SkyDekker

Those numbers won't last at sub $50 oil. Both countries mentioned cannot sustain profitable extraction and exploration at that rate. So, unless the American consumer is willing to pay more for gas which wasn't derived from middle eastern oil, the US will start getting more and more of its oil from the middle east.

So if a frenchman decided to put a bullet in your forehead because he decided he is greatly offended by this post, nobody should be upset about it? You are clearly taken a contrary and evocative stance on the subject. Meant to get a reaction, so if that reaction happens to be violent, you simply deserve it? Weird stance. If you read up on things, the publishers of the magazine and the people who worked there wre clearly aware of the risks they were taking. They had even taken some precuations to try and minimize that risk. What they refused to do is bow to the threat. Yes they were assholes to everybody, that is kind of the point with satire. The issue is that one group decided that was enough to kill them. The murder people because of a cartoon. If you are fine with people getting killed, because you agree that the cartoon was offensive, then you might as well pack your bags and see if you can get into Yemen.

I think you might be focussing on a tree and missing the forrest.

The only attacks on media outlets in North America (that I can recall) in recent history were from Anthrax in letters mailed to them. So not sure what you are comparing to. Media outlets actively posting satirical cartoons regarding Islam. Media outlets continuing to do so after getting firebombed. Media outlets continuing to do so after being put on a hit list etc etc. got it sorry you are correct sir like this "His publication responded to efforts at intimidation by being even more irreverent or outrageous, defying the constraints of religious sensitivity or political correctness." Interesting article on this subject: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/yes-virginia-cartoons-are-worth-fighting-for-20150108

I didn't make that claim. I said that statistics show my family would be at greater risk by having the firearm around. I made no claim as to whether that serves as a deterrent to crime or not. In short, the risk of my family dieing in a shooting is lower than the increased risk of introducing a firearm into the house.

The only attacks on media outlets in North America (that I can recall) in recent history were from Anthrax in letters mailed to them. So not sure what you are comparing to. Media outlets actively posting satirical cartoons regarding Islam. Media outlets continuing to do so after getting firebombed. Media outlets continuing to do so after being put on a hit list etc etc.

I am sure the two cops who got shot had every intention to die fighting as well. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will get that opportunity. For me, the risk of dying in a shooting are minor enough that I don't feel the need to be armed. Even if allowed, statistics simply show my family would be at greater risk just by having the firearm around. I guess I am resigned to playing the favourable numbers. If you call that hide, whimper etc. Oh well, whatever helps you sleep at night. Lastly, those people working at Charlie Hedo went down fighting. They never surrendered until mowed down in a hail of gunfire. I haven't seen too many North American media outlets display the courage this French media outlet displayed.

Yes there are documented cases where a gun made things better and there are documented cases where a gun made things worse. In this particular case, armed people were on the scene, during the incident, at least one specifically tasked with trying to prevent such an incident. Yet, it made no difference. So clearly in this case Quade is right, having guns present made no difference.

Could, would, should.... Fact remains that what actualy happened was that trained and armed people were prent, yet it didn't stop or alter the incident. So, the "if only there were guns" argument is bogus. The, "if only there was a gun here" or "if only my rambo skills were present" or "if only this guy had done this" is nice, but kind of useless for this argument. Quade stated that a gun presence wouldn't have made a difference. the pro-gun crowd wanted evidence. Well the evidence is right in the damn incident, guns were present. If you want to argue that if Rambo happened to have been there with his mad skillz (or any of the regular posters on this forum, who are all Chuck Norris equivalents), the outcome would have been different....have at it.

A shootout that ended outside, with nobody hurt and the suspect fled is a good outcome? Sounds like the same outcome could have been had without bullets flying and the risk of hitting innocent bystanders.

Because Bush's fuck up gave rise to ISIS.

Bullshit! You don't know that anymore than anyone of us here and if you (think) you do, backup the argument with details. There were armed people there, specifically trained and tasked with protecting. They were taken by surprise and murdered. Now, I know all the keyboard commandos on this site would have performed much better. But if you go by the data, armed presence didn't stopnnor affect the outcome of this attack. I applaud this magazine for continuing on with what they stood for. Many hear might be surprised to find out this magazine was certainly considered to be left leaning, many here would probably call it socialist. This was one media outlet openly standing up against terrorists (and many other figures). Not too many North American media outlets have been willing to do the same. None with any stature like Charlie Hebdo. The people who worked there knew of the threats and the risks. Yet, they continued. While the internet commandos here regail us with tales of how their Rambo skills would have taken care of all of this, the people working at that magazine are the true heroes. (and catfishhunter, you can blame the woman who opened the door as much as you want. However I don't know too many mothers who would sacrifice their children in that situation)

You keep switching between waste and failure. Those aren't the same thing. You said it was the biggest waste. Then you qualified that by "Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty". Clearly it wouldn't be the biggest waste if trillions were spent and without that spending 200 million more people would love in poverty. As far as determining failure, you would have to state the objective for each program first. (never mind that trillions spent on trying to fight poverty in the US is better money spent than billions invading other countries on false pretenses, IMHO. Which negates your claim of it being the biggest waste)

Yet it didn't work for you, since you claimed there was a problem with the math

??? New math??? ??? Common Core??? This does not compute! lol, the math works perfectly. Maybe that old way of teaching math didn't work so well afterall.

Sure, right after Regulator shows how there are no liberals in military service.. (Interestingly enough you don't ask him for "site"...actually not that interesting, just plain predictable) You can guess all you want, but I did grow up in a country which at that time had mandatory conscription.

Actually, the biggest waste has been the 40 year war on poverty Trillions spent and still the same number in poverty But then, the war on poverty has nothing to do with helping anyone except those in politics Can't make that claim without some level of understanding how many more people would have been in poverty without those programs.

I do? Cool Show me where I have done this I'll wait On another note Too bad those in that office were not armed There may have been fewer dead (maybe) Please tell me I am not the only one who sees the beautiful irony in this post.

Sure they have their draw backs, but the opposition in the US is so rabid and fierce that dealers who had announced they would carry them received death threats. All I am saying is allow them on to the market so people can decide for themselves. Some parents with small children may decide that the increased risk of failure when needed is worth the decrease in risk their kids use them by accident. Right now smart guns are being actively banned from the market.

I don't disagree. I have previously stated that I believe training should be required as part of gun ownership and definitely as part of a concealed (or open) carry. Editted to add: The gun lobby is generally not in favour of any of this though. It makes it a bit more difficult to acquire guns, which is something they could never support. A smart gun for instance could have made a difference in this situation. Smart guns tend to be actively resisted.

Because there is no simple solution. I certainly can't say that I have the magic solution that would solve the violence problem in the US. That doesn't mean interesting conversations and discussions cannot be had on the subject. My previous comment was mostly based on your comment regarding banning guns. I have stated many times that I do not think banning guns is a solution for the US at this point. Doesn't mean that a toddler shooting his mother doesn't warrent any discussion, just because drunk driving also happens.

Thank you for summarizing why these discussion will continue to be useless on here.... Yet we will all continue having them lol

Then clearly there is no problem at all.

And he was only the second hunter to be shot by his dog in two weeks.

You frame a question not worth asking Reframe it if you want an answer LMAO. Good one Rush.