georgerussia

I see the difference between "Tenure gives no more protection from firing than a typical union contract" and "tenure and union contracts are alike". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I suggest you keep your useless advice to yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did you see I wasn't talking to you? Do you know why? Because you don't have any arguments, only insults and personal attacks. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I believe the statistics is much better with those having "top secret" clearance. You see my point? It is not like getting a permit makes average Joe more law-abiding. It is that those people who went through hassle to get it would be more reasonable and less likely to start shooting family members because of college debt. As I said several times, gun restrictions in Europe are not absolute. Some people still can get (and even carry) guns - mostly from security, but private citizens too. The system, however, is very tough on giving out weapons permits - and this is why there is relatively little gun crime in Europe comparing to U.S. where to buy a gun you basically need to have no criminal background and be sober enough to fill the form. Anyway, everyone provides their fingerprints to state (DMV) in California when getting a driver license, and I don't see it as big deterrent. A typical Dave Kopel article. You do see that he does not provide ANY references, and expect you to believe everything he wrote? Just an example: That's what he said. Now let's see what Census says. Just some cuts (the numbers are per 100K): States which I know have gun restrictions: California 533 District of Columbia 1,508 Illinois 542 New York 435 Now let's compare with some states which basically give permits to anyone: Florida 712 Maryland 679 Nevada 742 Texas 516 So it is pretty clear that the statement that "concealed carry states have much lower violent crime rates than other states" is false (with DC being the only exception, but this comparison is wrong because DC is a city, and its statistics should be compared with cities, not with states). Considering that it took me 10 seconds to find the data, we can make a conclusion that either Dave Kopel intentionally provides incorrect information (probably assuming that nobody gonna check it), or he just quotes everything NRA says without checking it. In both cases it means that his credibility is pretty low. Hopefully this would explain a question someone asked why I don't read his wed site. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Somehow I'm getting impression that some people here have a virus on their computer which messes up with the content of posts. It is because their replies quite often are pretty much about something you never said. But they still are so confident about it that they'll argue with you, trying to tell you what YOU meant when you wrote it! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, normal for the majority of us. This is misleading. I do not have a choice of not having a gun myself AND having the reduced crime rate which comes with reduced gun availability. The "choice" you offer is basically "take it or not" - pretty much as saying that you don't need guns at all because you have a choice to hire a bodyguard to protect yourself. And if you refused this "reasonable choice", it's your problem then. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm learning from JohnRich. Indeed, more practice is still needed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not really. It is a government which dramatically changes first (like going from republic to dictatorship), and this change leads to people leaving. The attempt to disarm citizens is a consequence of this change, it is not the cause. It is not act of disarming itself which makes a large number of them to leave, it's the change in the government. Works fine enough in Europe as well as more than half of U.S. population. OTOH, having a gun doesn't always help. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably quoted the wrong post in your reply. So is there a purpose of our life or not (no matter what kind of)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

News article Basically a crazy guy attacked another guy with a sword. Says nothing about how bad the injuries were except that a victim "underwent surgery". A police officer was also injured while trying to arrest him. Fortunately nobody was killed. Too bad Kshitij Shrotri did not get a gun. This would otherwise never happen! We'd probably have one guy and one police officer killed, and maybe some others as well. The only bright side would be that the guy would likely to commit suicide, saving the court/incarceration costs. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you trying to say that there must be purpose of our lives (i.e. kind of target mission we must accomplish, which is set up by some god)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

committed toward the non-gun owner majority. This is important question whether restricting guns would make the country safer for ALL of us, not just for gun owners. Currently for the majority it seems like the benefits of others owning guns are greatly exceed by drawbacks of crazy people getting guns and criminals getting much easier access to guns. This is my point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

How would you realistically force all the states to drop those requirements? To have every state agree which requirements they would have to drop, as well as somehow enforce it to ensure some state didn't stuff it back to squeeze a nice payment from health insurers? They would require you to set up some entity which would have authority over states on that subject. And we already have such authority, which is Federal government. One of the main reasons I support Feds getting more rights from states (and therefore states losing rights to Federal government) is that it makes the laws more uniform across the country, and greatly reduces business efforts when providing services interstate. Imagine different currency in different states? (and it is also cheaper to have one set of bureaucrats doing crap in hope to be reelected than having 51 set of bureaucrats doing the same) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're getting just boring. You said the data is there, but several times refused to provide the link where the data is, nor you admitted the data is not there. I see no point in discussing it further with you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As far as I remember, guns are pretty unrestricted in Florida comparing to our states. So I do not understand your point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I thought I made it pretty clear without your childish editing: I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested of how a minority of armed people protects themselves from crimes. As I said, like the majority I do not own any guns, so none of those stories are relevant to me. I do not own guns, and not planning to do so. Therefore a story of a non-gun owner like me who was "saved" from a crime by a gun owner is relevant. A story when a gun owner saved himself from a crime is not because it does not impact my safety. Is it so hard to understand? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If the regulations are not uniform, and each state has its own regulations, the related overhead expense for selling across state borders (investigating, checking compliance, following the state laws) make sense only for a large companies. Then you don't need to change anything as a large company can create an "independent company" in a state and sell there. Imagine how much online commerce would there be if every online seller would have to, for example, withhold and properly credit sales tax for any location in the USA, and was required to follow all the laws in the destination locations (like not selling vibrators to Alabama)? How many small businesses would be able to do so? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's why I suggested you ask Jehova Witnesses, not try to explain something to them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is just your speculation, because you did not provide any proof that this information is indeed there. Show me the link to the actual data. No, if you provided a direct clickable link to where the actual data is, this would be considered "data". What you provided is speculation, not data. Fine. Next time if you ask anyone for proof, they may just tell you that "Go to google.com and find it. The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem". By your standards it is acceptable proof, so this phrase would satisfy your proof requirements. Just don't whine next time. And I assume you read it on the same web site as your 40%, correct? (I admit it would be naive to ask you for any evidence to support this statement) You extremely overestimate your capabilities and importance to me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I just listened for my Grandpa, and didn't hear anything. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what I said - every religion finds a way to define "cult" the way to fit everyone else except them. You think you're not just another sect who is "doing it wrong"? Ask Jehova Witnesses, they will tell you why you are mistaken. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I agree with you. However this would mean you approve federal government regulation of healthcare industry by taking those rights from states (as there must be SOME basic mandates and restrictions - and someone has to set them up uniformly everywhere) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Which is good, considering the way how you already replied in past. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You do realize, I hope, that we need to use the same base (age, sex, zipcode) to compare the plans? Put 36 in both quotes if you want to. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Edited for clarification and better explanation] First of all, we're speaking from different positions. You are a gun owner, and you're interested in providing a safer environment for gun owners like you (by removing carry restrictions, for example). So you analyze every crime situation as "less strict gun laws would possibly prevent it" or "if he had a gun, he'd possibly prevent it". On the other side I am not a gun owner, and it is extremely unlikely I would ever be. And I'm interested in providing a safer environment for non-gun owners like me (by removing guns, for example). And I analyze every crime situation as "European style gun restrictions would possibly prevent it". It is pretty clear when we look on my examples. My point for those crimes was that they were committed pretty much by nuts who (unlike some hardcore criminals) would not be able to get illegal guns, and even if they did, the time and efforts it would take might make them sober up and would likely prevent the crime itself. Another point is that some crimes are either impossible to commit without guns (for example, drive-through shootings), or the victim count would be significantly smaller (spree killings). But the whole question is whether the gun ownership privilege does more harm to society than good, or not? Note that I didn't say "to gun owners". The vast majority of the society (Over 70% by lowest measure) does not own guns, and since gun owners are assumed to ignore the harm from guns in exchange of keeping their privilege, the question ends up to whether the benefits from gun owners protecting others (not just themselves) balances the drawbacks coming from criminals who easily obtain guns now (through straw purchases, dealing with corrupt legitimate dealers or stealing guns), and from nuts who get extremely easy access to guns. Before I was thinking the situation is in balance, but now I'm pretty much sure it is not. Now to your questions. Washington DC does not have the most crimes in USA. A nearby gun-friendly Baltimore (with apparently much less gun restrictions) has even more violent crime than DC. Crime rate fallen pretty much nationwide in 2009 - not just in DC, and saying that it dropped because of recent lifted ban is no different than saying that it dropped because recently a black President was elected. It is indeed possible to compare countries. People are still the same (and politicians too). Of course it makes little sense to compare a 8M country with a 300M country (say hello to Swiss "fans" from NRA), but the majority of European large countries are valid comparison, and most of them went through different gun ownership laws through their history. The "society uproar" is a common argument used when a significant change is proposed. It was used when segregation ended, it was used when interracial marriage was banned, and it is being used today by gay marriage opponents. However I don't believe in it. I don't believe a lot of gun owners would be fine with shooting law enforcement officers with the consequence of serving a life in federal prison or facing a chair just to make a political statement. Some might, but it would extremely small quantity, not even worth mentioning. I'm 100% sure that nobody of those who screams "Pass this law, I gonna kill everyone who would be trying to get my guns" would do so when it happens. It seems to be a cultural thing here in U.S. - people try to make impression on others by saying something they really have no intentions to do. Regarding the amount of crime is what needs to be addressed - indeed, this is the point. Unfortunately you did not provide any workable solutions how exactly would you address it. While restricting guns is not a perfect solution, it is a realistic solution and it works very well in Europe and it works very well in NYC (and even in DC if you compare it with Baltimore). What solution would you offer? And finally to the stories. I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested of how a minority of armed people protects themselves from crimes. As I said, like the majority I do not own any guns, so none of those stories are relevant to me. As I said, the whole question is not to see if there are ANY benefits from gun ownership - indeed there are. The question is whether there are more benefits than drawbacks, and I believe there are not. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *