jfields

Bytch, I'm doing the online school thing now, which is why my postwhoring has gone to shit. As other people have said, you have to be disciplined. Nobody is watching out for you, and you don't have a teacher calling on you in class making you look stupid if you haven't done the work. I've found that there is more work in an online class that in its classroom version. They add extra to reinforce what they aren't sure you are learning without personal interaction. I am at University of Maryland University College, which with Univ. of Phoenix are among the most respected online programs.

Ten is way too many. More like 3. That is all we have attention span to read. What did you say?

"What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong It is a great song, and it was the shortest one I could find.

[Sarcasm on] It makes total sense. The wars are going great. The economy is going gangbusters. The environment is finally out of danger. The international community just loves us. Since we have finished everything else, we need a new project to work on. [Sarcasm off]

That would probably depend on the type of food.

Damn, Bytch!

Got my dvd today and promptly watched it. Excellent job, Deuce! You are officially spared an ass-kicking. Kudos to all the other vidiographers that contributed as well.

Thank you, you non-stupids.

Okay, you comedians.... Nope. Partially. I've decided that some people are better off ignored. That way, I can spare myself the pain of exposure to their stupidy. With less free time, the criteria for the stupid list got less forgiving, so more people are making the grade. Besides, that stupidity shit might be contagious given enough long-term exposure. I mean, look what Canada has done to Remster! Ding, ding, ding! Winner! I look here every once in awhile, but I have other stuff to do for grad school. No more post-whoring time for me. I could be done and back to constantly harassing people in as little as 3-5 years. You better enjoy the peace and quiet while you can. http://www.umuc.edu/grad/dualdegrees/tmanmba.shtml

Kevin, This is not a gun issue where I'm going to disagree with you, because it isn't really a gun issue at all. It is a "psycho ex" issue. It looks like you are taking the right steps. Sucks that it happened, but I think it will turn out well for you in the end.

How about addressing the issue of this guy, this situation, rather than deflecting to tangential issues? You are justifying attempts at self defense, successful or not? So you would rather have a "heavily armed law of the jungle", with, say, people hypothetically getting gunfights and possibly hitting bystanders than the "minimally armed law of the jungle we'd have otherwise"? And going back to this situation, chances are the "self-defender" is now a criminal. The lines are not drawn as you state. It isn't that they are two distinct groups. People cross from law-abiding into criminal. In this case, the use of the firearm was the cause of the change. No. Using good judgement to avoid this incident completely and refrain from shooting two people would have been the better moral decision, as well as the better practical one. What about this helpless victim, shot by the gun owner you are defending? What about his rights? Rather than trivialize them as statistically rare, please explain how you rationalize his rights being less important.

That is about the average of the stock market over the long term. By that, I don't mean since the turn of the last century (2000), I mean the turn of the century before that. Even through the crash of 1929 and the great depression, the equities average over the long haul has been about 10%, beating pretty much other asset class. Even if we knock the assumptions back some, the points about compounding still stand. Wise words! Also true.

I had noticed that. I'm sorry it happened, but glad it wasn't worse. I hope he recovers fully and quickly. Now, let's learn from this, and make it a potential teaching point in a productive debate. This isn't pro-gun or anti-gun. Let's just assess the situation and see how to avoid similar ones in the future. A quick run-through of the facts/assumptions to date regarding the incident: 1) Gun owner behaves poorly in giving the finger to the other driver. 2) Club-wielder behaves poorly in giving the finger to the gun owner. 3) Neither party was forced to interact further with the other, yet they chose to. 4) The gun owner did not have to draw his weapon, when he could have fled the attack. 5) The gun owner *might* have been able to deter the attacker without firing. 6) The gun owner fired, and hit an innocent bystander. 7) The gun owner bought his weapon legally, carried legally and had no prior firearm problems. So, what is the correct course of action from this point forward? What ways could the gun owner have been better educated, trained or screened? Could he have been better educated to the risks of escalating a confrontation? Could he have been better trained in accuracy, so he wouldn't have hit the bystander? Could he have been screened in some way to pick up a disposition/temperment unsuitable for ownership? Other than simply wanting to carry a handgun, did he have any particular verifiable need? What should happen to the firearm owner now? He is clearly not a responsible gun owner. Should he ever be allowed to own again? He shot an innocent person. Should he go to jail for it? He shot an innocent person. Should he get taken to the cleaners in civil court? Big picture issues How did the shooter's "rights" compare to those of the innocent bystander? Did this case contribute to or detract from general public safety? Does this case illustrate the blurring of the often-cited clear division between "law abiding citizens" and criminals?

This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise. Compromise is the hallmark of mediocrity. If ignorance is truly bliss, the life of an antigunner must be like a continuous orgasm. If it is okay for the Government to be armed, I contend that, as a taxpayer and a Citizen, I AM the Government. He who pays, says. So long as my tax dollars are footing the bill, I insist upon calling the shots. I do not require any officially assigned babysitters to do my thinking for me, and possess expertise in the matter of firearms that only a handful on government payrolls can match - none of them in the Legislature. Anyone who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm cannot be trusted, and a man sees in others what he knows of himself. If someone doesn't trust the citizenry with armament, he has clearly defined his lack of trustworthiness. That's all well and fine, if the gun owner is responsible. Some aren't. What about the "taxpayers and citizens" that end up lying dead in the street through someone else's carelessness? ("Luckily", the guy in this situation was only inadvertently wounded, not killed.) What about their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Worth less than yours? I don't think so. So, you don't want the government doing your thinking for you. So gun owners take the responsibility on themselves to think for everyone else (including innocent bystanders) that they may (and do) kill? Please explain how this is a higher moral position? Then we can get back to a potentially productive discussion about how to make your gun ownership safer.

So, John, what should David Smith say about the incident? How did the gun owner treat him? Considering that the gun owner was only in the situation because of a chain of poor decisions (flicking the guy off, getting out of the car, unecessarily firing his weapon), he should go to jail for injuring an innocent bystander. Hardly a good endorsement for proper gun owner behavior. But then again, that would make him a criminal, and criminals get guns no matter what the gun laws are, despite the fact that supposedly he was an "upstanding law-abiding citizen" before the event.

http://www.jennandjustin.com/invest-articles-compounding.asp

No one is unsafe because I own guns, except a criminal who chooses to attack me. Okay. You are the model gun owner, and perfect in all ways with your weapon. That as a given, what about everybody else? What about the accidental shootings? Somebody did the shooting. Somebody owned the gun. You might be perfect, but they weren't. They are still a danger to my family.

Sure, I'll buy that... IF you'll agree that we need to do a better job of training people and screening who should and should not be given a carry permit, along with getting the people who are licensed to be safer. Each accidental shooting and poor judgement call resulting in an innocent person getting shot is a mark against your argument for carry permits. Get rid of them, and the objection vanishes completely (at least for me). If all owners were completely responsible, I wouldn't care what you owned, how you got it, or how many you had. But until you (generally, not personally) are no longer a danger to me and my family, then yes, I care.

... So, which is it?

Who said you were the opposition? Who said you couldn't be "pro-safety with guns" and me "pro-safety without guns"? The point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? You should have a vested interest in that, which puts us on the same side as me. It is only if you are unwilling to dilligently work toward improved safety that you get marked as being "anti-safety". That is your call. So, how do you propose to improve the safety of gun ownership, without their removal? That is an honest question. Toss out some great ideas! I'm happy to chuck the gun-related laws that have no basis in improving safety. Like I said, the issue isn't to own or not to own, but how to make owners safer.

Kallend is the one trying to make the point - it is up to him to support his theory. So far, he hasn't offered anything except her personal feeling about "libertarians and liberals". That's not exactly scientific. It's odd that you jumped on my observations with demands for proof, yet ignored his. Why is that? Note that I called his point an "assertion". While I may believe his point, I do not think it has been scientifically proven in any way. Neither of you have given any proof to support your claims. I was just pointing yours out, because you had made a comment about his logic.

The anti-gun folks want to take away the guns and gun ownership rights of the pro-gun folks. The pro-gun folks are not trying to deprive the anti-gun folks of anything. They just want to be left alone. Those are your definitions and your perceptions. They don't necessarily reflect the realities of the situation. Many people you label as "anti-gun" are not. The gun isn't the issue. The issue is safety. If you insist on arbitrary and polar opposites, let's use "pro-safety" and "anti-safety". Without addressing the issue of gun ownership rights, let's focus on gun safety. What do you propose to improve the safety of the country with respect to violence, for both gun owners and non-owners? Are you willing to make any effort, or any compromise, or are you firmly in the "anti-safety" camp?

Simply saying what we have doesn't dispute his assertion. If you could show the relative weightings of those groups, then you could begin to demonstrate your point using facts and logic.

This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise.

Same here. We can have one of those senior citizen apartments and work alternate days. But my plan is good, and I'm frugal, so I'll mail you both french fries. You know I'm good for it.