's enough sh*t stirring from me for one morning....
The following 3 users say Thank You to jtrade for this post:
The American Dream was always a dream. The idea of owning a home was a dream that was created by corporations to keep workers close to factories and tied down to a job by 'roots'. The white picket fence wasn't to keep people out but to keep you in. Home ownership was a form of robbery and slavery. It was the easiest way to recoup the wages they paid workers. The ultimate 'money flow'.
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
It's a nice speech but it's just rhetoric. The truth is people with guns do not help themselves or others. There are virtually no examples of it. I believe statistically you are more likely to be killed with your own weapon than you are to kill somebody else with it. How is that protecting yourself?
I know you all like your guns, and hide behind the claim that you need them to protect yourself from the bad people. As I've argued previously though, you and your family are more likely to die to a texting driver than to a gun, but that's an inconvenient truth everybody ignores, otherwise they would be pushing as hard to fix texting and driving as much as they do keeping their guns.
Let me ask this. If the government has decided that somebody is such a high security risk that they won't let them on an airplane, why should they be allowed to buy a gun?
There is no sun without shadows. If you want the freedoms, there will be inevitable drawbacks, as everything operates in the context of duality. The mass shootings are the shadow of the responsibility that the US has assumed for itself.
Freedom is great, but there is no unconditional freedom without negative consequences. +/- everything. Do the +s outweigh the -s?
"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." - Milton
I've long believed that getting behind the wheel of a car is the most dangerous thing I do each day. Not much I can do about careless drivers except be situationally aware, just as I am when armed in a public place. Should I write a letter to my representative? Ask for more stringent laws? Just like with mass shooters (or cocaine dealers, drunk drivers, rogue traders at large banks, or other bad people) what good are more laws going to do? People will find ways to break them if they want to.
The no fly list is a statist, secretive, unconstitutional abuse of power which affords no due process for those who are on it. You look at it and say "the government is protecting me." I look at it and say "prove it, fuckers." But they can't and won't. They call all the shots, and the citizen gets no appeal or redress. It operates under the same paradigm as the Soviet gulag, just a tidy way to deal with problem children.
So to me that somebody is on the no fly list has nothing to do with their fitness to possess a gun. And even if you do find the list credible, then forget guns your question should be why are they even in this country in the first place?
Money make ya handsome
The following user says Thank You to Pariah Carey for this post:
1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”
2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”
3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]
4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.
5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.
6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]
7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.
8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).
9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.
10. In Pearl, Miss., in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state. [UPDATE: For whatever it’s worth, Heidi Kinchen of The Advocate (Baton Rouge) notes that Myrick was in the Army reserves and in the National Guard, though he was obviously not on duty at the time of the shooting.]
10 mins in any active shooter situation or any criminal situation is a long time to wait for your defense to show up. Police on average do not stop crimes. They respond and investigate crimes once they are over.
Most events for which we have insurance to protect us against don't happen that often either. Like finding yourself the victim of a violent crime. But it's good to have the insurance (in this case a gun).
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
@tturner86 I don't think anybody was making a debate about the police, my debate is am I safer if your allowed to buy a gun, and my belief is no because your gun is more likely to be used to harm me than to protect me. I understand you feel safer with it, but again that's not my argument.
@Pariah Carey You buying insurance doesn't effect me but you buying and/or carrying a gun can do. Hence I think that's a inappropriate analogy.
The problem is your right's to buy and carry a gun have got to the point that it outweighs my right to be safe.
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
A pro-gun news article that uses an abortion chart to illustrate how charts can be misleading. Hmmmm..... maybe not surprising they are a Right Wing Think Tank.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
For what its worth his explanation of 2-axis charts is BS (not debating the subject matter itself). The two-charts he shows a) illustrate two completely different data points, b) are more representative of the 1st S&P chart that he says is wrong than the 2nd one that he says is right and c) are highly dependent upon the chosen 'start date' (probably intentionally).
A good statistician can make number show anything they want...
His chart...
Different Axis... Different Picture
Or even how about this....
Different Start Point... Different Scales ... Different Picture.
By the way what exactly does a Right/Left wing Think Tank actually mean? ... how can you be a think tank but be biased one way or another... Right/Left wing propganda generators would be more accurate.
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
One of the things I find really scary about Facebook and to a lesser extent anybodies favorite news channel is exactly what they are highlighting. It's not surprising that the most of your friends have similar views on life as you do, so what ends up happening is your page gets filled up with their posts, which not surprisingly nearly all support your point of view you. It doesnt take long before you start to believe that point of view is the correct point of view, if only because your not getting any other point of view. I did a bad job of explaining that but I think you know what I mean. Also when I say 'you' above I didn't mean anybody in particular, I meant everybody. I believe this phenomenon effects everybody no matter what their point of view.
The following 5 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
In attacking the gun industry, Ms. James is taking a page from other successful efforts to pressure “sin” industries like cigarettes and coal. While seeking divestments has long been popular, they have had little direct impact, according to studies, despite the headlines they often generate.
But efforts to prevent banks and other financing sources from lending money to certain companies has been far more effective. For instance, as chronicled in this column earlier this year, a number of advocacy groups successfully ended the practice of mountaintop removal of coal in Appalachia, an environmentally devastating practice, by pressuring banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Credit Suisse to choke off funding, which they did over nearly a decade of pressure.
Site Administrator Swing Trader Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
Posts: 49,780 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,308 given,
97,567
received
I saw news on Twitter that Obama is going to use an executive order to close some firearm loopholes (maybe gun show and preventing others on certain lists from buying?).
Site Administrator Swing Trader Data Scientist & DevOps
Manta, Ecuador
Experience: Advanced
Platform: My own custom solution
Trading: Emini Futures
Posts: 49,780 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 32,308 given,
97,567
received
Also doesn't help with mainstream news just repeats whatever is on the prompter. I know most American's don't realize the true source of their daily news being fed to them, or just how restrictive/controlling it is. So naturally, when the entire country is being brainwashed (for lack of a better word) by the same message over and over, originating from a minority, then like you said it's not surprising when people start believing it.
Very few people take interest in really understanding politics, and actually reading up on what their government is doing (from all sides, not just from one point of view).
The frightening commentary on this article:
"The bottom line is that U.S. police shootings save court and prison cost. The shootings are in direct proportion to the number of criminal migrants that Obama is plaguing America with."
WoooHooo - if this is true then shootings of innocent US citizens should increase in the future - yes?
The gun homicide rate in Missouri was 16 percent higher in the six years since 2007, when the state repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, than it had been in the six years before. In the same period, the national rate fell 11 percent.
and
Federal death data released this month for 2014 showed a continuation of the trend, he said. Before the repeal, from 1999 to 2006, Missouri’s gun homicide rate was 13.8 percent higher than the national rate. From 2008 to 2014, it was 47 percent higher. (The new data also showed that the national death rate from guns was equal to that from motor vehicle crashes for the first time since the government began systematically tracking it.)
I personally like the following comment left on the site...
Let's play a word game, and substitute smoking in the article for every reference to guns. So that, we pretend, in Missouri, smoking was severely restricted until the legislature loosened those restrictions, and, since then, deaths caused by smoking have increased.
In fact, we know that when states enacted tough new restrictions on smoking (such as no smoking in public places, etc.) deaths from smoking declined because fewer people smoked and some who did quit.
Guns are like tobacco products in that they constitute a public health hazard. Your smoking is dangerous to my health. Your guns are dangerous to my life. We can control both, while still allowing some fools to persist in smoking and also allowing some fools to purchase AK-47s, as long as they pass a background check with teeth.
Until we recognize that an armed nation represents a public health threat, just as smoking was, this issue will never fade away.
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Mr. Herring made the decision, his office said in a statement, after “months of research and evaluation,” including an audit of 30 states whose concealed-handgun permits have been considered valid in Virginia. All but five of them, he said, grant permits to people who would be barred from carrying concealed weapons in Virginia.
In Roanoke, Va., in August, a television journalist and a cameraman were killed while reporting on air. And the state bears the scars of the worst massacre by a single gunman in American history, the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech.
in Virginia, home to the National Rifle Association’s headquarters, the Republican-controlled legislature opposes restrictions on gun ownership. Virginia is an “open-carry” state; anyone who is 18 or older and legally permitted to carry a firearm may carry it in public, except where prohibited by other laws.
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
I know that sounds clever but what does referencing communist sympathizers and the ex-king of England have to do with mass shootings in America and Gun Control?
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
From what I gather - it's not criminals carrying out the attacks.
It's mostly mentally ill people that are legal gun owners (or living with legal gun owners) that later 'flip out'.
In that case, gun legislation will curtail the issue.
Of course, then you have to worry about the 'bad guys' - but to be honest, your average armed crack dealer isn't the person shooting up schools - so I think those guys are in a different category.
If you have any questions about the products or services provided, please send me a Private Message or use the futures.io "Ask Me Anything" thread
The following user says Thank You to Jigsaw Trading for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
Very wrong I'm afraid - at least from the gun perspective.
It's unloaded, with a key trigger lock, in a combination safe.
The key for the trigger lock is hidden somewhere else.
The safe is not easily accessible from the main living area's.
I don't think my kids even know we have the safe, but I guess if they wanted to they could find it. They wouldn't find the key though.
I shoot Sporting Clays.
I wish I could keep it at the club but they won't allow that (for obvious reasons).
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
If we know ahead of times I would both a) have the police waiting for them and b) not be there myself.
If we didn't know ahead of time there is no way I could get to the gun.
Of course in my ideal world the 'armed' robber/rapist isn't 'armed'.
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
I just can't imagine why anyone wouldn't have the tools available to protect themselves in their own home.
Don't have to be a gun carrying cowboy walking around the house in slippers with .44 on the hip, just have it somewhat accessible, while being mindful of keeping it out of the reach of children.
It's a win-win situation in my book.
The following user says Thank You to TheTradeSlinger for this post:
I think in the anti-gun person's worldview..you are just unlucky if those things happen and you should just accept your fate...and die. They also believe that no one who owns a gun is skilled or competent enough to defend themselves and will end up shooting themselves in the foot or something.
In their version of reality, they feel they can reason with a thug and say something like, "Listen, my poor oppressed friend, I understand that you have not had the priviledges that I have,,,and you are a product of the systemic injustices that plague this country...please help yourselves to my belongings. I'm on your side." To which he replies, "Shut yo mouth you dumb piece of sh.." and the proceeds to fire multiple rounds into you and then brutually assaults and kills your wife.
Forget that most all gun violence is perpetrated by the same gang types and criminals which you see in Chicago, Baltimore etc..and the occasional lone psycho on meds that shoots up a school.
No, now that we are going to let refugees with suspected ISIS members infiltrating..plus we have emboldened thugs from the false police brutality narrative...these anti gun people want to disarm people .
Until they can find a way to disarm all the inner city criminals, wackos on psyche meds..and Islamic lone wolf shooters, I will be keeping my guns.
Failure is not an option
The following 2 users say Thank You to lancelottrader for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
That's simple. Because that tool is more likely to kill you, or be stolen or used by somebody else to kill somebody, than it is for you to actually defend yourself.
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
You could also add Custer, and all the other American's Leaders who slaughtered the Indian's.
Or even the Pope's for all the millions that were killed in the name of Christianity.
The list of people who killed million's of innocent's isn't reserved to people with differing political views to you.
Also No Gun Control is also a prerequisite to Mass Murder as we have seen.
That's 250 years ago and is to be honest very dated at this point.
The founding fathers also allowed slavery.
They also founded a country based upon separation of church and state, two things that are now ubiquitous.
The list goes on.
Why do you come to a trading forum and then not talk about trading but only shout about guns?
3 posts in your history all about guns?
Obviously free to do what you like but you seem like you would be more suited at a gun forum.
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
I understand that. What I'm getting at, is the fact that while you you may be giving yourself a chance to protect yourself, in reality you're increasing the chance that the bad things happen. While you may actually be protecting yourself a little, I believe your putting everybody else in a lot more danger. ie Your rights to own a gun are more important than my rights to be safe.
Why is there this assumption that everyone who owns a gun is some bumbling fool that's going to shoot himself by accident or someone else? There are many people who take gun ownership seriously and go to the range..plus practice defensive measures. This notion of everyone being incompetent with guns is absurd. I have yet to see anyone on this thread refute my assertion that almost all gun violence in this country is carried out by criminals, gang members, drug dealers and occasional lone psychos.
Where are the stats that law abiding and licensed gun owners are causing lots of violence?
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
I'm not sure who alleged any of things that you are claiming or how what your saying effects the conversation. All the CHL owners I know are all very competent with guns and I do not feel unsafe around them.
I didn't think the discussion was about "law abiding and licensed gun owners are causing lots of violence" I thought we were talking about that stats that show guns kill a lot of people. The thread isn't "Yet another mass shooting by a licensed gun holder.".
My argument is very relevant..If you show clearly which groups are mainly responsible for gun violence..then the solution would be to have a plan that reduced those groups access to guns or penalize heavily those that are committing crimes using guns.
Plus you have stated in numerous posts how owning a gun increases the chances of one hurting themselves with it. That sounds like you are claiming gun owners are incompetent. So everything I stated was relevant to your posts plus the problem of gun violence in this country. Your blanket statement "Guns kill a lot of people" is dubious. Cars kill a lot of people..Diseases kill people..etc. When we are talking about the gun problem in this country, it is important to make the distinction of what groups are causing the majority of the problem. How is that not a logical argument?
However, this debate will go on and it's generally always the same arguments.. so this is my last post on this. I will stick to the trading threads from now on.
Failure is not an option
The following user says Thank You to lancelottrader for this post:
Talking about the Bill of Rights...despite its name the Bill of Rights does not give rights to citizens. Those rights already exist and cannot be granted by the state. We get them at birth. What the BOR does is limit the power of government. Read the amendments, the word "not" or "no" comes up over and over, and what they're addressing is what the state can and can't do to the citizens. Again, the BOR does not give rights...it limits what the government can do against those rights which are already retained by the citizens.
The founding fathers did not give me the right to have a gun to protect myself and family. It was never theirs to give. It's a natural right, and one that never goes out of style. It never becomes dated. Now I know your response is going to be your right to own guns does not trump my right to be safe, but then out of nowhere you say this:
That pretty much flies in the face of everything you've been saying this whole thread, doesn't it? Guns are dangerous, homes with guns in them are more dangerous, the armed citizen good guy is a myth, the gun's more likely to be stolen or used against its owner, etc. So I'm a little confused at this point.
Broker: Primary Advantage Futures. Also ED&F and Tradestation
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little GE, GC, SI & Bitcoin
Posts: 3,977 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 3,281 given,
7,793
received
Not at all, they are not mutually exclusive statements (and I believe statistical facts), because the few CHL owners that I know do not represent the entire population of gun owners. That's sort of the whole point. It's not about whether you personally are a safe gun owner, but whether society is safer with our current gun laws. Your arguing you are safe. I'm arguing society isn't. We can both be right.
*Actually thinking about it some more, I do know one person who has a CHL and carries often, and that scares the living daylights out of me!
I am not surprised that Obama lied today during his speech. I am just surprised that no news agencies have fact checked his claims. No a felon cannot buy a gun online. When you purchase firearms online they are shipped to a licensed firearm dealer where you have to pass a background check before you can pick the gun up.
The White House @WhiteHouse 11h11 hours ago
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked." —@POTUS #StopGunViolence
I know better than to get in a guns talk but I can´t sleep.
Regarding regulation at shows or the internet, it seems pretty pointless, its totally pointless...
Last year I was at a trader conference in Florida on my way elsewhere. I wandered down to a small poorly attended gunshow in a hotel conference room. I was not asked for ID. A new model of an old familiar caught my attention and I had to pick it up and look see.
I told the man (store owning dealer) I was not American so could not buy it (not that I had any intention) assuming the implication of tourist was obvious. He immediately just offered to have his brother sell me the gun + exciting array of .50 shells, no questions asked for cash outside the room. He did not show any interest in why I needed a Barrett M107A1 while asking if I had the cash today. I had chatted about being at the trader conference and its an expensive weapon...
I doubt I need to explain to people on this thread what a M107A1 can do, simply that entire bus queues are more easy prey than messing about with namby pamby ARs around the office.
Perhaps proof of 3rd party liability insurance could play a role but with gun dealers that nakedly greedy (righteous defender of constitution my ass) and outrageously behaved... It has nothing to do with reasonable personal self defence selling that class of weapon to anyone outside the military.
I know it may seem naive but frankly I was jaw dropped at the lunacy of it in real life.
MMMM... as this is a no-troll forum so I am leaning on your comments being intended as humorous?
Just to balance a tad.. I'm really bored from over-tiredness today..
1. Perfectly legal semi-automatic at the time for private ownership in Florida and pretty much everywhere else? Banned in California, blame the Terminator ironically, he understands the difference between anti-personnel and anti-materiel in a domestic setting. Somehow a semi .50 that can be seen fire 6 shots in 1 second ( See Youtube) was classed as a sports hunting rifle with fewer restrictions than on handguns? with a .50 (and the really cool shells) you don't even need to be in the building, how convenient is that for the busy domestic terrorist.
I can imagine some industry spokesperson explaining how nobody was struck by a shot from the .50 but cinder blocks need to be made more safe due to their fragments ridding victim's bodies.
2. I was not trying to buy it, he was trying to sell it fairly aggressively. I doubt he was in any legal difficulty in that county. I just picked it up though if I had exchanged money I probably would have been naughty, filthy socialist(ish) foreigner that I am.
3. I'm not Colombian, I have devastating blue eyes I'm told and slightly blonde hair Actually a lot of Colombians are blue-eyed blondes in a particular region. I mention this as it maybe had something to do with how the encounter went.
4. Medellin is lovely now, big changes in the past decade since the wicked witch died. Enough was enough, even the cartel bosses agreed the city was beyond livable and co-operated. The world could learn a lot from Medellin. Some weird laws enacted but they worked, e.g. a man is not allowed be passenger on a motorcycle. A chica, no problem. It had a remarkable effect on the then rampant bike assassinations and robberies. Also the rider is required to have his licence tag on his jacket, matching the bike. Additionally they moved to a civic model (in Medellin) that is far closer to true democracy. Ok its not Switzerland but all these rolling votes on public policies and civic projects have been remarkably effective.
Of course there is corruption as however heavenly Medellin is now, its still on planet Earth.
I guess the people of Antiocia Provence, of which Medellin is the capital, are in nature most similar to moderate conservatives that were pretty dominant in the US when I was a kid... until their functional extinction (at least in politics) after 2001 and the dawn of the Idiocracy Democritus of Abdera's stupid brother always said his time would come... who knew?
I'm pretty sure a .50 would have got two ducks (oldie but a goodie)
In an era of mass slaughter by Islamic terrorists, it is surprising to find a prominent Republican like David Stockman calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment to leave Americans as defenseless as the 159 pitiful Parisians recently shot down like dogs. Democrats yes, Republicans no.
Not at all: the most negative stocks are those selling weapons and ammunition.
Now the exports of both will shrink to a minimum.
No shootings expected.
Lively discourse and debate is the only way ideas are advanced.
