I thought some surgeon came out and said that he had a highly treatable form or cancer but decided to do the alternative treatments first instead of the more scientifically based ones and it got worse.
I assume you mean Jon Huntsman and you are probably right. He didn't do anything wrong (except demonstrate that he spoke fluent Mandarin which to Republicans makes him a communist). He's still pro-life and against gay marriage, though.
I don't think the Republicans have any candidates worth voting for. Honestly they should just scrap this election and wait four years until somebody else comes along. Either that or retake the party from the religious zealots who have hijacked it.
Haha. I like that. What scares me though are the people who cheer him in these debates. He'll say something that is condescending at a minimum but more rightly called racist and people will cheer him like he is the pope.
But in the end the Republicans seriously need to regroup and try again with all new candidates. I can't imagine how any independent/centrist voters would ever vote for these guys.
Segways were a complete failure because they were incredibly impractical. Their whole model was built on the idea that cities would decide to create segway lanes. The only practical use I've seen for them are cops in parks instead of riding on bikes (because cops are too fat typically nowadays to ride a bike that long anyway).
The laws that limit how much of this can be done are hundreds of years old. There is only so much you can do without the copyright holders permission. PIPA and SOPA are objectionable not because they are protecting copyright holders but because of how they are trying to do it.
As much as I would like to see some of them shot I really don't think they qualify as violent criminals and you really can't stop them by carrying a gun.
I am not telling somebody to defend themselves. I am telling them that they are wasting their times carrying a gun.
And you have to subtract out of those statistics all the crimes where a gun won't help you anyway - like stray bullets from a shootout. And you also have to consider the situations where you drawing a gun can force an escalation where both you and the criminal were injured. Finally, there is the "vigilante" thing where you start shooting pickpockets or purse snatchers.
I posted my source in another post. I don't consider stealing somebody's car (unless they are in it) a violent crime but I think the statistics do for some reason.
And 75,000 is 10% of 8,000,000? I think you might want to check the decimal places in your calculation. It's still under 1%.
New York isn't anywhere near #1 and also has an incredibly low per capital crime rate. I mean does it have more crimes than Salina, Kansas? Probably but you are talking about far more people.
You asked if Wall Street is around the South Bronx. Technically the South Bronx is in the borough of The Bronx and Wall Street is in the borough of Manhattan. Both are part of the City of New York but are not really near each other.
In 2011, if you exclude crimes that weren't person to person, there were about 40,000 violent crimes. Out of population over 8,200,000 people that is less than half a percent.
Go look at the violent crime statistics in New York city. They are incredibly small considering the population. What exactly are you going to be defending yourself against?
I assume you are joking but just in case. Wall Street is about 10 miles from the South Bronx. May not sound like a lot to somebody from the country but trust me - it's lightyears away.
I really doubt anybody from a large city - especially New York City - grew up going around shooting rabbits with their dad. I am not even sure that we have wild rabbits in NYC.
So you are saying because the Constitution says I can bear arms that I should be bearing arms? How does that make any sense? If I don't have a reason to carry a gun then why should I? Just because I have the right to?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought some surgeon came out and said that he had a highly treatable form or cancer but decided to do the alternative treatments first instead of the more scientifically based ones and it got worse.
And if you read what the program is about it is for "High School Age" kids which leaves pretty much just freshman under 15.
Well I'd rather see kids using their mind this way then Newt's plan of putting kids to work cleaning their schools for pennies a day.
Yeah that's a pretty big stretch.
I assume you mean Jon Huntsman and you are probably right. He didn't do anything wrong (except demonstrate that he spoke fluent Mandarin which to Republicans makes him a communist). He's still pro-life and against gay marriage, though.
I don't think the Republicans have any candidates worth voting for. Honestly they should just scrap this election and wait four years until somebody else comes along. Either that or retake the party from the religious zealots who have hijacked it.
Haha. I like that. What scares me though are the people who cheer him in these debates. He'll say something that is condescending at a minimum but more rightly called racist and people will cheer him like he is the pope.
But in the end the Republicans seriously need to regroup and try again with all new candidates. I can't imagine how any independent/centrist voters would ever vote for these guys.
It amazes me that anybody is still taking him seriously - let alone voting for him in these primaries.
Segways were a complete failure because they were incredibly impractical. Their whole model was built on the idea that cities would decide to create segway lanes. The only practical use I've seen for them are cops in parks instead of riding on bikes (because cops are too fat typically nowadays to ride a bike that long anyway).
It contains John Williams' original score. I guess they got permission from him or ASCAP/BMI but not from GEMA.
The laws that limit how much of this can be done are hundreds of years old. There is only so much you can do without the copyright holders permission. PIPA and SOPA are objectionable not because they are protecting copyright holders but because of how they are trying to do it.
As much as I would like to see some of them shot I really don't think they qualify as violent criminals and you really can't stop them by carrying a gun.
I am not telling somebody to defend themselves. I am telling them that they are wasting their times carrying a gun.
And you have to subtract out of those statistics all the crimes where a gun won't help you anyway - like stray bullets from a shootout. And you also have to consider the situations where you drawing a gun can force an escalation where both you and the criminal were injured. Finally, there is the "vigilante" thing where you start shooting pickpockets or purse snatchers.
I posted my source in another post. I don't consider stealing somebody's car (unless they are in it) a violent crime but I think the statistics do for some reason.
And 75,000 is 10% of 8,000,000? I think you might want to check the decimal places in your calculation. It's still under 1%.
That's exactly what I've been saying. Not stopping you from carrying one but for 99.99% of New Yorkers it is a waste of time and money.
Seriously? Over 8 million people and you expect no violent crime? I think you win the prize for most idiotic contribution to this discussion.
New York isn't anywhere near #1 and also has an incredibly low per capital crime rate. I mean does it have more crimes than Salina, Kansas? Probably but you are talking about far more people.
You asked if Wall Street is around the South Bronx. Technically the South Bronx is in the borough of The Bronx and Wall Street is in the borough of Manhattan. Both are part of the City of New York but are not really near each other.
And I am not even sure what your point is.
Great. We are talking about New York, though. I didn't say you shouldn't carry a gun in a high crime city.
Your geography is a little off. New York City is in New York - not South Carolina.
And my crime statistics are sound:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cscity.pdf
In 2011, if you exclude crimes that weren't person to person, there were about 40,000 violent crimes. Out of population over 8,200,000 people that is less than half a percent.
Go look at the violent crime statistics in New York city. They are incredibly small considering the population. What exactly are you going to be defending yourself against?
I don't carry a firearm because more can go wrong from carrying one than go right by carrying one. Just ask Plaxico Burress.
And the odds of you getting into a car accident are FAR higher than even needing a gun.
I assume you are joking but just in case. Wall Street is about 10 miles from the South Bronx. May not sound like a lot to somebody from the country but trust me - it's lightyears away.
I really doubt anybody from a large city - especially New York City - grew up going around shooting rabbits with their dad. I am not even sure that we have wild rabbits in NYC.
So you are saying because the Constitution says I can bear arms that I should be bearing arms? How does that make any sense? If I don't have a reason to carry a gun then why should I? Just because I have the right to?