champu

Troll, troll, troll your boat cacophonously down the stream...

Judging by events in recent history (Kenya 2013, Mumbai 2008) had the attackers had firearms the death toll would have been on the order of double and maybe 50% more injured. I say this without detailed knowledge of the layout of the train station or how much time they spent planning the attack though. Coordinated use of high-explosives (London 2005, Mumbai 1993, Bali 2002) can produce significantly more casualties, particularly injuries. The choice of weapon is a factor in how "successful" an attack will be, but so is the choice of targets and location. The effect of adding more people to an attack is likely highly dependent on location (Kenya 2013 vs Noway 2011.) More important than either is conviction of the person or people doing the attacking (LAX 2013, Centennial 2013.)

If you can earn 2.2% annually on your $2500 it takes you infinitely many years to break even.

Excuse me... Did you say knives? Rotating knives, yes.

Don't forget to tip your waitress, try the veal, 7 o'clock show different from the 10 o'clock show, etc... On a more serious note, this is the sentiment I've tried to bring up in the past. As a California resident, I'm as cynical as one can get regarding gun control legislation. Every year there's a pile of gun control laws in the bottom of a lit brown paper bag on my front doorstep.

magazine.

And that, folks, is just how some people look at African Americans and criminality, or Muslims and terrorism.

I'll bet you'd rate yourself as above average in critical reading comprehension.

Websites (generally) do not pick their own ads. Many are based off of searches and browsing activity, not just associated with the site where you're seeing the ad. Penny Arcade made a comic about it a while back when there was talk of online games working ads into the landscape.

Much of this thread actually reminds me of "Whuffo you bring a firearm into a perfectly safe home?"

No it is clearly discrimination. It is possible to comply with the law without discriminating simply by requiring ID of EVERYONE purchasing alcohol--even the elderly--and there ARE places that sell alcohol that do just this to avoid discrimination. To do anything else is discrimination IMHO. They are not doing that to avoid alleged discrimination against 20-somethings caused by making said 20-somethings show ID. They are doing that to keep from losing their liquor license. Your line of argument here is idiotic.

Back in the day, you drank a glass of whiskey and bit down hard on a stick. We were tougher then. Wait, wouldn't the stick get in the dentist's way?

This, thank you. Having a gun in your home does not, in and of itself, make you safer. And (I can't conclude but I can easily surmise based on the acknowledged confounding issues with the studies raised in the article) it likely does not in and of itself make you less safe either. The article is a bit of a Rorschach test, as most regarding highly politicized topics are. I read it and think, "Hmm, it seems people who keep firearms in their home don't do as good a job at securing them as they should." I believe some read it and think, "Stupid gun nuts... it's a good thing I vote for people with a (D) next to their name, they'll take care of this." The non-intuitive thing is that the people who don't read these studies in a critical fashion and who cite them in support of "doing something" have a more direct negative impact on my life then the people in the study who are shooting themselves and each other.

Your linked article basically says, "There are many unresolved issues with essentially every study that has been conducted on firearm ownership and rates of homicide and suicide, and while there is some merit to them their conclusions are overstated." And, as per usual, "restrictions on firearm ownership" is talked about like it's some homogenous substance that oozes out of the pores of gun control lobbyists and politicians, and if we spread it on the country it will help.

But these business owners have no power. Of course they do. They have the economic and political power to monopolize certain essential services, and effectively deny or restrict such essential services to entire segments of society based on nothing more than ethnicity. Recognition of that core reality was the policy underpinning the US's Civil Rights Act in the 1960s (and related federal court decisions of the same time period) which prohibited businesses such as restaurants, hotels, bus companies, etc. from discriminating against ethnic classes of potential customers. That was just the first generation of such laws. Laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals are the next generation of laws, but they have the same policy foundation. Sorry, but in the US, the argument "I can refuse service to whomever I want" was consumed on the funeral pyres of the law almost 50 years ago. I think I follow where Lefty is coming from and I think the problem exists somewhere between turning tides and ruling with iron fists. On one end of the spectrum you have classes of people who are unable to participate in whole segments of the economy because of wide-spread discrimination against them, on the other you have a homophobe who tries to open a "no-fags" restaurant in The Castro. I think there exists a threshold where it becomes better to just let people like that go down in flames without government intervention. My argument against Lefty would simply be, "Meh, we're probably not there yet on homosexuality in a lot of places."

The placebo effect is a strong one. I'd wager that prayer healing is just about as good. If, however, you have a condition (like bacterial pneumonia) for which there are drugs that have been proven effective in placebo-controlled trials (like azithromycin) and you choose prayer healing over said medication then you're an obstinate jack-ass. As I've mentioned in the past here, and have been chided for, I'm really not quick to care about other people who let their children die because of their beliefs. Unfortunately in this case, according to the article, they have seven kids that have made it, so whatever genes allowed them to make such idiotic decisions are probably out there alive and well.

I agree. There is no doubt that americans have the right to own and acrry fire arms. I am just approaching this from a person who is allowed to own arms, not allowed to carry arms, yet still feels free. My free speech is more restricted, yet I still feel like I live in a free country. Hence the symbolism is a little lost on me. It sounds that you, like me, don't feel freedom is defined by the right to carry a gun. I feel far freer living where I do, than the time I have spent living in the UK or the US. I don't feel that freedom is defined or even all that accurately symbolized by carrying a firearm around everywhere. To me, freedom is about ensuring that restrictions placed on you by a government have been put there in good faith. They don't have to be perfect, if there are problems we can always change them, they just have to be measured and honest about their intentions. A system where you undergo a background check and get a permit to purchase and/or carry firearms is a good faith measure to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining them. Mandating that firearms be securely stored, particularly when minors would otherwise reasonably be expected to get a hold of them, is a good faith measure. A system to ban online ordering of ammunition and all in person ammo purchases being recorded and centrally aggregated with personal information and fingerprints "because James Holmes bought 6000 rounds online" is not a good faith measure. Banning telescoping stocks, pistol grips, and magazines over X rounds are not good faith measures. Requiring all new handguns to implement microprinting firing pins in order to be added to the list of approved handguns is not a good faith measure. Forcing a background check to be conducted for each individual transfer with all buyer, seller, and firearm information recorded and aggregated centrally is not a good faith measure. The "good cause" requirement for a CCW permit is not a good faith measure.

You're going to need to define "subjected to".

Three generations, huh... Well, I guess now we know how long it takes to select against that.

No, he just went with "password1" so he won't forget it One. Two. Three. Four. Five. "She's gone from suck to blow!" "Who made that man a gunner?"

No, he just went with "password1" so he won't forget it One. Two. Three. Four. Five.

Blah blah blah... Hedy Lamarr was still the second best... ...second, of course, to my own better half.

As is evidenced by the fact that SYG has been used as a successful defense in both of your examples... Doesn't have to be a "successful" defense as long as the perp thinks it's justification at the time he's pulling the trigger. THAT is the danger. So wait, are people easily blinded by passion and prone to escalate conflicts or are they so cold and calculating that they're thinking about their legal defense strategy as they are shooting the person? False dichotomy. I'll concede that I knew quade didn't literally mean, "at the time he's pulling the trigger" and that I was giving him a hard time over it. My real concern is that CCW/LTC laws not be wrapped up with the theoretical allowances of SYG (whether there is case law to suggest such allowances are actually made) in an effort to just throw them all away together. That's the direction quade's arguments are going. SYG laws are a stupid idea and are also likely a long-term detriment to those who just want to own firearms and be left alone, and definitely to those who want to CC but still would correctly choose retreat as a first line of defense. Look how easy it was for people in this thread to see your post and come away with the impression that Dunn had gotten away with murder because of stand your ground. That didn't happen, of course, but it drums up that much more support for any law anyone comes up with that does anything to restrict guns further.

As is evidenced by the fact that SYG has been used as a successful defense in both of your examples... Doesn't have to be a "successful" defense as long as the perp thinks it's justification at the time he's pulling the trigger. THAT is the danger. So wait, are people easily blinded by passion and prone to escalate conflicts or are they so cold and calculating that they're thinking about their legal defense strategy as they are shooting the person?

As is evidenced by the fact that SYG has been used as a successful defense in both of your examples...