rigney

Yeah, I read it in a little bible story book for kids a long time ago. I was also reading marvel comics, which were far better, IMO.

 

I'm guessing you realize a jawbone would not make a good weapon. I think you know that guns are most effective at killing. That's why god created them, right?

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but soccer moms sometimes have boys. So, if they decide to have a gun, I hope they make sure the kids can't get to it and I hope they don't feel the need for an assault rifle. I can only hope. Maybe you can convince them to carry your jawbone instead?

But then, we're always going to have a few Lizzie Bordens, right? I'm referring to the psychopathic broad who shot her boyfriend once while proceeding to slit his throat and stab him numerous times. Naa! Give her the jawbone.

Yeah, and I farted on a plane waiting for liftoff and it killed all aboard. If we are going to use make-believe in our though process, its going to get stupid real quick.

Would you be OK with replacing guns with a jawbone of an ass? With knives? With cars? Why not?

Make believe? Can't recall exactly where, but I read about that jawbone incident in my early youth. Confidentually, it did make more sense to me than your description of killing a plane load of people with a wet fart you blew while "waiting for lift-off"? Were you by chance, at one time an astronaut?

Why do you not understand that those soccer moms with permits are the sort of people who sometimes turn into " mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason"

 

Why do you want them to have guns when they do it?

Are you trying to make it easier for them to kill lots of people?

Could you reference for me where some deranged soccer mom murdered a bunch of kids? Or any other kind of sports mom for that matter.

 

Since very few are advocating the reduction of all guns, I think the most important piece of information from your data is that the US is an outlier. The US isn't just one monolithic place, if it was, we could conclude that they just can't handle guns apparently. "We crazy" We don't pass the background check!

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

The second link above provides gun murders, assaults and robberies by state. At the high end is DC, which is really a city and at the low end is Hawaii, which is an island far enough from the insanity(although they get internet and same movies out there). Next 3 on the high list are Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Not only do they have the highest gun murder rates, they increased from 2010 to 2011. So maybe people can study the differences between these high rate states and low rate states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Dakota.

 

If we were to look within states and then within cities, I'm sure we would find relatively small pockets where most of the violence occurs. The social ills that plague the US: drugs, gangs, race disparity, domestic violence, etc. will probably be a significant root cause to much of this problem.

 

So, long term I do think we somehow need to tackle these problems. Do we tackle them by making sure the wealthy keep as much of the wealth as they can and tell the poor to grow a pair, try harder, go to church and buy more guns? I don't think so. These issues will unfortunately be with us for a long time to come and there will be just as much division as to how to tackle them or if we should tackle them.

 

The issues above, while they probably are the majority of the problem, are different from the random mass killings. These killings do grip national attention, but I don't think it is completely unfounded. Incidents are resulting in larger death counts. And they aren't criminals or necessarily people with a history of mental health issues. Gangbangers shooting at each other with handguns is a completely different issue than someone mowing down children with a semi-machine gun.

 

It makes sense to question why people need weapons of mass destruction in the first place. I think Obama's proposals make alot of sense and try to tackle the issue from several fronts. Obama's proposals are not trying to reduce the total number of guns. He is trying to limit assault weapons. People can still have their guns for protection or hunting.

 

And trying to study the problem will get stiff fights from the NRA, since they will see it as an attack. They know the answer already - more guns.

Quote: You say people can still have their guns for protection or hunting? Tell that to the people of Chicago

This is bizarre,

Many criminals don't have mental health problems.

Most people with mental health problems don't become mass murderers.

The people who do become mass murderers don't generally act particularly oddly before they go on a killing spree.

So, since you can't spot the loonies in advance, the only way to ensure that loonies don't get guns is to ensure that nobody gets them.

More realistically, if you reduce the number of people with guns then you will reduce the number of people with guns who flip and shoot up the local shopping centre or whatever.

Not having seen a picture of Lanza before or after his ride to infamy, I can't attest to what he looked like during his rampage. Even if I had a hunch the guy was nuts, I'm not qalified as a psychiatrist to have picked him out of a lineup for questioning. But the guys who shot up Columbine, the theater outside Denver or the one who shot Gabby Gifford at the political rally? Their pictures gave me the creeps,and sure looked nutty to me. And while the mass majority of those who are mentally unstable are not criminally insane, you can bet that a small faction of the nuttier ones are listening to every word being said on the issue, determined to make their mark as soon as they get a chance. Long before firearms were ever invented, a guy named Samson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Tell me now, do we really need guns to commit mass murder?

Yeah? And very few people with mental illness get tied to mass murder at all. So again those who do not have a mental health problem are more dangerous.

You're kidding, right?

Moontanman dropped this link about England on the forum, but there has been very little discussion on the issue as of now.

Yes, they love losing, that's why they have guns.

 

Gun regulations aren't about taking guns away from responsible people, it's about minimizing unnecessary dangers. In the US it has been deemed unconstitutional for handguns to be overtly outlawed at the federal level nor would it be cost effective to try to find and take legally held firearms, so saying they are 'taking guns' is just a scare tactic and strawman.

I am well aware of our second amendment rights. I'm just wondering if the British, Aussies and several European nations knew their gun rights before the confication started? And Scare Tactics and Strawman" my ass! The point is: Mental Cases don't give a damn who wins this stupid guns+ or guns- fiasco we have gotten ourselves into, as long as they can get a few in their hands. As of now, we should just shut the fuck up about our problem and expose the nuts as they fall from the tree by letting the law ferret them out, hopefully before one of them can act again.

yea this is rigney...

 

I knew a bit about the roads between Wheeling and Bluefield Moon,but never did get below Danville, VA.

try this

Yea! But can he skateboard on all fours?

Tell me, is this fabulous or what? Talented to say the least and a chance to hear some good vibes.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cqxTUxzOceE&feature=youtube_gdata_plaJ

 

This was supposed to be the link of the initial post.

 

 

I wasn't speaking of the other 95% of world population, they are screwed up enough without my help. I was making a distinction between the sanity and insanity of normal people who go off the deep end under extreme pressure, as compared to mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason. And "soccer moms"? I hope they each get a conceal and carry permit.

Just want to add one more thing. You can bet all of your "unpicked boogers" that the gun nuts hope you gun control freaks win the argument. The more you rail about taking guns out of responsible citizens hands, the more they love it.

Since the rationale for using weapons goes back for centuries, I wonder just how many of us truely understand armament and our need for guns? This video will shed some light on honorable and corageous men and women who in many instances gave their everything for our safety here at home. Literally millions of them still walk our streets today with only one thought in mind, "How do I make it through tomorrow"? Other than the thought of doing themselves harm, few if any, think of inflicting suffering on another person. Then, we have a handfull of "Mental Cases" who scheme to kill anyone they deem necessary to slake their appetite for blood, and we want to destroy this heritage to over 300,000,000, the right to bear arms? Are we a sick society or what? Watch this hour long video and compare it with what is going on today.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/10/war_torn_1861_2010_new_doc

This was supposed to be the link of the initial post.

If there was a video, we could comment about it.

In the meantime, the thread begs the question.

The first thing to establish is "are guns ever necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?"

 

Also the OP seems to muddle two issues.

Those who gave their lives and health in war need our consideration and respect.

That has nothing to do with the "right" for soccer moms to carry a gun on the school run.

 

It also overlooks the point that 95% of the world's population are not in that 300,000,000.

Those few are a statistical blip.

I wasn't speaking of the other 95% of world population, they are screwed up enough without my help. I was making a distinction between the sanity and insanity of normal people who go off the deep end under extreme pressure, as compared to mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason. And "soccer moms"? I hope they each get a conceal and carry permit.

Since the rationale for using weapons goes back for centuries, I wonder just how many of us truely understand armament and our need for guns? This video will shed some light on honorable and corageous men and women who in many instances gave their everything for our safety here at home. Literally millions of them still walk our streets today with only one thought in mind, "How do I make it through tomorrow"? Other than the thought of doing themselves harm, few if any, think of inflicting suffering on another person. Then, we have a handfull of "Mental Cases" who scheme to kill anyone they deem necessary to slake their appetite for blood, and we want to destroy this heritage to over 300,000,000, the right to bear arms? Are we a sick society or what? Watch this hour long video and compare it with what is going on today.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/10/war_torn_1861_2010_new_doc

I suppose there is much more behind my question than just the use of robots. For instance, higher education! It seems everyone today must have a Phd. in one field or another to succeed, when in fact, we can't find employement for those who are already educated? Industry has become so streamlined due to robotics and an increase jn technology that humans are becoming passé or at best, an afterthought. Will our world eventually become classless, other than the extremely wealthy or totally indigent? Or maybe we may all sit around our evening campfires hand in hand singing, "Kumbaya"? As Old Satchmo once put it: What a Wonderful World that would be.

Having worked in robotics for several years and now retired, I was amazed to see the advancements made in them during the

past 20 years. Watched 60 Minutes last night and was stunned to see this program. Question is: With unemployeement being what it is today, what will happen with the millions who will shortly become unemployed?

Don't know if this will do you much good, but this gal sems to be having trouble with s/e and her hair. She is living in a very clean enviroment at this time but is due back shortly. Perhaps you might contact her for some help.

http://www.wimp.com/orbitaltour/

 

Here's an interesting point about the historical context of the Second:

 

 

"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery"

"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

 

You make a good point, but it started long before that. Some interesting information in the below link. While I don't condone such disgusting regulations today, none of us were liviing in the south during that time. But I can understand why plantation overseers or anyone else owning slaves back then wouldn't want such regulations to keep even freed blacks from owning guns. Remember, without the pioneers having guns; the American Indian tribes would have kicked our asses out into the ocean in a heart beat. Given the chance and upper hand, slaves would have done likewise. Today, all we have to worry about are some nuts, a raft of criminals and gang bangers. "WOW" Haven't we turned this land into a beautiful country?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Second-Amendment-History.htm

Quote overtone: Pretending that our current problems are equivalently attributable to "both sides" regardless of who actually did what, is a form of amnesia at best. At best.

I believe: How to rewrite our Constitution was the original topic, not how to destroy a nations intregrity. When a political party, regardless of which, becomes so drunk on power as to believe that only they know what's best for our nation, we're in trouble. What has happened is that we have left half of our country's people in limbo just waiting for the right numbers to get their guys back in office. What we need in government is common sense, not comic partisan politics as usual.

Paranoia: That's why we can't pass a budget, pay our bills, or fight honest wars. The parts of the government that were designed to be buffered from our ridiculousness were undermined by our ridiculousness, so now we suffer from the loud and proud ignorance of populism. Democracy, losing its checks. It's quite predictable, really.

My thoughts exactly. Pork barreling, collusion and just "plain old dishonesty" is destroying us as a nation, regardless of whose foot is on the gas pedal.

 

Non-partisan? How do you accomplish that?

Likely never. But because of what would then be true state equality, it wouldn't be long before each of the congressmen were giving their cohorts haircuts and shining each others shoes.

I'm not sure which correlation you are saying that I don't have, but since I took them from Rigney's post I wonder why you didn't point out the fact that his post has just the same problem.

I accept that mine was just one possible way to interpret the data, but the point is that it's just as valid as the tacit interpretation that Rigney gave.

I didn't look at my friends verbiage as factual John and have no idea from where he got it. But here are some links that may help you out. The first two, so so. But # 3rd is very revealing.

 

That doesn't answer my question. Why are you against 1 man 1 vote for representatives in the house? Why should a small state get 1 rep per 50,000 people while a more populous state gets 1 per 100,000? Someone is still going to be in control of congress and there's every reason to think there will still be pork, so you haven't solved that. But this gets rid of one of the "checks and balances" that's in the system.

No doubt you're right about 1 man 1 vote. So let each state have 6 congressmen and 2 senators, but all non-partisan. These people are supposedly sent to Washington as a means of protecting and building our nation as a whole, not to subsidize one political party or specific area.

So, to summarise, Chicago has high levels of poverty and poor schooling which lead to a high murder rate in spite of stringent gun control laws.

(And a few bent politicians got jailed, which is good).

Sort of like looking at a hot horse shoe John. Admonishment can be easily uttered with little or no interest or consequence, unless you're holding the shoe.