georgerussia

This makes me wonder what purpose had the life of Adam and Eve, who apparently didn't need any caring, benefits or preservation? What purpose would have the lives of those who will be resurrected once the God clears the Earth and makes it Heaven? What is the purpose of life in Heaven? Apparently, everyone has everything and doesn't need anything, so what they gonna do? Sleep the whole day? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're actually would be correcting a dictionary definition, not me. Note the use of quotes. So technically you went from "I do not believe there is God and I behave like there is none" to "I do not know if there is God, but I behave exactly like there are none". Is it correct? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Would you seriously consider getting one for a massacre, or you'd likely use something you already know and familiar with? I'd call bullshit. Could you verify through other sources that this guy indeed was arrested for illegally buying a gun? He admitted the guilt, so he should be serving time already, right? It is not that difficult to drive either. You probably forgot your first attempts on a range. You must be kidding. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The ones you claim you "corrected" all my errors, or when you claim that you provided facts while in fact you didn't. Add there those where you claim I'm 100% wrong and use other insults, and you'll get to a nice figure. Now regarding your "proof" and your "facts", please scroll down through all your posts on this page where you replied to me, and point out those where you provided a single reference to a creditable source? As far as I see, you only provided one (and not on this page), which is not quite relevant, and you're talking about "facts"? Gimme a break! There are differences.... Black market guns can cost LESS than straw purchased guns in most cases. Really? This is kinda how you "correct my errors"? So tell me please, what your statement is based on? Have you bought any illegal guns on a black market? Did you follow gun prices in the countries, where they were legalized recently (Estonia, Latvia)? Looking on the countries where guns are banned you can see that this stops enough people. Again... DUI, murder and rape are illegal in U.S., yet there are murderers and rapists. Following your logic, this is clear evidence that the bans do not work, and therefore the government should not touch one's personal freedom to murder and rape whoever he wants, right? They have LESS gun crime, which means the ban works. Only a naive person would expect all the crime to go away just because there is a law against it, but it does not mean that we should repeal all the laws. And again, do you read your own posts after you post it, as maybe your firewall removes all the links to the external references you entered? Where are those FACTS? Bans do work. They just don't work 100%, but they indeed reduce the issue. When we had an alcohol ban in Russia in eighties, the number of people who drank alcohol dropped significantly (from 60 to 90% depending on region). You didn't even understand what I'm talking about. This is CULTURE, there were people who brought up and never seen a real gun in their life. A probability for them to consider a massacre with a gun is much lower just because of that. Good. Now show me the FACTS which prove that "people in Russia get guns", and how many of them did. To be statistically significant, you need more than a couple of references, of course, as the population of Russia is 145M, but I'd agree even for 0.1% of the population. You bragged so much about how many facts you provided to me, so go ahead and do it at least once (references in Russian are accepted too). So are you saying that having a website when an abstract nickname discusses things like a suicide or massacre is basically the same as the real Bobby asking various crooks to find a real illegal arms dealer? You must be kidding. In this case you're not paying extra for the gun, you're paying extra for legalization. I wonder why can't you understand this with all your experience. None. And you? C'mon, you should do better than that. Parachute is not a complex device either, nor is a car, but apparently you need training for both. They might have been, but since it is legal to drive with a propane tank in a trunk, it wouldn't matter. Second, how many explosives did they explode during preparation versus how many bullets would they have been shot during preparation? Just to make it clear: so far you did not prove anything. Lack of references to a third-party credible source means you just shared your own opinion. So tell us, how many school shooting there have been in Russia and England since, like, 1980 versus the number of school shootings in U.S.? Then we will see whether the ban works, or not. Similar, also military, also a couple of classes. As far as I remember it, it was basically nothing. You can read more in a book, and I learned much more talking to sappers when we had a field training. No, what I am trying to say that bans work. They did not stop everyone, but they do result in having less people doing the banned stuff. If DUI was legal, I would guess there would be much more people on the road driving under influence. I did hear it myself zillion times like "I have to stop drinking because I've got to drive, and while I don't feel drunk, I don't want to get caught as the penalties are severe" - so the ban apparently works. There are less gun crimes in Russia. There are less pot smokers in Singapore. There are less alcohol consumers in Iran. Did you read the report, yes or no? It clearly WAS relevant. So tell me how exactly it was relevant? No, it does! You conveniently skipped out the second sentence, which said "0.5%? 10%? 90%?" Obviously it does matter if 90% of school shootings were stopped or prevented by an average Joe with a gun, but if it's only 0.5%, then it does not matter at all. So how exactly the POLICE disagree with me? Please provide the FACTS. Even a crazy gunner would guess that at some point they would face armed opposition, so this is moot. But back to the case, give me the number - how many were STOPPED by an average gun owner Joe? That's just your opinion, and not facts. You didn't provide facts either. Your opinion is not a fact, no matter how high you think about it, and worth very little to me as establishing any kind of authority. As I have said, you need to do better than that if you want to talk about FACTS. Don't start bragging about something "being proven" just because you wrote a reply. Nobody put you as a judge here, and your opinion worth no more than mine, no matter what you think about it. So where is all that data? Where are the facts? So far I only see statements like "gun crime in Russia rises" - do you consider this bullshit "data" or "facts"? Wow. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

However you do own your body, which would need healthcare sooner or later, and I doubt you will keep it on your private property for your whole life. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The day it passes I'll probably even read Fox "news". Should be fun! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, you may believe whatever you want, but to me your posts look quite ignorant. I agree they BOTH are illegal - however your post makes impression that you see no difference between asking a buddy to buy you a gun, and obtain a gun from an illegal arms dealer. Can you confirm this is really the case, and you see no difference in efforts, risks, price and so on in those two illegal methods of obtaining a gun? The ban itself means nothing if there is no or limited enforcement. Pretty much like dry law ended up being in the USA. Why don't you compare with (a lot of) countries which have a gun ban which actually works instead of cherry-picking? Drugs are different. Those who're buying drugs (where banned) mostly do that for their own consumption, which typically does relatively little harm to local society. Those who're buying illegal weapons (where banned) typically would use it for criminal purposes, so the potential threat is higher. That's my understanding why the laws against some drugs (i.e. pot) are not really enforced here, and I would also disagree that U.S. has a drug problem. However if you get into country where the laws against drugs are enforced - try to get caught with drugs in Singapore by CNB (their equivalent of DEA) - the things will change dramatically. Yes, because it was very easy for them to obtain guns illegally. However if the guns were banned, things would change dramatically: 1. They would need to think about guns first. For a someone who never seen a pistol it might not be the first thing they'd consider, because they would lack the experience. 2. Then they would need to find someone dealing arms illegally. While this might not be an issue for a professional hitman, this is definitely out of reach for average car thief or shoplifter, not to mention a 17yo kid. As soon as they'd start their search by asking friends/connections, someone would likely to hint local authorities about it who'd set up the entrapment and arrest to-be-shooters. The second realistic thing, after being caught during their search, would be to find someone who'd agree to send them a box of secret guns developed by their military engineers in Nigeria as soon as they send the deposit via Western Union. 3. Assuming they found a real dealer, they will have to pay money. It is common sense that an illegal gun in a country with strict law enforcement would cost much more than a legal gun, even 10x increase doesn't look significant (my friend, who is a cop in Russia, said that illegal Kalashnikov costs at least $6K in Russia for a one made in China (crappy), no ammo included). Same for ammo - it also costs more, and they would need a lot of it for training. 4. Assuming they found a dealer, paid money and got guns and ammo. Assume the dealer didn't cheat them, and they got something of good quality which doesn't explode during the first shot (they're not gun expert and cannot bring one, and illegal dealers offer no warranty and you cannot file a chargeback on your credit card as they tend to accept cash only). Now they need to train. Remember, guns are banned and they cannot just go to a local shooting range ten minute drive. They need to drive far away, so nobody would report a bunch of kids with guns to authorities who'd probably treat it as very high priority. Depending on area it might mean an hour one way drive. Since they do not have an instructor, they need to practice a lot, which means a lot of driving with illegal guns and ammo - with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident (young people tend to have more accidents), and have the guns found by police. How long someone, who have never had a gun before, should train to become semi-proficient, recharge fast, be able to hand some basic malfunctions, I do not know - but I guess it would take more than four weeks on weekends. If you don't think this is significantly more difficult than using a straw purchase and "modifying" them, then further discussion makes no sense at all. They do not stop ALL of them, but they do stop MOST of them. Indeed, there is much less gun crime in Europe, even though the number of criminals percentage-wise is probably the same as in USA. And if you consider a ban, which do not stop every criminal, useless - then all bans would be useless. So how much do you know about explosives? Any first-hand experience? Military or household? Hey, drunk driving is also banned, but there are still criminals doing it. So much for the ban, right? Probably it is also useless, and we should legalize it. So why did you quote that part then, if you already knew it is irrelevant, and doesn't prove your point at all? "Plenty" is how many out of total shootings? 0.5%? 10%? 90%? So far in only one case you brought it can be technically considered that a shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. Joel Myrick didn't stop shooting, he arrested a shooter who already was leaving the scene. For the most it looks like the shootings usually stopped themselves, either because the murderers committed a suicide (seems to be vast majority of them), or they were out of ammo or out of targets. First, I'm sorry, but unless you're licensed attorney in all (or at least in your) state, your opinion about the weapon laws worth no more than mine. Second, I'm not discussing weapon characteristics, so your knowledge of weapons as pieces of metal is completely irrelevant here. I'm discussing people, and their behavior with guns, and I believe I have enough knowledge on the subject to discuss it. If you don't think so, you're welcome to end this discussion. Third, so far there were very few things you proven, and most of them were irrelevant. Most time your "proof" ended up being just puff. I have to admit, however, that unlike some others, you're not avoiding answering questions, which at least makes some sense to continue the discussion. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

To qualify for "Cadillac" plan, your employer would have to provide almost $2000/mo benefit (23K/year is current family limit). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You need to do better than just say random numbers how much I'm wrong. Sure they weren't, so they asked someone else to buy guns for them. Hopefully you do understand a difference between obtaining a gun illegally by asking someone else to buy it for you (this is just not possible if the guns are banned), and obtaining a gun illegally from an illegal arms dealer. Would be much difficult if the guns weren't available that easy, right? I don't see your point. Cho didn't modify his guns, and still killed twice more. But apparently because making an explosive device is not as easy as making a sawed-off, as their explosives didn't really show their potential. Hopefully you do not assume that "stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention" mean "a gun owner shot them". Columbine guys and Cho also were stopped by "other means", but those means did not include any gun owners. It depends. As far as I see, a gun owner would not mind to lie just to prevent even an imaginable threat to his guns, so indeed I'm not taking your words seriously. You need to do better than shooting numbers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I took a couple of classes in military. What I'm talking is reaction time which is needed to: - Understand what's happening, i.e. it is not explosion or fireworks, and not a bunch of cops shooting a dangerous criminal. It is not enough just to hear the sound, you need to look. - Find cover, or drop to the ground. If you have Army training, this will be a reflex. - Locate a shooter. This is easy only in movies, and depending on how many other gun owners are around with the guns, it might not be that easy. In fact you might not be able to find him at all. Five seconds sounds like very good estimation. If you disagree - show me yours. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, probably just you, but it's fine. And this is just one of examples which shows they're not stupid. None of those started a massacre in a shooting range. I'd estimate this advantage to be at least five seconds, maybe even more - because those individuals have to locate the gunner (and not shot another individual who is also trying to shot a gunner), while the gunner does not care. Also when the cops come, everyone with a gun will likely be detained, and everyone who made at least one shot will likely be arrested and locked for some time, until the things are cleared. This alone may be a concern for some gun owners. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And some of them indeed did, and committed murder. We don't need their confessions. I agree to count all the cases when someone used a car to murder (but not accidentally kill) someone as those who bought a car to use it for murder, and count all the cases when someone used a gun to murder (but not accidentally shot) someone as those who bought a gun to use it for murder. No confession needed. Sure I have, I got university degree and it's hard to explain things in a way understandable to someone without a high school education :D Ok, so you didn't ask anyone. You should try; maybe they're just being polite. This was a questions (and I do not need your answer, it is obvious anyway what would it be) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem I see is that if tort reform passes, the only winners will be insurers, who will just pack more profit - at expense of consumers who would lose important rights. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This may as well mean that only union bosses have it. Anyway, with average family insurance cost of 16K a year, tax on 23K plan sounds very reasonable. Not to mention that union members are not better than anyone else, why should they get a free pass? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The trick here is that until someone started actually shooting or threatening people, he's just another citizen, and if you shot him just because you think he is going to start a massacre, you'll be a murderer, and will end up in jail (or on a chair). So, except in the most stupid cases, the shooter has the "first shot", and of course he'll try to make it less obvious (and so far msot of them succeeded here). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Quoteit appears they think they can do it.Quote It, of course, depends on the language in the bill, but unless it clearly makes difference between regular and "promotional" rate, they're just looking for a nice class action lawsuit. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not even close, as he will strike first. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And again you pretend to know exactly what was going through someone's mind when they bought an item. No, I do not - that's why I'm asking you to compare the numbers of cars used to murder someone versus number of guns used to murder someone. Which, of course, you avoided saying that "it doesn't matter for victim whether they were murdered by a gun or by a car". This is, of course, completely meaningless statement, but I admit it takes some thought to understand that - probably even a high school education may be required. Wow. So how many people did you ask? P.S. It looks more and more to me that gun owners have a huge paranoia that everyone else who is not a gun owner is there only for one purpose - to take their guns away, and those anti-gun people spend all their time and effort to get to that point. Are they all like this, or we just had a non-representative sample? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I thought it would be just fair to point out that you copied it from this blog: http://www.americanconservativesunified.us/2009/10/why-president-obama-must-go.html As it otherwise looks like you wrote it yourself, and this is called plagiarism. This is probably the last thing I would be ever concerned with any public officials. We just got a lot of recent examples of people who attended church, and still committed a whole bunch of various crimes. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. You again pretend to ignore the difference between murder and accidental killing. That's a direct consequence of your position, which is based on being vague on everything, and avoiding confirming anything. People have hard time to understand what you're really saying. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

C'mon, what is the Caddilac limit for this plan, like 23K per family? How many union members, except union bosses, have such a plan? No, the limit for families is larger - 23K family over 8K individual. Why would I? List the surprises, please. So? As usual, a lot of propaganda and not a single fact. Of course - like every previous bill. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, if it's summer, it is quite easy to see those who can conceal carry (i.e. not dressed in fitting t-shirt and shorts), and target them first. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The criminals are pretty much the same. And "non-law abiding" is someone who does not follow the law. Congratulations, you just showed a typical example of circular logic. Well, people are not born criminals, and it may take a second for someone to switch to a criminal. Note that this is the law which defines who is criminal. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's really interesting to me as well. Could you please point out the exact post? (and I hope, you do understand the difference between "dangerous" and "more danger"). No, they are. This is widely discussed in Russia each time someone brings a "legalize handguns" subject, which typically happens once a year. Not every criminal knows an illegal arms dealer who would sell to him. Crime goes by specialization, and while a hitman would definitely know one, a thief or inside stock trader would very unlikely know anyone. And if they just try to find one, they might easy end up in law enforcement entrapment. Another issue is training. If one cannot just go and practice in a shooting range, it creates a whole set of problems - transporting guns and ammo (what if you're stopped for speeding or get into accident?), not being seen by locals who'd report you to the police, and so on. Law means something for everyone - until they break it. This is strawman. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, it would make no sense to discuss a killing potential alone, without considering ability of average Joe to use it. A nuclear bomb has much more significant potential, but a chance for average Joe to get one to blow his ex-coworkers or ex-GF are prety much zero. Fortunately Army grenades are not sold in gun stores, and making a reliable bomb with blast force enough to make significant damage is much more difficult and dangerous than getting to a gun store and buying a couple of guns. Properly using them is also a skill. In Russia most of "Anarchist Cookbook" readers ended up with something which doesn't work. Those "lucky" who went further, ended up with torn limbs/eyes. Sure! To compare apples with apples. if Cho or other guys made his own guns and ammunition himself, I would definitely consider him not an average person. But he didn't. A possible alternative was that they might have tried to obtain guns or explosives illegally, a police would get a tip and arrested them all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *