At a basic level your political conservatism is about 60% heritable. This doesn't assert itself until after age 20,
This keeps coming up, and I have to say
[citation needed].
@Scotty: your attitude of saying "who cares" to everything just reinforces what I was saying about USA being a selfish rude culture. Thank you. Also, greater good = humanity.
I'm not selfish, I'm misanthropic
. Besides, lets go back to sceince. You seem to be taking this as a "one person thinks this, therefore, everyone thinks this."
Another problem is parents in this country are allowed to make their kids obese and no one does anything about it. Lack of discipline. It is disgusting.
Congrats. Go make yourself a law saying that people can't be obese. Will
never f*cking happen. You keep talking about how superior your lifesyle is to everyone else. Once again, "who cares?" Go live your life the way you want to, but leave me out of it.
You cannot make these assertions without DATA.
This is regarding the shut-down asylums and increases in crime and homelessness correct?
My step-dad is a social worker, gets his masters in two weeks. In his office (in Daytona, Fl.), he treats and tries to help over 200 mentally unstable persons. In 156 of those cases, the patients would have been committed thirty years earlier. 59 of those 156 have committed crimes in the last two years, including aggravated assault, robbery, illegal drug use, breaking and entering, trespassing and prostitution. That is just in the last
two years. This is data for the South Daytona social work clinic 2006-2008. In conclusion, nearly 25% of the patients at that clinic would have been committed, but instead committed over 100 offenses. Data enough?
Because the constitution was written over 200 years ago.
And that by itself means it needs to be justified? Why don't we have to continually re-justify the Declaration of Independence?
Bush was arguably the most dictatorial president America has had for a while
Yeah, probably since FDR.
So you're saying that non-smokers who work in a bar can sue their employer if they develop lung cancer? If they can't then what is the difference from saying that people who worked in an unsafe chemical factory chose to do so and therefore can't sue. If they can, then you've opened a massive can of worms.
No. They chose to work there. Any side effects of said action is their own responsibility.
No one has to buy chemicals from my company they can go to a company with a good safety record if they want. We can let the market decide whether my customers want good safety practices or not.
You know, this sounds suspiciously like what I was saying.
You can't yell fire in a theatre, you can't take the running car because you think its pretty, Law defines what you can't do. What freedoms, besides the right to carry a weapon, would you have us surrender? The right to assembly perhaps?
Tank drivers are stupid.
GO AROUND much?
Has anyone seen what the tanks did to avoid hitting that guy? Watch the video again. The guy actually keeps walking in front of the tank, even when it turns.
To refresh your memoryYou're basically saying we always have done it so why should we stop.
A good question. Why should we?
The same goes for foreign invasions. If the enemy have somehow gotten past the US armed forces it's hard to believe that someone is going to hold them off with a handgun.
That's why you need A) more than just a handgun, and B) more than one person.
Having the weapon increases the likelihood of surviving the encounter
Thank you. How much better of a chance do you have with a weapon than by having absolutely nothing.
Well, we don't have the right to bear cruise missiles. Everybody seems okay with that.
Same with cluster bombs
Why does everyone ignore me when I say: "I draw the line at explosvies and mounted weapons"? Does no-one truly have an opinion, either for or against, to that?
It also increases the likelihood of the other guy shooting instead of just robbing you, thus counteracting that.
Your chances to survive have not changed at all.
It also increase the likelihood of the guy thinking "oh s***" and running off. Do we need to find the statistics for guns used in self defense
again? I actually think I brought it up already this thread.
it's often not a question of who has the biggest gun, it's who lands the first hit with it.
Even better, who hands the most hits consecutively. Once again, people instantly dying of one bullet wound is movie stuff.
Who is actually interested in raising taxes in order to teach proper gun safety in schools? Who is interested in passing laws with stiff sentences for guns that aren't kept in lock boxes. Who is interested in making guns stamp bullets in order to help in the detection of crime (or even better making sure every weapon is test fired once and a database of the bullets kept)? Who is interested in requiring insurance for guns for accidental shootings (we require car insurance after all)? In general, who is interested in actually taking some steps to actually make gun ownership safer for the general public by ensuring that people are responsible?
Alright, in order of apperance by sentence:
A) Not me, it has been empircally shown that
lowering taxes increases gov't revenue, because people have more money to spend, on which the gov't collects sales tax.
B) Not me. What use is a gun if you need to take 1-5 minutes to find the key, get the box open, remove the gun lock, load the weapon, and be ready to fire?
C) Iffy. They sort of already do that. There is a unique way every gun leaves a print of the shell of the bullet. That's how CSI people find suspects.
D) Iffy.
E) I am. But good luck with that.
A few threads ago I posted something about weapon use for self defence being IIRC anywhere from 80 to 300 thousand per year in the US (based on 15-ish surveys), and other stats showing that less than 1% (or 0.1%, I'd have to look it up again to be sure) of the incidents ended up as a firefight (that is if the 80k uses was the closest to reality).
That has in fact already been reposted on this thread, actually. It's around pages 4-8.
Rly? If I can spew 6-10 bullets per second while you can barely manage 2 my chances of hitting you go up by a substantial margin.
SMG's are superior to handguns in every way - that's the reason SWAT and special forces use them and handguns are a emergency backup.
If you can spew 6-10 bullets per secong, that just means you wasted 12-20 bullets when it doesn't hit the target because you can't aim worth
s***. Have you ever actually fired an automatic weapon, or a gun at all for that matter? They buck like mules.
SMG's are still superior
Alright, think that if you want. But try puttin even 20% of that clip within 15 feet of a target from farther than 30 meters away. I can usually manage about ~40ish % with my dad's .380 PPKS.
Dang argument, keeps leaving me behind when I go to bed.
