Kennedy

Now you're making sense. Notice, that his statement implies there's no value in carrying and many extend that to "why not prevent folks from doing it?" Your statement recognizes the value, and can be used to logically refute attempts to infringe on rights. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Many people are ignorant or lying. The court didn't say it and the facts don't support it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Some folks just refuse to understand that officers don't need PC to stop a person, or PC to frisk them. It doesn't matter if you explain Terry and subsequent cases, or run them through RS. The problem with the NY program was supervisors requiring quotas be met and a very few officers going one toenail over the line. There wasn't any systematic discrimination or civil rights violation. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I won't bore you with personal anecdotes that disprove your theory. Instead, I have a few questions. Do you say the same thing to folks who buy fire extinguishers? Do you say the same thing to folks who wear their seat belts? Do you say the same thing to folks who take emergency medicine classes? Do you say the same thing to folks who keep pfds on boats? Just because it won't work in the worst possible scenario, and you might no be able to use it in some scenarios, doesn't mean there's no reason to learn skills or have tools. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You're looking for the terms null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. And I'm looking for a more productive way to spend the rest of my evening than arguin with someone who can't or won't understand. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations, you've convinced me of two points: (1) you don't understand how the scientific method works, and (2) it's not worth discussing anything remotely scientific with you. Have a nice night. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What would you say to the thousands of women who use guns to defend themselves every year? (hint: they're not being threatened with a gun) Should they be forced to use a less effective tool to defend themselves? or worse, submit? That involves crime control, not gun control, but I like the idea. Guns for folks that want them, minimal crime, and liberty as far as the eye can see. That's for me. That's another reason why folks don't want federal laws for guns. Let states do it as they please, as long as they respect the second amendment (just like they have to respect the others). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment. I think all of those involved several weapons... And yes, you can have several magazines ready and take the time to inflict a lot of wounds... You can also have terrible spray patterns and hit one person in the head and fire the rest of your rounds progressively up to the ceiling - or hit no one at all... There is also theoretically no limit to the number of times you can stab someone (or many people) with a knife... But a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage. As to your first sentence, all four involved only two handguns. Three out of four had more injured and dead than your example. Fort Hood (13 dead, 32 wounded) was one pistol and a revolver. Luby's (24 dead, 20 wounded) was two pistols. VaTech (32 dead, 17 injured) was two pistols, and I think it's still the worst mass shooting in US history. If you want to talk about mass casualties by any means, you need to look at the worst school massacre (Bath), the worst domestic attack (OKC), or the single worst attack (twin towers). None of them were firearms. I don't know who that was aimed at, but I assume it wasn't me. Just be careful about your own ridiculous points. You asked a question, but based on your replies, you do seem to have some very strong feelings. Have you considered actually stating your position? Then folks might not need to guess. Facts and accuracy matter for clear communication. My SGT had a saying too: "say what you mean and mean what you say." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oooh, look! another uninformed and inaccurate post by nugget. Have you ever interacted with law enforcement officers when they weren't enforcing the law? Have you ever tried talking to them like human beings? Have you ever gone to a community meeting or taken citizen educations courses with your jurisdiction? Have you ever gone on a ride-a-long? (side note, if you don't like the laws, complain about legislators, not law enforcers) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So when pressed for evidence or logic to support your position, you whine and run and insult anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you. Got it. I've got news for you: your observations do not overrule scientific studies or the observations of the vast majority of experts in the field. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It was class action because of racial accusations. The problem with that is that more cops work higher crime areas than low crime areas and most high crime areas are nonwhite. "Cops on dots" is just better allocation of resources. Once you understand voluntary contact vs investigative stop vs search vs arrest, and the levels of cause needed for each, you realize there is nothin wrong with a stop and frisk as long as it meets reasonable suspicion. My biggest concern, and what I absolutely have no problem believing, it the quotas by another name. While performance metrics and objective standards are important, but when it crosses into "do this many or else", that's a huge problem. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Really, that's what you want to use to knock him down? The fact that he was more progressive than most leaders of his day? FYI: this is called ad hominem attack. It is generally used when you can't attack the argument of the speaker (or writer in this case, as he's long dead). You still haven't supported your claim "There are lots of studies that have shown people stop problem drinking on their own." I know about the RAND report, and it was widely discredited. That's one for you. Does your "lots" have any relation to the percent of total studies. If you can show half, most, or nearly all, that would actually mean something. You still haven't showed that you understand what characteristics are used to define something as a disease, and you haven't said why they don't fit alcoholism. So far it looks like you're ducking and dodging. Irrelevant side note, I would say Trotter called it a disease before B. Rush, but it wasn't until the mid twentieth century that alcoholism as a disease gained traction, in large part due to EM Pattinson. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Still waiting for you to back up anything you've said so far. You can start by citing a source for these two statements. Then you can try to actually refute the classification of alcoholism as a disease, instead of attacking a guy who suggested it. You can start by addressing the AMA and NIH position on this issue. Then you can discuss the definition of disease, and show whether alcoholism fits that definition. (disclaimer: if you do this logically, you'll find out you're wrong) If you use that same logic you could call skydiving a disease. Doesn't make it true. You can repeat a lie a thousand times and it's still a lie. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/20/dr-keith-ablow-obesity-is-not-disease-and-neither-is-alcoholism/ "The AMA, in classifying obesity as a disease, furthers the dependency, disempowerment and entitlement culture that is eroding scientific truth and personal autonomy in America." Since you can't cite a source for the two quoted statements, you should admit they are garbage. You also really need to stop using anecdotes to try to prove broad assertions. Can you list the factors that lead to something being classified as a disease? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Still waiting for you to back up anything you've said so far. You can start by citing a source for these two statements. Then you can try to actually refute the classification of alcoholism as a disease, instead of attacking a guy who suggested it. You can start by addressing the AMA and NIH position on this issue. Then you can discuss the definition of disease, and show whether alcoholism fits that definition. (disclaimer: if you do this logically, you'll find out you're wrong) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So basically you don't believe in freedom or choice, want to force people to think like you do, and aren't against having a dictator control everything, as long as he agrees with you. That's nice, you're not an idealist, you want to force your version of a Utopian ideal on everyone. I've got news for you, utopia is not possible, and your attempts to create it would force a dystopian future. Also, I doubt you believe your own BS. If you were forced to face a big nasty threat, I imagine you'd want "a tool designed only for killing" in your hand, rather than "seeing what Darwin would say." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations. You've proven are completely ignorant of addiction and it's treatment. Trouble with statistics, too. Statistics can be flawed, misleading and biased. You've just proved you're completely ignorant of actual facts. You can't just put away to the side the data that conflicts with your opinion. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda. There are lots of studies that have shown people stop problem drinking on their own. That is just fact. You don't like statistics, so you prove your point with anecdotal evidence? Yeah, great science there. So, since "there are lots of studies that have shown people stop problem drinking on their own", why don't you link to some of them for us, or at least cite them. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

New leak: NSA can search US e-mail data but theoretically won’t New Snowden leak says NSA needs to wait for an "effective oversight process." Don’t worry, NSA says—we only “touch” 1.6% of daily global Internet traffic New seven-page document from Ft. Meade defends agency's activities and policies. I really can't understand people who trust "their guy" to use things responsibly and so think there is no problem with government assuming new, extra legal powers. Are they that short sighted? What do you expect will happen when some guy who is not "your guy" takes office again? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations. You've proven are completely ignorant of addiction and it's treatment. Trouble with statistics, too. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So, if you don't like anything that "only works to kill", do you want to ban bows and arrows, crossbows, discus, swords, knives over six inches, atlatls, sharpened sticks too? How would you suggest a physically weaker and less capable person defend the self from a stronger an more capable aggressor? And FYI, hammers were designed as a weapon of war. Later we figured out nails and stick frame construction (something the world would be better off without). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, nunchucks are not banned through out the US. I wasn't even aware that certain cities banned carrying them, much less states. And honestly, WHY? Oh, was it maybe an emotional response to the kung fu craze of the 1970? Has that ban made anyone safer or reduced the epidemic of nunchucku violence? And like I said, "Sandy Hooks" aren't the problem, "Chicagos" are. At least, they are if one can get past the emotional response to an actual problem. I have no idea what you know and what you don't, and there are others that might need that information. There's a reason gun control proponents said what they said and started where they started. That's not the way a free society works. You don't get to say everything should be banned unless someone gives you a good reason to ban it. You need to provide a good reason why something should be banned. Side note: if you want to ban dangerous things, or things that lead to dangerous situations, why aren't you campaigned to reinstate prohibition? Your right to free speech can be taken away. Your right to move freely can be taken away. Your right to publish can be taken away. Your right to keep and bear arms can be taken away. Your rights against search and seizure can be taken away. All of these are done on an individual basis by a court. None of them can be to broad swaths of people, even if a law is passed. Unfortunately, some politicians wants to legislate certain rights out of existence because they don't like those rights. I suppose they don't see how dangerous that could be, or that others could sue the same tactic to legislate rights they like out of existence. The only want to legally remove these rights from everyone one is a constitutional amendment. Like somebody said, only 323 people were killed by rifles int he last year for which numbers are available. That's fewer than knives, fewer than personal weapons, and fewer than blunt objects. And of that 323, not all of them were black rifles. Question for you: how do you define "assault weapon"? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Your mother was naive and so are you. Banning guns wouldn't stop murderers, and would remove the best tool for stopping murderers. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Apparently you've never heard of the concept of deterrence. Guns are used to stop violent crime far more often than they are used to commit violent crime. Add to that the fact that they can be a ton of fun and are used legally and without incident across that nation every day. If you were dictator for a day, you'd probably be deposed that first day. Even if you weren't, even if you managed to take away every gun in the country, that would not do anything good. First, guns are not hard to make. Second, guns are a great equalizer. A friend of mine lives in a wheelchair. He's been mugged and assaulted. He picked up a pistol and a concealed carry permit. So you'd take his gun from him. How would you suggest he defend himself from a larger, more physically fit person who intends to harm him? Third, even if you don't care that guns are excellent self defense tools for physically less capable people, how would you ensure your draconian diktats are followed? Would you want to live in a complete police state? I prefer dangerous liberty to safe oppression. You seem to prefer to have a "dictator general" who tells everyone how to live. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

My footwear is made in Canada, Mexico, or right here in the USofA. The biggest issue is my electronics. You really can't avoid exploitive labour for mobiles and laptops. For your "you're only upset because it's sand people", that's not true. I've written politicians on out trade agreements with China, among others, and would like to see them correct their Human rights issues, from labour to political freedom to individual liberty, but that's true of most countries. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Not really. King Koopa and Yoshi are ugly little lizards, and Princess Peaches isn't exactly cream of the crop. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*