georgerussia

Interesting. So why would anyone then go through obtaining permits, fingerprinting, waiting period if they can just order "parts kit", and assemble a gun themselves? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This guy is not average bomber, pretty much as the guys who flew planes into WTC weren't average murderers. Those actions require long-time conspiracy and preparation, obtaining relevant experience (one might easily get proficient using legal guns, but how long would it take him to become proficient in creating and using 2 ton ammonium nitrate explosives?), good observation skills (target selection), self-control and so on. Such people are quite rare. Most recent shootings were just regular Joes who went crazy or just were pissed off, and killed a bunch of people on impulse. For those I'm pretty sure that if they didn't have access to guns, the number of dead would be significantly less. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So your god only wanted the smartest to be saved? Why then it created so many stupid people, who apparently see hundreds of different ways to be saved? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This statement is the same as "movies are not everyone's cup of tea". There are probably more porn genres than regular movie genres, and some of them (like people eating shit) make even me sick. Some of them, especially old French movies with Brigitte Lahaie, are very good - you can actually watch them like a movie without using "fast forward" on your remove every minute. I'd guess 50% of overall population are bat shit nuts. Probably until they're 35 or so. Then the things turn around. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder if they can do it, as the report I read claimed that APR on existing balances cannot change unless you miss 60 days. I would guess it should kill "promotional APR", right? I didn't read the actual bill though (I never carried balance on a credit card in my life, so the bill was quite irrelevant anyway). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wouldn't consider him an average person by any means (nor were people flying planes into buildings, who killed much more without guns as well). But none of recent murderers was anything close. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Hmm. I have never seen a perfect agnostic yet; they all say it is not known whether there is God, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what they do. If they follow Christian teachings, go to church and so on (very unlikely, but still possible) - even though they do not believe in God - they're in fact Christians. And if the possible existence of deity in the sky does not affect their life at all - they're in fact atheists. As Dawkins said, "a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the existence of any given god-like entity." Nope. Atheism is "absence of belief in the existence of deities". It is irrelevant to the origins of life. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Recently we discussed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) which has been voted and signed by this year. At that time there were multiple discussions around about how credit card companies will start collecting annual fees, jack up other fees and so on. I already received agreement amendment for all the cards we had, and carefully went through them. All of them are basically stating the same things that since Feb 13, 2010: - APRs on existing balances will only be raised if minimum payment was missed for 60 days; - There is no "over credit limit" fee anymore; - The payments covering more than interest will apply to higher balance first; - Payment date will fall on the same date each month, and will be at least 25 days from the statement date; None of my issuers implemented annual fees, or killed a reward program, and so far all the changes I see are positive. I would not benefit on any of them though, but I indeed see how some people would. So at this moment it looks like the government can do a good job for the benefits of consumers by forbidding some ugly private industry practices, and despite all the hype sponsored by the industry, none of their promises were implemented. Of course I have very limited experience with four issuers, so I wonder if anyone got annual fees or canceled rewards? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you sure that possession of such assembled gun is legal? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A weapon indeed makes an average person MORE dangerous. Do you really think Seung-Hui Cho would be able to kill 32 people if he didn't have access to guns? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We can compare the number of gun owners who murdered others with a gun with the number of car owners who murdered others with a car. Apparently it was you who was saying that there is no difference between killing in car accident or being murdered by a gun, because it does not matter for the victim. I disagree with your logic, and the law also disagrees with you. Yes, in MY opinion, as you're discussing with me. But from other discussions on different topics I've got an opinion that you reply with the same hostility and rudeness to anyone who does not agree with your thoughts. If you have little patience, then you probably should avoid discussions with those who do not agree with your opinion, as you're only weakening your position, and hurting the reputation of those groups you claim to be in. The obvious difference, of course, is that in your case it doesn't matter if you do or not - we already can vote. Well, if by "honest desire to learn" you mean that I need to ask you for what should I think about those massacres around, and accept your explanation without challenging it, then it will never happen. Maybe that's the way you learn, but it is not the same for everyone. As I said, if you don't like it, you don't have to reply to my posts; in fact you can just ignore them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why? AFAIK access to CHL is only restricted by your actions, and it is not restricted just because you're black, you're poor or you believe in socialism. The probability for someone starting nuclear war in modern world is very unlikely, so I wouldn't consider it a possibility. Especially in the proxy case, as the country being attacked can (and likely will) retaliate. Yes, this is one of good points. I can add a few more. A terrorist group which gets nuclear technologies becomes too dangerous for everyone around, so it guarantees pretty extreme manhunt and termination from any country. As in your example, Iran giving terrorists access to nuclear arsenal (a ballistic rocket with nuclear warhead is not something really transportable in a trunk), so if they decide to launch it, the retaliation strike will obviously hit Iran, and nobody will care (or have time for that) whether the strike was authorized by Iran government or by some terrorist group. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, its not. But how many gun owners bought a gun to murder someone, and how many car owners bought a car to murder someone? In your dreams, maybe. But the law does not agree with you. It makes a huge difference for a bunch of people whether a grandma was murdered by a black guy, or just died from a stroke - even though it makes no difference for grandma. Well, your posts indeed make very bad impression of gun owners - and you're helping Brady guys tremendously. I can easily imagine a few of your quotes like above on their site with a slogan like "Do you really want guys like above to be able to take your life by just pulling a trigger?" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Locals were sure there were more murderers, it's just those three were caught, and they claimed they committed all those crimes (and a bunch of robberies too) - a typical practice in ex-USSR law enforcement, and there is a good reason to do that. But it is irrelevant. The point is that it is much easier for a single average Joe - who is not a professional killer, and often doesn't even have a criminal background - to start massacre and murder a lot of people with a gun comparing to other things used as weapons, be it a knife or a chain saw. No, this is just to show the fact that this statistics should be compared with the statistics from similar cities, not from Texas villages statistics. How about you stopping putting your words in my mouth? You don't like my posts? Ignore them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what? This collection is not a representative sample, because am organization which made it was biased. In fact that's their mission. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Since you didn't provide any links, I only comment this one as I'm familiar with it (my family lives nearby). You're seem to be talking about 21 persons killed by different murderers - not exactly a massacre or what. And Dnepropetrovsk is quite a large city, with over 1M people living there. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why it mattes? The law punishes murder and accident killing differently, even though in both cases the victims are dead. You really see no difference here? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what? As long as they're not trying to convert you (and vice versa), you should be fine. I had several such relationships in past. And if she tries, and she's hot, you can pretend for a while you'll convert, and then dump her when you got bored :) Excuse me, do adult people still consult with their family whether they should date someone? I thought it ended up like 40 years ago! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The overall number of guns is meaningless, because as you said, "guns do kill, the people do". So it's the number of gun owners which matters. And I wonder how trend per-capita would change during last two years? Accidents do not count here, because we're comparing the items by specific purpose to answer the question what is safe - to sell a car or to sell a gun? The OP claimed that they all should be banned because virtually any item can be used to murder a person, so we need to look at statistics, how many people bought a car to murder a person, and how many people bought a gun to murder a person. What can I say here? Even the law treats them differently, so if you consider dying in a car accident and being shooted in a massacre by a gun owner to have the same effect on society, I have nothing more to argue with you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I heard this argument before. But unless you're following Republican motto "what I say should apply to everyone else but not me", then this criteria should apply to any country. Then a country which has a history of going around and actually shooting other people (comparing to just threatening) should be definitely banned from having WMDs, correct? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you saying that NRA provides unbiased coverage on this issue? To me this makes as much sense as asking me to find truth in the Bible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you sure you're comparing murders where a car was used to manslaughter a person or persons in the same way as a gun was, or it is just accidental deaths? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe some clarification is needed. I'm currently pro-choice in regard to guns - which means I do not promote gun ownership, but I support the rights of those who decided they want it. It is also very unlikely that I will ever own a gun as I don't feel I need any. Recent events, however, make me to reconsider this position. We had a few gun murders locally here in Bay Area, which although didn't make it up to Va Tech victim count, still were worrying. Both, by the way, happened in places which as far as I know did not restrict carrying guns (one in corporate office, and one in private apartment). In both cases I attribute the victim count to a gun used - sure, one can murder a person with a knife, but it's very unlikely for an average Joe to slaughter three people, who are able to protect themselves. So I am trying now to get the whole picture, and statements like "guns don't kill" are the least helpful here, and in fact make pro-gun people look pretty much like Brady people (who don't look smart by any means). So let's look closer on your examples: 1. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. He did not stop a shooting spree, he arrested Woodham when he was leaving the school. You can speculate whether he was going to shoot more people, but the facts are that shooting spree was not stopped by average Joe with a gun. And it's basically the authority which was used, not a gun itself - Joel Myrick might have had a dummy or unloaded gun as well. 2. Andrew Wurst shooting. This is more relevant, but still questionable example, as the buy was out of ammo, and reloading. Something like "Police! Freeze!" might have worked the same way. Same as above, it is authority which stopped the boy, not the gun - the gun might have been broken or unloaded, it didn't matter. 3. Peter Odighizuwa shooting was stopped by an armed police officer and county sheriff, and as I said before, a police officer is much more than average Joe with a gun. Also Peter was already out of ammo at this moment. As far as I see, only one of those examples at least remotely supports a "a regular gun owner stopped a massacre" statement. And none of them actually used a gun as a gun - a dummy would work as well in all those scenarios. This is a conclusion based on what you have said, and I assume you have data to support YOUR statement, don't you? What I was saying is the following: - As you said, a CHL gun owner will not bring a gun into area where guns are not permitted; - A person, who want to start a shooting spree, would likely to choose an area where guns are not permitted; - Conclusion: until such areas exist, no matter how many gun owners you have around, they will not be able to stop every (or even most) shooting sprees. - Then the question is, how exactly the NRA statement like "gun ownership reduces crimes even for those who do not carry guns" work? That's my opinion based on recent facts, but I'll check Brady to see what they have to say on that matter :) *** I have no issue with citizens who have gone through the process carrying anywhere they want. Now.... Do you think there is anywhere in public that citizens should be allowed to carry a gun? Well, I'd personally feel more safe if nobody carried guns in public. But since it's not possible (some criminals will carry them anyway), I also see why such restriction wouldn't work 100%. From the other side, there are little to none such sprees in Europe where gun ownership is severely limited. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Seems to be the same with countries, they do not typically share their nuclear technologies - even though it indeed happened in past (USSR/China). But when everyone has access to the weapons, why would they ever need that? Then why didn't it happen already? There are terrorist groups in Pakistan and India, there are (or were?) such groups in Russia and Japan, even France had its share - and all those countries maintain nuclear arsenal. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably didn't read the original post I quoted and replied to, and just caught-up a phrase to reply. The OP stated that cars then should also be outlawed as like guns, they can serve criminal purposes in wrong hands. So how many cars there are in America, and how many of them were used to murder someone? (and, by the way, its end of 2009, so 1996 statistics is a little old). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *