The problem with that logic, is that it takes a lot more time and investment to open and close up shop than it does to change prices on a website. If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers. It's not like they just throw all their stuff in storage and wait for the day when they can come back and be competitive, if you're run out of business you're not popping back next week when the market is more favorable.
I might be going out on a limb here, but my first guess would be to chalk it up to delivery and attitude. I play videogames daily, watch football every Sunday, read classical literature at night, and see Avril Lavigne when she's on tour. There are literally 0 people who give a shit about the things I do, and yet I've never been told to shut up about it. Is there any chance you have a hateful or smug tone when you tell them their hobby doesn't interest you? I'm dead serious here, I get asked on daily basis if I've seen X Show and never once has someone been offended that I don't share their favorites.
I think the hate on is because people who don't watch sports feel the need to comment in stories about sports about just how uninteresting sports are. If you don't like sports that's your free time, but unless you have something to contribute to the conversation why interject yourself, especially in the case of the troll above who needs to rant on and on about how anyone who likes football is gay. That's why people have a hate on when people talk about how they don't like sports.
Silly rabbit, Yankee only refers to northerners if you're from south or the west, if you're from accross the pond it means American and if you're from the Mid-west it doesn't mean a damn thing.
You'll forgive me because I've been doing this all day, so I'll just give you a run down:
What you said was incorrect and ignorant, your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I said, but I'll reply to it anyway, even though you didn't tell me where you're actually from which makes it a little hard for me to respond to.
First of all, I have to ask if "people don't get shot where I'm from" is a statistical claim or a personal one. I don't think people get shot where I'm from either except when someone tells me about it three weeks later, so the reality may be different than your perception.
Secondly, I hope you don't live in Canada, the UK, or Whales, all of whom have seen an increase in violent crimes in the past decade while crazy gun toting America's rates have been dropping consistently since the 70s. The funny thing, specifically about Britain, is that the crimes haven't just been redirected to other weapons (like Japan) gun crime is higher What has been on the rise here, interestingly, is the number of "justified homicides" defined by the FBI as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony. 250+ last year, 198 of them committed with firearms.
Finally, removing guns is a silly solution to gun crime. To quote Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper,
The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.
If you want to keep going you'll have to let me know where you are so I can at least get a basis for your replies.
I recently moved out to Colorado, and I can tell you I do sleep a little easier knowing that if things got crazy there's a chance that someone can stop them. I don't have my CCL here yet, but I'm definitely going to get it. I've never been in a situation to make a difference, but $50 for the ability to face such a situation on a vastly more level field is well worth it.
There's only one state in the union (Vermont) that I know of that allows concealed carry without a permit, a precondition of which is almost always a training program on the basics of handling a firearm and its appropriate use. These are minimal, but no one should be out there completely blind.
The point about multiple persons is valid though. In SD it's illegal to carry on university grounds so the general policy of law enforcement responding to a shooting incident is that anyone brandishing a weapon is a target. However, if you were to carry illegally for your own protection although you would be arrested if you were shot without reason (such as endangering others) it's still murder. The lesson is don't shoot anything unless you're sure it deserves to die,
The FBI has compiled data about these things. One such source is the yearly Uniform Crime Report. In 2007 there were 254 justified homicides (the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony) 198 of them performed with firearms. They have another one about firearms specifically with data on incidents of brandishing a weapon, firing but not killing, etc etc. but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling.
A lot harder than it is for them to buy an "easy to hide knife" or an "easy to hide lead pipe".
A lot more risky too. Did you know that if you attempt to buy a firearm with outstanding unpaid parking tickets (or anything of the type that becomes a bench warrant if unpaid) you're flagged and will more than likely be arrested? This is what people don't seem to get, criminals don't get guns legally, because they more than likely can't. Adding more restrictions to people who follow the rules (like me) doesn't do much to affect people who weren't following the old ones.
I'm getting more amazed as this discussion continues how little the anti-gun people actually know about existing, on the books, gun laws.
Buying an automatic weapon of any kind, for a private citizen, is not easy at all. Firstly you have to find someone willing to sell one, manufacturers as a rule really only sell to LEOs and the military so you'll need to find a private seller with a Class III FFL meaning they've already gone through extensive background checks. Next you'll need to pass the same background checks as you would with any other firearm as well as receiving a tax stamp from the ATF which tacks another $200 on top of the thousands you're already paying. Part of this includes getting the consent of the local magistrate ASSUMING said weapons are not already specifically banned in your jurisdiction.
So yeah, if a would be criminal has no record and a lot of time and money he can get an automatic weapon. Or they could just get them illegally, but that could be said for just about anything on the planet.
This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a),
In Canada, Britain, and Whales violent crime have been steadily on the rise despite draconian gun control laws, while in the U.S. Violent crime has been decreasing almost everywhere pretty steadily since the 70s. Also note that India practically bans all private gun ownership. When will people realize that guns don't kill people, killers kill people.
I said most because for all I know there's a loophole somewhere I've never heard of.
There is in fact, on the federal form, a question about whether you have a mental condition that would prohibit you from owning a firearm, of course you could lie, but that's why the state mental health database should be fed into federal background checks. He was only allowed to purchase it legally because the information that would have prevented it was not given to the right people.
"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"
Lt. Col Jeff Cooper
(Not an argument, just thought you might enjoy.)
You might be right about the chicken and the egg, but you just missed the forest for the trees. You live in a place where guns are outlawed and there are still criminals with guns, and there are still burglaries and robberies.
I understand that you're probably not a gun owner, so you're talking about something you know nothing about, but despite what TV tells you there is no arms race in practical firearm ownership.
People are being killed with the same basic designs and calibers that they were a hundred years ago. There are advances of course, but things like 1911 and AK-47 aren't just clever names, they're dates. A gun designed (and sometimes built) 60 years ago will kill anyone just as well as one built yesterday.
If they were 100% safe they wouldn't do anyone much good, would they?
Their use is already restricted, no one has argued against that, it's the nature and extent of the restrictions that we're talking about here. There are plenty of other unsafe things like drinking, driving, flying, and building that are also restricted in some way shape or form.
Cho would not have been allowed to purchase guns in many states, that he was allowed to was an effect of bureaucracy and jurisdiction, not a problem with legal gun ownership. It's all well and good to disallow the deranged not to own guns, except when the state doesn't share their records with the people doing background checks.
And installing a swimming pool is more likely to kill your child than having a gun in the house. I guess we've been blind about that one all these years too.
I'm sorry, I missed the point where there was a direct correlation between owning a gun and showing up at a McCain rally. This may come as a surprise to you, since I'm guessing you're not one, but most gun owners who supported McCain did so because of a rational fear of Obama, not because they liked him.
A square may be a rectangle, but you just characterized millions of rectangles as being a couple thousand squares.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that logic, is that it takes a lot more time and investment to open and close up shop than it does to change prices on a website. If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers. It's not like they just throw all their stuff in storage and wait for the day when they can come back and be competitive, if you're run out of business you're not popping back next week when the market is more favorable.
I might be going out on a limb here, but my first guess would be to chalk it up to delivery and attitude. I play videogames daily, watch football every Sunday, read classical literature at night, and see Avril Lavigne when she's on tour. There are literally 0 people who give a shit about the things I do, and yet I've never been told to shut up about it. Is there any chance you have a hateful or smug tone when you tell them their hobby doesn't interest you? I'm dead serious here, I get asked on daily basis if I've seen X Show and never once has someone been offended that I don't share their favorites.
I think the hate on is because people who don't watch sports feel the need to comment in stories about sports about just how uninteresting sports are. If you don't like sports that's your free time, but unless you have something to contribute to the conversation why interject yourself, especially in the case of the troll above who needs to rant on and on about how anyone who likes football is gay. That's why people have a hate on when people talk about how they don't like sports.
Do you have a lot of opportunity to talk to historical figures in your day to day life, because we're talking about modern conversational usage here.
I'm from Wisconsin and have been called a Yankee by people in NC and TX, most likely because I "talk too fast".
Silly rabbit, Yankee only refers to northerners if you're from south or the west, if you're from accross the pond it means American and if you're from the Mid-west it doesn't mean a damn thing.
Sadly it's too short and broken somewhere in the middle from years of abuse.
Nothing we can't fix with a little solder and maybe clipping the end off to patch it in.
What you said was incorrect and ignorant, your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I said, but I'll reply to it anyway, even though you didn't tell me where you're actually from which makes it a little hard for me to respond to.
First of all, I have to ask if "people don't get shot where I'm from" is a statistical claim or a personal one. I don't think people get shot where I'm from either except when someone tells me about it three weeks later, so the reality may be different than your perception.
Secondly, I hope you don't live in Canada, the UK, or Whales, all of whom have seen an increase in violent crimes in the past decade while crazy gun toting America's rates have been dropping consistently since the 70s. The funny thing, specifically about Britain, is that the crimes haven't just been redirected to other weapons (like Japan) gun crime is higher What has been on the rise here, interestingly, is the number of "justified homicides" defined by the FBI as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony. 250+ last year, 198 of them committed with firearms.
Finally, removing guns is a silly solution to gun crime. To quote Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper,
The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.
If you want to keep going you'll have to let me know where you are so I can at least get a basis for your replies.
I recently moved out to Colorado, and I can tell you I do sleep a little easier knowing that if things got crazy there's a chance that someone can stop them. I don't have my CCL here yet, but I'm definitely going to get it. I've never been in a situation to make a difference, but $50 for the ability to face such a situation on a vastly more level field is well worth it.
There's only one state in the union (Vermont) that I know of that allows concealed carry without a permit, a precondition of which is almost always a training program on the basics of handling a firearm and its appropriate use. These are minimal, but no one should be out there completely blind.
The point about multiple persons is valid though. In SD it's illegal to carry on university grounds so the general policy of law enforcement responding to a shooting incident is that anyone brandishing a weapon is a target. However, if you were to carry illegally for your own protection although you would be arrested if you were shot without reason (such as endangering others) it's still murder. The lesson is don't shoot anything unless you're sure it deserves to die,
Blog linking to local articles about home defense shootings. Obviously not comprehensive but a good place to start.
The FBI has compiled data about these things. One such source is the yearly Uniform Crime Report. In 2007 there were 254 justified homicides (the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony) 198 of them performed with firearms. They have another one about firearms specifically with data on incidents of brandishing a weapon, firing but not killing, etc etc. but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling.
No one gets shot in Japan either, but they do have a much higher incident of knife related violence. Redirecting crimes is not lowering crime.
A lot harder than it is for them to buy an "easy to hide knife" or an "easy to hide lead pipe".
A lot more risky too. Did you know that if you attempt to buy a firearm with outstanding unpaid parking tickets (or anything of the type that becomes a bench warrant if unpaid) you're flagged and will more than likely be arrested? This is what people don't seem to get, criminals don't get guns legally, because they more than likely can't. Adding more restrictions to people who follow the rules (like me) doesn't do much to affect people who weren't following the old ones.
I'm getting more amazed as this discussion continues how little the anti-gun people actually know about existing, on the books, gun laws.
Buying an automatic weapon of any kind, for a private citizen, is not easy at all. Firstly you have to find someone willing to sell one, manufacturers as a rule really only sell to LEOs and the military so you'll need to find a private seller with a Class III FFL meaning they've already gone through extensive background checks. Next you'll need to pass the same background checks as you would with any other firearm as well as receiving a tax stamp from the ATF which tacks another $200 on top of the thousands you're already paying. Part of this includes getting the consent of the local magistrate ASSUMING said weapons are not already specifically banned in your jurisdiction.
So yeah, if a would be criminal has no record and a lot of time and money he can get an automatic weapon. Or they could just get them illegally, but that could be said for just about anything on the planet.
Statistically and scientifically, gun bans have been shown to increase overall public safety.
Have they? Not anywhere I've seen.
Not According to the Canadians
This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a),
In Canada, Britain, and Whales violent crime have been steadily on the rise despite draconian gun control laws, while in the U.S. Violent crime has been decreasing almost everywhere pretty steadily since the 70s. Also note that India practically bans all private gun ownership. When will people realize that guns don't kill people, killers kill people.
I said most because for all I know there's a loophole somewhere I've never heard of.
There is in fact, on the federal form, a question about whether you have a mental condition that would prohibit you from owning a firearm, of course you could lie, but that's why the state mental health database should be fed into federal background checks. He was only allowed to purchase it legally because the information that would have prevented it was not given to the right people.
"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"
Lt. Col Jeff Cooper (Not an argument, just thought you might enjoy.)
You might be right about the chicken and the egg, but you just missed the forest for the trees. You live in a place where guns are outlawed and there are still criminals with guns, and there are still burglaries and robberies.
How did outlawing guns solve a problem?
I understand that you're probably not a gun owner, so you're talking about something you know nothing about, but despite what TV tells you there is no arms race in practical firearm ownership.
People are being killed with the same basic designs and calibers that they were a hundred years ago. There are advances of course, but things like 1911 and AK-47 aren't just clever names, they're dates. A gun designed (and sometimes built) 60 years ago will kill anyone just as well as one built yesterday.
If they were 100% safe they wouldn't do anyone much good, would they?
Their use is already restricted, no one has argued against that, it's the nature and extent of the restrictions that we're talking about here. There are plenty of other unsafe things like drinking, driving, flying, and building that are also restricted in some way shape or form.
Cho would not have been allowed to purchase guns in many states, that he was allowed to was an effect of bureaucracy and jurisdiction, not a problem with legal gun ownership. It's all well and good to disallow the deranged not to own guns, except when the state doesn't share their records with the people doing background checks.
And installing a swimming pool is more likely to kill your child than having a gun in the house. I guess we've been blind about that one all these years too.
Just like you sold your car to those bank robbers and your painkillers to those kids?
If you can't be reasonable, don't post.
I'm sorry, I missed the point where there was a direct correlation between owning a gun and showing up at a McCain rally. This may come as a surprise to you, since I'm guessing you're not one, but most gun owners who supported McCain did so because of a rational fear of Obama, not because they liked him.
A square may be a rectangle, but you just characterized millions of rectangles as being a couple thousand squares.
That's funny, I own six, and I've never killed anyone.
Begs the question: which is defective, my guns or your logic?
Don't worry, I'm a gun nut and I don't think this should be qualified as a medical device either.
The 2nd amendment says we can have them, not that medicaid should pay for them.