georgerussia

It is easy to provide "proof" of the same quality as yours! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is data for me, and I do not care anymore about you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

None of them proves that the difference in crime rate is NOT because of the guns. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's interesting there is no age limit. I do not know about other countries, but in Russia the Supreme Court (called Constitutional Court) Justice cannot be over 70yo. Antonin Scalia is the one I'd be happy to see replaced. I read quite a few SCOTUS decisions, and he is the one I typically disagree. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do not forget that for the most of my life I lived outside USA. And some of the places I lived were more dangerous than Oakland if you just compare the reported crime rates. Somehow I was doing fine without any guns, and so was the majority of the population. Extreme tourism is not for me, so no, I do not want to go somewhere when I'd need to have a gun with me to protect myself again all those criminals. It might have been different if I was single with no kids, but since I'm not, my priorities are different, and "trying all new things" is among the very end of them. No, my notion just says that it's not wise to walk around bad neighborhoods in Oakland at night while counting a pack of $100 bills. In such cases even ten guns might not be enough to save you from someone who decides to put a bullet in your head and pick the money from the corpse. In my opinion some of gun owners are overestimating the power of a gun to protect you from a crime. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then "show me this is because of factors which are NOT related to guns" is equally valid response when you're trying to say that the difference in violent crime is NOT related to gun ownership. Note that your side uses such arguments all the time, like yet another JohnRich's "more guns, less crime" posts. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem is that you're willing to assume this risk for all of us, not just for yourself - even for those who prefer not to have this kind of freedom of giving guns to loonies around. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I like nuclear. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It takes time. Ammonium nitrate was restricted pretty recently as well, despite having been used for making explosives for quite a while. I'm not expecting it tomorrow either. At this moment we'd be fine starting just with state laws. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The stats do support that - you're just trying to play your old games like "show me this is because of guns" - which only works with gun owners. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I can think of two (if you're talking about Senate bill) :D * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yeah, I'd like it to cover abortions without any restrictions. But I'd agree even as they had it in the House - was good enough for me. Indeed, I would be among those paying for that (as we are in this income bracket), but this is not something which concerns me. I'd be more pissed off paying for "green energy", which I do not believe in. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Thank you for the interesting information, this is new to me. Indeed, it looks like a chance is pretty low. But the people frustration seems to go up, and unless there are some major improvements in at least some of important issues (economy, healthcare, wars), I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would vote for someone who is not in the office just because they're pissed off with all this politics. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No. If you were a law abiding gun owner in such a "no guns" place, you'd leave your guns behind, and will still be helpless in exactly the same situation - despite all the guns you have. Even if the state law allowed carrying, you can easily end in the same situation if a business owner does not allow guns on his property (which you, as a law abiding citizen, would follow). I agree - but you know what? There are too many gun crimes in U.S. committed by crazy lunatics. Which means that it is too easy for lunatics to get guns. This situation should change, and I'd prefer there is a system which would deny gun ownership to anyone except a few verified individual which have much less chance to turn into lunatics just before they got fired, or their (girl|boy)?friend left them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Your reply is completely irrelevant to the discussed issue. If you spent time to reply to the post not addressed to you, you should have spent one minute more to at least read what we were talking about. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't see any issues of making up such a case if the balance in SCOTUS changes. What makes last 50 years unique? How about last 100 years? Last 200 years? No. No. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is very relevant. Surprisingly (for a lot of gun owners) shit happens NOT at the moment you're very alert, full of energy and keeping your finger on a trigger of a full-loaded gun. It mostly happens when you're relaxed, probably drunk, and left your gun at home. An ability to predict - and avoid - the situations which much higher probability of having shit happen (like a late night walk in some Oakland neighborhood) will do much more for your survival than all the guns in the world. If you look on the statistics, you'll find that in a lot of gun-happy places your chance to get murdered is much higher than in Chicago or NYC. So your chance of get hurt does NOT get lower just because you carry a gun. Except of "any bank", I personally do not visit any of those places, so I cannot comment on it. And I would not consider "any bank" a high risk place either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If this was even remotely true, no gun store would ever be robbed! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what I'm talking about. Heller was decided 5/4 - not a major victory by any standards, and after the next neo-con Justice is replaced by a liberal, I wouldn't expect the next time it to be decided 5/4 but the opposite way. Why not? A lot of things changed which were considered absolutely impossible just fifty years ago. Even if I did, such data would be useless to prove that the "ban works". If the data shows that there are little drug confiscations, you'd claim that "the ban does not work because nobody really cares about drugs". If the data shows there is a lot of drug confiscations, you'd claim that "despite the ban, they still have all those drugs!" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is indeed some discussion about it. Just type "repeal 2nd amendment" in Google, and you will find a lot of articles about it. You might also find that a lot of those articles are pretty recent. If the number of such stupid shooting sprees increases dramatically, I wouldn't be surprised to have it happened quite fast - as it happened with 18th. This is good enough for me. As you know, guns are not banned completely in Europe as well - some people (not everyone) can still get some guns (limited selection and limited ammo) with some restrictions on storage, transporting, transfer and so on. So if we add enough barriers, it will be good enough even without repealing the 2nd. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I never knew guns were banned during WWII. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, for making their crappy version of the HC bill. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The article does not mention checkout counter, it speaks about asking a waiter to bring one a toothpick. Most indeed have it on checkout, but every time I asked a waiter to bring me one (which is pretty typical in Europe), I didn't get any. They either direct you to that counter, or tell you "I'm really sorry, but we do not have any available". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Let's see what happens once ten or so more senators are voted out of office. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm under impression that most restaurants in U.S. have already banned them. There are none on tables, and in most cases waiters just tell that "we don't have them". Those perverted Democrats, wanting to ban all those guns!!! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *